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!

     

Burns doesn’t think he teams top priority. Also thinks he should be paid among top edge rushers

ncfan

By ncfan,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rocky Davis Veteran

Rocky Davis

Posted
Posted

He is Mr. Invisible in run defense and can't cover worth a poo when dropped in zone schemes. 

Burns only value comes when he is paired with a dominant Edge opposite of him a la Reddick.  I was in the camp to re-sign Reddick but of course we didn't.  Burns is an above average Edge, not a game changer.

Tag him, trade him, just get the narcissist who is clearly deluded about his ability off the Panthers.  I can't stand folks who can't be honest with themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rocky Davis said:

He is Mr. Invisible in run defense and can't cover worth a poo when dropped in zone schemes. 

Burns only value comes when he is paired with a dominant Edge opposite of him a la Reddick.  I was in the camp to re-sign Reddick but of course we didn't.  Burns is an above average Edge, not a game changer.

Tag him, trade him, just get the narcissist who is clearly deluded about his ability off the Panthers.  I can't stand folks who can't be honest with themselves.

I'm not a big Burns fan but his best season was easily last season without Reddick opposite 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Grand Master

Martin

Posted
Posted

It is perfect to have a new GM without any strings attached handle this. The “we know you could have traded him for 2 firsts…” argument has no bearing anymore. Any decision will be based 100% on performance. Tag and trade would be ideal. There might be a team willing to give a first for him, wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brooklyn 3.0 Grand Master

Brooklyn 3.0

Posted
Posted

Ah the good ol days when some of us were laughed at for being angry we didn't take the Rams trade. Now almost all of us are upset over that.

Anyway, when's that one guy coming in here to post his "averages" theory saying that Burns had much less chances for sacks versus the top rushers, thus would have had many, many more sacks if he had rushed as much as they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Steelo said:

He's correct.  You aren't the top priority and frankly CAN'T be... seeing as the person that would make you a priority isn't hired yet.

Fwiw this is actually what he means by that first comment, lol. He isn't trying to poo on the team in this context imo. We don't have a gm or coach yet

Still not worth the money he wants 

  • Pie 1
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...