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

    • In my view, the realistic expectation for this team to compete will start 2027.  At that time, I think we could be looking at the following (this is HIGHLY speculative):   QB:  You know, Bryce.  I am not a fan, but they don't ask me.  But there is reason for hope--and here it is.  Bryce will be entering his prime.  Since we are likely to pay him, there will be changes that I include throughout this exercise--I realistically speculate on what they are going to do with Bryce and then I realistically speculate on what means in terms of the cap and other positions. Bryce HAS IMPROVED.  The idea is that if you give him more weapons and protection, that will continue.  His career:   At this rate, if his growth continues, by 2027 we should expect nearly 30 TDs and about 12 Interceptions and a Rating of about 98.  His completion percentage should settle at 65-66% or so.  If that happens, you can win with it. The following stats demonstrate how the Panthers will be able to afford it (and re-sign Ickey) My guess is they will require about $60m per year. This is why rookies who can play are important.  It also helps us see the blueprint.  You may disagree, but this is the cruel realities of the salary cap. Robert Hunt:  Cut post June 1 and save $19m.  Who do you replace him with?  Ickey. Tershawn Wharton:  Cutting him saves nearly $15m.  We should all hope to see Aaron Hall (UDFA) make the roster and play well.  Regardless, this is a position we would likely have to address in the next draft. Trevin Moehrig:  Cutting Moehrig as the starting SS saves this team $16.5m.   Ransom will be on year 3 of a cheap rookie deal and should be more than ready to take the reins.  their styles are similar.  Furthermore, FS Wheatley (R, 4th round) will be starting. Taylor Moton:  So much depends on his knee, but I have an idea that he can play another 3 years.  extending him could save the team about $5m per year.  Cutting him outright would save the team about $21m. In the most drastic situation, we have to cut Moton and the other three players mentioned.   We would need (in all likelihood) a starting DT and RT.  It is possible that the DE would be addressed, but Wharton's production (so far) could be equaled by a rookie.  Look for a cut free agent and a 2027 draft pick here.  If you cut Moton, you save $21m, and that would be the only big hole to fill.  Having Ickey at RG gives you some depth at T, and Ickey could be the guy.  T could be pick in the 2027 draft (first round), fwiw.  It saves you $21m while costing you $5m, for example. We get younger, creating a core of Freeling, Hecht, and the RT first rounder in 2027) along with Ekownu (second contract in the $15m range, and Lewis, whose contract would be in the $16m range if not extended.)  The OL cuts (Hunt, Moton) would save $40m.  The OL would get younger and still solid with veterans at G.   By cutting Wharton (no brainer if his play stays the same) and Moehrig (good player--but we have Ransom on a rookie contract who would not be that much of a drop off--if any) in addition to Hunt and Moton, we would save over $70m in cap room. We would be able to give Bryce bag  and we would have enough to re-sign Ickey (if the knee is not too risky) to a Guard contract (probably at a discount, coming off that injury).  Furthermore, we could add a RT in the draft (or a RG if Ickey moves to RT) and that would be the only large hole to fill. Correct my logic if you see issues-- On defense, in addition to the aforementioned, Scott ($2m contract) is out, replaced by a 4th round rookie contract. CB Jackson's contract ($7.8m) expires and he is (possibly) replaced by a rookie contract.  At Edge, patrick Jones II's $10m contract expires and he is likely a reserve, and his role is absorbed by Phillips, Scourton, Princely, and possible an UDFA like Isaiah Smith or a 2027 draft pick.   These productive developmental players over the past 2 drafts will pay huge dividends.  On paper, I see the team getting much younger and possibly better while cutting nearly $100m and reallocating that money to get more production.          
    • If everything played out and that last thing happened, I probably just quit. 
×
×
  • Create New...