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

WUnderhill Grand Master

WUnderhill

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

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

The Raiders traded him plus a second and a fifth for 2 firsts, a third, and a sixth. For an all-pro and DPOY. And people here balking at 2 firsts for Brian Burns 😂

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

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
Just now, WestPanthers said:

Rookie contract, Rookie contract.....

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

try again... this needs a grammar check. I honeslty dont know what you are asking or saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, KillerKat said:

Trade him and draft who? Another DE that is not guaranteed to be the same or greater than? Just keep him and get someone opposite of him. Dont create another hole.

Nothing is guaranteed.

But when you can get two freebie 1st rounders to go along with your own 1st rounders in 2 upcoming drafts, you do it.

This isn't like they're offering two 2nd rounders or anything (in which case I'd tell the Rams GM to go screw himself)....

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

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)

Was still Gruden making the picks at that time, wasn't it?

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
2 minutes 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?

So not even 2 firsts (the 2nd and 5th more than offset the 3rd and 6th).  I know they weren't a year in advance but it seems like good compensation for Burns who is younger but not the force Mack was.  

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

Trade him and draft who? Another DE that is not guaranteed to be the same or greater than? Just keep him and get someone opposite of him. Dont create another hole.

About the only scenario where I could see trading for only two firsts is if you got the Eagles two first rounders from this year.

That would be hard to pass up.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
run-run-pass-punt Rising Star

run-run-pass-punt

Posted
Posted

Taken in totality:

1) Panthers not in win-now mode

2) As great as Burns is, you have to consider cap expenditures for a potential re-sign, while retooling the roster in some areas. I think you have to consider the potential  / hypothetical cap relief / flexibility by parting company.

3) Rams future firsts could be pretty sweet depending on how things play out, and even if they're not upper half of the draft, 1st rounders are very valuable, whether used to draft or as capital to acquire other assets.

Personally, I'd do it if they throw in a 4th next year on the offer.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

The Raiders traded him plus a second and a fifth for 2 firsts, a third, and a sixth. For an all-pro and DPOY. And people here balking at 2 firsts for Brian Burns 😂

Burns is on his way to have almost the same amount of sacks that Mack had his first 4 years in the NFL before he was traded... they arent that far amount stat wise as players.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WUnderhill Grand Master

WUnderhill

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

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)

Dude they had Mike freaking Mayock running the draft what do you expect.

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

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

Burns is on his way to have almost the same amount of sacks that Mack had his first 4 years in the NFL before he was traded... they arent that far amount stat wise as players.

Mack was a much much better run stopper then burns is.  Thats the main difference between the 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
Just now, stbugs said:

You’d rather not have a Patrick Surtain instead of CJ or Donte? You’d rather not have a Parsons instead of YGM?

I dont follow because CJ (3rd round pick), Donte (2nd roud pick) and YGM (2nd round pick) werent top 12 draft picks like Surtain and Parson. 

You'd be giving up a top end DE for 2 pick that have a chance to be in the top 12....and that chance is very low.  

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

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
Just now, WUnderhill said:

Dude they had Mike freaking Mayock running the draft what do you expect.

Sort of...

Jon Gruden had pretty much the same deal as Matt Rhule. He was in charge of everything.

I've seen a few people speculate that he only brought Mayock aboard as a fall guy in case he needed one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Mack was a much much better run stopper then burns is.  Thats the main difference between the 2

Burns is top 5 in the nfl against the run this year ... he is ascending. The guy is 24 and we are talking about him as if this is the end of growth. You are pulling the plug on what every tema wants.... a young player who is turning into an elite player on the field.

  • Pie 2
  • 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

    • 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...