adam Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8010602212.html Several league sources believe the Redskins will heavily pursue Chicago free agent linebacker Lance Briggs, whom Washington attempted to land in a trade last offseason. The Redskins have long pursued a stable third wide receiver as well, and potential free agents such as Drew Carter and Bernard Berrian are possible targets. They would like more youth along the offensive line and in the secondary as well, but have tempered their sweeping pursuit of free agents. Redskins are $20 million over the cap, and even after restructuring contracts, how much money could they possibly free up? Also, I love how they mention stable 3rd wide receiver, then mention Berrian. So is he only viewed as a 2nd or 3rd Wideout level talent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Bears 88 Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Getting ready to see Jamar Williams replacing Lance Briggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Getting ready to see Jamar Williams replacing Lance Briggs. what. you are surprised? We have had all year to prepare for it, time to let it go. Dan Snyder could care less about Cap hits, the guy just spends money like a loon trying to buy a championship. Briggs I expect, berrian will just go the way other slot recievers have gone in Washington, huge payday and no results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 I'm confident Jamar would fill in for Briggs very well. He may not be all pro caliber but given a year or two as a starter I feel like he can become one soon enough. As far as Berrian, I don't think we have the talent at the wr spot to not keep him. Nobody can fill his shoes unless there is a surprise somewhere. Were going to have to address the WR problem via the draft. The only problem is we can't spend a early pick on them because there are greater needs like OL,DL and safety.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8010602212.html Redskins are $20 million over the cap, and even after restructuring contracts, how much money could they possibly free up? Also, I love how they mention stable 3rd wide receiver, then mention Berrian. So is he only viewed as a 2nd or 3rd Wideout level talent? When does the bill come do for the Skins???? They have been doing this crap for yrs and never seem to pay for it. I think I read they renogiate up to 10 contracts a yr. What the hell???? Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Berrian is a third receiver. However I think we would be willing to pay him more than Washington can. You would have to wonder why the Redskins would want Berrian when they have Moss and Randel El. I think they have enough shorter fast receivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Berrian is a third receiver. However I think we would be willing to pay him more than Washington can. You would have to wonder why the Redskins would want Berrian when they have Moss and Randel El. I think they have enough shorter fast receivers. That's just ridiculous. Berrian is FAR better than a third WR. He has serious abilities, but can't showcase them enough in a stagnant, no-passing, bad OL, inconsistent-QB led offense. He's AT LEAST, and possibly a poor man's #1. What do you expect of the guy? On the Bears... ...he's the only WR who gets open consistently. ...he's the only WR who provides a consistent deep threat. ...he's the only WR who makes big plays and great catches continuously. I hope we keep him, shore up the line, and show other teams how good the Bears offense can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 Berrian is a third receiver. However I think we would be willing to pay him more than Washington can. You would have to wonder why the Redskins would want Berrian when they have Moss and Randel El. I think they have enough shorter fast receivers. Moss & Randel El are both 5'10", Berrian is 6'1". That would make him the tallest WR on their squad except for Mix, a young unproven 6'5" WR with 1 yr of experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 That's just ridiculous. Berrian is FAR better than a third WR. He has serious abilities, but can't showcase them enough in a stagnant, no-passing, bad OL, inconsistent-QB led offense. He's AT LEAST, and possibly a poor man's #1. What do you expect of the guy? On the Bears... ...he's the only WR who gets open consistently. ...he's the only WR who provides a consistent deep threat. ...he's the only WR who makes big plays and great catches continuously. I hope we keep him, shore up the line, and show other teams how good the Bears offense can be. What games were you watching? Gets open consistently and makes GREAT catches? I know how tall he is I was just saying he is a burner like the other receivers they have and isnt a bigger physical receiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 What games were you watching? Gets open consistently and makes GREAT catches? He's had some unbelievable catches the past two years. Granted I'm still pissed at him for a few of the drops. But last year TO led the league in drops and still put up some fantastic numbers. If Berrian leaves our offense immediately becomes much worse. That's a scary thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 When does the bill come do for the Skins???? They have been doing this crap for yrs and never seem to pay for it. I think I read they renogiate up to 10 contracts a yr. What the hell???? Peace I watched their playoff gave specifically just to root for them to lose. It's mind boggling how damn stupid they are, bringing in guys who don't fit their system, and then letting their own players walk just to free up cap room. I wonder how long it will be before they've paid off Arch? The way they trade off draft picks, it always surprises me they're as good as they are. In a league where having depth is so important, they simply ignore it. At some point they're going to have to do what the Titans did . . . basically dump everyone and start over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 He's had some unbelievable catches the past two years. Granted I'm still pissed at him for a few of the drops. But last year TO led the league in drops and still put up some fantastic numbers. If Berrian leaves our offense immediately becomes much worse. That's a scary thought. I agree. If necessary, I would tag him for 1 yr. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ostrogoth Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8010602212.html Redskins are $20 million over the cap, and even after restructuring contracts, how much money could they possibly free up? Also, I love how they mention stable 3rd wide receiver, then mention Berrian. So is he only viewed as a 2nd or 3rd Wideout level talent? Well last week it was the 49ers that were after both of them, If Redskins are that much over then no way they land Briggs!