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, Panthering said:

Prob similar to the money now > money later approach in finance. Also I suppose it makes sense to view it as the worst possible outcome to keep it conservative but still.... first round picks are first round picks. Blue chip talent in there if you approach it the right way. 

There is a huge drop in talent around picks 12-14 in the NFL draft. Front office experts refer to it as the "talent shelf." Sometimes you get lucky and a guy you had as a top 10 slips late (Burns) other times you get left with what is there (Kadrius Toney)... If you can't land in the top 14 range... then your pick isnt as valuabel as you hoped.... mathmaticaly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Yes vs the value of the picks right now, not in the future and that is what we are discussing and its not math its how things are valued on a chart

you dont plan for the future of a franchise with "well it could be better next year, so lets make the trade" ... you plan based of the floor potential and not the ceiling. Then it's a bonus at that point. This is probably the exact reason why there is no deal in place with the Rams.... if they are talking... then its for more picks to recoup any loss from the "floor"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tough one, TBH. Burns is bordering on being an elite pass rusher but by the same token is also isn't yet an elite pass rusher. He is coming up on his deal but we also have the franchise tag that we can use to keep him around if necessary.

So, this is really a bet on what we think of Burns, what we think the Rams will be in 2024/2025 and that Burns will always fit in our defensive scheme.

It's not as simple as "fug YEAH, TRADE HIM" or "fug NO, NOT ENOUGH!"

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pantherj said:

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.

I'm not complaining, I just know how it is when you have someone too hype about NFL stuff and ultimately have no real say in how it goes. I'm excited for where the Panthers are headed. I am also realistic and also know how NFL teams operate. You don't trade character guys that are good in their prime as a starting point for whatever the plans are going forward. Just be open for debate when the trade doesn't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

You didn't post anything but Burns from what I saw.

 

BRB

Ill post again. here you go:

Brian Burns with 9 games to go and Burns averaging .7 sacks per game, which would end him at 11.3 sacks on the year and a total of 37 sacks. Conservative estimate. 

image.png.8b8c08c480b5eca4f66c9baf62326468.png

Khalil Mack

40.5 total sacks his first 4 years. 

Game started difference is in Mack's favor heavily.... and games played will be one in BB's favor if he plays the rest of the year.

image.png.667af76049af449fe4a0c0ffa8f7a868.png

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

I'd do the deal.

We're probably picking 3rd. Stroud and Young will likely be gone.

So instead of picking Levis/Hooker way too early, we grab Anderson or Murphy.  Instant Burns replacement on a rookie deal.

Then we can see if Corral is any good, keep developing PJ, and have a ton of ammo for a QB in 2024. 

 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

i already posted the data in this thread because another person challenged it. You wont have to look far.

You didn't post anything but Burns from what I saw.

 

BRB

 

So I looked and it seems Mack had 2.5 more sacks per year which is huge by itself. 

But in year 2 he had 15 and year three 11.

Burns has never had a double digit year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...