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!

     

Brian Burns has more sacks than any other player in NFL history under 25 years old


WarPanthers89
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Move the Panthers to Raleigh said:

Yeah, the obvious conflict of interest is there. Tepper should have demanded that trade be done

Tepper may have had a hand in preventing it, actually.  

Future assets (relative to present assets) aren't only worth less to GMs, they're worth less to the team as a whole, because they are delayed production and have an unknown value that is hard to plan around. With the Rams, we are more than likely talking mid to late round picks, too.

Now I still probably would have made the trade given the second this year, but I get the logic of not doing so, and I think there's more there than fitterer trying to save his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WarPanthers89 said:

Well….I don’t believe it would be easy to match his production and future potential with two low future first round picks. Let’s the debate begin. Props to Burns….he should only continue to get better and is tied for 7th most sacks in the league even with a horrible offense for the majority of the season.

82C13AE3-8985-4278-BD51-E84A51A0D8E2.jpeg

8CF32FB5-9A3A-4409-85FE-CAC7186D65FC.jpeg

CBB829DE-C3C1-4B91-AA01-636ED0BC7AE5.jpeg

That's a cherry picked stat. Cool but its meaningless. Burns has yet to take over a game like a true franchise player at the DE position. Solid player but I wouldn't call him a blue chip piece, he's capable of having good games but will go long stretches where he has absolutely no impact on the game we've literally witnessed it every year hes been in the league.

Look at derrick brown for instance. Every game he makes his presence felt/known other than maybe the Bengals game.

 

BTW Reggie White has the most sacks by a player through their first 4 seasons in the NFL at 70.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Burns doesn't get double teamed. Watch him play, I do. He's a jag who gets a sack or a pressure when it doesn't matter. He never shows up on money downs. Hanes did it twice in one game. 

Burns is overrated and if they pay him he will NEVER earn it.

I've said my piece. 

ur just straight up lying abt burns lol

u also know the 2nd sack was entirely because McGary set inside to try to help w/ Brown right

 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Yeah I agree which is why I followed up with my last post about durability being a point in Burns' favor.  But clearly the guy I was responding to was not going the "injury/durability" route; it was never mentioned once in any of his posts.  It was meant to be a 1:1 comparison of Bosa and Burns having the same production over the same time period ergo are similar in ability.

Imagine someone making the case that Christian McCaffrey and Myles Gaskin are the same caliber player because their rushing and receiving stats are roughly equivalent over the last 3 seasons.  And someone points out that Christian McCaffrey has barely even played over the last 3 seasons because of injury and then that person responds "yeah well durability is a part of it".  Like okay sure lol.

Health is a big factor and staying on the field makes a big difference. CMC has been downgraded by many folks due to injury concerns even though a few years ago he was recognized as the best running back in the league.  Bosa is a different DE than Burns and aren't really directly comparable other than general stats.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

Burns doesn't get double teamed. Watch him play, I do. He's a jag who gets a sack or a pressure when it doesn't matter. He never shows up on money downs. Hanes did it twice in one game. 

Burns is overrated and if they pay him he will NEVER earn it.

I've said my piece. 

Agree - Burns was being blocked by a friggin TE against Bengals at times.  He is not double teamed much at all 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WarPanthers89 said:

Well….I don’t believe it would be easy to match his production and future potential with two low future first round picks. Let’s the debate begin. Props to Burns….he should only continue to get better and is tied for 7th most sacks in the league even with a horrible offense for the majority of the season.

82C13AE3-8985-4278-BD51-E84A51A0D8E2.jpeg

8CF32FB5-9A3A-4409-85FE-CAC7186D65FC.jpeg

CBB829DE-C3C1-4B91-AA01-636ED0BC7AE5.jpeg

Kind of a worthless stat, since players enter the league at different ages.  Compare # sacks in the first 4 seasons, and Burns is way down the list 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, *FreeFua* said:

76DE6736-77F0-47BF-BBA2-55032647B9EC.jpeg.86e2375e619e1114ee54f8c399e68d13.jpeg

 

“two low future first round picks”

There’s a good chance those future firsts from the Rams are actually high picks. Plus once you factor in Burns contract and where we are in our quest for a QB… there’s just no way to justify not accepting the trade

Again, the only person it didn’t benefit was Scott Fitterer. Big picture wise you take the deal. However, Scott needs to cling onto whatever chance he has at putting together a competitive team next season to keep his job. Picks in 2024 and 2025 don’t help him. 

What’s in the best interest of Scott Fitterer doesn’t line up with what’s in the best interest for the Carolina Panthers 

I know I'm late but aside from Houston all of these teams actually have competent offenses or goat coaches.

Can you imagine if we get an a great rookie QB next season or Corral balls out but we get on defense and never are able to stop anyone cause yall armchair generals got rid of the only passrusher the other team had to gameplan around. They def don't run rollouts to Burns side.

Edited by thunderraiden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smithers said:

Kind of a worthless stat, since players enter the league at different ages.  Compare # sacks in the first 4 seasons, and Burns is way down the list 

Burns has only been a starter for 2 (now moving on to 3) seasons, in part because of his age. Over the last 2+ seasons, Burns is top ten in sacks, close to that in hits, and is the youngest player in that group (Bosa is close at 25 - the rest are 3+ years older than Burns). 

I do get the concern he hasn't taken over games, etc. And I think that he is a very good, but not yet an all pro DE. 

I'm going to play around with AV because I think the expected value of the trades was probably not actually worth Burns' production over the last couple years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jaxel said:

Every DE in the league does this best work under this scenario.

Without a doubt, but in Burns' case, it is doubly important. He doesn't have the mass to successfully take on doubles all game long. 

I still think he was picked to, and made for, playing as an OLB in a 3-4 defense. 

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

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...