Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Offers for Burns


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Look at those numbers again he's not even close to the guys ahead of him and on a sack per game basis there's multiple guys below him on the list that are more productive. 

.9 sacks per game is where I need him to be.

Buy he's probably at .5 sacks per game which lots of guys can do

Stfu you idiot lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

First of all Cmac is the best in the league at his position. There is no RB I would trade him for straight up.

Burns isn't close to the best at his position. 

That's a huge difference. 

And Cmac wasn't oft injured.

If we would have been a playoff team he would have come back and played both those seasons. It was a hammy and an ankle FFS.

The man had 4000 yards from scrimmage in 2 years. We will never get that production from a non QB again. 

We can find tons of guys that get 9 sacks a year.

Lol 

Cmc is a fantastic running back but so are Cook, Henry, Taylor, and rookies Breece Hall and Kenneth Walker 

This is racist trolling and you're a goddamn idiot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

You don't know ball

I know that position better than anyone on this forum.

I played that position in college and have had staff offers to coach that position. And have done so on a limited guest basis for free just because I love the game.

There are tons of things I like and don't like about his game.

He's very bad in the run game at staying parallel to the LOS and use his leavers to work across the face of the blocker.

This often leads to him picking a side which often puts him out of position and keeps him from being a true 2 gap defender against the run.

How many more things do you want me to point out? I'm sure I could look at actual film and find more issues. 

For one he isn't great at attacking the QBs uphill shoulder altho he has been improving. 

 

The guy is solid but he doesn't deserve the fanboy attention he gets on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

First of all Cmac is the best in the league at his position. There is no RB I would trade him for straight up.

Burns isn't close to the best at his position. 

That's a huge difference. 

And Cmac wasn't oft injured.

If we would have been a playoff team he would have come back and played both those seasons. It was a hammy and an ankle FFS.

The man had 4000 yards from scrimmage in 2 years. We will never get that production from a non QB again. 

We can find tons of guys that get 9 sacks a year.

So CMC quits on his team when he could be cleared to play? 
 

He missed games in three separate stints in 2020: six games for an ankle sprain, four games with an A/C joint sprain, and four games with a glute strain. He missed another five games with a hamstring strain in 2021, and missed Week 12 onward with an ankle sprain.

That injury history is not only alarming for its recency, but also because outside of the shoulder it's all lower body. His ankle, glute, hamstring, and ankle again have been hurt. Which means he's taking shots overtime.

With that in mind, teams may have been wary to offer too much for McCaffrey.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nfl/news/christian-mccaffrey-trade-injury-history/hatblf1dnzwqn8zpfieyynjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Pressures are not as good.

We have lost more than one game at the end where he failed to bring the QB down leading to either a TD pass or big first down.

If I remember correctly and I probably don't even to Baker last year or two years ago.

Pressures CAN be as good as I stated. It can lead to bad decisions like INTs. All pass rushers miss on QBs because it’s a fine line between a good hit and roughing the passer. Burns is great and it looks like he is here to stay unless we get some insane offer for him so get use to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

I know that position better than anyone on this forum.

I played that position in college and have had staff offers to coach that position. And have done so on a limited guest basis for free just because I love the game.

There are tons of things I like and don't like about his game.

He's very bad in the run game at staying parallel to the LOS and use his leavers to work across the face of the blocker.

This often leads to him picking a side which often puts him out of position and keeps him from being a true 2 gap defender against the run.

How many more things do you want me to point out? I'm sure I could look at actual film and find more issues. 

For one he isn't great at attacking the QBs uphill shoulder altho he has been improving. 

 

The guy is solid but he doesn't deserve the fanboy attention he gets on here.

Sorry man…if you are coaching I am concerned.  You seem nearsighted at best

Edited by Shocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

You're comparing him to the best yt edge in the game to try to minimize his ability, you deserve jail time for this, full stop lol

In history the best pass rushers average around .9 to .95 sacks per game.

This number has been the same for nearly 50 years. Burns averages about .5 let me look it up it's actually .56 per game.

It's the numbers 

Let's check Parsons he's .87 per game

Myles Garrett .9 per game

TJ Watt .94 per game

 

.9 has been the number forever 

 

Let's compare to 

Mike Rucker  .523 oh look just like I said.

Let's do Charles Johnson .592 per game

 

I'm not saying he's not solid. He is. He's not a star. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

In history the best pass rushers average around .9 to .95 sacks per game.

This number has been the same for nearly 50 years. Burns averages about .5 let me look it up it's actually .56 per game.

It's the numbers 

Let's check Parsons he's .87 per game

Myles Garrett .9 per game

TJ Watt .94 per game

 

.9 has been the number forever 

 

Let's compare to 

Mike Rucker  .523 oh look just like I said.

Let's do Charles Johnson .592 per game

 

I'm not saying he's not solid. He is. He's not a star. 

Burns has 5 sacks in 7 games this year which puts him at .71. 
 

Looks like the 24 year old is turning the corner. Not surprising it took him a few years since everyone knew he was slender coming out of FSU. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ECHornet said:

Burns has 5 sacks in 7 games this year which puts him at .71. 
 

Looks like the 24 year old is turning the corner. Not surprising it took him a few years since everyone knew he was slender coming out of FSU. 

He should have already been at .9 by now to be considered great.

Greg Hardy was .79 and people called him replaceable. 

There are folks on here willing to make Burns the highest paid edge in the NFL.

I'm arguing against that and that he's not worth 2 1s.

Do I want to cut him? No

Do I want to trade him for 1 first? No

2 firsts and I trade him.

Nothing less.

I have no problem rewarding him with say the 9th best contract at his position hell even 8th to keep him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

*criiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinge*

He knows more about this position “than anyone on this board.” He knows more than the team that offered 2 firsts, more than the Panthers staff for turning it down and more than the NFL players that ranked Burns in the top 100. Why? Because he coached high school football….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
×
×
  • Create New...