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

One last stab at it. A few people have said the equivalent of “I don’t care about the gm system, we are fans and that’s the point of view that matters.”

 

Let’s say we end up with round 2, pick 15. A team really wants that pick, and will only trade future picks. Would you be fine with a 2024 2nd round pick? We don’t lose a 2nd round pick. Maybe the 2024 is better than 15th in the round. We are just kicking it back a year. Maybe the 2024 class is better… 
 

Or would you absolutely rage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

Champ I’m talking about fans on this board saying we should trade Burns because the future 1sts are equivalent to a mid round pick. Get a clue. 

Future 1st are different than trading 2-7, cause there is no "0" group for future 3rd is worth a now 4th formula..... You have bring out the magic 8-ball and guess what type of record the team will have in the future......impossible but still try.

Now talks of Mcvay and 99 retiring were real and that team is old, plus QB is beat-up and a "old" 33.....If those 3 blow up after this or next yr.....one of those picks could be top five-ish...Panthers are in dead cap hell next year along with a new HC&staff(high likely).

If you already know burns wants 30+, thats one heavy stone brother. He still can be moved in the off-season, just the rams wanted him for this years run...(could help the CMC haul)

 

If the new HC has a pure 4-3 system, burns could be in trade talks again. 

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

5 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

One last stab at it. A few people have said the equivalent of “I don’t care about the gm system, we are fans and that’s the point of view that matters.”

 

Let’s say we end up with round 2, pick 15. A team really wants that pick, and will only trade future picks. Would you be fine with a 2024 2nd round pick? We don’t lose a 2nd round pick. Maybe the 2024 is better than 15th in the round. We are just kicking it back a year. Maybe the 2024 class is better… 
 

Or would you absolutely rage?

It doesnt work like that

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toomers said:

  And this is the perfect example of CTE flawed logic in devaluing future picks automatically. Moves like this made out of desperation almost always go poorly. The Saints has to have a cheap, quality  replacement for Armstead. And a lower first round salary is all they could afford. Now they are not only out next year’s 1st(top 10?) but all those other picks. The Eagles took advantage. The Panthers chose not to. 

Season 10 Story GIF by Curb Your Enthusiasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

Champ I’m talking about fans on this board saying we should trade Burns because the future 1sts are equivalent to a mid round pick. Get a clue. 

That isn't what the board said about trading him for future firsts. Those folks wanted to do the deal.  That is what the folks who didn't want to trade him like myself said given future picks are devalued and not worth the same as a 2023 1st. Once again you are the one who seems rather confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

That isn't what the board said about trading him for future firsts. Those folks wanted to do the deal.  That is what the folks who didn't want to trade him like myself said given future picks are devalued and not worth the same as a 2023 1st. Once again you are the one who seems rather confused.

I’m not going to scroll back through 40 pages to show you that this is factually wrong. So I’ll just leave it here. But you are factually wrong lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stbugs said:

Again, why is our mindset about not getting fired? Oh, that’s right, we are 17-40 the last 4 years. We should absolutely not be thinking that way because that’s what Marty did, that’s what Rhule did and clearly Fitterer as well. It’s laughable to say that two future firsts are worth a 2nd and 3rd this year. I don’t care about GMs and coaches because if we are talking about guys getting fired in 1-2 years, we fuged up hiring or keeping them anyway. At the end of the day the picks are players and two future first round players will (according to statistics) have a much bigger impact on the Panthers than a 2nd and a 3rd rounder. If we don’t even have our future coach and QB aren’t on the team until 2023, saying firsts in 2024/2025 are too far away is silly.

Also, appreciation only occurs if the Rams get worse. I think that might be likely given Stafford’s age and his increased hits due to Whitworth and Corbett being gone.

It's a real bummer that Fitt actually rejected the deal as it guarantees that we are going to tie up a huge part of the cap onto one player who isn't at all an Elite pass rusher.   smh.

Only the Panthers, man.    Only the Panthers. 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stbugs said:

I get it. Also, don’t forget that Burns is going to sign for what Reddick plus Corbett make per year. That’s the rub. I don’t think Burns is worth (to us) 2 1sts and Corbett more than Reddick.

Yeah the cap hit argument makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • He's handing off play calling duties to fuging Brad Idzik as well so, either that mouth breather can run the playbook and Canales can grow as an all around head coach or it will be a horrible decision and both of them and BY can screw off. I'm fine with that as long as it isn't just another excuse for BY to get another year with another coach worthy of working around his limitations as a qb. 
    • Not only for Andersen but the whole team, having not beat the Habs this season before tonite.  Shows them that they aren't jinxed.
    • I understand why people say things like it could be worse in relation to Tepper but it just doesn't jive for me. Are the optics bad? Yes. Would I want her to be the owner of my team? No. But I mean she's only been owner for a year and the Colts overall are a better run organization. As far as I know they've also never had the distinction of having the worst win percentage in all of professional sports either. Tepper has owned this team for 8 years and about the only thing that has been consistent has been the ability to continue to find different ways to achieve new lows. Even now people are saying things are different yada yada but we said these same things at certain points under Rhule Fitterer and Reich. I'm going to wait to see how the rubber meets the road this upcoming season before I make any strong conclusions about anything in relation to the longevity under this franchise going forward.
×
×
  • Create New...