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!

     

Panthers trade rumors


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Trading Burns would be stupid.  He is like 24 and just starting to find his groove.  he will be a stud for the next decade.

He might spend much of that decade as a stud for someone else too.

Same old story--some really good defensive player is a "keep at all costs" player, who then re-sogns and has Huddlers packing his bags almost immediately thereafter. Too often, Huddle says, "we can't make _______ move cause we have to pay __, ___, _____, and ______. Then they all get paid and before the ink is dry on their extensions, they can't be pushed out the door fast enough. See Johnson, Charles; Short, Kawann; Gamble; Chris; Davis, Thomas; Beason, Jon; and other big name defensive players not named Keuchly.

Trading him now just speeds up the cycle of the inevitable wanting him out of town and drafting his replacement over everlasting offensive needs.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RJK said:

No future first from the rams thanks and the eagles already got Quinn so Burns is likely staying put unless a mystery team wants to offer 2 firsts 🤷‍♂️

Seattle are leading their division have 2 firsts this year and love trading for proven players. They could be a Smokey to try and get Burns 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can get 2 firsts for Burns you do it.  No brainer.  Charlotte/Panthers offer nothing for him to WANT to stay.  So you either over pay / franchise him or watch him walk away for no compensation.  If we really turned down 2 first (even if it's 24/25), then we are dumb. 

Edited by JVic
  • Pie 4
  • Poo 4
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

    • I mean, at the time that wouldn't have worked for them. The truth is that when they had the biggest advantage in that conversation was also when Notre Dame was at their peak arrogance and revenue stream creation(prior to the Longhorns Network, etc). Notre Dame was just never going to work out. The biggest thing they could have done is go hard AF and try to give insane deals to the premier Big 12 teams. Even then, most of them were eyeing the Big Ten and SEC. The biggest issue with the ACC was betting wrong. Miami and Virginia Tech ended up being disasters. Basically former college football powerhouses that ended up being afterthoughts by the time they arrived. I mean Miami specifically have literally had a total of three double digit win seasons since they joined the ACC in 2004 and two of those are in the past 2 seasons. Virginia Tech just fell apart at the wrong time, although I think Franklin will bring them back to prominence to an extent. Had we had it to do in hindsight, probably taking teams like TCU, Baylor, etc would have been wiser options than some of the moves into the Northeast and getting Miami.   But, ultimately, fug all this nonsense. It's the insane greed of college football that killed regional rivalries, college basketball and entire storied, REGIONAL conferences. That is the real blame. The thirst for the destruction of all college sports which sits squarely at the feet of the slobbering, ignorant rednecks and hillbillies at the top of the college football sphere.
    • Im wondering how long it will take me to turn the game off
×
×
  • Create New...