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

By Ricky Spanish,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
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.

Considering you can replace Burns AND improve another position with just the money you would overpay Burns, the picks are bonus. A big bonus. And what’s the difference when they are as far as the team is concerned. First rounders will have value until they are used. If you’re trading up for a QB, those future firsts have way more value than a 2nd or 3rd this year. And pick 37 is about as close to a first as you will get. 
 

   What’s your next deflection point? This is fun. 
 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpanfan96 Grand Master

carpanfan96

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Considering you can replace Burns AND improve another position with just the money you would overpay Burns, the picks are bonus. A big bonus. And what’s the difference when they are as far as the team is concerned. First rounders will have value until they are used. If you’re trading up for a QB, those future firsts have way more value than a 2nd or 3rd this year. And pick 37 is about as close to a first as you will get. 
 

   What’s your next deflection point? This is fun. 
 

   

I get the value of the trade in a rebuild but to think 12+ sacks is just replaceable so easy is actually quite crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpanfan96 Grand Master

carpanfan96

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

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

If your talking normal trading it's because of what I mentioned earlier. 

 

A future pick's point slot isn't guaranteed, it's 1-32 possibilities. A player to player trade or a trade within the same draft has a defined value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

I get the value of the trade in a rebuild but to think 12+ sacks is just replaceable so easy is actually quite crazy. 

Why? Josh Uche has 11.5 sacks in 350 snaps. Justin Houston(3.5M) has 9 in 387 snaps. Plenty more. And I can almost guarantee they would play the run as well or better than Burns. Sacks are overrated. The 2019 defense was beyond horrible and they were 2nd in the league in Sacks. 
 

Crazy is turning down all that draft capital for the privilege of paying a player well over what he’s worth. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

If your talking normal trading it's because of what I mentioned earlier. 

 

A future pick's point slot isn't guaranteed, it's 1-32 possibilities. A player to player trade or a trade within the same draft has a defined value.

So value wise, every team should trade its future 1sts for 2nd round picks in the current draft? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpanfan96 Grand Master

carpanfan96

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Why? Josh Uche has 11.5 sacks in 350 snaps. Justin Houston(3.5M) has 9 in 387 snaps. Plenty more. And I can almost guarantee they would play the run as well or better than Burns. Sacks are overrated. The 2019 defense was beyond horrible and they were 2nd in the league in Sacks. 
 

Crazy is turning down all that draft capital for the privilege of paying a player well over what he’s worth. 

It's not just about sacks. 

 

He's 4th in pressures since drafted. He's 12 in defensive stops this season. Top ten in sacks as well to be a kicker. He's a top ten dline player.  Yeeesh

Edited by carpanfan96
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Navy_football Grand Master

Navy_football

Posted
Posted

The Panthers don't have a player worth two 1st rounders and a 2nd. The Rams gave them an offer they couldn't refuse - and they did. Burns has too many limitations and can be made a liability if properly game planned against. I'd much rather have a Charles Johnson and Greg Hardy DE lineup than Burns and some JAG. Just solid and consistent play from both sides. Against the run and the pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Considering you can replace Burns AND improve another position with just the money you would overpay Burns, the picks are bonus. A big bonus. And what’s the difference when they are as far as the team is concerned. First rounders will have value until they are used. If you’re trading up for a QB, those future firsts have way more value than a 2nd or 3rd this year. And pick 37 is about as close to a first as you will get. 
 

   What’s your next deflection point? This is fun. 

Trading Burns is a rebuild move and you are not going to get Reddick or any other premium FA pass rusher to commit unless you overpay. For many free agents playing for a contender is also a part of their decision making process. Yeah you still have guys who will take a payday on a bottom dweller but pass rushers have more choices given the need around the league. They aren't going to be in a hurry to hitch their wagon to the rebuilding Panthers. You keep saying pick 37 like that's such a big bargaining chip. If you want to move up for a QB firsts are all that matters. But if you're the general manager of a team needing a young promising QB on a rookie contract are you going to pass up staying put and taking the quarterback you're targeting for the 37th pick or a 1st two years from now knowing your job is on the line right now? Scott Fitterer is not the only NFL GM without the benefit of time to waste. Everyone wants to win now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

It's not just about sacks. 

