Yes please

[NAS]

6 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

If we're a QB away, which is the most important position on the field, we should be ok trading Burns if it means we land our QB.

No because you lose your only consistent pass rusher. You can't take a step back on defense if you're bringing in a young QB.

[ECHornet]

3 minutes ago, NAS said:

No because you lose your only consistent pass rusher. You can't take a step back on defense if you're bringing in a young QB.

What makes our team better? 

CJ Stroud or Bryce Young playing QB instead of Darnold - or - Brian Burns playing DE instead of Ngakoue?

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by ECHornet

[ForJimmy]

https://raiderswire.usatoday.com/2021/10/28/raiders-de-maxx-crosby-and-yannick-ngakoue-rank-no-1-and-no-2-in-qb-pressures/
 

FYI 2 years ago Ngakoue led the league in QB pressures. I’m not sure how much of a drop off there is from Burns to him. Definitely not 10 plus million dollars worth…

[TheCasillas]

4 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

What makes our team better? 

CJ Stroud or Bryce Young playing QB instead of Darnold - or - Brian Burns playing DE instead of Ngakoue?

 

That’s a very specific scenario. Why would you want it to play out that?

[ECHornet]

16 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

That’s a very specific scenario. Why would you want it to play out that?

In the scenario being discussed, Burns is sent elsewhere in a trade up for a QB in this year's draft. I'd hope we would only trade him to make that move if it was for Young or Stroud. I think it's the right move and attempt to replace Burns's production with a guy like Ngakoue and draft picks.

Edited February 19, 2023 by ECHornet

[Wanderlai]

This is the dollar store offer to the Bears

[Mage]

Why do people keep thinking we have to trade Burns?  The Panthers would rather give up more picks than give up Burns.

I don't know why this discussion keeps happening.  If the Panthers had any interest in trading Burns, they would have done so last year.  Stop bringing up Burns in trade talks.

[ECHornet]

31 minutes ago, Mage said:

Why do people keep thinking we have to trade Burns?  The Panthers would rather give up more picks than give up Burns.

I don't know why this discussion keeps happening.  If the Panthers had any interest in trading Burns, they would have done so last year.  Stop bringing up Burns in trade talks.

It's not that we "have to" trade Burns. I agree with you it seems the Panthers want to keep him. I like him as a player, but I don't think he should get top 5 DE/OLB money - yet. 

My thought is until we find a franchise QB to build around, every 1st round pick attainable carries more value. That might be the pick we land our QB with, or they might be used in a trade to acquire our QB. We're not going anywhere until we get the QB position settled.

[mrcompletely11]

1 hour ago, NAS said:

It's not just about sacks, realistically Burns should have had even more sacks but he's been really good at pressuring the QB regardless. 

This roster is a QB away from going to the playoffs.  You have to take advantage of a window when it presents itself, instead of trying to worry about future draft picks.   Thee players and the coaching staff won't be around forever.   

The flip side to this that you have to factor in is his horrendous play in the run game.  Maybe switching to a 3 4 helps but I kinda doubt it 

[mrcompletely11]

1 hour ago, ECHornet said:

What makes our team better? 

CJ Stroud or Bryce Young playing QB instead of Darnold - or - Brian Burns playing DE instead of Ngakoue?

 

This.   Burns could be the reincarnation of peppers and it doesn't matter if we have no qb.  I mean for fug sakes we literally just wasted Burns on his rookie deal chasing a qb

Edited February 19, 2023 by mrcompletely11

[TheCasillas]

1 hour ago, mrcompletely11 said:

The flip side to this that you have to factor in is his horrendous play in the run game.  Maybe switching to a 3 4 helps but I kinda doubt it 

Burns wasn’t horrendous against the run though…. That’s a farce. He still graded out top 20 in the league against the run. 

It’s like we forget those multiple tackles in the backfield on 4th down run plays to cause “turnovers” … he had 3 of those this year… those are just as valuable as a sack fumble turnover.

[WOW!!]

I would do that deal every day of the week and twice on Sunday..

[mrcompletely11]

11 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Burns wasn’t horrendous against the run though…. That’s a farce. He still graded out top 20 in the league against the run. 

It’s like we forget those multiple tackles in the backfield on 4th down run plays to cause “turnovers” … he had 3 of those this year… those are just as valuable as a sack fumble turnover.

Tampa Bay says hell yeah

[Toomers]

3 hours ago, TheCasillas said:

Burns wasn’t horrendous against the run though…. That’s a farce. He still graded out top 20 in the league against the run. 

It’s like we forget those multiple tackles in the backfield on 4th down run plays to cause “turnovers” … he had 3 of those this year… those are just as valuable as a sack fumble turnover.

Who graded him top 20 against the run? I’d love to see the actual parameters if it even exists. 
 

And when did these 4th down “turnovers”occur. He sacked Mariota on a 4th but isn’t listed on any other 4th down play the entire season. I’d like to see those too. If you would tell me what games it would help.