Rams Offering Two (Future) Firsts for Burns

[NorthTryon]

1 minute ago, pantherj said:

So you're prompting me to post again? That seems counterproductive to your wants for this thread. What do I care if you think I'm too hyped and posting too much? You opinion means literally nothing to me.

Yeah, and you are the kind of winner that takes this way too seriously. They probably aren't going to trade him and you will look like you know about as much about football as your posts suggest. I didn't prompt you to do anything but chill out. The Panthers are headed in a good direction with or without this trade. 

[Panthering]

2 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Any future first rounder is considered a 2nd round pick in the value charts. So we would be givin up burns for 2 2nds.

I'm not gonna lie to you that makes zero sense and I appreciate things like value charts. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, stbugs said:

He’s right though when people complain about those of us who keep looking at then next QB class. We only do it because of the garbage that’s been paraded through here since Cam’s shoulder fell off and the only draft pick we’ve used is a late 3rd which has a snowball’s chance in hell of being a franchise QB. If we actually drafted a legit prospect, it would change the wanting picks and draft position, stuff that never came up in season from 2011-2017. 

I'm in favor of going the draft route.

Granted, I'm not sure it mattered what route we went as long as Matt Rhule was in charge.

[hepcat]

Just now, WUnderhill said:

It may be that the deal included some picks being sent back by the Panthers much like the Mack deal. We get the headlines of the 2 first rounders but there is almost certainly more to it than that.

You could be right and if that’s the case I’ll be out on the deal depending on what draft picks the Rams want. But if it’s Burns for 2 firsts and a 3rd or 4th in 2023, that’s insane for a tweezer pass rusher who disappears in the run game. This is why the Panthers can’t built a winner. That’s a ridiculous package.

[TheCasillas]

1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Seriously?  You're deluding yourself if you think he will accept anything less than a monster deal.

We thought DJ Moore was going to get a monster deal... look what he took. Burns' deal with the new cap ceiling could be more manageable than you think. You are just assuming the worst. He isnt going to get more than Garrett or Bosa.

[WUnderhill]

1 minute ago, hepcat said:

You could be right and if that’s the case I’ll be out on the deal depending on what draft picks the Rams want. But if it’s Burns for 2 firsts and a 3rd or 4th in 2023, that’s insane for a tweezer pass rusher who disappears in the run game. This is why the Panthers can’t built a winner. That’s a ridiculous package.

Agreed.

[AceBoogie]

The Lions are tanking. We should be in a race for a top 2 pick. Move him. 

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Any future first rounder is considered a 2nd round pick in the value charts. So we would be givin up burns for 2 2nds.

I know what you are saying but in reality that is just not true

[hepcat]

4 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Any future first rounder is considered a 2nd round pick in the value charts. So we would be givin up burns for 2 2nds.

What? Not true and also f*ck value charts. You snag a gamer in the first round and get that 5th year option that’s crucial 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, frankw said:

That also applies to the "next year's salary cap room" expectations.

[SmokinwithWilly]

4 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Any future first rounder is considered a 2nd round pick in the value charts. So we would be givin up burns for 2 2nds.

Which is why I would want this year's 2nd as well if we were to do this. DE is an elite value position but we also need the ability to trade and move to get the best qb we can. We didn't want to trade away draft capital to get Herbert. Getting a top 2 pick is no guarantee and there's no guarantee you get the guy you want anyway. More picks give more ability to do what is necessary. 

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Yea but your argument is because a team is willing to give 2 1sts for Burns, he must be elite and the Panthers would be dumb to trade him.  I point out an example that disproves that and you just dismiss it.  Okay.

No. Not "a team". The defending Super Bowl champs. The Eagles are also hard after him. This is what good organizations do. They use bad organizations basically like minor league feeder teams.

The Seahawks overpaid for Adams because they had dreams of the Legion of Boom dancing in their heads.

All I'm saying here is we shouldn't be trading elite talent at premium positions because we're drunk on draft picks. We have pure junk on the edges minus Burns. Who knows how much draft capital you'll have to "burn" through trying to fix that.

[pantherj]

1 minute ago, NorthTryon said:

Yeah, and you are the kind of winner that takes this way too seriously. They probably aren't going to trade him and you will look like you know about as much about football as your posts suggest. I didn't prompt you to do anything but chill out. The Panthers are headed in a good direction with or without this trade. 

You thought I wouldn't respond to your complaining? No one in this thread wants to hear you complain, it's annoying, so get back on topic. You're the kind of dude who complains a lot and it's a burden.

[Shocker]

18 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

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

Yeah, and we will keep on playing it till we get that dude