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!

     

Getting Crunch Time for the Panthers and Brian Burns


45catfan
 Share

What to do with Burns?  

147 members have voted

  1. 1. Burns should be

    • Frachised tagged
      35
    • Transitional tagged
      17
    • Re-singed to a top 5 Edge contract
      4
    • Traded for draft capital or player(s)
      85
    • Let test free agency and if signed away, at least get a high comp pick in 2025
      6


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, frankw said:

People are down on him and some of that is on Brian himself. The Panthers front office has mismanaged the situation but Burns also has not been consistent after posturing through camp about leadership while now demanding top money.

All that being said I still get the feeling if we do trade him and he goes somewhere with other top talent and coaching the tide about him here will turn and we will get yet another round of "wtf why did we trade him again?". I'm not saying that will happen. But it's a possibility.

I could see that. I mean the Rams seem to be a well ran organization and were willing to give up a lot for him? 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I saw our game without him this year there was 0 pressure. It was awful. He is disruptive as a pass rusher, I mean he just had 12.5 sacks the prior year…

So?  How many of those sacks had an impact on the outcome of the game? 0. That is his impact on the game. Matches his jersey number. Brown is who teams scheme against.  He's double teamed on every play he's on the field. Which is about 90% of the snaps. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jon Snow said:

So?  How many of those sacks had an impact on the outcome of the game? 0. That is his impact on the game. Matches his jersey number. Brown is who teams scheme against.  He's double teamed on every play he's on the field. Which is about 90% of the snaps. 

I mean there aren't many opportunities for a sack to completely change the outcome of a game.  Especially with how terrible our offense has been playing.  A sack puts the other team's offense in a bad spot.  It's up to our team and coaches to take advantage of that afterwards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I could see that. I mean the Rams seem to be a well ran organization and were willing to give up a lot for him? 

I have little doubt he would have been pretty damn good with the Rams. Different culture different expectations different coaching.

I'm not absolving Brian of any of what transpired but as you said the issue is replacing and upgrading. If he's so bad we should be able to do that relatively easy no? Or could it be the huddle is doing what we've always done and thinking the grass is greener until we realize we're standing in the midst of a grease fire? I think the tag is the best course of action going forward. See how he responds to the new staff and Dan Morgan. I am particularly curious to see how Dan approaches this. Now I'll be the first to tell you I am skeptical at best at how he will be at drafting. But as far as knowing top end defensive talent when he sees it I will trust Morgan in that area. If he thinks Burns is part of the future I'll accept that. If not listen to offers.

Edited by frankw
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I mean there aren't many opportunities for a sack to completely change the outcome of a game.  Especially with how terrible our offense has been playing.  A sack puts the other team's offense in a bad spot.  It's up to our team and coaches to take advantage of that afterwards.  

So you want to pay him so he stays invisible here.  Nah man, we have done that our whole existence. We have always paid big money to the wrong players. Burns is not a player you hand out top 10 DE money for. Trust me, he will not be missed.

Edited by Jon Snow
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

So you want to pay him so he stays invisible here.  Nah man, we have done that our whole existence. We have always paid big money to the wrong players. Burns is not a player you hand out top 10 DE money for. Trust me, he will not be missed.

His job is to pressure the QB which is does.  Our offense always playing from behind giving him way less chances to make a game saving play isn't really on him as much as it is on our entire team.  I just know watching that game he missed (Bears game I believe) our pass rush was nonexistent and it was frustrating.  I'd love to see him with another decent edge on the line.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, frankw said:

I have little doubt he would have been pretty damn good with the Rams. Different culture different expectations different coaching.

I'm not absolving Brian of any of what transpired but as you said the issue is replacing and upgrading. If he's so bad we should be able to do that relatively easy no? Or could it be the huddle is doing what we've always done and thinking the grass is greener until we realize we're standing in the midst of a grease fire? I think the tag is the best course of action going forward. See how he responds to the new staff and Dan Morgan. I am particularly curious to see how Dan approaches this. Now I'll be the first to tell you I am skeptical at best at how he will be at drafting. But as far as knowing top end defensive talent when he sees it I will trust Morgan in that area. If he thinks Burns is part of the future I'll accept that. If not listen to offers.

People seem to love change which I get because our team hasn't been performing, but we have traded away some real talent lately for bad returns.  At some point you have to retain some talent plus add new pieces to build a complete roster.  

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

15 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

His job is to pressure the QB which is does.  Our offense always playing from behind giving him way less chances to make a game saving play isn't really on him as much as it is on our entire team.  I just know watching that game he missed (Bears game I believe) our pass rush was nonexistent and it was frustrating.  I'd love to see him with another decent edge on the line.  

The only one to put pressure on the qb from our DL is Derek Brown.  Just watch the tape. When Brown get pressure after being double Burns benefits and gets some pressure or a sack. When the qb can step up in the pocket Burns just runs right by with 0 impact. Brown is who team's worry about. If they need to run they run at Burns because he's always out of position or easy to block. I just don't see what others see in the guy.

Edited by Jon Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

The draft is tough for pass rushers even if we use a premium pick (which will also cost some money). Is there a FA we can get at a decent price?

Sure, starting with a couple of our own guys YGM and Haynes (if healthy).  Those are depth pieces, but there others that can be had in the $10M range.  I get it, Burns is going into his second contract...the money contract, so he's playing hard ball.  There are plenty of guys looking to build towards the money deal and others that already had their money deal to choose from.  Let some other team make Burns rich.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

People seem to love change which I get because our team hasn't been performing, but we have traded away some real talent lately for bad returns.  At some point you have to retain some talent plus add new pieces to build a complete roster.  

The dude literally said he didnt play hard because he didnt want to get hurt, Lord knows how many seasons he will take off once he gets his payday.   Burns has got to go.  Get what you can and move on.  This is a rebuild

  • Pie 4
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

The dude literally said he didnt play hard because he didnt want to get hurt, Lord knows how many seasons he will take off once he gets his payday.   Burns has got to go.  Get what you can and move on.  This is a rebuild

I mean CMC benched himself with injuries to not get hurt.  Players do this all the time.  He was just honest about it.  So are we trading about Brown because of this rebuild?  Or are you wanting to hold on to some talent.  I just don't want to see people crying about Burns like they have been with Moore and CMC if he and traded and plays well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

People seem to love change which I get because our team hasn't been performing, but we have traded away some real talent lately for bad returns.  At some point you have to retain some talent plus add new pieces to build a complete roster.  

 

6 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

The dude literally said he didnt play hard because he didnt want to get hurt, Lord knows how many seasons he will take off once he gets his payday.   Burns has got to go.  Get what you can and move on.  This is a rebuild

I'm torn between both viewpoints here because both are valid.

It's fine to feel either way. But we can also be realistic and grapple with the possibility Burns has a career resurgence at his next destination. It's become like a Panthers tradition at this point.

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

    • 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
    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...