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!

     

Rams Offering Two (Future) Firsts for Burns


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, OnlyPantherFaninMaine said:

Wanna know something scarier than Halloween? This pass rush and defense without Brian Burns. 

We were able to rent a better pass rusher last season.  

I want a legit rebuild.  And that starts on offense.  It's an offensive league.  Get a QB.  Get him crazy weapons.  Once you have that, you can put together a defense good enough to contend IMO.  Because it doesn't have to be a great D if you have a great O. 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Not about being on a run, you don't trade our best defensive player for picks 2 and 3 years away, that is foolish and short-sighted. 

If it was a 22', and 23' plus ''sweeteners'' you could consider it, but to trade one of the better young pass rushers for picks 2 and 3 years away is some Madden type non-sense.  

Burns is by default the best players because we don't have a dominant defensive player though. 

Make a list of great defensive players Carolina has had.  Where is Burns. 

  • Pie 3
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CRA said:

We were able to rent a better pass rusher last season.  

I want a legit rebuild.  And that starts on offense.  It's an offensive league.  Get a QB.  Get him crazy weapons.  Once you have that, you can put together a defense good enough to contend IMO.  Because it doesn't have to be a great D if you have a great O. 

"Blow the team up, get a QB and give him crazy weapons! It's as simple as that!" LMAO You guys play too much Madden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

You don't take future 1sts in 24, and 25 for a Star caliber player that is ascending. Some of ya'll make no sense at all pass rush is a PREMIUM it's why they're willing to part with the 1st's in the first place. 

If you are gonna even consider the trade it can't be from a team that is likely to make the playoffs both of those seasons. Then you're trading our best pass rusher for some guys in the mid 20's....

You can trade a CMC, as paying a running back 19M-21M on avg is INSANE. That money, or that caliber of money is reserved for PREMIUM positions. 

QB / T / EDGE / WR / DB

 

The only problem with that is, that no team not in the playoff/Super Bowl picture is going to part with 2 future 1sts, because they are also rebuilding.  It would have to be a contender to make this type of deal, because those are the teams who feel they are one piece like Burns away from winning it all. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Not about being on a run, you don't trade our best defensive player for picks 2 and 3 years away, that is foolish and short-sighted. 

If it was a 22', and 23' plus ''sweeteners'' you could consider it, but to trade one of the better young pass rushers for picks 2 and 3 years away is some Madden type non-sense.  

You have to think about the time frame for when we'll have a franchise QB with experience. That is the opposite of short sighted. This season is lost. Next season, even if we draft a rookie QB, is lost. Guess what comes after that?

I would trade him in a heartbeat.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CRA said:

We were able to rent a better pass rusher last season.  

I want a legit rebuild.  And that starts on offense.  It's an offensive league.  Get a QB.  Get him crazy weapons.  Once you have that, you can put together a defense good enough to contend IMO.  Because it doesn't have to be a great D if you have a great O. 

By declining this trade it indicates Fitterer, Morgan, and Co. feel this team doesn’t need a full rebuild. This division will be up for grabs starting this year and well beyond because nobody has their QB of the future. I don’t want to waste years attempting a rebuild when we could be competing in the NFC with a great young QB and the right coaching hire. 
 

If you trade Burns now you may as well trade Moore, Chinn, Brown as well. What message does that send the rest of the guys in that locker room? No star player here is going to willingly suffer through years of rebuilding. The much quicker, sustainable, and likely path to success of this team is nailing the QB selection and hiring the right coach. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...