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

Wundrbread33 Grand Master

Wundrbread33

Posted
Posted

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
Basbear Grand Master

Basbear

Posted
Posted (edited)
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
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
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
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
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
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted
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
TheMostInterestingMan Mentor

TheMostInterestingMan

Posted
Posted
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
glenwo2 Grand Master

glenwo2

Posted
Posted
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
ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • ForJimmy
      Media touting tonight as The Shedaur Show

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      I think he did a solid job.  Honestly I liked his post game interview the best.  He gave himself a C and said he left a lot out on the field.  That kind of attitude can carry him far.
    • kungfoodude
      Coach asked about Coker!!

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      This is lacking a fairly considerable amount of context. For one, Adams(age 22) started 12 of 16 games, had 38 rec, 446 yds and 3 TD's on 66 targets(18 less, with 2 less games started). The main thing missing here is that the top two WR's for Green Bay that year combined for about 2800 yds and 25 TD's. Now if you want to throw a more accurate dart at Adams, take a look at year two. This year the production was spread around considerably and Adams didn't stand out from that pack(pun not intended).  So, if XL struggles mightily this season, I would probably keep that comparison in your quiver to counter argue. I would suggest that I don't think that scenario is probably very accurate for most HOF caliber WR's taken in the first round over the past 15 or so years. Adams was the 89th pick overall, as well. A little different hill to climb than XL, although not massively.
    • CRA
      Monday practice tweets

      By CRA · Posted

      to clarify I am not referring to Will Levis.  Not knowingly.   I just made that up and tried to use a reasonable guesstimate of what else was done.  That sounded in the ballpark.  At one time I did look it all up and there were several teams that had much more successful days downfield.   If that happened to be Levis' actual numbers than it's more of a lucky coincidence.  If memory serves, it wasn't just Will Levis that brought the claim into question, it was SEVERAL teams had better days.  and you are missing my entire point of the subjective nature of it all.  If PFF employee Doug watched Bryce's film and then used his same unique subjective vantage point to grade all 31 other starting QBs.  Then dumped into into a spread sheet, it would a subjective Doug take but at least it would be a level uniform subjectivity.   The grades are done by various people.  All watching and applying their own subjective view to a play.  Everyone isn't going to grade incompletions out the same.  Or completions.   So when you dump it all into a spread sheet and hit sort.....it's not actually a statement of fact as portrayed.  Which is why you sometimes get some head scratching stuff.  I'm not reframing anything.   I don't think.  I just wasn't going to look it all back up so I was talking vaguely off the general issue I have with PFF and treating any random claim they make as the truth. 
×
×
  • Create New...