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

1 hour ago, Zaximus said:

I just can't buy the double team argument either.  I've seen Tight Ends and running backs solo OWN Burns during games.  There isn't a good argument as to why it was a good thing, with what we know about Burns and how he is playing right now.  But, we have to move on, just add it to the plethora of other Panther mistakes.  The biggest thing will be when we have to re-sign him because it'll look even worse if he walks, but, now he has all the leverage knowing this.  

He’ll never just walk. We’d use the franchise tag to trade before that happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, carpanfan96 said:

That same NFC scout told me that Burns "still has huge upside, and while his production has been good, he would really take off if his offense scored more often, to where he could pin his ears back an extra 15-20 times per game."


 

 

Exactly what I've been saying, if burns is at 75% of snaps on defense and pass rushing most of those his stats would skyrocket on a more balanced team. Dude is standing up on pass rush attempts because he gets ran on and gashed if he doesn't stay disciplined, now he does. Our run d has improved tremendously over the last few weeks compared to the last two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cavscout said:

Burns could still be traded in the offseason. The Panthers wouldn't have gotten a 1st rd pick this year from the rumored Rams trade anyhow so it wouldn't have really helped going into next year.

We would have gotten a 2nd.  And that is the problem with the panthers for the past 3 years, we are looking for immediate gratification instead of developing a plan and going with it.

  • Pie 2
  • The D 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, carpanfan96 said:

Not gonna quote everyone on this but coaches and gms have talked about it. 

 

A future first is worth a pick in the middle of its round divided by 2 and that goes down the further out it is. 

 

So next year's first from the Rams would have a draft value of a pick in the middle of the 2nd round, the one after that would have a value of a third round pick. 

 

That's how draft pick trade valuation works. 

 

Every single team uses similar valuation charts

You could not be more wrong here.  That is a simplistic and short sighted way of looking at things.  Do you believe fitt had the same line of thinking when he traded cmac?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

One huge flaw in your argument.   We are not winning NOW.  We are still a ways away from being competitive.   2 years minimum.   And that’s best case scenario 

After this FA period / draft this response could be considered flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

cool, who is the qb in your scenario?

That's the question. Unless we build around Darnold and hope Corral develops, a rookie QB is likely into year 2 before making significant growth. That's why most of the people saying we should have taken the trade are saying 2 years or longer. We lack a HC, OC, DC, and QB. That's a unicorn offseason to get all that right in one year and make a playoff run. 

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Biscuit said:

We let Peppers just walk.

And the restructures around tagging him were very costly as well not just in money but you could be cutting or keeping guys solely based on money. Big double whammy.  I always thought JR was all over those decisions and told Marty to make it work financially. 
 

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...