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!

     

We even messed up on tanking


RumHam
 Share

Recommended Posts

The goal of tanking is to get a QB, as long as they finish with a top 2 pick they’ve achieved that goal

the teams who do finish with a top 2 pick probably aren’t moving off that regardless of whatever draft capital you offer them

besides if you’re really desperate to outbid those guys will still have immense trade value come draft season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burns is still our best pass rusher and one of the leaders on Defense.

We need help at both LB and Edge. Not only is there no competent threat across from him there's literally no depth to spell him or wear out the o-line.

It's so weird how you guys think causing MORE roster problems will suddenly fix the roster problems we had but you know, again, post lost reactionary huddle takes are the funniest.

  • Pie 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trading Moore for a one was a nonstarter. He's arguably worth more than that now, especially with his relatively decent contract. The dead money wasn't worth just a first alone. If they had added a second, then yeah, but a first was basically nothing.

Not trading Burns was ill-advised in my opinion (bordering on crazy). But, Burns is still young, and will still have high value once mid-March rolls around. Hell, he added a sack today. 

Like I said in another thread, if we add a more complete DE and a more complete WR, we'll maximize Burns' and Moore's effectiveness and productivity.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These QB's some people want us to tank for sure don't look like Cam Newton or Andrew Luck types to me. And who the hell wants to sit there and have no fun while cheering on their team to lose so they can come here bitching about how bad their team is right after yet the entire time wanting them to lose anyhow. Seems like a toxic shitty way to do a fan experience but what the hell do I know anyhow I guess.......

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

Trading Moore for a one was a nonstarter. He's arguably worth more than that now, especially with his relatively decent contract. The dead money wasn't worth just a first alone. If they had added a second, then yeah, but a first was basically nothing.

Not trading Burns was ill-advised in my opinion (bordering on crazy). But, Burns is still young, and will still have high value once mid-March rolls around. Hell, he added a sack today. 

Like I said in another thread, if we add a more complete DE and a more complete WR, we'll maximize Burns' and Moore's effectiveness and productivity.

But, But, but we can have all those 1sts round draft picks and rebuild with unknowns.  Come On, Man

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, top dawg said:

Trading Moore for a one was a nonstarter. He's arguably worth more than that now, especially with his relatively decent contract. The dead money wasn't worth just a first alone. If they had added a second, then yeah, but a first was basically nothing.

Not trading Burns was ill-advised in my opinion (bordering on crazy). But, Burns is still young, and will still have high value once mid-March rolls around. Hell, he added a sack today. 

Like I said in another thread, if we add a more complete DE and a more complete WR, we'll maximize Burns' and Moore's effectiveness and productivity.

So to make Burns and Moore useful we need a real DE and a real #1 WR, gotcha.

So we are paying them like superstars to be complimentary pieces, sounds about right for the Panthers.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rags said:

Burns is still our best pass rusher and one of the leaders on Defense.

We need help at both LB and Edge. Not only is there no competent threat across from him there's literally no depth to spell him or wear out the o-line.

It's so weird how you guys think causing MORE roster problems will suddenly fix the roster problems we had but you know, again, post lost reactionary huddle takes are the funniest.

One of the few good posts here, most others appear alcohol-induced nonsensical blurbs....

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rags said:

Burns is still our best pass rusher and one of the leaders on Defense.

We need help at both LB and Edge. Not only is there no competent threat across from him there's literally no depth to spell him or wear out the o-line.

It's so weird how you guys think causing MORE roster problems will suddenly fix the roster problems we had but you know, again, post lost reactionary huddle takes are the funniest.

Explain what keeping burns has done for us?

We now have the right to give him a mega contract that he is not going to be worth. On a winning team Burns is only in on clear passing downs, he cannot stop the run, why is that so hard to see? 

He is only a pass rusher and he isnt even a top 5 guy at doing that. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CardiacCat said:

One of the few good posts here, most others appear alcohol-induced nonsensical blurbs....

You same guys will be wishing we had those first round picks in 2024/25 when we are paying burns 20m a year and he is still only getting 8-9 sacks and getting abused in the run game.

Edited by PootieNunu
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

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...