MasterAwesome

Are you under the impression that I ever argued that Bosa is better than Burns simply because his sack numbers are better? The only reason I brought up their sack numbers was in response to the guy who initially brought them up to argue that their career production is equivalent, while ignoring that one played 16 more games than the other. That was never the crux of my argument. That was the crux of his argument which was extremely flawed. But humor me this: you brought up the completion percentage example for QBs as something that one QB might be statistically superior in that doesn’t mean he’s a better QB. Well what would you say is one area or statistic that Burns is superior than Bosa in? Durability maybe, but I can’t think of anything else as far as on-the-field performance. You can say something like he has a quicker first step or is more explosive or point to something athletically but if that doesn’t translate into superior performance on the field then that’s kinda a pointless thing to hang your hat on.

You’re technically not wrong but you realize this type of broad reasoning would mean you can’t ever compare any player against any other player on any team? Tom Brady in his prime can’t be compared to Jimmy Clausen because they played in different systems and had different supporting casts and were asked to do different things in executing their respective gameplans etc. I’m genuinely curious - is that actually your argument? That we can’t confidently say that Tom Brady in his prime was a better QB than Jimmy Clausen? Or what am I missing here?

Why can you not compare the two when they play the same position and have the same responsibilities (rush the passer, defend the run)? Can we not say for example that Brian Burns is a better DE than Yetur Gross-Matos simply because they are two different types of DEs? Can we not say Lamar Jackson is a better QB than Mac Jones because their QB style is different? I can acknowledge two players are different while also being able to acknowledge whether one is more impactful and playing at a higher level. If you're comparing two different players at two different positions, then yeah I'd agree with you that it's tricky to directly compare the two.

Yeah I agree which is why I followed up with my last post about durability being a point in Burns' favor. But clearly the guy I was responding to was not going the "injury/durability" route; it was never mentioned once in any of his posts. It was meant to be a 1:1 comparison of Bosa and Burns having the same production over the same time period ergo are similar in ability. Imagine someone making the case that Christian McCaffrey and Myles Gaskin are the same caliber player because their rushing and receiving stats are roughly equivalent over the last 3 seasons. And someone points out that Christian McCaffrey has barely even played over the last 3 seasons because of injury and then that person responds "yeah well durability is a part of it". Like okay sure lol.

If you want to give Burns a point over Bosa for his durability then that's fair, but clearly you were trying to make the case that they're similar caliber DEs based on production when they're not.

Bosa has played 16 less games than Burns due to injury in his second season. So basically the same production in one less season. I like Burns but he's not in the same league as Bosa.

What's that? Sorry we can't hear you through that bag over your head.

Yeah I thought it was ironic that we were all complaining in PJ's first start against the Rams how Wilks didn't even try to go for points with a minute left in the 1st half and 3 timeouts. Then the following week against the Falcons, we were essentially in the same position with a minute left in the 1st half and we did try for points but PJ threw that pick-six which was a gamechanger. Even though I still think you try for the points in that situation 10/10 times and I think that pick-six was more of an amazing play by the defender rather than a poor decision by PJ...it still almost validated Wilks' restraint and hesitation when it comes to PJ.

We really don't use him like a conventional receiver at all. He's basically used almost exclusively on swing passes; hell, his touchdown was considered a run because it was thrown behind the line of scrimmage which is emblematic of how he's used lol.

Apparently it's an option play where PJ can hand the ball off as well. The announcers were commenting on it how PJ made the wrong read and threw the swing pass that got blown up instead of handing it off to Foreman. Running the same play multiple times optically seems lazy and ineffective but sometimes it's about setting something up down the line and subverting expectations when the opposing team thinks they know what you're about to do, but you bait and exploit them for a big gain.

Yeah I know, that's more for the "can't argue with the data!" people. Your data is only as good as your methodology.

