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!

     

Dolphins extend Chubb


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Burns is 24.  If you think about it, most of our DEs (Hardy, Johnson, Rucker) were STs until the third year.  Peppers was the exception. 

Burns is about to explode as a pass rusher, and he will be good until he is 34.  DEs like him are hard to find.  You have to pay the man.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

They didn't offer two 1sts for a one year rental. They would've extended Burns. There's always going to be a highest offer in any trade situation. Did you expect someone to offer more than two 1sts?

That’s there choice. But it doesn’t make him more valuable. They have to give him a chunk of guaranteed money they don’t have. 
 

  Do you expect to receive a similar offer this off-season? That’s the question. If the desperate, win now Rams offered what people are saying is equivalent to a 2nd and a 3rd in 2023, with a half season at almost free, what are the offers to pay him going to be then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've taken the picks, but I don't necessarily think that Burns loses value or gains value because we didn't. He's still a premier rusher and really young to boot. He hasn't really even hit his prime yet. 

Just like I saw people way undervaluing him before the deadline (talking about a trading him for a third), there seem to be people undervaluing him now. He's very young, talented and proven. We'll pay him, or there will be suitors waiting to give us those two ones or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Huh? Chubb’s deal is $24M per year and Kirk’s was $18M per year. Burns has better stats than Chubb, so he’s going to be in the $25-30M range.

Kirk got $30 a year I thought. That’s what I heard at the time and blew my mind

Edited by JawnyBlaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toomers said:

That’s there choice. But it doesn’t make him more valuable. They have to give him a chunk of guaranteed money they don’t have. 
 

  Do you expect to receive a similar offer this off-season? That’s the question. If the desperate, win now Rams offered what people are saying is equivalent to a 2nd and a 3rd in 2023, with a half season at almost free, what are the offers to pay him going to be then? 

Yeah, his value isn't going to go down. He's still a young pass rusher with top tier talent. If we need to trade whim we're not going to have any issues getting excellent return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Hill is the highest paid WR and his deal is $30M. Not sure where you are getting your numbers. Kirk is the 18th highest paid WR at $18M per year. To be frank, Hill is more of a game changer than Burns and it might not really be close.

I dunno if my memory is just off but I remember Hill getting $35mil a year and Kirk getting $30, and Adam’s getting just under Hill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea looks like my memory was just off. Kirk got 4 years up to $84mil, Adams got 5 years 141.25mil and Hill got 4 years 120. Point holds though. If Kirk got $21mil a year, a top DE contract should blow a mid tier WR’s contract out of the water. Hill is more of a game changer, sure, but WR isn’t a more important position than DE and Burns is going to get upper tier DE money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Seeing as how Reddick produces almost the same stats for only $15M, we are out two firsts and an extra $10-15M a year. I still would have rather had Reddick, Corbett and 2 firsts than Burns because with the new contract that’s exactly what it will be. If the Rams tail off like I expect, ooh wee. Still like Burns but that’s a haul. People seemed so into the firsts without realizing how much Burns will cost and that that $25-30M would have given us his replacement/two very solid starters and the two firsts are the cherry on top.

Its like we fleeced ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnwell on Burns:

Quote

 

On that level, this deal is simple. The Rams need an edge rusher. They have first-round picks. The Panthers need first-round picks, especially after trading draft capital away to acquire Sam Darnold and Baker Mayfield. Most non-quarterbacks aren't worth two first-round picks, and -- with the 2019 Ramsey deal as a notable exception -- most teams that trade away a star for multiple first-rounders typically come away winning the deal. Easy enough, right?

Not really. To start, the Rams don't have their 2023 first-rounder, which is going to the Lions as part of the Matthew Stafford deal. The Panthers would be accepting first-rounders in 2024 and 2025 for Burns, making those picks less valuable in the eyes of some NFL front offices. A 2025 pick from the Rams might be incredibly valuable if Sean McVay and Aaron Donald are retired, but in the case of Carolina general manager Scott Fitterer, trading Burns for a pick still three years away might ensure that someone else is the one actually making that selection.

On top of that, Burns is only 24 years old. He's still two years away from free agency. Even if the Panthers take three years to get back into playoff contention, he should still be in the prime of his career. We've seen teams such as the Eagles and Giants turn their fate around quicker than it might have seemed after they fired their coaches in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The Panthers might feel like they can contend in a disintegrating NFC South as early as next season if they land the right quarterback and/or right coach this offseason, which would make trading Burns for 2024 and 2025 picks illogical.

 

 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...