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

OnlyPantherFaninMaine

By OnlyPantherFaninMaine,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Manna Veteran

Manna

Posted
Posted

If they aren't going to pay him a monster contract that he'll probably demand, then trade him before we get there. I don't know how we'll be able to pay Burns, Brown, and Chinn. Best to trade him now if he doesnt make sense financially so we can get something in return. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WUnderhill Grand Master

WUnderhill

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

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. 

There is no certainty except that time and age are undefeated. The older a roster gets, the worse the odds. With the Rams I’m betting on the decline, and that’s the logical bet. Could they get better and make a SB run? Sure. Heck, the Panthers could make a SB run this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRumGone Grand Master

TheRumGone

Posted
Posted

I was on the fence until last game. I’d do it because he’s going to get an 80-100 mill contract. He’s not a complete player. He is a very very good pass rusher but he has a strength issue and is constantly not able to get guys to the ground to become that dominant player. It’s year 4. We should’ve seen it by now. I get the risk that we’d have to replace him though and we can certainly draft someone much much worse. I’d pull the trigger though.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Wolfcop said:

Sorry, but they are idiots if they turn down 2 firsts. Brian Burns is not enough of an impact player to pay him what we are going to have to pay him. 

Don't think it's been mentioned, but we probably have to consider that this is one of those deals high profile enough that it might not be entirely up to Fitterer 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
Just now, WUnderhill said:

There is no certainty except that time and age are undefeated. The older a roster gets, the worse the odds. With the Rams I’m betting on the decline, and that’s the logical bet. Could they get better and make a SB run? Sure. Heck, the Panthers could make a SB run this year. 

But making a super bowl run this year doesnt matter in the context of this entire conversation. The picks are 2024 and 2025. 

This year Rams arent going to be more than an edge playoff team because they have lost almost their entire starting oline for the year. They still field a top5 defense and have excellent coaches on both sides of the ball. 

 

we are trying to hedge our bets, but there are more stats that favor the Rams winnning next year than losing. Their division turnover is already enough to put the Rams in favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samppson Collaborator

Samppson

Posted
Posted

I've been against trading him for multiple firsts in other threads, but this is one I would seriously consider purely due to them being picks in a few couple years. There is a legitimate chance those picks could be very high as they are strapped for draft picks already, and have an aging core with Stafford.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I wouldn't be too surprised if they keep Smith.

Im sure they will , as long as Waldron doesnt take him with him. There have been rumblings that if Waldron gets a HC job (which I think he will based on the amount of jobs there will be this coaching cycle) that he and Geno would be a package deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, stirs said:

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

I’m not looking at in from our GMs perspective.   No doubt future picks have less value to him.  To teams in general.  He needs to win.  Most teams do.   He has been part of a lot of slop of late.   It all gets weird when you have a bunch of random parts and no real vision on the future and path. 

I would take the trade.  I also want a new HC and a new GM that want to build something from the ground up. 

and Burns is not the type DE I would want to sign to a big deal anyway.  So why keep him.  Because then you have to dump a bunch of money into a guy thats just a pass rusher…..and he might not fit the next D scheme anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      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
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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...