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

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

AU-panther Mentor

AU-panther

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Sack numbers aren’t everything though. Reddick is only comparable to Burns in that one category, plus Burns is younger. Reddick will need to be replaced again in a couple years probably while Burns will be locked up and productive for longer. Just my opinion, and I liked Reddick, but he had less of an impact despite having a couple more sacks. 

Here again fans are looking at this in a vacuum.  Reddick doesn't have to be as good for the trade to be worthwhile.  Maybe Reddick is 90% the player, you still have $15m to improve another position. Maybe you greatly improve another position.  Maybe one of those 2 picks greatly improves another position.

Look at it this way, imagine all players on a scale of 1-10.  Let's say an average player is a 5 and Burns is a 10.

Keep Burns who you consider a 10 and that forces you to keep a WR who is a 5 and a LB who is a 5.

Trade Burns and sign someone like Reddick who might be an 8, use the cap savings to improve the WR to an 8, and maybe just one of those 2 1st rounders improves that LB position to an 8.

All the numbers are arbitrary, but my point stands, the decision to keep or trade Burns isn't as simple as one position getting better or worse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Burns isn’t a liability against the run at all. He’s actually quite good against the run despite the rhetoric parroted on here. 30-45 is an extreme exaggeration, and the first rounders in question are 2 and 3 years down the road.  If we had gotten offered two real first round picks (this year) then the deal probably would have had a chance.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush though, we couldn’t necessarily replace either with a first because that first could easily be a bust whereas Burns is a proven young commodity.

At all huh? Yep, we’re done here. 
 

And Reddick(or similar player) 3/45M

Burns 5/125M 

  That’s 30M for the first 3years. If they don’t pay him more. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AU-panther Mentor

AU-panther

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Burns isn’t a liability against the run at all. He’s actually quite good against the run despite the rhetoric parroted on here. 30-45 is an extreme exaggeration, and the first rounders in question are 2 and 3 years down the road.  If we had gotten offered two real first round picks (this year) then the deal probably would have had a chance.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush though, we couldn’t necessarily replace either with a first because that first could easily be a bust whereas Burns is a proven young commodity.

Based on what?  Where do you rank Burns against the run vs all other edges?  How does he compare against Reddick? Against the pass? Against the rush?

 

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

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Better than Robby’s $15M this year for maybe 400 yards! WTF were we thinking there. Kirk’s deal is rich but he’s already down to the 18th highest paid receiver. With all the young WR talent out there recently, he’ll be near the bottom WR1/top WR2 salaries in year 3. Crazy. Burns will make a bit more than Chubb. I’d put his floor at $26M now after Chubb.

Also, Chubb is 2 years older (30/31 in years 4-5), so I could see us pay extra since we could potentially do a 6 year extension to save cap now because he’d be 30 in year 6.

Oh absolutely, Robbie was a worse value than Kirk or any of these other new contracts, but it was also a lower investment. Kirk to me was worse because it was a bigger commitment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CarolinaNCSU Proficient

CarolinaNCSU

Posted
Posted

I get both sides of this (should've traded & not), but with Burns seemingly growing into a leader we NEED on defense, I also don't love trading him. Defense has a potentially elite young core and he's hopefully the leader for years to come. 

I'd love the cap savings & draft picks, but you're also hitting the reset button on some of the (possibly) overrated intangibles & locker room influence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t96 Grand Master

t96

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, stbugs said:

Goff was the #1 pick in the draft. He didn’t turn out great but McVay didn’t make it rain with some late pick. Eagles have the same production from Reddick at half the cost. There was no way we’d get those picks.

Even Barnwell said it best, “some” teams value future firsts less. As a team that’s 17-40 the past 4 years including 2-6 now, we shouldn’t be in the “some” teams.

It’s over but I think it was a lost opportunity.

Goff was going the way of Baker/Darnold and other busts before McVay got there, I could easily see McV doing the same with guys like that (who will be available) as he did with Goff. Eagles were rumored to have interest and it's been stated we wanted at least 2 first round picks. Couldn't get a deal done and we just kept him, which was our intention anyways. They needed someone opposite Reddick, wound up getting Quinn instead. I disagree it was a missed opportunity, it was us sticking to our guns on value which is the right call. There was no need to rush into tearing it all down right now, he can still be traded next year too.

 

Every single team values future firsts less, every draft pick value chart accounts for this. How many times have we seen teams add a pick on draft day by trading a future higher pick? If it being in the future didn't decrease the value those would be like future 3rd for current 3rd rather than future 2nd for current 3rd.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luciu5 Veteran

Luciu5

Posted
Posted

Draft picks value decrease as well. Essentially the Rams offered us a 2nd and a 3rd. And depending on where that team is....in the future....those picks could be a late 2nd and late 3rd. Would have been moronic to take those "1st's". The coach after our next coach would have loved to have them I guess.

  • Pie 1
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      An Offensive Tackle for the Long Term, but....

      By TD alt · Posted

      First, apologies @MHS831, I know you began this about tackles, and it was good. But... Frank, your post is just another Bryce sucks post. You obviously believe, like your buddy, that if we draft a WR it's all about evaluating Bryce Young or coddling Bryce Young. In short, it would be about improving the damned team. If anything, if Bryce is as destined to fail (or is already a failure right now... irredeemable), then another playmaker at WR would just seal the envelope and send him on his way. In my world, that's a good thing.  If some of you think that Bryce is a lame duck, then why wouldn't you want to set the offense up for the next QB to come in and be dropped into the offense to have success? Or, maybe you think it's all a moot point anyway because Tepper sucks, Dan Morgan sucks, Canales sucks, Ejiro sucks, Brandt Tilis sucks---everybidy sucks! If that's the case, then why does anyone care who or what we draft? Obviously some of you have all the answers and can run a gotdamn franchise better than the FO does now.
    • Swaggasaurus
      An Offensive Tackle for the Long Term, but....

      By Swaggasaurus · Posted

      Yeah man, idk. I’m not super big on looking at the position group overall and damning the group. I’ll do the same with less words for WR. I think Proctor is the ultimate fit because he could be your future left or right tackle or left or right guard. Guys a starter, how much Zavala, Christensen, Curhan, and Corbett did we see last year again? Mauigoa will not be there when we pick, but you take him for the same reason you take Proctor minus maybe the LT. Freeling *could* be an upgrade at LT for the future. You don’t take Miller or Iheanahor because the position flexibility isn’t there, likely RT only guys. Those Utah guys are light in the ass, don’t want. Now I do WR. All extremely unproductive when compared to previous Round 1 WR. Tate- Gone Lemon- Complete player, not a burner, would take at 19 Tyson- Made of glass, Colorado washout  Cooper- Not the best hands. Like 300 of his yards were lucky ass stumble blooper looking poo. Bernard gives you similar but better in the 2nd. KC- Slaps then catches the ball. Lightning fast for about 20 yards. Good return man. poo QBs probably more to unlock. Would take at 19 if Proctor, Freeling, Lemon were gone. Washington guy- Lumbers, the smoothness Canales hyped for TMac, not there with him. We need a different style player.    
    • frankw
      2026 Charlotte Hornets

      By frankw · Posted

      Logically yes. Boston has the right balance though. Jalen Brown is #2 in the paint and their best shooters are 17th and 19th. While our best shooters are #1 and #2 and we have one player in the top 50 for points in the paint. And my understanding looking at the information I just referenced is we were basically at the exact same paint percentage last year in Charles Lee's offense. At the end of the day we either want to compete for a playoff series winner and the finals or we just want to stumble our way to another play in. We've already done that with James Borrego.
×
×
  • Create New...