K-Gun10 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Da bears refuse a trade from the redskins of swapping first round picks for Lance Briggs imo they are bieng to stingy, because hes going to need a new contract anyways. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2823964 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike32282 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 This is when Marv should step in and offer the #12 overall pick for Briggs. That would be sweet if we could get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 This is when Marv should step in and offer the #12 overall pick for Briggs. That would be sweet if we could get him. Yeah and have no more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike32282 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yeah and have no more money. We'd still have some money. Don't forget that if we trade the 1st rounder, his cash to cap number wouldn't be needed anymore. Plus we freed up some extra cash from the Spikes and Holcomb trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yeah and have no more money. $ isn't really an issue, this year, as I understand it. We have PLENTY of cap room and money can ALWAYS be shifted around. As for cash-to-cap, which I admit, still confuses me a little, the Bills have made a public position statement saying they will not spend their entire "allowance". But, they could (and very well, may) change their mind on that matter. I actually think that was a smoke screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 So Lance Briggs for the first round pick and Michael Turner for the second. I could live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuile Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The Bears might be one of the only teams cheaper than the bills. I guess they don't want to pay a top choice, but no. 12 would get them out of the "big money" zone. But do we think Marv is going to trade for a guy who is pushing his way out of his current team? Briggs is good, but I wish he were a MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike32282 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 So Lance Briggs for the first round pick and Michael Turner for the second. I could live with that. Me too. *drooling* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 So Lance Briggs for the first round pick and Michael Turner for the second. I could live with that. For the bills sake I hope they realize teams don't win by trading draft picks for players. You win by building the core of your team thru the draft while signing 2nd tier free agents to build depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 For the bills sake I hope they realize teams don't win by trading draft picks for players. You win by building the core of your team thru the draft while signing 2nd tier free agents to build depth Very true just ask Dan Snyder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 For the bills sake I hope they realize teams don't win by trading draft picks for players. You win by building the core of your team thru the draft while signing 2nd tier free agents to build depth Those players we are trading for were once a draftee. Were simply trading our current pick for a player that was already picked. So whats the difference? I understand if the players were old, but that is not the situation with this trade. Briggs is 27 and Turner is 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Very true just ask Dan Snyder I love how everyone loves this example. Yet they never include the teams who have succeeded through free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 I love how everyone loves this example. Yet they never include the teams who have succeeded through free agency. Colts one this year and what big free agent signing did they have in the last 3 years? All they do is draft players Addai, Freeney,Bob sanders,ect, and they resign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Colts one this year and what big free agent signing did they have in the last 3 years? All they do is draft players Addai, Freeney,Bob sanders,ect, and they resign them. Bratzke and Vinateiri. But once again you pick a small example and presume it to be true for all situations. I guess Greenbay shouldnt have traded for Brett Favre back in the day. Drew Brees? Hmmph. Surely New Orleans made a big mistake with him. Steve Young to San Fran from Tampa? Pooey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Bratzke and Vinateiri. But once again you pick a small example and presume it to be true for all situations. I guess Greenbay shouldnt have traded for Brett Favre back in the day. Drew Brees? Hmmph. Surely New Orleans made a big mistake with him. Steve Young to San Fran from Tampa? Pooey! Alright i give nice argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Those players we are trading for were once a draftee. Were simply trading our current pick for a player that was already picked. So whats the difference? I understand if the players were old, but that is not the situation with this trade. Briggs is 27 and Turner is 25. The difference is you dont win by trading away high draft picks. Yeah Briggs and Turner have experience, but you generally want to build the core of your team thru the draft, not trade those draft picks in this case to two superbowl contenders in sd and chicago in exchange for a malcontent (briggs) and a backup (turner). I'm not gonna lie if briggs were a free agent I'd be all over trying to sign him I really dont think there's a better all around lb in the game right now. He's one of the best if not the best coverage lb in the game. Turner I've yet to be convinced about plus he's 25 and not very versatile in his game or at least hasn't shown much versatility. I'm not a fan of this overall rb class outside of Peterson and Lynch, but again these rb's are younger and more of a refined prospect, then turner who was drafted in the 5th round for a reason. Am I suppouse to want to trade a high 2nd rd pick, or god forbid swap 1st's for a rb who's career high in carries is 80, and most impressive feats include running over the bills sorry ass defense in 2005 in a blowout sd win? Or the titans this past year or the colts in 2005, or chiefs in 2004. Not exactaly stellar defenses. From what I've seen in his limited opportunites he does run hard, but I'd sooner take my chance on drafting kenny irons or antonio pittman, since they'll be splitting carries anyway then lining the pockets of an afc superbowl contender. If we were one or two players away I could see the argument, draft picks are a premium however and we have plenty of holes to fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 that post up there is exactly what everyone needs to read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Very true just ask Dan Snyder Yeah. Snyder has basically jumped on every "big name" guy he could since he's been in Washington, including "big name" coaches. Look where it's gotten him. I'll stick behind our team with the approach of building our team around young core players that have to go through a developmental phase as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Okay HM, riddle me this. If the Bills are looking at LB in the 1st and RB in the 2nd (assuming Peterson is gone and Lynch isn't worth a 1st rounder), wouldn't you rather have Briggs and Turner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Okay HM, riddle me this. If the Bills are looking at LB in the 1st and RB in the 2nd (assuming Peterson is gone and Lynch isn't worth a 1st rounder), wouldn't you rather have Briggs and Turner? Nope I want nothing to do with turner for a 1st or 2nd rd pick. I feel we could get just as much production out of a kenny irons or antonio pittman as we could michael turner , at least favorable production due to the contracts they will receive compared to turner. Turner could very well be the sh--, I'd just as soon let some team morgtage their future to take a risk on big money backup then see the bills piss away draft picks for the possibility of "maybe". As far as briggs goes I'd have to sit on that cause I do feel he's far and away better then any lb we could draft and just hitting his prime. However I dunno if the bills have any real interest in Briggs. If something favorable for briggs could be worked out like swap of 1st and maybe chicagos 4th I'd do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts