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!

     

Hunt + Lewis >>>> Burns

TheBigKat

By TheBigKat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

CBDellinger Mentor

CBDellinger

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

No they weren't. It was a 23' 2nd, 24' 1st, 25' 1st. That's QB value for a defensive player that wasn't even a top 10 edge overall player. You take that and run as fast as you can every damn time. 

I think it was a 24 1st, a 25 1st and a 25 2nd at the deadline of 2022 so 2 and 3 years out… which in Tepper years is like 3 or 4 new head coaches and 2 front offices worth of time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhoKnows Grand Master

WhoKnows

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, CBDellinger said:

Nah… the picks is were like 4 or 5 years out… rams just had a first round pick for 1st time in 7 years. I dunno why that’s not part of the conversation surrounding that proposed trade.   

In what world are you living. The first 1st would have just been made in the 2024 draft and we’d have two 1sts in the upcoming 2025 draft. The 2nd was pick 36 in the 2023 draft, so we’d have already used two of the three picks. 4 to 5 years out? It wasn’t part of the conversation because it wasn’t reality.

I kept saying that people who argued against it didn’t get that we’d get two solid starters with the money we saved (Hunt and Lewis) plus be one good GM away from also getting 3 rookie starters, any of whom might be better than Burns by himself. I was 100% right and everyone who argued against the trade was 100% wrong, period.

It was an awful trade to not make. Fitterer fuged up, simple as that. We made the Burns trade one 2-14 year later and turned a 2024 1st and 2025 1st into a 2024 5th and 2025 5th.

The biggest fug up by Fitterer was not using the Burns trade as our feeder into a rookie QB. Making the Rams Burns trade would have basically made the mistake of Young not devastating to our talent. Fitterer doubled down and lost both.

  • Beer 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, KSpan said:

Which was exactly the point of letting him go, to spread the resources. It was no guarantee that the FO would make the right moves but seems like they made positive decisions with that money thus far.

Yeah. I know. I am cranky over this toothless defense. 

 

all of a sudden having one matters. 

 

Edited by strato
Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, KSpan said:

If it makes you feel any better, Burns wouldn't help at this point AND the offense would possibly (likely?) be worse. 

I'm not bitching about Burns. He wasn't going to be reasonable, let them pay him. I'm bitching about sacrificing the defense for the offense. 

They could have given the D back a taste. No, it's like: "defense, sell one of your guys so we can help Bryce be Drew Brees"; you will get nothing and like it lol. The defense got the short end the last three years. 3 years is too long for that to go on. Even shitty QBs can beat you if you get no pressure. 

And I love OL and I love that the offense looks professional, I do. Go figure, one player does that.

 But it's still the offense gets a steak and potato for dinner the defense gets a hot dog and chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CBDellinger Mentor

CBDellinger

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

In what world are you living. The first 1st would have just been made in the 2024 draft and we’d have two 1sts in the upcoming 2025 draft. The 2nd was pick 36 in the 2023 draft, so we’d have already used two of the three picks. 4 to 5 years out? It wasn’t part of the conversation because it wasn’t reality.

I kept saying that people who argued against it didn’t get that we’d get two solid starters with the money we saved (Hunt and Lewis) plus be one good GM away from also getting 3 rookie starters, any of whom might be better than Burns by himself. I was 100% right and everyone who argued against the trade was 100% wrong, period.

It was an awful trade to not make. Fitterer fuged up, simple as that. We made the Burns trade one 2-14 year later and turned a 2024 1st and 2025 1st into a 2024 5th and 2025 5th.

The biggest fug up by Fitterer was not using the Burns trade as our feeder into a rookie QB. Making the Rams Burns trade would have basically made the mistake of Young not devastating to our talent. Fitterer doubled down and lost both.

I made a post after that I think you missed and depending on who you read and believe the 2nd was a 2025 pick.

the hindsight is groovy but burns was in the midst if a 12.5 sack campaign in his 3rd year?  I guess they thought 1 in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.  In retrospect he fizzled and it sucks now.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by CBDellinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrianS Veteran

BrianS

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

No they weren't. It was a 23' 2nd, 24' 1st, 25' 1st. That's QB value for a defensive player that wasn't even a top 10 edge overall player. You take that and run as fast as you can every damn time. 

Correct.  And additionally, by rule you can only trade away up to three years out.  You can't trade a pick five years out.  People saying that this was a long ways out are just wrong.  Sure, they didn't offer an immediate 1st . . . because they didn't have it to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waldo Grand Master

Waldo

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, strato said:

I'm not bitching about Burns. He wasn't going to be reasonable, let them pay him. I'm bitching about sacrificing the defense for the offense. 

They could have given the D back a taste. No, it's like: "defense, sell one of your guys so we can help Bryce be Drew Brees"; you will get nothing and like it lol. The defense got the short end the last three years. 3 years is too long for that to go on. Even shitty QBs can beat you if you get no pressure. 

And I love OL and I love that the offense looks professional, I do. Go figure, one player does that.

 But it's still the offense gets a steak and potato for dinner the defense gets a hot dog and chips.

They picked up 3 $7 million a year guys and a $5 a year guy...except for the CB I don't think they are playing all that well. I'm not sure that side spending more would have changed much anyways. That's what I'm telling myself until the people brought in under the DC start doing better. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
strato Grand Master

strato

Posted
Posted (edited)

We could list who they had to replace. But we were short the previous season over there with the 3rd rounder on edge setting duty. People talking about it was hidden because teams didn't need to exploit them all game to win. 

It wasn't just who we lost after 2023. We never had it right to start with. 

What are those guards making APY? I guess I'm sour also because of the extended time that Lewis was missing in camp/preseason, and played three games and out again. I like him, and Hunt could be an annual Pro Bowl type. But so much money on guards... 

Edited by strato
  • Beer 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

    • tukafan21
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • rayzor
      Our guys working their azz's off to be the winners they know they are!!

      By rayzor · Posted

      Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Rocky Davis
      NHL Draft 2025

      By Rocky Davis · Posted

      Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...