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

7 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

1. They are living in a win now mode.. which means the next 2 years.. therefore those picks are impacted by how they perform the next two years. They have everything they need to get back to the super bowl once healthy. If these picks were 2025 and 2026 like how they do in the NBA, then you can take what you saying as a strategy.

 

2. The injury bug hits any team at any point... there is no tendencies or patterns to injuries in the NFL. Baltimore, SF, Detroit, and Cleveland are the most injured teams in the NFL right now... they are not "old" teams. Matter of fact, its the opposite. they have average ages of 25, 25.1, 26.3, and 26.4

Hey if you’re going to argue that age has no bearing on injury and recovery from injury then we can just stop the conversation there’s no point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

No. That’s not enough for Burns. Future picks aren’t worth as much as picks for this draft. 
 

It’s not exact, but in a way, each year in the future makes the value drop a round. 
 

Would you trade Burns for a 2nd and 3rd rounder in this draft?

Pie for you for understanding how the draft is viewed by GMs

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Their best defensive player is 31.  The second best is 29

Their best wr is 29, their franchise qb is 35 and is dealing with chronic injuries.

 

You take the deal and risk the gamble. 

None of that is a convincing argument. You need more than that... that is just not how you make calculated decisions. Also, the last three patriots super bowl wins and the broncos win.... had those same tangibles you just described. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

Hey if you’re going to argue that age has no bearing on injury and recovery from injury then we can just stop the conversation there’s no point.

I am not saying that... Im saying you cant claim that the injury bug hits old age teams with certainty. There is no statistical evidence to support that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Burns is a franchise cornerstone player, who is only 24. Who could easily be a top ten pass rusher for the next decade, I would prefer not to trade him. But if we are truly in a situation of tanking then I would consider it if we truly got equal value. Which would be 2 firsts minimum with a combination of picks in this upcoming draft like a 2nd and 3rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Anyone else laughing at the people saying GROSS to possible LATE first round picks lol? They're still FIRST round picks. Jesus. We're not going to the SB this year or next, guys.

The roster doesnt have enough holes for us to need those picks. We would be trading one great player for 2 unknown players. We have 15 picks between now and 2024 as it is. We dont have a need for more draft picks. We have a need for a QB , LB, WR and Dline depth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...