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

13 minutes ago, frankw said:

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?

Absolute desperation. His salary and position made him a target and their window was slamming shut. A coach who’s ready to bail out. Donald thinking about retirement. Stafford hurt. OL got bad fast. McVay was looking for one last ride. 

  Yet the Panthers couldn’t accept the gift and had to turn down a winning lottery ticket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Toomers said:

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. 

I said his numbers would look different with less help and they would how much is where the debate begins and ends. Even if we did sign Reddick early in the year I would have to look back at our cap space to see how that works out you still have to convince him of your plan after you pull the rug out from under him by trading away Burns mid season. And why are you worried about what you perceive to be downplaying Reddick when the entire basis of your position on this rests on the fact you think Burns is average at best? Again. Knots. I'm perplexed why a Steelers fan is even posted up here wasting keystrokes on Brian Burns. Shouldn't you be somewhere hyping Kenny Pickett? Thanks for the banter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, frankw said:

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?

I was trying to be super sarcastic in my post. In real life it is very hard to replace him.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, frankw said:

I said his numbers would look different with less help and they would how much is where the debate begins and ends. Even if we did sign Reddick early in the year I would have to look back at our cap space to see how that works out you still have to convince him of your plan after you pull the rug out from under him by trading away Burns mid season. And why are you worried about what you perceive to be downplaying Reddick when the entire basis of your position on this rests on the fact you think Burns is average at best? Again. Knots. I'm perplexed why a Steelers fan is even posted up here wasting keystrokes on Brian Burns. Shouldn't you be somewhere hyping Kenny Pickett? Thanks for the banter.

There it is. Like clockwork. Any dissenting opinion brings the “why are you here” whining. 
 

And who said Burns is average. Saying he deserves 16-18M/yr instead of 25M doesn’t scream average. It’s just where he fits with other top pass rush specialists. No one I’ve compared Burns to is average. And as I stated, Reddick is an EXAMPLE. There are many others who have signed similar deals to what Burns should get. 
 

  Now stop deflecting and tell me why overpaying Burns is better than 25-30M/yr and two 1sts and 37th pick this year. Those Steelers found a replacement for Bud Dupree pretty quick with the 102nd pick. And he’s better than Burns already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this- Burns has 12.5 sacks in 951 snaps.

reddick has been mentioned, what about a player on the panthers roster right now?

Marquis Haynes has 5 sacks in 432 snaps.

So bad mathz, if haynes was given Burns snaps he'd have at least 11+ sacks....... 

Quote

Marquis Haynes signed a 2 year, $5,500,000 contract 

Both haynes and burns have nearly the same success against the run. 

Feels like there are plenty of options that show better value than what Burns will get......*still unknown*

Edited by Basbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Toomers said:

There it is. Like clockwork. Any dissenting opinion brings the “why are you here” whining. 
 

And who said Burns is average. Saying he deserves 16-18M/yr instead of 25M doesn’t scream average. It’s just where he fits with other top pass rush specialists. No one I’ve compared Burns to is average. And as I stated, Reddick is an EXAMPLE. There are many others who have signed similar deals to what Burns should get. 
 

  Now stop deflecting and tell me why overpaying Burns is better than 25-30M/yr and two 1sts and 37th pick this year. Those Steelers found a replacement for Bud Dupree pretty quick with the 102nd pick. And he’s better than Burns already. 

Oh cmon. If I were on the Steelers boards telling them their business about their players surely someone would ask me the same thing. I'm not in favor of overpaying Burns I'm in favor of applying perspective in that his value remains high and there will still be options down the line if we deem his contractual demands beyond our comfort zone. We always have options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, frankw said:

Oh cmon. If I were on the Steelers boards telling them their business about their players surely someone would ask me the same thing. I'm not in favor of overpaying Burns I'm in favor of applying perspective in that his value remains high and there will still be options down the line if we deem his contractual demands beyond our comfort zone. We always have options.

Maybe someone would. Wouldn’t be me. I’ve been here 4X as long as you and have predicted so many things about the Panthers, correctly, it’s almost scary. The evidence is all on here. Most from a time you didn’t exist. 
 

So you think that they will get a similar offer for Burns again. That is not happening. He’s a 16M DE now. Not a 4M one. Who is going to have to be signed to a huge extension. That extra first and second are gone. Best they will get is a first, and even that’s debatable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 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

The videos are from draft videos after drafts and not much time to go hunting for them right now. However we can use draft trades from multiple teams last draft. 

 

Panthers

137 to 94 (value difference is 86.5 points) 

4th round value difference for future 3rd pick. 

 

Colts

179 to 96th (value difference is 96.5 points) 

Top of the 4th round value for future 3rd

 

Vikings

156th to 118 (value difference is 29 points)

Late 5th value for future 4th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

The videos are from draft videos after drafts and not much time to go hunting for them right now. However we can use draft trades from multiple teams last draft. 

 

Panthers

137 to 94 (value difference is 86.5 points) 

4th round value difference for future 3rd pick. 

 

Colts

179 to 96th (value difference is 96.5 points) 

Top of the 4th round value for future 3rd

 

Vikings

156th to 118 (value difference is 29 points)

Late 5th value for future 4th. 

so if thats the case why dont we see the reverse in trading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Maybe someone would. Wouldn’t be me. I’ve been here 4X as long as you and have predicted so many things about the Panthers, correctly, it’s almost scary. The evidence is all on here. Most from a time you didn’t exist. 
 

So you think that they will get a similar offer for Burns again. That is not happening. He’s a 16M DE now. Not a 4M one. Who is going to have to be signed to a huge extension. That extra first and second are gone. Best they will get is a first, and even that’s debatable. 

Congratulations on your many very big achievements here sir I should never have questioned your status. Back to Burns. If the Rams had a first in this years draft and that was included in the offer then Scott Fitterer probably pulls the trigger. That's what this always circles back to. What is the value on a first round pick one year two years or three years from now? Seems to be anything but settled opinion.

  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, frankw said:

Congratulations on your many very big achievements here sir I should never have questioned your status. Back to Burns. If the Rams had a first in this years draft and that was included in the offer then Scott Fitterer probably pulls the trigger. That's what this always circles back to. What is the value on a first round pick one year two years or three years from now? Seems to be anything but settled opinion.

The value on a first round pick 2 or 3 years from now is a first round pick to a franchise, its probably not worth that much to a gm on the hotseat.  Thats where the disconnect is

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

    • It all sounds great. The only unknowns are injuries and how they will need to be addressed. Horn has a history as does the newly added Jaelen Phillips and Cooker has yet to play an entire season as well. And then there are the Ikey's - totally unexpecteded injuries that put a major wrench in your plans. I do think its a great plan though.
    • 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.          
×
×
  • Create New...