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

By tukafan21,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mr Mojo Risin Mentor

Mr Mojo Risin

Posted
Posted
Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm a fan of the Panthers. The issue at hand here is trade compensation. We got fleeced. We're the worst team in the league in large part because we're making quite the habit of getting fleeced.

Okay well the Raiders didn't get fleeced and still managed to be the Raiders (haven't won a playoff game since 2002) so in the end it didn't matter. Who cares if you pick 1st or 34th in the draft if you make the wrong pick you make the wrong pick. If you have the wrong coaches and people in place you are going to suck no matter how many draft picks you have.

Our only hope is that Canales and Morgan are the men for the job and if they aren't it wouldn't matter if we received 5 1st round picks for Burns. A good coach/GM will turn the picks and players we do have into a productive nucleus that will set us up to be a good team in a couple years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davidson Deac II Grand Master

Davidson Deac II

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Burns and Ford both played 5 years with Burns having 12 more sacks than Ford, Burns is also still 2 years younger than Ford was at the time

Burns also had 9 more sacks (albeit in an extra season) than Ngakoue, who was in a public twitter fight with the team's owner and was demanding a trade.

Neither are comparable situations and Burns is considered a much higher ceiling pass rusher within the league circles than either of those players were, so if they both got 2nd rounders for them, Burns should have gotten more.

We let Burns find a contract and then took the best offer that team would give us, we should have played hard ball and said you have to find a team willing to give us fair compensation.  If that cost Burns money, well that's his fault for putting himself and the team in this situation when he turned down more than fair offers before last year and then laid an egg.

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveSmithTD89 Proficient

SteveSmithTD89

Posted
Posted

As lackluster as this trade is....

I still make this trade before/instead of the "haul" we got for CMC. This isnt revisionist history. I was very vocal about that. Hated it then. Hate it even more now. 

Best of luck to Burns in the future but I'm not broken up about losing him.

The only upsetting thing about today was Luvu not being re-signed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tukafan21 Grand Master

tukafan21

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

I wasn't the one comparing it to Mack, just saw your post and said they were bad comparisons, and if those got 2nd rounders for them, we should have gotten more.

I'm also not going to go and research past tagged and traded players, it doesn't change that we didn't get enough back for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

Okay well the Raiders didn't get fleeced and still managed to be the Raiders (haven't won a playoff game since 2002) so in the end it didn't matter. Who cares if you pick 1st or 34th in the draft if you make the wrong pick you make the wrong pick. If you have the wrong coaches and people in place you are going to suck no matter how many draft picks you have.

Our only hope is that Canales and Morgan are the men for the job and if they aren't it wouldn't matter if we received 5 1st round picks for Burns. A good coach/GM will turn the picks and players we do have into a productive nucleus that will set us up to be a good team in a couple years.

 

What another team did with their resources is irrelevant. The point is that we don't even have that opportunity.  Higher picks give you a better opportunity to acquire talent. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tukafan21 Grand Master

tukafan21

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, SteveSmithTD89 said:

As lackluster as this trade is....

I still make this trade before/instead of the "haul" we got for CMC. This isnt revisionist history. I was very vocal about that. Hated it then. Hate it even more now. 

Best of luck to Burns in the future but I'm not broken up about losing him.

The only upsetting thing about today was Luvu not being re-signed. 

Agreed

The CMC trade never made sense, the injury fear was never warranted as his injuries were freak things, not the type that you pick up due to wear and tear and being injury prone.

Plus in both years he would have come back in the last season games if they mattered, but we shut him down to not risk injury.

Then even on top of all that we never got fair compensation back for a player of his caliber, it was just a terrible trade that we've somehow replicated two more times since then.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Mojo Risin Mentor

Mr Mojo Risin

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

What another team did with their resources is irrelevant. The point is that we don't even have that opportunity.  Higher picks give you a better opportunity to acquire talent. Period.

 Sure having more picks would be awesome and ideal but what if that trade kept Fitt/Reich in place to use those assets then what good would that have done? Vs. what actually happened, we gave our new HC/GM combo some more ammunition to build this team in their vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Navy_football Grand Master

Navy_football

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

And knowing the guy wouldn't sign for less than $30M a year.

He turned down $27M a year to pick up and move to a state with higher home prices, higher gas prices and higher income taxes. In the end, he likely will have received less by going to NY. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

 Sure having more picks would be awesome and ideal but what if that trade kept Fitt/Reich in place to use those assets then what good would that have done? Vs. what actually happened, we gave our new HC/GM combo some more ammunition to build this team in their vision.

If Fitts had made better moves maybe he wouldn't have been such a bad GM. I didn't have an issue with Fitts personally, I just thought he was an atrocious GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChibCU Mentor

ChibCU

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

This simple and clear distinction is being ignored by the whiner brigade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

The Seahawks traded Frank Clark and a 3rd to the Chiefs in 2019 for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davidson Deac II Grand Master

Davidson Deac II

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

And knowing the guy wouldn't sign for less than $30M a year.

He turned down $27M a year to pick up and move to a state with higher home prices, higher gas prices and higher income taxes. In the end, he likely will have received less by going to NY. 

Didn't think about that, but you are right.  Maybe he is planning to take the Metro into work.  🙂

  • 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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • ForJimmy
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By ForJimmy · Posted

      Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • tukafan21
      Panthers attempted to trade up with Ravens?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
    • TD alt
      Monroe Freeling’s lovely GF

      By TD alt · Posted

      He was also apparently.
×
×
  • Create New...