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

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

That's a simplistic way of looking at this.  

The whole “a 1st in two years is worth a 3rd this year” is the absolute dumbest way to value picks ever. I hate it and it’s absolutely illogical. I know teams use this scale but it makes no sense. Cause come 2025 that logic goes completely out the window and suddenly that pick is worth multiple future 1sts.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

That's a simplistic way of looking at this.  

I swear that one win against Tampa gave a lot of the fanbase a false notion that we’re only a player or two away. We need to finally complete the rebuild we’ve been avoiding since Cam’s shoulder went to poo…

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

All this "but it's only worth ... " people need to go take a nap. We're not competing this year. We're not competing next year. But yeahhhh, let's overpay Burns (which we will) and then not even care about having two first round picks in 2024 and two first round picks in 2025. No one wants first round picks! You never get good players in the first round!

 

Yep. 

A first round in 2025 is worth a first round pick in 2025.   Same for a 2024.   It's a first round pick and it carries that value in 2024.

It's worth less to someone else today....because most are trying to win now or in the immediate future.  So yeah, it's not worth much to the Rams.  Right now is their moment.  That's not us.  Future picks in all honesty shouldn't hold the same value on all teams.  Because they aren't all in the same place. We should be focused on building something new. 

And I don't care to start off the next new HC era by drastically overpaying a one dimensional DE as the cornerstone of a defense.  Especially when the pass rushing specialist isn't actually a monster at the one thing he is noted for. 

 

  • Pie 3
  • Flames 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that a team like Rams, who rely heavily on star power over high draft picks, offered two firsts for Burns is proof we should not trade Burns. 

I mean it says something that all these teams seem to be interested in our best players, might be a good idea to keep them since you need good players to support a QB like Bryce Young

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

3 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

The fact that a team like Rams, who rely heavily on star power over high draft picks, offered two firsts for Burns is proof we should not trade Burns. 

I mean it says something that all these teams seem to be interested in our best players, might be a good idea to keep them since you need good players to support a QB like Bryce Young

Or, the Rams are stupid. No one else is offering a 1st because he's not worth a first to them ... and they are offering TWO firsts.

Edited by Brooklyn 3.0
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's tempting about this deal is the probability that the Rams may be a dumpster fire by the time those picks hit. They sold out hard to get that SB win, and now they're mortgaging their future to keep that window open if at all possible. Odds are very high that leads to a hard crash in a couple years. 

Tempting.

Very tempting.

  • Pie 4
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

Yep. 

A first round in 2025 is worth a first round pick in 2025.   Same for a 2024.   It's a first round pick and it carries that value in 2024.

It's worth less to someone else today....because most are trying to win now or in the immediate future.  So yeah, it's not worth much to the Rams.  Right now is their moment.  That's not us.  Future picks in all honesty shouldn't hold the same value on all teams.  Because they aren't all in the same place. We should be focused on building something new. 

And I don't care to start off the next new HC era by drastically overpaying a one dimensional DE as the cornerstone of a defense.  Especially when the pass rushing specialist isn't actually a monster at the one thing he is noted for. 

 

I’m with you completely on the picks and I’m definitely in the camp of trading Burns for two 1sts. And I love Burns, but I don’t even see him as our most important defensive player of defense. For me, Derrick Browns development this year along with an elite Jaycee when he’s healthy and Chinn back in the role that nearly made him rookie of the year are arguably all bigger components. Burns is great at what he does. But with where our team is currently at, this trade feels obvious. 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You may be interested to know that the average depth of separation is dependent upon the type of route run. Though go-routes are the most type of route run, they also produce the least amount of separation (and, of course, completions).   "The average pass catcher runs a go route on nearly a quarter of all routes (22.3%), the highest percentage of any route type in our data. However, those routes are targeted roughly 1 out of 10 times (10.8 percent), the lowest target rate of any route. The WR screen is the least-run route (3.4%), and it's the only route where the average target is behind the line of scrimmage. But it's also targeted at the highest rate (40.7%) and early in the play (1.6 seconds average time to throw). The most targeted routes outside of the WR Screen? The out (27.8%) and slant (25.2%) routes are the next most popular across the league."     "The most valuable routes by expected points added per target were the post (+0.48) and corner (+0.43) routes. The go route (+0.19) ranked seventh on the list of 10 route types. The go route (+0.19) ranked seventh on the list of 10 route types. One possible reason for this: It's harder to separate on go routes, which put the player on a straight path, than on posts or corners, which ask the player to make a cut. Targeted pass catchers on posts and corners average 2.4 yards and 2.3 yards of separation from the nearest defender, respectively, while pass catchers targeted on go routes average just 1.8 yards of separation."   https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-intro-to-new-route-recognition-model#:~:text=Targeted pass catchers on posts,) and slant (+0.26).   I would expect that Thielen would have an easier time catching the ball based that he runs the routes where it's easier to get open. Tet? Yet to be seen, but we may be better served getting him on some slants and crossers also.  In general, receivers are going to average a lower completion percentage and yards of separation on certain types of routes than others, that's why we shouldn't necessarily be taking stats, even advanced ones, at face value, as there are dynamics that most aren't even thinking about.  In terms of Tet, he's bigger and somewhat slower than a smaller dude, so you'd expect him not to have as much separation on go-routes, but his catch radius is massive and his hands are awesome. Hitting him in stride will probably be killer, but of course QBs are less accurate on go-routes according to the stats. Depending upon Tet's route versatility and how he is used, we could have a unicorn though. He's relatively fast, has great hands and gets YAC (and on an off note, if X can hold on to the ball, he's dangerous as well because he already has shown some separation ability).    
    • Most elite WRs aren't necessarily burners. Not a lot of elite WRs in the modern era were 4.3 guys. If anything, sometimes it seems like the super fast guys use their speed as a crutch and it hampers their development in the intricacies of route running.
×
×
  • Create New...