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!

     

REPORT: Panthers and Brian Burns not at all close to extension


TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Not just that… teams don’t do spontaneous interviews with executive staff. This is a requirement of the nfl… they tell teams when their executive staff need to speak to media. 

Yeaaaahhh, that’s solely on the media for not asking. Most of our media people are solid but there are some that were asking about a lot less important things than Burns’ contract last week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turning down that Rams offer is so cringe right now. Those extra picks would’ve been fantastic for an actual rebuild.

You can sign several damn good defensive players with $30 mil vs just 1. 

this team is the football version of the hornets since Tepper took over. 

Edited by Rubi
  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Since when has unproven talent been fantastic?

 

There's no guarantee we hit on those picks and one of those picks would have surely been used on a DE to replace Burns. Is a extra 1st worth losing our pass rush in Burns?

 

I think not. Also we would be in rebuild mode at that point. We literally just traded all our vets in CMC/Moore/Burns.

 

 

At this point we are in a rebuild mode. New QB, unproven WRs, a lot of new young players on offense and defense. Also, with those extra picks we may not have had to trade DJ. 

With the 2nd this year there were a couple of good DE prospects we could have grabbed. Yeah we would have missed Burns, but we would actually be able to build around our rookie QB. 

You also need to remember that BY isn't a sure thing either. You're acting like he's a guaranteed HoF and he hasn't taken a single game snap yet. 

We need to sign Burns but we don't need to break the bank to do it. We still need to re sign Chinn, Brown, Luvu. There's only so much to go around. 

I'm good with Burns at 26-28 with 80 guaranteed. He's not Bosa and doesn't deserve that level of a contract. Fitts fuged all this up with how he handled the trade offer and the pressers following.

I don't blame Burns for wanting to get his. But if we're going to build a perennial winner we can't have 4-5 elite salaried players and a whole bunch of JAGs because that's all we can afford. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rubi said:

Turning down that Rams offer is so cringe right now. Those extra picks would’ve been fantastic for an actual rebuild.

You can sign several damn good defensive players with $30 mil vs just 1. 

this team is the football version of the hornets since Tepper took over. 

We coulda had Bryce Young throwing to Marvin Harrison Jr. on rookies deals LMFAO

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I hate to break it to you but elite players have to be paid. We just can't keep trading our elite guys for picks. That's how you stay in a rebuild.

 

Brown has to be paid. Horn has to be paid. Are we going to trade them to when it's time give them an extension?

 

 

If they're asking for well beyond their production, absolutely. Like I said, this isn't about Burns getting paid. He deserves to get paid as a high level pass rush specialist. He is not a complete defensive player at this point in his career. That's not talking bad about him or calling him a crap player. He's very good against the pass and below average against the run. In 4 years he's never taken over a game defensively. Elite players do that. Paying him a Bosa size contract is stupid because he's not a Bosa caliber player. 

Like I said, I'm not pissed at Burns. I'm pissed at Fitts for how badly he's handled this. Every bit of this was predictable. If we're going to rebuild, rebuild. Don't do this half ass pretend we're a QB away from being a contender BS. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

If they're asking for well beyond their production, absolutely. Like I said, this isn't about Burns getting paid. He deserves to get paid as a high level pass rush specialist. He is not a complete defensive player at this point in his career. That's not talking bad about him or calling him a crap player. He's very good against the pass and below average against the run. In 4 years he's never taken over a game defensively. Elite players do that. Paying him a Bosa size contract is stupid because he's not a Bosa caliber player. 

Like I said, I'm not pissed at Burns. I'm pissed at Fitts for how badly he's handled this. Every bit of this was predictable. If we're going to rebuild, rebuild. Don't do this half ass pretend we're a QB away from being a contender BS. 

His philosophy was have your roster so you can drop the rookie QB in, now it seems like we got the QB and have a buncha holes lol...b4 game 1 at that...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rubi said:

Turning down that Rams offer is so cringe right now. Those extra picks would’ve been fantastic for an actual rebuild.

You can sign several damn good defensive players with $30 mil vs just 1. 

this team is the football version of the hornets since Tepper took over. 

Sadly you are right, colud be the number 1 pick next year, if we believe in Bryce, I'm sure you know what that could net us, yes people Brian Burns may have cost us 6 firsts.

Edited by SmittysLawnGuy
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Just because we are not a contender doesn't mean we should trade all of our elite players. If this was a full rebuild Burns would be on the Rams right now.

 

Burns was obviously in our long term plans if we turned down 2 1st.

 

Contract will get done. I don't care too much what it is as long as it's reasonable. 

The front office, maybe even including Tepper, misjudging where the team was at and the work required to turn things around with a new staff, new schemes, new QB, new skill position players, etc, does not mean it's not a rebuid or restart. It pretty clearly is. To your original question no, you don't always trade players that need to be paid, but in some situations it makes sense to do so. This was one of them and they blew it, a bounty of picks to grow with a shiny new rookie QB and a ton of cap room for a guy that is driving to be paid more than his on-field contribution to date. MAybe he earns it and grows into a more complete player. Only time will tell.

The flip argument here is that a team doesn't always have to hang on to every one of their good players - that can be a path to cap purgatory. See Deangelo and Stewart, Olsen, TD, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Since when has unproven talent been fantastic?

 

There's no guarantee we hit on those picks and one of those picks would have surely been used on a DE to replace Burns. Is a extra 1st worth losing our pass rush in Burns?

 

I think not. Also we would be in rebuild mode at that point. We literally just traded all our vets in CMC/Moore/Burns.

