Should the Bears take the Redskins offer to swap first round picks (getting the 6th and giving up the 31st along with the rights to all pro linebacker Lance Briggs)?

NO! Absolutely not. Nada. Nyet. Un-uh. No way. Forget it.

Right now the Bears have Briggs services because they hung the "franchise player" tag on him. They also have the 31st pick in the draft. In terms of talent, a late first round pick and a second rounder are about equal in value.

Let's say the Bears take the deal. They have a)the chance to gamble on one of several very good, but not great prospects and b)a gaping hole in their defense. If they used the pick to replace Briggs there's a problem. The best linebacker available, Patrick Willis of Mississippi, is no Lance Briggs and probably would last until somewhere between the 10th and 15th pick. So, picking Willis at 6 is wasting some of the value of the choice.

Then you think about what you can get at #6. Probably one of three players, Brady Quinn (QB, Notre Dame), Gaines Adams (DE-Clemson), or Levi Brown (T-Miami). Quinn would be a popular choice with fans, but create an instant quarterback controversy. Rex Grossman won't be as good as Quinn will be in three years, but Quinn won't be as good in 2007 as Quinn in 2009 either. And you still have to replace Briggs, who is part of a defense that allows you to live with Grossman at quarterback in the first place.

But Briggs isn't happy, will cost alot of money as a franchise player ($7.5 million), and is threatening to six out 10 games (so he still knocks off one year of the three the Bears can hang the franchise tag on him). So?

If Briggs sits, he sits. You have to replace him, but if you trade him you have to do that anyway. You also open yourself up to the same power play from other players who have seen you cave in to Briggs. Suddenly the leverage an NFL team has in using the franchise tag isn't worth anything and any Bear not happy with their deal (and Briggs isn't the only one) is pressuring the team to let trade them to more generous teams.

Replacing Briggs with the #6 pick is actually more expensive than keeping him and paying him the franchise player rate. That's because NFL rookies at the #6 pick make more than franchise players with Briggs experience. It may not be fair, it may not sound right, but it's the deal the NFL Player's Association agreed to.

There is one last reason not to trade Briggs and that's to spite the Redskins. It sounds petty, but I'm thinking Briggs agent (Drew Rosenhaus) and Washington owner Dan Snyder have already been talking contract on the side. In the tight club that is the NFL ownership group, that's a major offense to the established order. Washington has jumped in and made a bad situation for the Bears worse. If Briggs is traded, it won't be to the Redskins. It could even be to Dallas in order to get back at Snyder.

There are really only two reasons to trade Briggs.  First, you think you can trade the Redskins #6 for two late first round picks (remember you already had Briggs and one of those going in) or second you think he's more of an aggravation than he is a talent. Unfortunately for Briggs, he's alot more talented than he is annoying. I hope he likes the Windy City. He could (and should) be there for the next three years.