 

He's 4th in pressures since drafted. He's 12 in defensive stops this season. Top ten in sacks as well to be a kicker. He's a top ten dline player.  Yeeesh

He a top ten what? DL? How can someone who is a liability on 40% of his snaps be a top 10 DL? He’s nowhere close. Even if it’s just Edge players he’s not. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpanfan96 Grand Master

carpanfan96

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Toomers said:

He a top ten what? DL? How can someone who is a liability on 40% of his snaps be a top 10 DL? He’s nowhere close. Even if it’s just Edge players he’s not. 

Not just my rating, this is from nfl executives. he's a Top 10 edge rusher and one of the best young players in the NFL. He ranked top 25 of young defensive players and I've already linked multiple articles in this thread showing this. 

Edited by carpanfan96
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toomers Mentor

Toomers

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

Didn't say that, said that's how the valuation works out and give proof of said valuation. 

 No. You gave mid round examples. Do you feel those are similar to trading 2–3 1sts for a QB. In the draft. You believe a team would rather have a 2nd and a 3rd this year over a first in 24 and 25? Thinking like that is how you wind up with Everette Brown. 1st round talent will still be superior a majority of the time whenever and however the picks used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Navy_football Grand Master

Navy_football

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Toomers said:

He a top ten what? DL? How can someone who is a liability on 40% of his snaps be a top 10 DL? He’s nowhere close. Even if it’s just Edge players he’s not. 

Burns is not a top 10 DL. Heck Washington has 3 or 4 I'd put above him. Even with his sack advantage. There's more to playing the position. He can't set the edge. He opens run lanes and gets out of position even when pass rushing. And he misses tackles at the WORST possible times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpanfan96 Grand Master

carpanfan96

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Toomers said:

 No. You gave mid round examples. Do you feel those are similar to trading 2–3 1sts for a QB. In the draft. You believe a team would rather have a 2nd and a 3rd this year over a first in 24 and 25? Thinking like that is how you wind up with Everette Brown. 1st round talent will still be superior a majority of the time whenever and however the picks used. 

Go back to the 2021 draft. 

 

 

 

Eagles move up from 12th to 6th. 

 

Difference in value of the picks in 2021 was 379 points. A 2nd round value.  

 

Eagles gave up a 22 1st round pick.  

 

There ya go. 

 

It's the same for every single team,  it's how the draft works

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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Panthera onca
      Nice to win, but Tim Weaver of SI has key duds among the studs

      By Panthera onca · Posted

      It is hard to win in the NFL. I’m never going to put an * next to a Dub.
    • TheSpecialJuan
      The Dowdle Mirage - Play Calling Problems

      By TheSpecialJuan · Posted

      We had a very favorable matchup our o-line manhandles theirs. Even Etienne looked like he would have had a great game on his limited rushing opportunities. 
    • tukafan21
      The Dowdle Mirage - Play Calling Problems

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I think that's part of the problem, he's spreading the ball around too much, many of them are the first read play calls, and on top of that, a large portion of them are purposefully called screens or other short passes. I just looked, the Cardinals are the only other team in the league right now without at least 3 players with 100+ yards receiving so far this year, with the majority of teams having 4 or more.  And even then, their #2 right now is McBride with over 200 yards. Our 2nd leading receiver this year has 108 yards (albeit with 4 more players with 82 or more). On the surface, that might not be as alarming as you might think, but when you add into it that Bryce is currently 6th in the league in pass attempts, and it's even more alarming that he hasn't gotten a 3rd player to 100 yards so far and his second highest is only 108. XL has 39 yards on 18 targets.  Renfrow has 82 yards on 24 targets.  Tremble has 87 on 16 targets.  Sanders has 92 on 14 targets. None of those are good enough, so why aren't we calling more plays with T-Mac as the first read and forcing the ball to him (and again, that's not me wanting my guy to get more targets, that's me wanting more targets for the only productive pass catcher so far this year, I'd feel the same no matter what that player's name was). All of this is why I have issues with Canales' play calling.  How do you have a player who had 73 yards in the first half and then you only give him 1 target in the 2nd half despite playing from behind the majority of that time? You can be happy about the win, happy about Dowdle getting 200 yards, but in a game where your QB threw it 30 times, I can't accept the above sentence in the same breath, that's just terrible play calling, which is on top of the already predictable play calling in general, which is also on top of boring play designs as well. Add it all up, and THAT is why I'm unhappy even after a win, not because "my guy" didn't have a bigger game.
×
×
  • Create New...