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!

     

Brian Burns Franchise Tagged


shaq
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

It does, but I still think it's unlikely we move him. Also we don't HAVE to get 2 firsts if we agree to another level of compensation.

No it’s just nice if someone tries to hike up his price we just take their picks. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I disagree about FA. I see it much more than that. Sure, you want to mainly build through the draft, but if you can pick a piece up in free agency with potential upside, you do it. Every team is a puzzle. You use all your available tools to build your team. Frankie Luvu is a great example of a player that you pick up, develop, and hopefully keep for the long term. 

How many times is a good young player available in FA? I’m not talking a trade like Tyreke Hill or AJ Brown where they left before their big contract, I’m talking about guys like that being available in FA.

Luvu was a bargain bin FA like Mario Addison. Let’s not talk about our every decade FA bargains. That’s like assuming there will be an undrafted Norwell in every draft. I’d almost consider Luvu and Addison draft picks because we got both of them before their first 4 year deal was up. Signing players released in their first few years in the league to minimum contracts to see them develops is not what I was talking about. Signing Luvu to a minimum deal and having him play well is a great bonus but it’s akin to drafting a good starter in day 3.

My point was that worrying about Burns $24M cap hit is about signing Hurst, Sanders, Houston and Corbett. To me that’s trying to get the final puzzle pieces to a playoff contender and that worked out great for us since we were so close to contending LOL. We don’t need to restructure Moron or extend Burns to fit the Luvus/Addisons of the world before they develop. There’s also way more bargain bin guys who get cut in training camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

That panthersontap tweet isn't accurate. Off the top of my head I can remember Seahawks trading Frank Clark after putting the non-exclusive tag on him. There's probably lots more.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

They have to extend Moton now, and that is not a bad move anyway.  They need to sign a G in free agency, maybe a CB.  They need to hit on 2 WRs in the draft.  Since drafting Steve Smith, I am not sure I can think of 1 in 20 years.

I mean I would say DJ Moore was a hit. Then we decided to trade our only proven WR in a trade up for a young QB instead of trading Burns. That was dumb.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extend him, trade him; just get it over with already.

He should be traded ASAP if we don't intend to extend him or don't think we can get a deal done. We don't need that much cap space tied up all offseason unless we plan to have him on the field this year. Otherwise we need the cap space to sign a replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

It's not GM speak. They truly think he's something special. This team is FUBAR.

Our only hope is either a trade or a contract worth his price. 30 million for 8 sacks and zero run defense is going to cripple this team. Reddick got half for twice as much production lol

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

There is a chance this is a wake up call for Burns and his agent after they talk to several teams.

That's my hope. It just drives me crazy that we had that offer and now a lot of people are hoping that we get offered a single first. A lot of fans realized how ridiculous that offer was. Pick 36 in 23' Pick 19 this year and whatever next year. Burns isn't even a top 10 edge rusher. Tepper and Scott were fugging morons. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, UNCrules2187 said:

I mean I would say DJ Moore was a hit. Then we decided to trade our only proven WR in a trade up for a young QB instead of trading Burns. That was dumb.

GB offered us their 2023 1st (I think it was #15) for Moore at the same time as Burns’ deal. Should have taken both trades and CMC so that we could actually tank 2022 and naturally get a top 3 pick not #9 where we forfeit our team to trade up for the wrong QB. 

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

    • Right. I didn’t think it was good either but the QB sure did. He was the defacto number one target, not Chark, was my point.
    • We could quibble about was that an answer to what I asked but I  don’t see it as being one. Look, he agreed to this Evero thing. Up front. Apparently anyway. Took the job with those conditions in place. I buy that and will work off of it.  This play calling issue isn’t the same thing. I am not in the mood to delve into Canales’ shortcomings and get out the pitchforks at the moment. I will abstain from that topic and stick to the quandary the dissenters who want to usurp his play calling power, find themselves in. As far as that goes I am still on the fence and think the play calling is Bryce centric and the play selection/playbook is affected. That does not mean I know that if the playbook was open he would be great play caller. Just that he is hampered right now.  Inserting an OC not of Canales’ approval changes the original parameters of the assumed agreement.  Unless you think Tepper placed a contractual prescription to allow Tepper to dictate that he can insert a play caller of his choosing after a time period if he is not satisfied with Canales’ work.  Which, do you really think that is in play?  I do not.    Unless it is, Canales has the option to yea or nay. As I said, it could be forced on him. But they only do that if they want him out.  And as of now his stock is up, I would have to say I don’t own any but I think it is up. He had the stadium rocking, the team in the playoffs, and has that sorry lil draft pick trending upward. Even at this very low rate.  I think he has ‘hand’ right now as they say on Seinfeld. This is something that may get play in the 2026 season, not now. IMO.     
×
×
  • Create New...