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

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

8 minutes ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

Conversations last night stopped at GTD money again. Closer but still not there. 

Have been told if Burns holds out Sunday it is highly likely he will be found a new home.

After declining that windfall last year such a scenario would just be... hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.

Edited by KSpan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSpan said:

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.

Unproven picks are not a guarantee.

 

One of them will be used on a edge rusher to replace Burns.

 

So where are the weapons for Bryce coming from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

If that happens then fitt needs to find one as well

My confidence in Fitts is gone. There have been 2 major blunders already this off-season.

1. Panicking and trading up for DJ Johnson. Regardless of if he works out or not, its the second panic pick in as many years.

2. The whole Burns disaster. Completely foreseeable and avoidable no matter which side of the trade you're on. 

I don't want any more. 

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

Conversations last night stopped at GTD money again. Closer but still not there. 

Have been told if Burns holds out Sunday it is highly likely he will be found a new home.

I mean, GTD is what the whole thing is and really has always been about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rubi said:

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

When Burns signs his new deal we can celebrate together.

 

We have a homegrown star DE. I think we should keep him. We traded enough star talent already. Now you got people on tv saying they can't name a player on our roster because we traded them all. You need stars on your roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Unproven picks are not a guarantee.

 

One of them will be used on a edge rusher to replace Burns.

 

So where are the weapons for Bryce coming from?

Having 2 other high draft picks, assuming 1 is used on a rusher as you say, and an extra $30MM in cap prompts the question of where weapons for the offense are coming from? Seems obvious. The better question is where they are going to come from now if that cap room is gone and with no high draft picks.

Hell, even trading Burns to Chicago instead of DJ and maybe keeping one of those 1st and/or 2nd rounders would have made more sense then the timeline we're currently travelling. 

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

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...