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

mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

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. 

This team isnt ass but we are 2-5.  This year is a wrap.  Looking towards next season we more then likely are looking at a rookie starting at some point.  Historically rookies dont win right off the bat.  So thats 1.5 seasons of more losing we are in store for which aligns perfectly with this deal

Edited by mrcompletely11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

DE is arguably the second most important position on the field, and we'd basically be trading a pro bowler / potential star for what'll probably be 2 picks in the mid to late twenties two and three years from now.

I'd pass unless they are sure they can't re sign him... Salary cap is malleable.  I don't think he walks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waldo Grand Master

Waldo

Posted
Posted

2 future 1st isn't enough and Akers shouldn't be on that table. They would have to throw in a player who isn't ruined by injuries for just those picks to work. It just doesn't seem like a great deal for us...yet. 

I do expect those picks to be valuable with how the Rams are operating. Seems like they are hell bent on burning through their future and I have no idea how they plan to deal with their cap or lack of picks in the future in 2 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harbingers Grand Master

Harbingers

Posted
Posted
Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

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

I’d take two future firsts and a second next year. We can turn those into most likely two(extra) first round picks next year(with the CMC picks). Unless we know Wilks is going to be the coach next year we need to play for capital. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SameDamnThing said:

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. 

Yeah I don't get the reluctance around here.

The rams are bent over a barrel just waiting for the Panthers, and the Panthers are like "oooh...look at the turtles over there!"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

How is wait two years a big deal?

We are a 2-6 (17-40 past 4) team with no franchise QB and no permanent head coach.

We beat a bad Tampa team that is one bad penalty away from a 6 game losing streak and we didn’t even beat Atlanta even with a 60 yard Hail Mary and people act like we are winning the SB next year so we can’t wait until 2024.

SMH. This is one of those Jamal Adams/Laramy Tunsil type trades that opens up your cap space and give you extra talent. Both teams are more talented teams now and neither we’re about to win anything. They may have both picked the wrong QBs but overall their teams are more talented now with the extra picks than they were about to break the bank for one player.

If the picks weren't far off I would be more inclined to heavily consider the offer. But either way I'm just a fan and I'll let it play out and roll with the results. But I can tell you one fuging thing. I'll be here to remind the folks bitching about the losing because there will be bitching.

Edited by frankw
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted
Just now, Waldo said:

2 future 1st isn't enough and Akers shouldn't be on that table. They would have to throw in a player who isn't ruined by injuries for just those picks to work. It just doesn't seem like a great deal for us...yet. 

I do expect those picks to be valuable with how the Rams are operating. Seems like they are hell bent on burning through their future and I have no idea how they plan to deal with their cap or lack of picks in the future in 2 years. 

2 years is near enough I don't expect a collapse... Frankly the picks would probably be higher in the first a bit after that, haha 

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...