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 should have traded Burns" - a rebuttal


Ricky Spanish
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

I know a lot of people on here wanted us to trade away Burns for all those picks from the Rams. 

I'll admit, the offer was enticing, however I kept coming back to one question, "Who else do we have on this roster but Burns?"

The answer is no one really. That's why the offer from the Rams just wasn't good enough. If we were to trade Burns away, we need a first rounder NOW to help replace the huge void losing him would create. 

And the void would be huge. Sure, Burns leaves you wanting in terms of run defense, but I found something out about Burns compared to the other Sack Leaders around the NFL:

Burns Plays WAY MORE than EVERY OTHER Pass rusher ahead of him on the sack list:

Player Snap Percentage

Nick Bosa

76%

Haason Reddick

74%

Matt Judon

77%

Myles Garrett

78%

Micah Parsons

80%

Chris Jones

81%

Brian Burns

87%

And that's including the Cincy game where he only played 66% of the snaps because we pulled him when we were getting stomped so badly. Take that game out of the equation and he's playing 89% of all the defensive snaps this year. So yeah, if he looks like he's taking some plays off, he might be, dude is gassed. It's not a conditioning issue, he is the team's only consistent pass rusher, and if we lost him we'd be completely screwed. Losing him would set our defense back significantly in terms of generating pressure against the opposing QBs.

I know QB is at the top of our list in terms of need this offseason, but I'd argue #2 is finding more consistent pass rushers to aid the only good defensive end on our team this year. Even getting some average dudes in FA that can spell Burns would go a long way in helping him and our defense out. Letting him rest one more play out of 10 would do wonders for his efficiency. 

 

One huge flaw in your argument.   We are not winning NOW.  We are still a ways away from being competitive.   2 years minimum.   And that’s best case scenario 

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

8 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

I know a lot of people on here wanted us to trade away Burns for all those picks from the Rams. 

I'll admit, the offer was enticing, however I kept coming back to one question, "Who else do we have on this roster but Burns?"

The answer is no one really. That's why the offer from the Rams just wasn't good enough. If we were to trade Burns away, we need a first rounder NOW to help replace the huge void losing him would create. 

And the void would be huge. Sure, Burns leaves you wanting in terms of run defense, but I found something out about Burns compared to the other Sack Leaders around the NFL:

Burns Plays WAY MORE than EVERY OTHER Pass rusher ahead of him on the sack list:

Player Snap Percentage

Nick Bosa

76%

Haason Reddick

74%

Matt Judon

77%

Myles Garrett

78%

Micah Parsons

80%

Chris Jones

81%

Brian Burns

87%

And that's including the Cincy game where he only played 66% of the snaps because we pulled him when we were getting stomped so badly. Take that game out of the equation and he's playing 89% of all the defensive snaps this year. So yeah, if he looks like he's taking some plays off, he might be, dude is gassed. It's not a conditioning issue, he is the team's only consistent pass rusher, and if we lost him we'd be completely screwed. Losing him would set our defense back significantly in terms of generating pressure against the opposing QBs.

I know QB is at the top of our list in terms of need this offseason, but I'd argue #2 is finding more consistent pass rushers to aid the only good defensive end on our team this year. Even getting some average dudes in FA that can spell Burns would go a long way in helping him and our defense out. Letting him rest one more play out of 10 would do wonders for his efficiency. 

 

With $25-30m you can atleat replace a large part of his production,  The draft picks are just bonus.

Or you use the $30m to help other positions and spend the draft picks on rushers. 

 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were a year or two away from being super bowl threats, I could buy your argument. Unfortunately, we are probably several years away from that. By that point, if we have burns, I'm sure we will be trying to find a way to shed his cap hit...

Let's be honest... Outside of good qbs and the truly elite non-qb players, there aren't many players that I would not take two first rounders and a second round for.

It was a really bad mistake to not take that offer. We are way closer to the Texans skill level than the bills, Chiefs, Bengals, etc. Skill level.

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I defended turning the offer down at the time but honestly it was a great offer for a good player who we're gonna have to pay like a great player in a re-signing.

Yeah... we should've taken the offer.

Would have helped our Tank, that's for sure. 

We'd have no one to replace him with though, and that would set us back a few years in terms of a creating a solid pass rush. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real reason to not trade Burns for that package is because it would have looked awful in regards to Wilks being able to have a legitimate year. CMC and RA all made sense and were great moves. Trading Burns would have looked bad. 

We can still trade him. Whatever but if he signs a giant new deal then expectations change real fast. 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

Would have helped our Tank, that's for sure. 

We'd have no one to replace him with though, and that would set us back a few years in terms of a creating a solid pass rush. 

Are the Panthers not allowed to buy 15-17M/yr DEs like so many teams have the last two years. 
 

Reddick

C. Jones

z. Smith

Hendrickson

Hunter

Judon

Nwosu

With 25-30M and 3 picks you can pick anyone and still have leftover money and draft capital 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 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

    • Yeah, Darnold is basically a really high level game manager. Put him on a good team where he isn't required to provide lift and he can shine. But when you need him to do the franchise QB thing and put the team in his back here comes the INTs. He just doesn't seem to have any positions on his dial between "super conservative take whatever's there and take care of the ball" and "YOLO!!! There's a receiver down there somewhere in that sea of defenders!"
    • See, it's posts like this that show me how many of you are taking my post as an anti Dowdle post and saying he didn't have a good game, but that's the furthest thing from my intention and what I'm trying to say. Because that's the comparison you're making with Bryce, it's adding or removing a small handful of plays from their stats and saying "this is the game they could have had instead" I'm literally only talking about the play calling from the game, it's literally in the title of the thread, that we still have play calling problems. I'm saying that people are going to get stuck on the 200 yard rushing game by a player and extrapolate that to "well Canales must have called a good game" and I'm trying to say not to fall for that mirage. Because 6 big runs do not make for a well called game when we had over 60 snaps. Even beyond that, if you add in the two 20+ yard catches from T-Mac and the one XL had, and you're looking at 9 of over 60 snaps that accounted for close to 60% of our yards in the game. That's a few big plays covering up for coaching deficiencies, that's NOT a well called 60 minutes of football. Had he had the 200 yards because Canales' play calling was keeping the defense on their heels, not knowing what we were doing next, and Dowdle was ripping of 8-12 yard runs on a consistent basis, then yea, that would be something to be excited about with Canales finally calling a good game for a change. Our offense is predictable and the play design is basic, there is nothing I've seen out of Canales' offense that says he's able to scheme and call plays to outsmart the defense, which is something all the elite offensive coaches are able to do in this day and age.
    • Dante Moore is the top pick in a couple of mock drafts now. 
×
×
  • Create New...