Yeah and imagine if someone did the same analysis but set the bar at "All-Pro" instead of "Pro Bowl" and everyone below "All-Pro" was rated 0. Then Brian Burns and DJ Moore are both 0s whereas you would have a >0% chance of drafting an All-Pro in the 1st round which would lead to a completely different conclusion. That's why the methodology is flawed when you're setting your own arbitrary binary standards like "Pro Bowl" or "Pro Bowl caliber" = 1, everything else = 0.

"You mean to tell me people want to talk about how we possibly kept Brian Burns over two 1st round picks and a second round pick"? I can do that too...what do you think those people upset about not trading Burns wanted to potentially use those two 1st round picks for? Hint: I bolded it in your post. Those draft picks we gave up are ironically the going rate for even trading for an established franchise QB lol.

But DJ Moore hasn't actually made a Pro Bowl lol. OP is just considering him a "pro bowl caliber" player which in itself is also an abstraction. I mean I'd agree that DJ Moore is a pro bowl caliber player, but it's still subjective since he hasn't actually achieved that accolade and therefore is not tangible as you are suggesting.

I mean I agree with the sentiment...but it's funny cause there's literally a 22-page thread on the front page with people lamenting over passing over Justin Fields a year and a half ago, yet you draw the line at one whole week for the Burns non-trade. I don't see your "it didn't happen move on" energy over there.

Of course being loaded up on draft picks would, and should make people feel better about our future. Which makes more sense in the face of an embarrassing blowout? Feeling optimistic about having a pretty good young pass rusher who is in his 4th year, having contributed to a 17-41 record since joining the team? Or feeling optimistic about having a stockpile of 1st and 2nd round picks over the next three seasons? Which one bodes well for future prospects, relatively speaking? There's a reason why fans every year look ahead to the draft in the midst of a failed season. Good drafting is the most effective way to turn a franchise around.

Wanting to trade Burns for 1st round picks 2-3 years from now is the furthest thing from "instant gratification" lol.

My family and friends would be the ones wearing paper bags on their heads around me if I ever did something this cringey.

I dunno how many times the b-word was thrown out, but there were definitely a lot of people drooling over Charles Cross in Week 1 and suggesting we took the wrong tackle. I am pretty sure you were among them lol.

Most players aren't playing the strategic "long game" in the "Not For Long" league. That's for front offices. Their job security and "making a fug ton of money" as you put it, is contingent upon them playing to the best of their ability. Individual effort may fluctuate based on team performance simply due to morale, because winning can give you a little extra boost and getting blown out is demoralizing. But I guarantee they aren't intentionally ***** up on the field in order to hopefully lose enough games to draft a guy who hopefully ends up being an elite player who is hopefully the missing link to a Super Bowl run. Also, that would have to be a coordinated effort with full buy-in from everyone in the locker room or else you're just asking for a toxic environment. Imagine a tanking OT just "forgetting" to block for his QB who is trying to win, or a tanking QB intentionally throwing an uncatchable ball to his WR who is trying to win.

I am genuinely super curious what @CRA thinks about this. Remember his claim that Rhule would start Darnold over Baker at the start of the season so he would have an ace in the hole to later bench Sam Darnold and buy himself more time to keep his job? I thought that idea sounded kinda nuts, but does that not feel like exactly what happened here? Wilks keeping a couple of Rhule's flunkies on staff so that "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass" and fire them after an embarrassing blow-out loss? I was receptive to the idea of keeping Wilks until yesterday's game. That was arguably the sloppiest most ill-prepared we've looked in any game I've ever watched as a Panthers' fan. I'm not often actually viscerally embarrassed of our team's performance cause at the end of the day it's just a game for entertainment, it ain't that serious. But damn was I embarrassed yesterday.

Interesting...if you believe that report from Twitter from that one dude who called out the rift between Phil Snow and Steve Wilks and talked about Phil Snow being Rhule's "puppet master" or w/e, then that string of tweets specifically singled out Paul Pasqualoni as backing up Wilks in voicing his disagreements with Snow's scheme.

“The guys are playing SO HARD for Wilks!”

This is a horribly coached team. The same damn penalty three times by three different players lining up in the neutral zone. Awful.

Panthers blowout today.