 

 

You can sign vet defenders who are quality. Yea you draft to replace people. That’s how the league works. 

Edited by Rubi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BlackPanther22 said:

Yeaaaahhh, that’s solely on the media for not asking. Most of our media people are solid but there are some that were asking about a lot less important things than Burns’ contract last week. 

It's a waste of a question. They know they wont get any answer other than "we don't discuss contract negotiations".  There are much more useful questions to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you may be familiar with the book by Jim Collins entitled Good to Great. While his conclusions are not always consistent (Cherry picked), he makes a point that underlies his primary theme:

Good is the enemy of Great because most people are satisfied with being good.  There is less motivation to take that next step because you reached a status of being good at your job.

In the NFL, the line between good and great is blurry.  So much depends on your scheme, quality of teammates, random opportunity, etc.  The difference between 10 sacks and 15 sacks, if you think about it, is 5 plays over the course of about 450 passing opportunities for each player.   Some are awarded sacks when the defensive backs cover up the QBs options and the clock runs out, forcing him into the grasp of an otherwise stonewalled edge rusher.  Other times middle pressure forces the QB to hold the ball etc etc. 

The better gauge of an edge rusher's worth might be to see how his presence impacts the offense--do they keep a RB or TE in to chip him?  How many pressures does he get?  Etc.  I dunno.  So I understand why this is problematic.  Burns averages 9.5 sacks for his 4-year career.  However,over the last 3 seasons, he has averaged about 33 solo tackles and 21 QB hits.  He has averaged about 9.5 tackles for loss over the same period.  His DB play has been erratic at best--so how does that stack up vs. Bosa?  The biggest difference (he was injured his second year, so I am looking at his top 3 seasons) is in the area of QB hits--Bosa averaged about 33 hits per season, 12 more than Burns.  Bosa averaged 38 solo tackles per season, compared to Burns 33.  And in Bosa's top 3 seasons (rookie, 3 and 4) he averaged 14.33 sacks per season, vs. Burns' 9.5.

In my estimation, Burns is good, Bosa is great. We shall see how much difference their paychecks reflect

Edited by MHS831
  • Pie 3
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

    • Many Panthers fans are already excited about second-round selection Nic Scourton for a variety of reasons including but not limited to: the Panthers needed to recharge the position group, Scourton had a late first-round grade according to many (including the Panthers), and he fit this season's modus operandi of stopping the run now and forever. However, Scourton was seen early on as one of the top-3 EDGE guys in this class but fell due to not having quite the season at Texas A&M as he did prior at Purdue (his sophomore season). It's been revealed since then a few different things that speak to that dip in production... Texas A&M, for one, requires each player on their line to be able to hold two gaps. This also explains why we saw low production across the board from the other two TA&M prospects but were still being heavily touted. Scourton was also said to have bulked up to 280lbs in order to fulfill this role and noticeably suffered from it. He's expected to play this season with Carolina at 255 - 260 which is very different from most situations. In most situations, teams are wanting players to gain 15 - 30. Since Scourton is going to be playing at his Purdue weight, I thought it would make sense to dive more into that tape. Y'all... we might have gotten something special... Let's take a quick peek at the stats before we start drooling over some highlights. First, a summary of the last two seasons for Scourton: Second, the game splits: The first thing that pops up for me is how Scourton's sack numbers were cut in half his senior year. We've already pointed out issues with scheme that impacted the TA&M linemen from racking up numbers, but seeing the game splits it's clear that Scourton didn't exactly feast on inferior competition while at Purdue. He had two two-sack games (vs. Michigan (2023 - 2024 champs), Indiana) and a 10-tackle game (vs. Nebraska). I also see the 2024 games where he went up against two top-10 tackles (Will Campbell from LSU + Armand Membou from Missouri) that I watched leading up to the draft.  For those who just want a summary: Scourton looked elite at Purdue and is going to be rotating in often during his rookie campaign. I originally had him penciled in as the second-string, strong-side edge defender behind Clowney but I wouldn't be surprised to see the team have him and Pat Jones II moving around when they rotate in in order to find where Nic looks best. Here's a highlight reel to replace that Cialias you lost in your recliner tonight:   For those that like to use their own eyes: Below I'll be linking the linking the five games I've mentioned above. If you plan to watch all of them, I highly recommend going in the order listed as that will allow you to see him vs. Campbell and then Membou while dealing with the aforementioned things he dealt with at Texas A&M before seeing him look unstoppable in 2023 when he was allowed to play both at a comfortable weight and in a scheme that didn't require him two cover two gaps nearly every play. vs. Will Campbell (2024) vs. Armand Membou (2024) vs. Nebraska (2023) vs. Michigan (2023)   vs. Indiana (2023)  
    • Yea, i honestly think he had almost as much say as Dan.  One of the main reasons I think that is Eager has said before he was ever with the Panthers, that you trade away picks for a qb and for any other position you do pick swaps, and that's exactly what we did.
    • For a LB that is a long career.  They take a beating.  Shoulders and head.  My favorite LB of All Time--Junior Seau--had a 20-year career--the average career for a STARTING MLB is 5.6 years.  I really think Shaq is done, but if he can play, it does not mean that he should.   Think about Morgan's career--7 seasons.  Luke's career--8 seasons.  Beason played only 93 games over 10 years--only 5 seasons where he played 15 games or more.  The other 5 seasons?  No more than 5 games per.  So basically, the average starting MLB plays 90 games in his career.  Shaq has played 123 games and was pretty injury free until the last 2 seasons (6 games total). 
×
×
  • Create New...