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

12 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Not sure what you did to him but he’s a big fan of me!

He's just still salty about Matt Rhule getting canned. He had his receipts on everyone who said Matt Rhule wasn't the guy ready to make them eat crow and then...poof.

salt salting GIF

Season 3 Lol GIF by The Office

  • The D 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I meant post some articles from gms and coaches about how they value future picks because I am not seeing it your way.   The only reason imo is they are concerned about their job and not the future of the franchise

I'll look for it tonight or in the morning, been busy at work with a full network refit.  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2023 at 2:48 PM, 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.

What was the offer? 2 1st rounders or something like that?

 

So essentially one of those 1st rounders you'd have to use to REPLACE Burns and that's not a guarantee that you'll get someone equivalent to his talents or better. You're essentially working ass backwards this way. 

Say for arguments sake you do hit on another DE, but then that leaves the other 1st to try and hit on another position. You'd have to actually get another DE as well, because that's the problem with this D line, we don't have CONSISTANT pass rush, we need someone to book end Burns. 

 

That's why I'm okay with not trading him away. What I really wish is that we should have gotten a little more for CMC. At least another 3rd. You can use those mid round picks to either move up or supply the depth chart or hit on a starter in the 3rd. Replacing CMC is not hard, but having more capital to use for other areas would have been better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ivan The Awesome said:

What was the offer? 2 1st rounders or something like that?

 

So essentially one of those 1st rounders you'd have to use to REPLACE Burns and that's not a guarantee that you'll get someone equivalent to his talents or better. You're essentially working ass backwards this way. 

Say for arguments sake you do hit on another DE, but then that leaves the other 1st to try and hit on another position. You'd have to actually get another DE as well, because that's the problem with this D line, we don't have CONSISTANT pass rush, we need someone to book end Burns. 

 

That's why I'm okay with not trading him away. What I really wish is that we should have gotten a little more for CMC. At least another 3rd. You can use those mid round picks to either move up or supply the depth chart or hit on a starter in the 3rd. Replacing CMC is not hard, but having more capital to use for other areas would have been better. 

Once again, why can’t you replace Burns with the 25-30/yr you now have. Since you don’t have to overpay a one dimensional DE to be something he’s not? Would you rather have a Reddick/ Bozeman combo or a Burns/Eflien-type combo. Which is better for the team overall? 
 

   Not only is that part easy to choose, but now you have 3 premium picks on top of already improving the team. Starting with pick 37(or so) this year. Then two extra(and likely top half 1st rounders to trade for a QB or take two more quality players on rookie deals. That’s 5 quality players for not overpaying Burns. Explain how that is better for the team? 

   It’s is amazing how this fanbase falls in love with players. 
 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in favor of retaining Reddick but you could make the argument his numbers would be looking fairly different with only Derrick Brown on our line to help him out consistently. The Eagles are damn good due to the talent they have around him too. He was also vocal about his frustration with the team by the end of the 2021 season. He wanted to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PantherPhann89 said:

I don't recall seeing an offer for 2023

That’s on you. And the poster you agreed with who insinuated that people didn’t “understand” when they actually did. It’s been common knowledge and rehashed in numerous threads on here for two months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frankw said:

I was in favor of retaining Reddick but you could make the argument his numbers would be looking fairly different with only Derrick Brown on our line to help him out consistently. The Eagles are damn good due to the talent they have around him too. He was also vocal about his frustration with the team by the end of the 2021 season. He wanted to move on.

Reddick had 12.5 sacks in 2020 with ARI. Who were their talented players that were the reason for that? 
 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Toomers said:

Reddick had 12.5 sacks in 2020 with ARI. Who were their talented players that were the reason for that?   

Are you suggesting I'm saying Reddick isn't good on his own? Because that's not what I said. I said he can't do it all. That's why the Cardinals finished 8-8. The issue we keep coming back to is you remove one DE and replace him who are you putting opposite him? The goal is to win and make the playoffs not build for 2 or 3 years from now. And with that in mind back to Reddick. He wanted to win that's why he went to Philadelphia. If we had talked him into staying and proceeded to trade away Brian Burns that's a good way to make him disgruntled. You're kind of tying yourself in knots with your hypothetical scenarios tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, frankw said:

I was in favor of retaining Reddick but you could make the argument his numbers would be looking fairly different with only Derrick Brown on our line to help him out consistently. The Eagles are damn good due to the talent they have around him too. He was also vocal about his frustration with the team by the end of the 2021 season. He wanted to move on.

I think you are missing the point. It is super easy to replace Burns. You can easily draft an equivalent player in the end of the first round, it is essentially guaranteed. I’m myself shocked that more teams don’t draft his level of player in the end of the first round as they are available all the time. Or you can sign a FA really cheap to replace him, they are also readily available. This is super easy, yet few teams do it, it is really confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Martin said:

I think you are missing the point. It is super easy to replace Burns. You can easily draft an equivalent player in the end of the first round

Is it? If it's super easy to replace him why did a team that just won the Super Bowl offer us a haul everyone is still angry we declined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no offense but I shudder when people say anything is super easy with this team I've learned my lesson after many an offseason full of hope and optimism where we declared ourselves early winners for moves we've made which then evaporated into nothing. We can sit here all day making plans but there is no easy button with this team.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, frankw said:

Are you suggesting I'm saying Reddick isn't good on his own? Because that's not what I said. I said he can't do it all. That's why the Cardinals finished 8-8. The issue we keep coming back to is you remove one DE and replace him who are you putting opposite him? The goal is to win and make the playoffs not build for 2 or 3 years from now. And with that in mind back to Reddick. He wanted to win that's why he went to Philadelphia. If we had talked him into staying and proceeded to trade away Brian Burns that's a good way to make him disgruntled. You're kind of tying yourself in knots with your hypothetical scenarios tbh.

I’m saying you are downplaying his value with those statements. Which is what their intention was. Right? 
 

 You remove one DE(Burns) and there’s enough money to get a pass rush specialist like Reddick, Smith Judon…etc AND a solid 3 down DE on the other side. What are you putting over there with a 27M/yr Burns? Still the same hole to fill with less money and 3 less quality picks. 
 

  Would Reddick have stayed to play for his college coach who gave him the chance in 2021 that no one else would. Who knows? It’s irrelevant. There are many others that have signed similar deals in the last two seasons. Reddick is an example of a player similar to Burns. Except no one wants to pay him 25M for …..reasons. 

  The only hypothetical scenario tied in knots here is the “we should overpay him because” theory that somehow believes Burns should be paid like Bosa, Watt and Garrett. And turning down 3 quality picks is the price to pay him. 

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

    • If we pay Bryce like a franchise QB we're completely and utterly buttfuged.
    • 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...