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


Recommended Posts

Just now, frankw said:

I wish we could see Wilks with a better quarterback situation but I think that barring a miracle we're changing gears altogether. But part of me is torn as I have wanted an offensive minded coach but seeing guys like Hackett and McDaniels stumble with two of the leagues most struggling offenses gives me pause. I'm still eager to see what Steve can do with this group the rest of the way.

If we were to hire Steichen, I'd give Steve Wilks a pretty decent chance of sticking around as part of the staff.

They worked together back in San Diego.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shocker said:

This is really the only reason I would listen…the 2024 draft looks like it will have some very good QB prospects and Burns contract demands will be top DE money

The next year's QB class is a game the Huddle has been playing for 4-5 years now....

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

The thing about Burns is, he's obviously a good player and he has had good production but can we honestly say that he has improved in any way since his rookie season?  We've been saying for years now "oh just wait til he takes that next step" but it's his 4th season and he seems like the exact same player to me.  Which is a very good one, but I'd be much more reluctant to trade him away if I felt confident that he has yet to reach his ceiling, which to be honest I'm not.

I disagree. His first season he was legitimately weak against the run. He didn’t set the edge, he focused on just being a pass rusher. Now he’s a strong pass rusher as well as a good run defender. The only metric by which he hasn’t improved much is the sack stat. There is much more to judge a DE by than sack numbers, despite what many here believe. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

The thing about Burns is, he's obviously a good player and he has had good production but can we honestly say that he has improved in any way since his rookie season?  We've been saying for years now "oh just wait til he takes that next step" but it's his 4th season and he seems like the exact same player to me.  Which is a very good one, but I'd be much more reluctant to trade him away if I felt confident that he has yet to reach his ceiling, which to be honest I'm not.

This is true. But it can cut two ways as well. What are the odds that the next pass rusher we draft doesn't take that much time to develop as well? We all know the demand here is instant results. So we are waiting two years for the picks and then another 1-2 years minimum to see it pan out. Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and say this beleaguered fanbase does not have the patience for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WUnderhill said:

Either way, the Raiders were just incompetent. The value of picks doesn’t change because an incompetent FO drafted poorly in the past.

Almost 70% of the league doesnt hit on their first round picks.... especially if they are outside the top 8 picks in the draft. Its not imcompetence, its the field of talent drops off immenselt once you get into the mid first round. That's the point here. You take a great player like Burns... and then trade him in hopes that you hit when the odds arent in your favor. You go from a sure thing to a possibility. It's non sensical. Espeically if you have to wait two years before you find out. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

It was ran by Gruden. He had the same contract as Rhule. Full control. Mayock was head of scouting for him.

And now they've got Josh McDaniels with basically his handpicked GM.

It's almost like they see the Panthers of the last three years as a model franchise 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Both. NFL teams are throwing us prime time offers because Burns is a prime time talent. Burns has a Panthers problem. The Panthers don't have a Burns problem.

We had Phil Snow dropping burns into coverage on almost 40% of the snaps and people in this thread are stating he isnt good because he doesnt have sacks. That has nothing to do with burns output.  He has been experimented in a difference defensive approach this year instead of putting him where he plays best.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

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.

But the Huddle sez he is turrible against the run 😱 shirley you jest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stbugs said:

We’ve been bitching about losing since November of 2018.

Sure it would be great to have extra picks earlier but if the Rams are going for broke and we are a team who can be patient (no coach or franchise QB), I’d be fond of getting a first when Stafford is 36 and has taken 2 more years of hits.

I just think we are crazy to overvalue Burns considering how much he’s about to cost. If Burns had 3 years left on his rookie deal, this would be a different discussion. He hasn’t been $10M a year and 2 1sts better than Reddick.

Also people said CMC was the reason we sucked so much so why does Burns get a pass for being 17-40 since he was drafted?

I don't overvalue him I already said if we are talking two firsts this year and next I'm listening. We're comparing Burns to CMC now? He definitely hasnt gotten a pass haha people have been complaining about him for months. Is every damn discussion about a player from here on going to go back to CMC? Let it go dude.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...