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

Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

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.

I've heard that too, but even with this season on the books, how much would you really pay Smith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
Just now, frankw said:

Saying we can wait two years might sound okay at this moment but the buyers remorse will set in quickly when some of the flip flop types here get a load of our new pass rush in the meantime. You can't have it both ways.

But we are not winning this year and probably not next year either so it all works in our favor

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CRA said:

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. 

Getting extra firsts is a clear vision and path for the future.  Like I said, it aligns with our timeframe perfectly  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

But we are not winning this year and probably not next year either so it all works in our favor

I'm not trying to be rude but in truth you are one of the more reactionary people here so we both know you will not make it two seasons without expressing frustration with our defense minus Burns. It's going to happen. All I'm saying is just know what you're advocating for here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thunderraiden Veteran

thunderraiden

Posted
Posted (edited)

You don't give up a DE on a rookie deal for peanuts (and 2 first rounders is peanuts) for the potential Burns still has at a position of importance to winning the division and Super Bowl. I want 3 first round picks AND 2 promising young players at a position other than RB or 2 2nd's and I MIGHT consider it.

Edited by thunderraiden
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

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. 

If only they allowed us to send some of all these picks we have to move up in a draft. Now THAT would be something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, thunderraiden said:

You don't give up a DE on a rookie deal for peanuts (and 2 first rounders is peanuts) for the potential Burns still has at a position of importance to winning the division and Super Bowl. I want 3 first round picks AND 2 promising young players at a position other than RB or 2 2nd's and I MIGHT consider it.

I Guess Nev Schulman GIF by Catfish MTV

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

thunderraiden

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CRA said:

I mean you take that deal.  You say goodbye to Burns. 

is Burns talented? Yes.  But to date he has been an incomplete DE.  A pass rush specialist that has never hit double digit sacks. 

Especially when your win horizon is down the road and have to draft a QB to build up. 

Yall crazy this man has never played with a double digit lead in his career xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, frankw said:

I'm not trying to be rude but in truth you are one of the more reactionary people here so we both know you will not make it two seasons without expressing frustration with our defense minus Burns. It's going to happen. All I'm saying is just know what you're advocating for here.

We are 2-5 this year.  We arent winning poo this year.  We are more then likely going into next year with a rookie qb to get up to speed.  Historically rookies dont win.  So again instead of paying him a poo ton of money for really nothing it makes perfect sense to move him even if it comes at the expense of double digit sacks.   I wouldnt be frustrated as it would finally show a clear plan on how to get better as a franchise

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wundrbread33 Grand Master

Wundrbread33

Posted
Posted

A lot of people keep saying “we aren’t competing anytime soon.”

 

Too much randomness and parody in the NFL to say that. 
 

Hell, this team is an extra point away from being 2-1 with PJ Walker and Wilks. 
 

We have cornerstone players at the most premium positions outside of QB. 

 

This team isn’t ass. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, thunderraiden said:

You don't give up a DE on a rookie deal for peanuts (and 2 first rounders is peanuts) for the potential Burns still has at a position of importance to winning the division and Super Bowl. I want 3 first round picks AND 2 promising young players at a position other than RB or 2 2nd's and I MIGHT consider it.

Much like cmac I think a lot of you are way overvaluing the impact of burns.  Yes he is good, yes he could be great but he is not worth nearly what you are proposing above

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SameDamnThing Collaborator

SameDamnThing

Posted
Posted

Cash out on those picks. It sucks they will be so far in the future, but the Rams are due for a MAJOR fall off. it has already started but they're trying to trade their future to get back to the SB. those picks could be from a non-playoff team if Stafford is starting to lose it and Kupp starts aging. Burns isn't going to turn the tide by himself and he's a pass rusher only. 

  • Beer 1
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

    • ForJimmy
      Media touting tonight as The Shedaur Show

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      I think he did a solid job.  Honestly I liked his post game interview the best.  He gave himself a C and said he left a lot out on the field.  That kind of attitude can carry him far.
    • kungfoodude
      Coach asked about Coker!!

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      This is lacking a fairly considerable amount of context. For one, Adams(age 22) started 12 of 16 games, had 38 rec, 446 yds and 3 TD's on 66 targets(18 less, with 2 less games started). The main thing missing here is that the top two WR's for Green Bay that year combined for about 2800 yds and 25 TD's. Now if you want to throw a more accurate dart at Adams, take a look at year two. This year the production was spread around considerably and Adams didn't stand out from that pack(pun not intended).  So, if XL struggles mightily this season, I would probably keep that comparison in your quiver to counter argue. I would suggest that I don't think that scenario is probably very accurate for most HOF caliber WR's taken in the first round over the past 15 or so years. Adams was the 89th pick overall, as well. A little different hill to climb than XL, although not massively.
    • CRA
      Monday practice tweets

      By CRA · Posted

      to clarify I am not referring to Will Levis.  Not knowingly.   I just made that up and tried to use a reasonable guesstimate of what else was done.  That sounded in the ballpark.  At one time I did look it all up and there were several teams that had much more successful days downfield.   If that happened to be Levis' actual numbers than it's more of a lucky coincidence.  If memory serves, it wasn't just Will Levis that brought the claim into question, it was SEVERAL teams had better days.  and you are missing my entire point of the subjective nature of it all.  If PFF employee Doug watched Bryce's film and then used his same unique subjective vantage point to grade all 31 other starting QBs.  Then dumped into into a spread sheet, it would a subjective Doug take but at least it would be a level uniform subjectivity.   The grades are done by various people.  All watching and applying their own subjective view to a play.  Everyone isn't going to grade incompletions out the same.  Or completions.   So when you dump it all into a spread sheet and hit sort.....it's not actually a statement of fact as portrayed.  Which is why you sometimes get some head scratching stuff.  I'm not reframing anything.   I don't think.  I just wasn't going to look it all back up so I was talking vaguely off the general issue I have with PFF and treating any random claim they make as the truth. 
×
×
  • Create New...