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!

     

Are We Really Not Going To Talk About This?!

Castavar

By Castavar,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Castavar said:

lol No it wasn't. It was Matt Ioannidis. Come on now, a least get things right when you are trying to make a point.

 

 

 

It was Loannidis. So I got that one wrong. My bad. Still doesn't take away from your bad idea to deal Burns. We have 2 guys on the Dline that can play. And you want to get rid of one of them. For...a chance at something...better? I am soooo glad you are not in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Castavar Grand Master

Castavar

Posted
  • Author
Posted
55 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

It was Loannidis. So I got that one wrong. My bad. Still doesn't take away from your bad idea to deal Burns. We have 2 guys on the Dline that can play. And you want to get rid of one of them. For...a chance at something...better? I am soooo glad you are not in charge.

Bro, if a team is willing to give up TWO 1st rounders for Burns you take that. 1) You don't have to overpay Burns when he isn't even a game changing DE 2) You replace him with one of the 1st rounders 3) Now you have an extra 1st rounder to further bolster your team. All can be had for a DE who constantly over runs sacks and gets folded in the run game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Green Veteran

Gerry Green

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Castavar said:

Bro, if a team is willing to give up TWO 1st rounders for Burns you take that. 1) You don't have to overpay Burns when he isn't even a game changing DE 2) You replace him with one of the 1st rounders 3) Now you have an extra 1st rounder to further bolster your team. All can be had for a DE who constantly over runs sacks and gets folded in the run game.

 

In one sentence you disrespect Burns. Then in another you want 2 1st for him. I'm good though. Keep Burns and keep building on this solid core for that next shiny new QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aussie Tank Grand Master

Aussie Tank

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Castavar said:

Bro, if a team is willing to give up TWO 1st rounders for Burns you take that. 1) You don't have to overpay Burns when he isn't even a game changing DE 2) You replace him with one of the 1st rounders 3) Now you have an extra 1st rounder to further bolster your team. All can be had for a DE who constantly over runs sacks and gets folded in the run game.

Don’t forget the players you could add with the funds it was going to take to resign him 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveThePanther2008 Grand Master

DaveThePanther2008

Posted
Posted

It's funny, I work with a lot of people that love different teams.   We literally have just about every team covered within our organization.  95% of them would love to have Burns, many say he's a freak and super talented.

You guys want to trade him away for 2 first round picks.   We are then stuck with YGM, who is looking more and more like JAG and who?  You do realize that Stud DEs are not easy to come by.  So, while we have these two picks what happens to our defense when we have no one to rush the passer. 

Top picks are great to have but trading away your talent doesn't mean you are going to replace them in the draft.   You keep your young talent and build on top of them.  You don't trade them all away for unproven draft picks.

MAKES NO SENSE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aussie Tank Grand Master

Aussie Tank

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

It's funny, I work with a lot of people that love different teams.   We literally have just about every team covered within our organization.  95% of them would love to have Burns, many say he's a freak and super talented.

You guys want to trade him away for 2 first round picks.   We are then stuck with YGM, who is looking more and more like JAG and who?  You do realize that Stud DEs are not easy to come by.  So, while we have these two picks what happens to our defense when we have no one to rush the passer. 

Top picks are great to have but trading away your talent doesn't mean you are going to replace them in the draft.   You keep your young talent and build on top of them.  You don't trade them all away for unproven draft picks.

MAKES NO SENSE

Some people see him as Myles Garrett and others like myself see him as Montez Sweat and with 2 firsts minimum plus saving a 80-100 mill would be a better direction for the team 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveThePanther2008 Grand Master

DaveThePanther2008

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Aussie Tank said:

Some people see him as Myles Garrett and others like myself see him as Montez Sweat and with 2 firsts minimum plus saving a 80-100 mill would be a better direction for the team 

He's well above Sweat. 

14 minutes ago, Pakmeng said:

I don't believe anyone just wants to get rid of him. Context is important. Hes going to require a huge contract because of his potential. The hype and the production don't match.

Hype is numbers, he does more than just numbers.  

It amazes me that so many of you value him as JAG.  He's dynamic and considering he rarely has a counterpart on the other side he is quite amazing.

You just can pick and DE in the draft and expect them to be better.  Draft picks don't always pan out and you gamble quite a bit to get rid of him. 

IMO, we'll sign him to a long term deal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aussie Tank Grand Master

Aussie Tank

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

He's well above Sweat. 

Hype is numbers, he does more than just numbers.  

It amazes me that so many of you value him as JAG.  He's dynamic and considering he rarely has a counterpart on the other side he is quite amazing.

You just can pick and DE in the draft and expect them to be better.  Draft picks don't always pan out and you gamble quite a bit to get rid of him. 

IMO, we'll sign him to a long term deal.

 

I want to keep him too but for around 15mill a year he’s not a complete enough edge to command the 20mill plus a season being thrown around 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

Rams firsts seem likely to be late first round... And being in the future is a major let down, imo.  Salary cap is a sticky situation though, but then DE arguably becomes a better pick at the top of the first than QB.  I don't think we will replace Burns' production easily, even with his flaws.

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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • ForJimmy
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • tukafan21
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
    • TD alt
      Monroe Freeling’s lovely GF

      By TD alt · Posted

      He was also apparently.
×
×
  • Create New...