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!

     

How good is Brian Burns 2022 campaign?


micnificent28
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

So 9 or 10 DEs with fewer sacks are better DEs. Just making sure. Regardless of where you put him and how many awful takes you have, I’d really be more apt to engage if you didn’t exclusively post about him after a loss. 

How about this

 

If the pff grade on Burns is greater then 60 from this game I will be banned for a week.  If its lower then 60 its you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

So 9 or 10 DEs with fewer sacks are better DEs. Just making sure. Regardless of where you put him and how many awful takes you have, I’d really be more apt to engage if you didn’t exclusively post about him after a loss. 

He's not great. He's a slightly above average player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

How about this

 

If the pff grade on Burns is greater then 60 from this game I will be banned for a week.  If its lower then 60 its you. 

What’s hilarious about all this is he’s not even my favorite player, I just think he’s hideously under-appreciated by fans such as yourself. 

When does your ban from last week start?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carl Spackler said:

Why should I, when I can just avoid this thread like you did?

How the fug have I avoided this thread when I am the one bumping it?  Are you fuging high or something?  I post weekly about burns play during the game?  He got abused in the first half against det and the defense made adjustments and he had a good half in the 2nd.  Its in my history feel free to go back and read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

How the fug have I avoided this thread when I am the one bumping it?  Are you fuging high or something?  I post weekly about burns play during the game?  He got abused in the first half against det and the defense made adjustments and he had a good half in the 2nd.  It’s in my history feel free to go back and read. 

I’m the high one? You’re the one who thinks Brian Burns, third among all DEs in sacks, is worse than a dozen players with inferior statistics. 

You jumped at the chance to bump this thread this week, but when Burns has a good game, it collects dust. You don’t get to bump threads after bad games and pretend they don’t exist after good ones, then question MY sanity 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carl Spackler said:

I’m the high one? You’re the one who thinks Brian Burns, third among all DEs in sacks, is worse than a dozen players with inferior statistics. 

You jumped at the chance to bump this thread this week, but when Burns has a good game, it collects dust. You don’t get to bump threads after bad games and pretend they don’t exist after good ones, then question MY sanity 😂

So do you want to accept my bet or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

peppers was in the dpoy voting in his 3rd season.  What in the holy fug is Carl talking about?

He also came here at age 37 to be a situational pass rusher and retire at home and gave us virtually the same production Burns gave us this year in his first contract year lmao

  • Pie 1
  • The D 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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...