mav1234

Seems to be a yearly phenomenon that this year's QBs just aren't as good as next year's will be....

I have no doubt Fields would have sucked with Rhule coaching him. But he's better than anything we have now and likely better than the QBs we will be in position to draft given Wilks being an actual NFL coach. I really liked him but when he slid I assumed it was because he had flaws I didn't see. I am, after all, a terrible talent evaluator lol. I'm glad he's finding success and I hope that bears team can build around him.

Burns doesn't need to be among the all time greats to be a great DE. He is developing towards one, and has been one this season. He's no Peppers. But Peppers started 60 games his first four seasons and recorded 40.5 sacks. So far, Burns has started 45 and recorded 32.5; as a rookie the last half of the season saw him in on fewer than 50% of snaps. He isn't Peppers, he never will be, but fans are surprisingly hard on him for how strong a pass rusher he has been and how he has upped his game overall this year. Unrelated... The interesting thing about the trade rumors is that initially we were told the Panthers wanted something along with the two first rounders this coming draft to do the deal. Then a 2nd got thrown in. That we didn't take that makes me think this is a Tepper thing. Maybe I'm wrong.

C'mon dude

While that would be my preference, I could see Wilks going with Mayfield over Darnold. Hard to be sure though.

1) I don't agree RE: on the field more than other DEs. E.g. other DEs that are in the top 10 in sacks this year for DEs have similar percentage of time on the field (Z Smith ~80% of snaps when starting but is kinda a mix DE OLB, Bosa ~80% of snaps when starting, Garrett ~80 of snaps when starting, Crosby >80% when starting). Burns is at 77%, 75%, and 84% of snaps when starting - right in that range. 2) On missed tackles, Burns has DRASTICALLY improved that this year. His missed tackle percentage is down to 4.3%, less than or similar to Crosby (6%), Smith (7%), Bosa (0% this year, but 5.5% last year - dude is a BEAST), Garrett (4.3%, same as Burns). Still an area IMO he can get better at though. I think this year, Burns has been a consistent three down player. His tackles, hurries, TFL, are all way up. I'm not saying he is as good as Garrett or Bosa, btw. And like I said, once that 2nd rounder this year was added, I probably trade him. But I think this year, Burns has been significantly better than some fans give him credit for. He's become much more than JUST a pass rush specialist.

He definitely has not. People complained about his usage year 1 and he's only recorded as having 5 starts that year. He was used as a passing down specialist (hence why he had like, half the tackles of his other years). edit: He was in on 43% of D snaps in 2019, about half of what the percentage he is in on this year. edit2: 2019 was also the year we tried the 3-4, right? And he was the OLB in it? He would do much better in a 3-4.

PJ basically has an audition until Baker can't hit total of 70% snaps. After that, Baker becomes MUCH more likely to start.

While a 4th isn't much more valuable than a 5th, it is more value, and PJ playing one more game (because I think we just need one more start out of PJ or Darnold to push us there) is sufficient to put us out of reach of that. But I also think its hard to bench your starter after a win.

Burns has only been a starter for 2 (now moving on to 3) seasons, in part because of his age. Over the last 2+ seasons, Burns is top ten in sacks, close to that in hits, and is the youngest player in that group (Bosa is close at 25 - the rest are 3+ years older than Burns). I do get the concern he hasn't taken over games, etc. And I think that he is a very good, but not yet an all pro DE. I'm going to play around with AV because I think the expected value of the trades was probably not actually worth Burns' production over the last couple years.

Tepper may have had a hand in preventing it, actually. Future assets (relative to present assets) aren't only worth less to GMs, they're worth less to the team as a whole, because they are delayed production and have an unknown value that is hard to plan around. With the Rams, we are more than likely talking mid to late round picks, too. Now I still probably would have made the trade given the second this year, but I get the logic of not doing so, and I think there's more there than fitterer trying to save his job.

Those teams don't suck. They all have NFL talent. Are they among the very best this year? No. But acting like they're a bunch of div3 nothing's when it comes to evaluating a player is pretty crazy. They will provide useful tape on him for scouts.

Wilks is a great interim HC choice, because he's going to bring back NFL coaching to the lockerroom but was always unlikely to manage to win with it, given what's around him and his own abilities. It also keeps the players fighting and playing, and more importantly developing.

It's still early enough there's a lot of time for these players to impress scouts. Every year, the promise of the next year's crop of players is always greater.

Wow why don't we always draft a QB in the 3rd round?! Think how many all stars we could have had...

Oh, Corral will get a shot at the roster. And, if he's half as good as some posters thought this preseason, he might even end up starter depending on other circumstances. I think it's more likely he ends up a backup for us, and we potentially carry 3 QBs if he has a decent preseason (I see our new coach drafting a QB).

Owners are absolutely involved in trades for big name players... Dunno why people would say differently. It's possible Fitt never considered it but it's just surprising if that's true.

I suspect there were things behind the scenes there. And trading one player, especially a RB, isn't the same as trading two - especially a DE (or WR in Moore's case, tho that deal didn't sound as good). The idea Fitt decided to hold Burns to save his job this year is odd, which is why I don't buy that explanation, and the yield seemed like something he'd take.

I'm very surprised we didn't take the deal when it included a 2nd rounder in 2023. Yeah that's basically 2 2nds and a 3rd, but that's still excellent value overall. I wonder if Tepper wouldn't allow the trade or something since he needs some decent players in the roster to get butts in seats? Doesn't make sense for Fitt not to have done it given his wheeling and dealing generally.

Most of the reports we heard said the Panthers wanted capital this year and the rams were offering 2024 and 2025. It's news to me they thru in a 2023 2nd, which does change my opinion of the trade ...

Corral was ALWAYS a reach (as a long term starter for fans to bank on not where he was drafted, bad wording choice on my part). He can compete in camp and may surprise us but we need to take a QB in the first as long as one of the good ones is left.

Some posters are confusing projection of place on a roster when drafted based on scouts perception of a player(such as starter, depth, development) vs long term career success. 2nd and 3rd round picks are not "mid late fluff"... They have a lot of value, both in terms of potential starters based on projections and in trades if we needed to move up etc

Glad you posted this. Feels a bit like before Cam would get new deals where people would act like the player desperately wanted to leave...

It's important to note the franchise doesn't consider future firsts as first rounders when considering this. I think it's *possible* we could get more than a 2nd and 3rd for him in the future, if he develops the rest of the year, but I think we need him and are more likely to keep him

If only they'd made the trade then in three years we could have drafted Burns' replacement with one of the picks and would be able to look forward to trading that player in another four years! It's clear Fitt thinks we can retain Burns long term.