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

*FreeFua* Grand Master

*FreeFua*

Posted
Posted
Just now, pantherj said:

The last sentence is the important part.

It really is. Especially when you’re working for someone like Tepper. Which is why we’ve pissed away a lot for Bridgewater, Darnold and Baker. 

And it’ll continue to be a deciding factor in a lot of key decisions unfortunately 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catsfan69 Grand Master

Catsfan69

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

LOL you are unintelligent (and exactly the type of f150 I was talking about)

Delete your account

You put two Lamars on this D and we have a whole new team.

He was and will always be the bar I measure our 5 and 7 techniques. 

Of course you don't know what those are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pimpdaddy Grand Master

Pimpdaddy

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

So if we don't end up liking one of the top QBs this year or aren't in a position to get one, how much easier would it be to move with 2 1sts in 24 and an extra in 25 as compensation. There's a lot of dynamics at play. I like Burns, but if trading him could increase the likelihood of getting a franchise QB, I gotta make that move. Way more at play than just Burns for picks. We gotta know how the GM and coaches view this year's qb prospects as well. 

...i'm like don't pick a QB if its not there....just cause we need one. we stretchin this shtt into 24 anyways...build the core to support one, when we decide we want one in the draft... tipper 3 years behind on what he shoulda done...now its time to pay the pipper....no short cuts.... Trade Burns...jayzus. First round picks are big trading money.

Edited by Pimpdaddy
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ECHornet Grand Master

ECHornet

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ChuckWag78 said:

Please remember, the "two 1sts" the rams are supposedly offering in 24 & 25 are basically the equivalent to a second and third this year.

So magically, the day after the season ends they become *poof* first rounders again. I get that to an extent, but a first in two years is very attractive to a rebuilding team. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckWag78 Mentor

ChuckWag78

Posted
Posted
Just now, ECHornet said:

So magically, the day after the season ends they become *poof* first rounders again. I get that to an extent, but a first in two years is very attractive to a rebuilding team. 

Today yes. 2 and 3 years down the road, not as much. That is the point. You can't ack like time doesn't exist, that is not how investments work. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

It means stop using the same logic on skipping over a HUGE need and waiting for the next year.  Draft one this year not in 2024, no 2025, no 2026....  We should have sucked it up and drafted Fields IMO 2 years ago.  

Don't mean to re-hash old news but there was zero guarantee he would've been available.

sure hindsight is hindsight but we didn't know that at the time.

 

 

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

    • 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.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...