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


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone who wanted sign and trade, this was always the reality of what would be offered for a guy demanding the contract he ended up with. 

Edited by csx
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

    • How did this “innovative” narrative start with Canales? Just because he’s young? He truly wants to run the ball and nothing Tampa did last year was all that creative. Mike Evans ability to win 1 on 1 does wonders for an offense as a whole 
    • Initially, I wanted Stroud but I thought the trade up meant that, whoever they chose, it was for a reason.  There was no pressure to do anything for the entire scouting team to do other than investigate every aspect of the top 3 candidates.  Stroud had his question marks, and I think it is possible that he falters this year.  Bryce had a much worse situation here in Carolina because we neglected the OL, traded our #1 WR, did not pick WRs well in the draft, traded our pro bowl RB, and seem to disregard the TE position altogether.  Bozeman was not a good fit and we relied on an improved OL in 2022 to suggest that we were set there when we were far from it.  Fitterer had no vision, no grasp of talent, and everyone in the front office and on the coaching staff were pretending to be gurus.  Our coaching staff was a group of men earning a lifetime achievement paycheck.  It all goes back to the years of neglect for the OL.  My theory?  If Stroud had come to Carolina, he would be as mocked and ridiculed as Bryce Young.   No, he does not have a cannon.  Chad Pennington was a weak-armed QB who had success and would have been even better if it were not for injuries.  Smarts is important at QB, and so are mechanics.  Before you can address Young's mechanics, he needs an OL, Running game, and weapons. We were not really able to run play action from under center for a few reasons--play action is not effective when you have to pass the ball--other than that, the QB must turn his back to the LOS for about 1.5 seconds.  When the QB has less than 2.5 seconds to pass the ball, that eliminates that part of the play book.  Heck, even the run option is minimized when there is immediate facial pressure.  SO those who want to talk about happy feet, bouncing, etc--they are symptoms of the problem, not the problem.  A weak arm?  Well, Young's arm is between Chad Pennington and Joe Montana--closer to Joe.  His are is not as weak as some think--but he has issues with the deep ball. When you are reacting to the defense and quickly have to pass, then that takes away the strength because you don't have the base to get power behind it.  I still wish we had taken Stroud, but we have Young and if you toss him out before giving him support, you are not wise, unsmart, not unfoolish, and rather elite in your failure to attain mediocrity.  Expect growth.  How much? Nobody knows.
×
×
  • Create New...