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!

     

The Real Reason This Trade is So Bad


tukafan21
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is because Morgan and Tepper have no balls, let me explain............

Burns was never going to play a single snap on the franchise tag this season, he showed his hand when he admitted he played scared this season out of concern of injury without his contract.

We let him dictate the terms of a trade by doing it today, it allowed him to demand more money from whatever team traded for him, thus allowing that team to have a reason to be stingy on the compensation coming back out way.

We should have let Burns sweat, let him sit there for a few weeks and when he realized he wasn't getting this $30 million a year contract and knew he wasn't going to play a snap on the tag, he'd have been willing to sign a cheaper contract (in the $25M a year range) as it would have been that or sitting out the season.

I guarantee that teams would have given better compensation if they were able to get him on a cheaper deal like that, 100% chance a team more in contention would have given us a late 1st rounder for him on a deal like that.

This was Morgan and Tepper not having the balls the play this one out and force Burns to show his hand, which was that he was NEVER going to sign the tag and play on it, I'll never be convinced otherwise.

  • Beer 5
  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Is because Morgan and Tepper have no balls, let me explain............

Burns was never going to play a single snap on the franchise tag this season, he showed his hand when he admitted he played scared this season out of concern of injury without his contract.

We let him dictate the terms of a trade by doing it today, it allowed him to demand more money from whatever team traded for him, thus allowing that team to have a reason to be stingy on the compensation coming back out way.

We should have let Burns sweat, let him sit there for a few weeks and when he realized he wasn't getting this $30 million a year contract and knew he wasn't going to play a snap on the tag, he'd have been willing to sign a cheaper contract (in the $25M a year range) as it would have been that or sitting out the season.

I guarantee that teams would have given better compensation if they were able to get him on a cheaper deal like that, 100% chance a team more in contention would have given us a late 1st rounder for him on a deal like that.

This was Morgan and Tepper not having the balls the play this one out and force Burns to show his hand, which was that he was NEVER going to sign the tag and play on it, I'll never be convinced otherwise.

The Giants are paying Burns all that money to get dominated by a TE multiple times a game in the run/pass game. This is exactly what this team needed. For Brian Burns not to be on the roster when TC begins AND we got 2 picks out of the deal. Burns is the Giants problem now and good riddance.

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

8 minutes ago, Fright said:

We’re trippin way too hard on 8 sacks, 32 tackles and mediocre at best run D… we dodged a bullet not paying what the Giants did. 

Burns will now play at a HOF level. We will continue to look stupid. That's what you get when you have an owner like ours. I miss u JR.

  • Pie 2
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at other contracts players are getting. You can’t use deals from a year or two ago as a baseline. Players and agents know the cap is going to skyrocket over the next few years. 
 

When can you ever recall a non all pro / pro bowl OG getting a 100 million dollar deal? 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

The Giants are paying Burns all that money to get dominated by a TE multiple times a game in the run/pass game. This is exactly what this team needed. For Brian Burns not to be on the roster when TC begins AND we got 2 picks out of the deal. Burns is the Giants problem now and good riddance.

And free up the tag money at the start of FA 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real reason it's so awful is the value we got in return. The Giants made him the second highest paid pass rusher in the league and only gave up a 2nd and a 5th to get him. The last time I remember a pass rusher like that getting traded was when Khalil Mack got traded to the Bears. Now I think Mack was the better player but they were comparable. Mack became the highest paid edge rusher and had 40.5 sacks over the previous four years. Burns is the 2nd highest paid edge rusher and he has 38.5 sacks over the previous four years. There's a reason why the Rams offered us two 1sts and the reason was largely the standard the Khalil Mack trade set.

What did the Raiders get for Mack? Two 1sts, a 3rd, and a 6th. We got robbed.

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

Look at other contracts players are getting. You can’t use deals from a year or two ago as a baseline. Players and agents know the cap is going to skyrocket over the next few years. 
 

When can you ever recall a non all pro / pro bowl OG getting a 100 million dollar deal? 

Dude, he's arguably a top five OG in the league. Labels don't matter, just production.

  • 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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...