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Well last week it was the 49ers that were after both of them, If Redskins are that much over then no way they land Briggs!! Never, ever, ever count the Redskins out for cap reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted January 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Well last week it was the 49ers that were after both of them, If Redskins are that much over then no way they land Briggs!! As it was mentioned before. The Redskins are great at making cap space. You never know with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 I agree. If necessary, I would tag him for 1 yr. Peace It couldn't hurt. More importantly, I wonder if Berrian would have any trade value? Most teams aren't stupid enough to trade for AND pay for a player they know will likely be available in a year. But the free agent market is pretty damn sparse, so who knows? I was surprised when the Redskins made an offer for Briggs. What we do with Berrian may depend on: a) How good/bad is Mark Bradley? Can Hester be more of an every down receiver? c) What do we think will be available in the draft? I suspect the answers are: a) bad, No, c) No immediate help. If that's the case we definitely should franchise him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I was originally dead against tagging Berrian, but I have come around. We have little at WR now, and this is a weak year both in FA and the draft for WRs. Tagging Berrian would hurt this year, but (a) it would give us another year to develop Hester or anyone else we draft ( potentially find us in a more favorable situation next year w/ regard to the draft and FA and © not lock us into a huge contract for a player who has yet to establish himself as a #1 WR, much less a top 10 WR like he believes he is. One player I would really like to take a look at in FA in Bryant Johnson. He was slower to develop than AZ wanted, but has looked pretty good when given an opportunity, which hasn't been very often due to two of the leagues best WRs in front of him on the depth chart. Problem is, w/ the weak market, I wonder what sort of contract he might command. Despite being so unproven, he could be viewed as one of the best WRs in FA, especially if we tag Berrian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 In terms of the tag, I think it's probably worth noting that last year, the franchise tag for a WR was $7.6 million. Which would eat up roughly 1/3 of the Bears' available cap space The Transition tag, FWIW, is at $3.6 million for a WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clenched_CLAW Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 The Transition tag, FWIW, is at $3.6 million for a WR. A fair price to either retain BB for 1 more year, match a reasonable offer, or get some draft compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 A fair price to either retain BB for 1 more year, match a reasonable offer, or get some draft compensation. I'd go for Transition Tag. It's cheaper and, while I would like us to keep Berrian, I don't think he should get paid like a top WR as per the Franchise Tag. And we can match or get compensation, which I like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'd go for Transition Tag. It's cheaper and, while I would like us to keep Berrian, I don't think he should get paid like a top WR as per the Franchise Tag. And we can match or get compensation, which I like. I believe there is no compensation with a transition tag. Remember, Tait was transition tagged and when KC did not match, we did not give up anything for him. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I believe there is no compensation with a transition tag. Remember, Tait was transition tagged and when KC did not match, we did not give up anything for him. Peace Yep, zero compensation: If another club offers a contract to a transitioned player, his original club has seven days to decide whether the original club will match that offer or not. If the original club agrees to match, the player is forced to sign with the original club at the terms agreed to in the offer by the other club. If the original club declines to match, the player signs with the other team, and the original team is offered no compensation, as they would be if the player had received the franchise tag. The only benefit is the right to match the offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clenched_CLAW Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 It is true that the only immediate and guaranteed benefit is the Right of First Refusal for Transition Players, but, the possibility of draft compensation does exists. NFL CBA ARTICLE XX FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION PLAYERS Section 15. Compensatory Draft Selection: The procedures for awarding Compensatory Draft Selections shall be determined as agreed by the NFL and the NFLPA. As the KC Chiefs did for losing John Tait: CHIEFS TO RECEIVE 3RD ROUND COMPENSATORY PICK Mar 22, 2005, 3:33:55 AM The Kansas City Chiefs have been awarded a third round compensatory draft pick in the 2005 NFL Draft for the loss of former starting offensive tackle John Tait, who last year left in unrestricted free agency to sign with the Chicago Bears. A total of 32 compensatory choices in this year’s Draft were awarded to 14 teams, the NFL announced late yesterday. Under terms of the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, a team losing more or better compensatory free agents than it acquires in a year is eligible to receive compensatory draft picks. The number of picks a team receives equals the net loss of compensatory free agents up to a maximum of four. The 32 compensatory choices announced yesterday will supplement the 223 choices in the seven rounds of the 2005 NFL Draft which is scheduled the weekend of April 23-24. This year, the compensatory picks will be positioned within the third through seventh rounds. Compensatory free agents are determined by a formula based on salary, playing time and postseason honors. The formula was developed by the NFL Management Council. Not every free agent lost or signed by a club is covered by this formula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I don't believe the comp picks have anything to do w/ the transition tag. If we simply let Berrian walk and he signs a big contract and becomes a big time WR, we might get a 3rd as compensation, though that also depends I believe on the ratio of FAs lost to FAs signed. We may loose a few FAs this year, but if we sign more than we lose, we are due no compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Issue w/ transition tag. I think the transition tag is more for a player you really want long term. If we slapped the transition tag on Berrian, you can bet another team will in fact present an offer sheet to him. Yea, we have the right to match it, but if the whole point is to not be locked into a long term deal for big bucks for Berrian, then what is the point. You still let him walk, and do so w/o compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.