Does Briggs to Skins Make Sense?

According to profootballtalk.com's Rumor Mill, the answer is no. But why? Not because of money, but personnel. According to the site:

With two big-money free agent linebackers -- Marcus Washington and London Fletcher-Baker -- already in the starting lineup, the 'Skins wouldn't be getting the best return on their investment in Washington, Fletcher-Baker, and Briggs.

Why? Because a defense has three linebackers on the field roughly half of the time.

In the nickel and dime defenses, linebackers are replaced by defensive backs. Teams use the nickel whenever the opponent brings in a third receiver. Typically, that happens in second and long or third and more than three or four yards.

But wouldn't Briggs--known for his pass coverage ability--allow the Skins to keep all of their linebackers on the field in passing situations, making them a) better able to disguise their blitzes and b) able to counter a team trying to catch them in a certain "package".

I can see alot of reasons why Briggs wouldn't make sense, and they all add up to money. But I can't see how adding one of the league's premier all-around Linebackers is going to hurt the Skins on the field.

But what would really be nice is for SteelSkins silent partner Boss Hog, our resident Redskins fan, to weigh in on the subject.