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

ImaginaryKev Grand Master

ImaginaryKev

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CRA said:

We don't know that.  This could be his prime.  This could be his peak. 

I'd argue every Panther great DE entered their prime about year 4/5.   Some just maintained longer.  Like Peppers.  Peppers.  Rucker.  Big Money.  

Where they 24 like Burns is or are you just impatient?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zappy Enthusiast

Zappy

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CRA said:

We don't know that.  This could be his prime.  This could be his peak. 

I'd argue every Panther great DE entered their prime about year 4/5.   Some just maintained longer.  Like Peppers.  Peppers.  Rucker.  Big Money.  

No we haven't seen his prime yet .. he'll be only 25 the entirety of 2023 season .. you don't trade freak DE's

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Zappy said:

No we haven't seen his prime yet .. he'll be only 25 the entirety of 2023 season .. you don't trade freak DE's

again, we don't know that.    You can't predict when a player peaks out. 

But all the great Panther DEs to date, reached their playing peaks about year 4/5.   They didn't get more productive after that.  That could be Burns.  It could not. 

Burns isn't a freak DE.  Peppers was a freak DE.  And there is big difference between the two.  You can pay Burns a lot of money.  It won't make him a Peppers caliber freak though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, grimesgoat said:

I respectively disagree with Verge.

That's is their value if you need to cash the assets right now.  But they are an investment.  They will appreciate over time.  And right now we have a little time as this is a lost season. 

That's just not how grading assets in the NFL works. Not when one bad season can get your butt fired as a coach or GM Outside of a small handful of truly entrenched guys.

And how are draft picks going to "appreciate"? 😂 We aren't talking about stocks or bonds here.

Scott Fitterer isn't trading one of if not his absolute best roster asset for picks he might never get to make. Nor should he.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImaginaryKev Grand Master

ImaginaryKev

Posted
Posted
Just now, CRA said:

again, we don't know that.    You can't predict when a player peaks out. 

But all the great Panther DEs to date, reached their playing peaks about year 4/5.   They didn't get more productive after that.  That could be Burns.  It could not. 

Burns isn't a freak DE.  Peppers was a freak DE.  And there is big difference between the two.  You can pay Burns a lot of money.  It won't make him a Peppers caliber freak though. 

 

Burns combine shows he's an elite athlete and he's gotten better (and bigger) every year he's been in the league. He also came into the league at only 230, he's put on weight since and will continue to do so. You're just being cynical

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

frankw

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

Yall know extending Burns isn't coming out of your paychecks right?

It's the same people who whined about paying a QB but were perfectly fine sinking the salary cap in a running back. You can't reason with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImaginaryKev Grand Master

ImaginaryKev

Posted
Posted
Just now, frankw said:

It's the same people who whined about paying a QB but were perfectly fine sinking the salary cap in a running back. You can't reason with it.

The guy who wants to trade our team captain, star player at a valuable positions wanted us to keep the star RB who hasn't played in years and was the biggest cap hit on the team. 

Yeah, I'm justified for calling that an f150

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

CRA

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

Burns combine shows he's an elite athlete and he's gotten better (and bigger) every year he's been in the league. He also came into the league at only 230, he's put on weight since and will continue to do so. You're just being cynical

I don't think it is cynical to say he isn't a Julius Peppers freak DE.   He isn't. 

Jon Beason was a damn good LB.  He wasn't on the same planet as Luke Kuechly. 

DJ Moore is a great WR.  He isn't in the conversation with an 89. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peppers90 NC Community Regular

Peppers90 NC

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ImaginaryKev said:

The guy who wants to trade our team captain, star player at a valuable positions wanted us to keep the star RB who hasn't played in years and was the biggest cap hit on the team. 

Yeah, I'm justified for calling that an f150

what is this f150 garbage you have on repeat? super strange

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...