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

Catsfan69 Grand Master

Catsfan69

Posted
Posted
6 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.

So Brian Burns the guy who admitted to blowing the game Sunday. The guy that has never made a game winning play. The guy who has never taken over a game. The guy that always comes up short in big moments. 

That's the guy you want to hang your hat on?

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WestPanthers said:

Take it and never look back.

We need more draft picks to attract the New coach vacancies.

We will get plenty of interest regardless and this trade means we have to fill two of the most important positions in football instead of one...

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
Just now, frankw said:

Insisting on trying to get us to take Akers off their hands is reason enough for me to tell the prices to kick rocks. Nobody wants your washed up quitter running back.

He's connected to our current OC as well.

But if we were to hire Waldron, I don't necessarily think he'd keep Ben McAdoo around.

(maybe as a QB coach, I suppose)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, stbugs said:

😂 C’mon, we don’t have enough holes to need two 1st round picks in addition to our 3 firsts from 2023-2025?

How about a QB, DE x 2, DT, LB, WR, TE, RB, CB and S?

That’s 10 spots we easily could improve with a 1st round pick. You don’t want a Parsons, Linderbaum/Humphrey, Surtain, etc?

This is getting silly when you say a team that’s been 17-40 with Brian Burns couldn’t use 2 1sts and use the cap space savings to sign someone like Tyreke Hill or Corbett plus Reddick.

You are creating a hole by trading Burns, and staggering the years when you are able to fill it. Also, why would we need a first round pick to fill those suggested positions? I dont see a need to spend a first on a CB, RB, S, or WR.... Why spend a first on a DE when you already have one proven on the roster that is young? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HPPantherzfan Proficient

HPPantherzfan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

What did the Bears give up for Mack? He was an elite pass rusher at the time…

The Bears traded two first-round picks, a third-round pick and a sixth round pick to the Oakland Raiders for Mack and 2020 second round and conditional fifth round draft picks. 

But even the most diehard fan on here isn't going to compare Kalil Mack to Brian Burns....are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mr. Scot said:

He's connected to our current OC as well.

But if we were to hire Waldron, I don't necessarily think he'd keep Ben McAdoo around.

(maybe as a QB coach, I suppose)

McAdoo hasn't proven a thing to even get input in trades he should have one foot out the door already tbh. We can and will do better. At least I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

We will get plenty of interest regardless and this trade means we have to fill two of the most important positions in football instead of one...

Haven't you heard? Teams who have the draft picks and need can just draft one and not miss apparently. Others are using the same reasoning for trading DJ Moore. People are living fantasies.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WestPanthers Proficient

WestPanthers

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

You are creating a hole by trading Burns, and staggering the years when you are able to fill it. Also, why would we need a first round pick to fill those suggested positions? I dont see a need to spend a first on a CB, RB, S, or WR.... Why spend a first on a DE when you already have one proven on the roster that is young? 

Rookie contract, Rookie contract.....

And how much we're going to renew the contract with Burns?? Is he'll accept the new contract we offer if he knows he is worth 2 1st??

Edited by WestPanthers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, HPPantherzfan said:

The Bears traded two first-round picks, a third-round pick and a sixth round pick to the Oakland Raiders for Mack and 2020 second round and conditional fifth round draft picks. 

But even the most diehard fan on here isn't going to compare Kalil Mack to Brian Burns....are they?

what did those picks turn out to be for the Raiders? 

 

Bears traded away:
2019 first round (running back Josh Jacobs at No. 24 by Raiders)
2019 sixth round (cornerback Blessuan Austin at No. 196 by Jets)
2020 first round (cornerback Damon Arnette at No. 19 by Raiders)
2020 third round (receiver Bryan Edwards at No. 81 by Raiders)

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
Just now, frankw said:

McAdoo hasn't proven a thing to even get input in trades he should have one foot out the door already tbh. We can and will do better. At least I hope.

I could potentially see McAdoo staying around if Steve Wilks got the head coaching job, but that's not absolutely certain.

In just about any other scenario, unless we hired somebody that had worked extensively with him before, it's hard to picture.

(and I can't think of a head coaching candidate who fits that description)

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

    • tukafan21
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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.
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      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?
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...