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!

     

"Near certainty" Burns will be tagged


top dawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

We're going to tag Brian Burns and try to keep him. 

https://www.thecoldwire.com/panthers-have-reportedly-made-a-decision-about-brian-burns-future/

We're not going to let Burns walk. He will be one of the highest paid at the position. This was probably  a fait accompli once the new cap was amnounced.

Now, whether a long term agreement can be reached is an entirely different story; so, we're really back to square one. I expect Burns to sign his tender and begin campaigning to be paid like a top three guy once again, notwithstanding a relatively down season. It would be nice if he were reasonable and we could wrap this all up, but who the hell knows where it's going? *Sigh*

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

Tagging him is definitely the right move with the big cap bump. But I'd definitely be prioritizing tag and trade as option #1. There's no way I'm giving Burns the contract he wants after last season when he disappeared for games at a time and openly admitted to basically mailing it in trying to not get hurt. If he threatens to hold out and you believe him then trade him for the best offer available and just move on.

  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, top dawg said:

We're going to tag Brian Burns and try to keep him. 

https://www.thecoldwire.com/panthers-have-reportedly-made-a-decision-about-brian-burns-future/

We're not going to let Burns walk. He will be one of the highest paid at the position. This was probably  a fait accompli once the new cap was amnounced.

Now, whether a long term agreement can be reached is an entirely different story; so, we're really back to square one. I expect Burns to sign his tender and begin campaigning to be paid like a top three guy once again, notwithstanding a relatively down season. It would be nice if he were reasonable and we could wrap this all up, but who the hell knows where it's going? *Sigh*

I expect two tags and then he leaves in free agency when wd can no longer tag him. That is basically what I see transpiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Tagging him is definitely the right move with the big cap bump. But I'd definitely be prioritizing tag and trade as option #1. There's no way I'm giving Burns the contract he wants after last season when he disappeared for games at a time and openly admitted to basically mailing it in trying to not get hurt. If he threatens to hold out and you believe him then trade him for the best offer available and just move on.

INB4 Gettleman-esque Tag and Cut.

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

32 minutes ago, KSpan said:

It is kind of amazing how badly the team (general usage here) bungled this situation.

It really isn’t when you look back at Fitterer’s 3 year stint. We will likely have given up more draft value for Sam Darnold, a guy who was likely released after the draft (to avoid paying 5th year), than we will get back for Burns.

When you look back at all the shitty trades/non-trades, draft picks and FA moves, it’s not surprising at all that we fittered up with Burns.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

That was a mind blowing cluster fug of an own goal right there. Yikes.

Well, honestly, he was right about Norman’s worth. He never can close to 2015’s career year and he certainly wasn’t worth the money the Redskins gave him. You would have hoped we could have gotten more value via trade, but no one in Washington was happy with that signing when it was over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

It really isn’t when you look back at Fitterer’s 3 year stint. We will likely have given up more draft value for Sam Darnold, a guy who was likely released after the draft (to avoid paying 5th year), than we will get back for Burns.

When you look back at all the shitty trades/non-trades, draft picks and FA moves, it’s not surprising at all that we fittered up with Burns.

Remember the intense "who was the worst GM" debates about Gettleman vs. Hurney?

Those are dead forever. Fitterer so thoroughly lapped the field on that.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Remember the intense "who was the worst GM" debates about Gettleman vs. Hurney?

Those are dead forever. Fitterer so thoroughly lapped the field on that.

Lapped? Fitterer slit their Achilles before the race started and moonwalked his ass across the worst GMs to ever exist finish line. Ryan Poles and Joe Douglas were there to thank him again for saving their jobs and making people forget their horrible picks. John Lynch couldn’t make it because he was at the Super Bowl. He sent a very nice arrangement.

Edited by WhoKnows
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...