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!

     

Brian Burns

USDepartmentOfSavagery
 Share

Recommended Posts

toldozer Veteran

toldozer

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

The season is over. We need picks. Our D is no worse than it's been in recent memory. We can afford to trade Burns. Do it.

The move last year would have been trade burns and keep McCaffrey.  I would love dj Moore and cmc in a trade for burns. We picked burns over our two best offensive players one of which scored 4 fuging times today.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky Davis Veteran

Rocky Davis

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, toldozer said:

The move last year would have been trade burns and keep McCaffrey.  I would love dj Moore and cmc in a trade for burns. We picked burns over our two best offensive players one of which scored 4 fuging times today.

not even gonna lie, CMC was great for us early and then got that fat contract.  We then proceeded to hire Rhule and Co. and when CMC was like "this is a clown show" every time he had an injury it kept him out the entire season.  He quit on the Panthers and got what he wanted....I'll never NOT think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
micnificent28 Mentor

micnificent28

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, jb2288 said:

Just because you say it doesn’t make it true lol

if we want a legit #1 WR to come to this dump of a coaching staff we’re gonna have to consider ponying up $25M. Couple that with a Brown extension which I really hope we do, you wouldn’t suddenly be able to throw $30M at Burns.

I’m not even saying he isn’t worth it in a vacuum, but when you add the context of having to build around your massive investment into QB it is a legit discussion. Plus it’s not only the cap savings, but the draft capital you’d get (which hopefully Fitt is gone for by then) 

well lets dive into it. currently we aren't paying anyone really. moton is taking up the most cap. half of what hes costing would go back into burns and with cap increase why cant you afford him if hes one of your few spending points?

Cap space isnt really a issue tight now. you can still spend on players and build around. we dont have any significant players under contract we cant save and move stuff around on.

Screenshot_20231002_025523_Chrome.jpg

Edited by micnificent28
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Fright said:

Nowhere near? Might want to check their first 4 year stats… might surprise you how similar they are. Peppers also had the luxury of playing alongside Jenkins and Mike Rucker… but again.. the reasons fans want to get rid of Burns is EXACTLY the same reason fans wanted Peppers gone.

He was dpoy in his 3rd season.  Wtf are you even talking about here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leaky_Faucet Community Regular

Leaky_Faucet

Posted
Posted

I would be floored if Burns is not traded by the deadline. The way this season is going for both him and the team, it would make sense. Burns has proved the team's point that he is not the difference maker he claims to be. Burns getting the contract now would make little to no sense. If the current trend continues, I don't believe the same GM will be in place. The question is will the move be made during the bye week, when the team is officially eliminated from the postseason, or the end of the season?

If before the deadline, I imagine the interim guy deals him to gain offseason resources. I haven't heard anything regarding Carolina trading for a WR and would be surprised if the GM is allowed to do so given the current state of the team. I imagine if he has been given the green light on searching for such an offer, his bargaining chest has been capped to something to the equivalent of a Day 3 pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UNCrules2187 Mentor

UNCrules2187

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Leaky_Faucet said:

I would be floored if Burns is not traded by the deadline. The way this season is going for both him and the team, it would make sense. Burns has proved the team's point that he is not the difference maker he claims to be. Burns getting the contract now would make little to no sense. If the current trend continues, I don't believe the same GM will be in place. The question is will the move be made during the bye week, when the team is officially eliminated from the postseason, or the end of the season?

If before the deadline, I imagine the interim guy deals him to gain offseason resources. I haven't heard anything regarding Carolina trading for a WR and would be surprised if the GM is allowed to do so given the current state of the team. I imagine if he has been given the green light on searching for such an offer, his bargaining chest has been capped to something to the equivalent of a Day 3 pick. 

I'm seeing a conditional 7th for Chase Claypool in the cards just to look like we're making some sort of effort

Link to comment
Share on other sites
br2nc0 Apprentice

br2nc0

Posted
Posted

In my opinion, I'm not really mad that we didn't trade Burns in hindsight. But it does really suck, we most likely would have a 2023 1st and a 2024 1st, and a 2023/24 2nd to build off. I think the Bears trade makes this missed opportunity sting even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UNCrules2187 Mentor

UNCrules2187

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, br2nc0 said:

In my opinion, I'm not really mad that we didn't trade Burns in hindsight. But it does really suck, we most likely would have a 2023 1st and a 2024 1st, and a 2023/24 2nd to build off. I think the Bears trade makes this missed opportunity sting even more.

Hindsight 20/20, but man, imagine if you keep CMC, trade Burns to the Rams for that huge amount of draft capital, then use that capital to move up in this past year's draft rather than including Moore. Bryce may not be the guy, but I'd like to see how he'd look with some proven playmakers around him.

Edited by UNCrules2187
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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...