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

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.

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

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. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Pie 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

 

  • Pie 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

image.thumb.png.0387c02e9b766158dd4ca0b45a88d593.png

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. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Pie 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...