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!

     

Inquiring Teams told Burns not avaiable


Daeavorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

Whoknows, I'd  love to have a stud player that we could afford to ship off, so we can improve our team.  Burns is not one. 

 

And yet, you asked a simple question of when has any team improved trading away a star player. I gave you 4 examples in the past few years where all 4 teams improved getting rid of star players. You then said only good teams improve like that and bad teams never do and I showed how all 4 of those teams were bad teams when they got rid of their stars. Simple as that. Now you are going off on tangents. We had an amazing offer for Burns last year because the Rams saw a small window with Stafford still healthy and SF getting off to a not so good start. We should have taken the offer of 2 1sts and a 2nd and used the $30M a year for two solid/stud FAs and frankly we should have traded Moore to GB for pick 15 instead of throwing him in on the Young deal. That’s it, end of story and we’d be a better team In the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

And yet, you asked a simple question of when has any team improved trading away a star player. I gave you 4 examples in the past few years where all 4 teams improved getting rid of star players. You then said only good teams improve like that and bad teams never do and I showed how all 4 of those teams were bad teams when they got rid of their stars. Simple as that. Now you are going off on tangents. We had an amazing offer for Burns last year because the Rams saw a small window with Stafford still healthy and SF getting off to a not so good start. We should have taken the offer of 2 1sts and a 2nd and used the $30M a year for two solid/stud FAs and frankly we should have traded Moore to GB for pick 15 instead of throwing him in on the Young deal. That’s it, end of story and we’d be a better team In the near future.

My last post spells it out in black and white.  You don't like that, that's on you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

My last post spells it out in black and white.  You don't like that, that's on you. 

For the millionth time though, it's not about replacing Burns directly with whatever picks they get. It's about maximizing the value and improving the team overall, and the examples you were given were teams that executed that strategy and benefitted from doing so.

Burns may put up a few stats but he is not a difference-maker like Peppers was (to use the name you referenced), as has been shown time and again by myself and others. I have no way of knowing for sure but I would bet significant sums that this is the holdup in negotiations; the team recognizes this and is pricing accordingly, Burns doesn't want to hear it and is saying no.

Sure, he is the key pass rush at the moment, but that money and those picks represent a big opportunity to improve the entire team. Maybe the FO bungles that and maybe they don't, but fear of 'it might be worse' is a part of how the team got here. They're 0-6 right now with Burns, who has had plenty of chances to be a difference-maker this year and, unsurprisingly, hasn't. Looking more and more like he's never going to be the game-changing player he wants to be paid like.

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

16 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

Burns is essentially our pass rush. None of the other guys would make the impact they do without Burns.  

We couldn't replace burns with what is essentially a 2nd round pick if we wanted to. 

So whether you agree with his value to the team or not,  he's most likely going to ve retained and get paid, because our defense simply can't afford to lose him. 

I don't think that we can afford to keep him.

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

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to competete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...