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!

     

Crickets


WarHeel
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I don't understand the folks upset we didn't make any moves today.

A big part of our issues since Tepper bought the team has been a constant series of knee jerk win now type moves that have just dug us into a big hole. And now folks are upset we didn't make more of them?

I wouldn't have minded trading some guys away today, but it was a buyer's market. The sellers were getting fleeced.

Honestly, sometimes doing nothing is the best bad option you have.

Short memory because all I remember is people whining before he got here that we never made splash moves and for the first year of his tenure they were drooling at all the moves he made. Hence the laser eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, travisura said:

Only problem is that someone has to be willing to offer a 1st. With Sweat going for a 2nd, I highly doubt a 1st for Burns was ever being floated.
And they're not going to get nothing for him next year, if they don’t reach a deal they’re going to tag him. 

Burns wasn’t the only one on the block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

That is exactly where I think it is headed which is why I think we probably should have taken what we could get.  Of course fitterers ego and maybe teps was too big to let that happen as doing so wold be admitting their fug up last year.  We will get peanuts if anything for the guy cause he ain't showing poo this year and the rest of the team and our dismal record doesn't make him look any damn better.

I think Sweat and Young being available tanked the potential market for Burns. I wouldn't trade a 1st and more for Burns if I could get Sweat for a 2nd or Young for a 3rd. Especially knowing he's wanting nearly $30M per.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I think Sweat and Young being available tanked the potential market for Burns. I wouldn't trade a 1st and more for Burns if I could get Sweat for a 2nd or Young for a 3rd. Especially knowing he's wanting nearly $30M per.

That's it right there. 2 ends available for far less in picks and dollars than Burns. Smart teams weren't giving up what the Rams offered last year for a edge rusher with only 9 games remaining under contract. Was never going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, travisura said:

He’s gonna get tagged this offseason if they don’t reach a deal. If he walks for nothing it’ll be year after next. 

I dont think anyone will give 2 firsts for him anymore and I think there will be drama from franchising him.  There almost was during training camp this year just because he hadnt been given an extension.   If we franchise him, we wont get the 2 firsts to trade him and he definitely wont be happy here.  Fitterer just keeps burying himself further and further in a lose lose situation instead of just admitting his mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of trading guys we frankly don’t even play use like a TMJ or maybe Chinn for meh picks….there wasn’t much we could do.  Fitt shouldn’t be allowed to send any picks anywhere anymore 

The trading Burns window came and went.  Front office would just look dumb to deal him for a fraction of what was offered.  And that’s where they are.   Look foolish trading him. Won’t look good paying him.  I still have my nickel on him walking away for nothing a la Peppers in the end. History repeating. 

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

We just need to stay patient for a playmaker in 2024.  We knew we didn't have one or the ammo to get one.

Come this time next year, if we're looking at the same problem, then there's clear organizational issues.  

The Burns issue lingering is annoying but whatever at this point with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know...

I'd much rather have Chase and Montez than Brian Burns. Would have been crazy but maybe they could have been in on those 2 and then traded Burns in the offseason. They would have, at the very least, been able to get a 2nd and 3rd for Burns in the offseason. And likely could have signed both Chase and Montez for just a little more than what they're about to pay Burns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scratched said:

I think the fact that Young and Sweat went for what they did, helped keep us from over paying Burns. He is much closer to those guys than a Bosa, or a TJ Watt. 

 Nick Bosa only has 3 more career sacks than Burns. Burns also has more combined and assisted tackles. We’re going to have to pay him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biscuit said:

 Nick Bosa only has 3 more career sacks than Burns. Burns also has more combined and assisted tackles. We’re going to have to pay him.

He's also played in less games but has way more pressures. It's good that Burns is available, but he's markedly less effective than Bosa. We were always going to have to pay him, but Bosa money? 

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...