"We should have traded Burns" - a rebuttal

[BrianS]

In a vacuum we definitely should have traded Burns.  Those picks would go a long way.

But you can't make the trade.  The optics within the locker room and within the league just wouldn't work.  You can't trade away all your talent and hope that the picks you make work out.  Potential coaches see it, agents see it, players see it.

We're going to lose Burns.  No doubt.  We can't keep him, not for what he wants . . . unless we suddenly switch to a 3-4.  The guy is an OLB, not a DE.  We need a edge defender for whichever system we're running.  We currently have a 3-4 OLB who we keep trying to hide as a 4-3 DE.

[Ricky Spanish]

28 minutes ago, Toomers said:

That’s also many more snaps to accumulate sacks. Burns has 12.5 sacks in 951 snaps. Reddick has 16 sacks in 767 snaps. 
 

 Would you rather have 

Reddick type DE(which is what Burns is anyhow) at 15-17M/yr 

BOZEMAN at 8-10M/yr

OR

Burns 25M/year

 2M/yr FA C(that’s worse than Eflein)

Then on top you get 3 premium draft picks that look better every day. 
 

 

So Reddick is around 200 snaps fresher than Burns at this point in the season. 

Reddick doesn't play that much because the eagles don't need him to.

If we had anyone else to spell Burns, he wouldn't have to either. What could Burns do with fresher legs on a game by game basis?

I'll admit it is a hypothetical, but it is my main argument. Burns can't take plays off because we can't afford for him to take plays off. This would lead to less efficiency due to more energy exhuded throughout each game compared to his contemporaries. 

I remember it was one of the knocks against Short when he was drafted, that he took plays off. Turns out he was playing more snaps than most DT prospects that year, so he was getting tired. Low and behold, we get him in a solid DT rotation and he flourished. 

I'm saying do the same for Burns. Get another pass rusher, someone that can stay on the field some of the plays we take Burns off and vice versa. Would go a long way in improving our pass rush next year. 

[Ricky Spanish]

38 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

With what qb?

Well Brian Daboll did it with Daniel Jones so that wouldn't take much. 

A good coach could take current Darnold to the playoffs. Hell, Harbaugh did it with Alex Smith and Kaepernick. 

[Fright]

You trade Burns to draft a player to replace Burns who may not live up to the same skill and then you're out a difference making DE. He has good character and is a team guy, you just don't trade that away because you see draft capital. 

 

It's ok to pay players guys! Good teams keep core talent AND hit in the draft. We can do both.

[Toomers]

11 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

So Reddick is around 200 snaps fresher than Burns at this point in the season. 

Reddick doesn't play that much because the eagles don't need him to.

If we had anyone else to spell Burns, he wouldn't have to either. What could Burns do with fresher legs on a game by game basis?

I'll admit it is a hypothetical, but it is my main argument. Burns can't take plays off because we can't afford for him to take plays off. This would lead to less efficiency due to more energy exhuded throughout each game compared to his contemporaries. 

I remember it was one of the knocks against Short when he was drafted, that he took plays off. Turns out he was playing more snaps than most DT prospects that year, so he was getting tired. Low and behold, we get him in a solid DT rotation and he flourished. 

I'm saying do the same for Burns. Get another pass rusher, someone that can stay on the field some of the plays we take Burns off and vice versa. Would go a long way in improving our pass rush next year. 

So maybe it’s a better idea to invest in multiple DEs instead of paying 25-30M to the guy who needs help already. You give a DE that much and he supposed to make the player on the other side better. Get some actual 3 down DEs. 
 

  Then take those picks and trade up or for a QB without mortgaging the future. Or use them and build a complete team. How is keeping Burns and overpaying him a better option than 5 quality players( on rookie deals)

 

[Ricky Spanish]

10 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

So Reddick is around 200 snaps fresher than Burns at this point in the season. 

Reddick doesn't play that much because the eagles don't need him to.

If we had anyone else to spell Burns, he wouldn't have to either. What could Burns do with fresher legs on a game by game basis?

I'll admit it is a hypothetical, but it is my main argument. Burns can't take plays off because we can't afford for him to take plays off. This would lead to less efficiency due to more energy exhuded throughout each game compared to his contemporaries. 

I remember it was one of the knocks against Short when he was drafted, that he took plays off. Turns out he was playing more snaps than most DT prospects that year, so he was getting tired. Low and behold, we get him in a solid DT rotation and he flourished. 

I'm saying do the same for Burns. Get another pass rusher, someone that can stay on the field some of the plays we take Burns off and vice versa. Would go a long way in improving our pass rush next year. 

A follow up:

Teams with the most sacks:

Take away Reddick's 16 Sacks and the Eagles still lead the league. We as a team have 34 sacks. Burns accounts for 37% of our sacks. Reddick accounts for 24% of the Eagles'. 

Garret - 45%

Judon - 30%

Bosa - 43%

Parsons - 25%

Jones - 27%

The only players who account for a higher percentage of their team's sacks are Bosa and Garret, two of the top 3 best DEs in the game right now. 

So Burns is more important to our pass rush than most DEs in the league. 

[Brooklyn 3.0]

Burns doesn't win us games by himself. He's not Cam. Not trading him was a huge mistake. We were able to get by without CMC. We'd be able to get by without Burns.

[grateflday]

1 hour ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

I think we can get a better trade package this offseason 

Yep and more so on draft day.  Not that the Panthers are actively look to trade Burns but if there is a QB they really like,  including Burns as part of a trade package to move up is possible.  The same for Brown as well.  I do like how he improved this year and looked better but again could be part of a package to move up.  This all of course is contingent there is a QB they really like and need to move up to get him.  

[carpanfan96]

Most teams don't view future firsts as firsts. Trade chart or value wise was 2 second rounds and a 3rd or 3 seconds. 

 

Burns is double teamed a lot and still got 12.5 sacks. It's hard to find that production in the NFL. 

 

8 players in the NFL with 12+ sacks. Most are on stacked dline teams

[philit99]

1 hour 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. 

 

I agree but, I will have to go on record and state that it is time to go LB. Will Anderson, Jr if available would be a blessing. Otherwise, BPA.

[t96]

1 hour 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.

7th in the league in sacks isn't a great player? Gotta pay to keep talent, all the best teams do it too

[Cdparr7]

If we can free up 16 million in cap space and get two 1s for him this offseason, I’ll take back everything I’ve said about Fitterer being a scared pencil pusher for Matt.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

18 minutes ago, t96 said:

7th in the league in sacks isn't a great player? Gotta pay to keep talent, all the best teams do it too

27th in hurries, 31st in QB hits, 17th in pressures.

He's good. We've been hoping he'll take the step to greatness. You ready to pay him for greatness before it happens? Plenty of players tail off after the comfort of getting paid. 

Hindsight being 20/20, yeah I take those picks.

The main reason I defended turning them down is because I thought he was on the verge of taking that step. But then he was completely MIA vs. the Bucs in a game where we were highly competitive fighting for our playoff lives and Brady was lighting us up with deep routes that take time to develop. It's exactly these scenarios where elite pass rushers are supposed to shine and make the difference.

[PantherPhann89]

How would that have helped us this draft?