Would keeping Burns require another big D-line addition?

[Donald LaFell]

Any pass rusher is going to benefit from a bookend, but Burns has never been one to fight through double teams or command triple teams. I could be full of crap there but AFAIK that’s the case. 
 

If you make a big investment in Burns do you now have to give him a FA or #33 pass rusher to keep him effective? 
 

The answer probably feels obvious to some but I just felt like throwing that out there. 

[Waldo]

Burns was built to be a #2. So yes go find a true beast DE or Edge and let Burns rack up sacks as the other guy gets doubled and still produces more.

[Bear Hands]

I don't think you want to have too heavy of a weight financially on the DL.  Tillis is here to hopefully ensure we have some balance with the structure of the team from that standpoint.  

I would love Huff or Greenard if Burns goes elsewhere, if he stays...then I think that high 3rd or 4th could be DL.  Bralen Trice is a name to watch if he falls to the 3rd, he's gets to the QB and is good enough against the run. 

Adisa Isaac out of PSU is another guy to watch as he was PSU's captain and real defensive leader.  That dude hustles.  Has a mentality that matches what we claim we're looking for and should transition well to the NFL.  One of my favorite picks top of the 3rd.  Good size for a balanced EDGE defender in Evero's defense.  

 

[Untouchable]

If you're shipping Burns out you need 2 rushers now, so you're probably spending a healthy sum on one in free agency at the very least.

You should look to bring back YGM as well as EDGE3 too after a solid stint when healthy last year. Haynes is likely gone if he's not calling it a career after his back injury last season so you're looking at an almost completely empty edge rushing room without resigning anyone.

[top dawg]

Burns, just like any other pass rusher needs someone on the other side to maximize one or another's opportunity to get to the passer. We've halfheartedly tried to get one, but we're going to have to make better acquisitions. If we don't, then we will never get our money's worth out of Burns (and we will here constant complaints from Huddlers). We'd be doing ourselves, Burns, and other players on the team a disservice.

[Jon Snow]

We had Riddick and he had more sacks than Burns. We let him walk because reasons. Don't tell me you can't find a FA to put up similar numbers for half the cost. 

[JawnyBlaze]

If 33 is our first pick and we spend it on defense I ***** riot. 

[WhoKnows]

28 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

If 33 is our first pick and we spend it on defense I ***** riot. 

So true but these discussions are so shortsighted.

Don’t be like the people who were so worried that we couldn’t replace Burns with one of the 1sts in the Rams deal, that they didn’t want the deal. Hint, they were absolutely wrong.

If we keep or trade Burns there is no need to make some instant decision. We are a shitty team. We were a couple plays away from being the first 0-17 team.

Thinking back to the Burns deal, Fitterer was completely shortsighted. The Burns deal was about being able to keep CMC and Moore and get all the ammo we needed to make a trade up for a QB or surround him with a great TE and 2nd great WR. Idiot Fitterer unfortunately thought he could replace CMC and Moore with Sanders and Chark/Mingo. Same thing here, stop worrying about instantly replacing Burns if we trade him or getting him help if we extend him (which sounds ridiculous to get a $30M guy help). Use those picks to get the best players available at any spot because we are so far from contending. Also, draft to the strengths of each draft so we continually get plus value from our picks. 33 is a freaking sweet spot it seems for WRs. Heck, given the Bills, Ravens and Chiefs all could go WR, we might think about trading up if there is a Brian Thomas sitting there and you have him ranked really high.

[BrianS]

This is the same issue I have with a lot of players, and not just in football.  "Player X is great!  He just needs A, B & C to unlock him."

Bull(*@%.

Great players don't need other players around them to play great.  Did Peppers need someone else before he could be who he was?  No, of course not.  Even Rucker, who was that other DE for a lot of Peppers time, he had 9 sacks the year *before* Peppers arrived.  He was always REALLY GOOD.

Yes, having a lot of good players on the team makes everyone look good - probably better than they really are.  But great players just find a way.  That's what they do.

Burns has shown us he's good.  Not great.  And he's asking for great money.  That's the rub here.

[kungfoodude]

We can make some stop gap acquisitions at a decent price but the long term plan needs to be draft better. We can get starting quality and rotational quality guys and we need both, doesn't matter if we keep Burns or not. Our focus needs to be building the team for the long term.

That was the lie that Tepper and Rhule perpetuated but never actually attempted.

[WUnderhill]

With how bad this offense was at every single position last season, if they spend #33 on an edge I’m going to mint and pissing on the doormats.

[RumHam]

do we even know the defense we're running this year? 

[DaveThePanther2008]

Kris Jenkins 2.0  Another generation for the Carolina Panthers.

I don't know much about the kid but would love to have KJ son on our team just for nostalgic reasons.  

[LinvilleGorge]

2 hours ago, Donald LaFell said:

Burns has never been one to fight through double teams or command triple teams. I could be full of crap there but AFAIK that’s the case. 
 

If you make a big investment in Burns do you now have to give him a FA or #33 pass rusher to keep him effective? 
 

And this is why Burns isn't worth the cap crippling contract that elite pass rushers demand.