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

2 hours ago, Waldo said:

The only real reason to not trade Burns for that package is because it would have looked awful in regards to Wilks being able to have a legitimate year. CMC and RA all made sense and were great moves. Trading Burns would have looked bad. 

We can still trade him. Whatever but if he signs a giant new deal then expectations change real fast. 

Yessir! If we pay him like a great player, he needs to play like one. No more Shaq Thompson deals: great money, good player most of the time. Burns needs to be a great player all of the time. So far, he hasn't done that, which is the main reason why he's polarizing. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is we are going to have to pay him like a top 5 DE when he isn't. Trade him for picks get some younger players to fill the void and they could possibly develop into better all around DE's than he is currently. He is a pass rush specialist and nothing more. The contract he is going to demand is not going to be worth it for a team that is in the position we're in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Yessir! If we pay him like a great player, he needs to play like one. No more Shaq Thompson deals: great money, good player most of the time. Burns needs to be a great player all of the time. So far, he hasn't done that, which is the main reason why he's polarizing. 

There have been some crazy numbers thrown around for his contract. I really disliked the 'getting paid for what I did yesterday' stuff. I wouldn't even have a problem asking him to play on his 5th year option. 7 sacks, 2 9 sack season and this year is 12.5? That is not top contract numbers and 7 total FFs where Hasaan has 5 just this year? 

Pay the man  fine but let's not be ridiculous about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

I don't think folks understand there were no picks for this draft.

So if we trade our 1st, next year’s Rams or our 1st, and 1 of what would be our 3 2nd round picks to move up to 2 and draft Stroud we would still have a 1st in 24 left from that trade plus all of our picks. Future picks are great trade assets during the draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We missed the boat and that Ram's offer will be the best we see for him.  Like others said, we're 2 to 3 years out and don't need the baggage his new contract will demand.

 

But then again, I'm all about trading down in the draft every year and trading the best of the best to stay out of cap hell and get the most we can while the player is at their prime.  I was screaming for us to trade Cam immediately after his MVP season because I knew he wouldn't hold up with his style of play.  I also was screaming to trade CMC after his double K season.  I knew we'd run him into the ground the same way we did Cam.  I was right on both counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only reason to keep burns if fitt has already bounced terms off his reps and you got the reply " Brian wants to stay in carolina, its his top NFL goal".

Im not his biggest fan, but also know his age and 10+ sacks are close to elite QBs worth. 

Reddick was brought up and he signed a 3yr 45 mill deal......thats value. Using that scale for Burns, he should sign a similar deal if not less.......it will not happen tho... 

I Honestly cannot recall one play from the season with burns that was a late 4th quarter 3rd/4th down sack to help win the game. Did he have any game changing plays, or is it my poor memory?

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

    • Yeah, Darnold is basically a really high level game manager. Put him on a good team where he isn't required to provide lift and he can shine. But when you need him to do the franchise QB thing and put the team in his back here comes the INTs. He just doesn't seem to have any positions on his dial between "super conservative take whatever's there and take care of the ball" and "YOLO!!! There's a receiver down there somewhere in that sea of defenders!"
    • See, it's posts like this that show me how many of you are taking my post as an anti Dowdle post and saying he didn't have a good game, but that's the furthest thing from my intention and what I'm trying to say. Because that's the comparison you're making with Bryce, it's adding or removing a small handful of plays from their stats and saying "this is the game they could have had instead" I'm literally only talking about the play calling from the game, it's literally in the title of the thread, that we still have play calling problems. I'm saying that people are going to get stuck on the 200 yard rushing game by a player and extrapolate that to "well Canales must have called a good game" and I'm trying to say not to fall for that mirage. Because 6 big runs do not make for a well called game when we had over 60 snaps. Even beyond that, if you add in the two 20+ yard catches from T-Mac and the one XL had, and you're looking at 9 of over 60 snaps that accounted for close to 60% of our yards in the game. That's a few big plays covering up for coaching deficiencies, that's NOT a well called 60 minutes of football. Had he had the 200 yards because Canales' play calling was keeping the defense on their heels, not knowing what we were doing next, and Dowdle was ripping of 8-12 yard runs on a consistent basis, then yea, that would be something to be excited about with Canales finally calling a good game for a change. Our offense is predictable and the play design is basic, there is nothing I've seen out of Canales' offense that says he's able to scheme and call plays to outsmart the defense, which is something all the elite offensive coaches are able to do in this day and age.
    • Dante Moore is the top pick in a couple of mock drafts now. 
×
×
  • Create New...