Would you trade #16 for Briggs?

[ReasonablySober]

I ask, because that happens to be the exact value of pick that makes up the difference in moving from #31 to #6, or 1000 points.

The deal appears to be dead on both sides. Still, I found it interesting.

Briggs is a hell of a linebacker. I think he's a touch overrated simply because I've heard to him referred to as the best of the three LBs on Chicago's team by NFL men on Sirius. That's overdoing it.

But is there any doubt he's going to be better than any player that you'll find in the middle of the first round?

When you think of it that way, I guess it's understandable why Chicago wants a bit more.

[Neusch23]

To me, it depends.

I don't see our LB's as a major weaknes...say comapred to Safty or Running Back.

I like our core of Barnett, Hawk, Hodge, Etc. I think we are set for awhile, although, Briggs is better than any one of our LB's on this roster.

[El Duderino]

Keep in mind whoever trades for Briggs has to pay him huge cash

[Ruben Douglas]

Why in the world would the Bears trade Briggs to the Packers. Not only that but TT refuses to trade draft picks.

[ReasonablySober]

Why in the world would the Bears trade Briggs to the Packers. Not only that but TT refuses to trade draft picks.

That actually wasn't the point of the post. I don't want Briggs (we've got Hawk in his position).

The point was that the #16 pick is equal to the number of points it would cost to move from #31 to #6.

[cb4_89]

**** no. Im happy with our linebackers. PLus I don't want to pay him 6-7 million a year.

[Ruben Douglas]

-= original quote snipped =-



That actually wasn't the point of the post. I don't want Briggs (we've got Hawk in his position).

The point was that the #16 pick is equal to the number of points it would cost to move from #31 to #6.

I got confused since the thread title is, "Would you trade #16 for Briggs".

[Reggie White]

Briggs is definitely worth the #16 pick. If you compare the talent at the LB position in this years' draft, he is better than the #16 pick. Would you rather have Briggs or the LB from Penn State (Paul Posluszny)? I would take Briggs in a heart beat. Now, of course, it will cost more money to sign Briggs ... but if you're the Packers with plenty of cap room, this decision could be totally based on value.

Again, the question was "Is Briggs worth the #16 pick" NOT "Do I think the Packers should trade their pick for Briggs". I think he's worth it ... and then some. Probably worth #8 - #12 in my book.

[TheGhostDog]

I want Briggs to stay in Chicago for as long as possible, wreaking psychological havoc on the Bears. If he ever becomes an unrestricted free agent THEN I'd like to talk to him.

[El Duderino]

Is Briggs worth the #16 pick" NOT "Do I think the Packers should trade their pick for Briggs".

The question is phrased poorly because it leaves out a vital aspect and that's money.

It should be,is Briggs worth trading a 16th pick for the right to give Briggs a 20 million dollar bonus or more?Take the Patriots,if they had the 16th pick,would they have given up that pick and the huge cash they spent to aquire Adalius Thomas?

On talent alone it's hard to argue that Briggs wouldn't have 16th pick value,but when you factor in all the money a team that trades for him will have to fork over,the question gets tougher to answer.

[DMBucks22]

Absolutely not.

[jakecronus8]

Talent wise yes, but for the current makeup of the roster, and our decent depth at LB, it makes no sense.

[Flames24Rulz]

If we got the Bears second rounder, which they got from the Jets and is a high 2nd round pick, I would do it.

Straight up for 16 though? No. We have much more pressing needs than LB. But I do have to admit, a LB trio of Briggs-Barnett-Hawk would be real damn solid.

[jviers77]

Briggs is a head case. I think Javon Walker taught us a lesson, or at least I hope he did. Need is at RB and WR, not LB.