1of10Charnatives

Because he's still that hard to replace and pass rushing matters that much, although imo 2 firsts, depending on whom they're from, is the point I start to think long and hard about it. It's early, maybe this starts off a bidding war for Burns that gets crazy. We can hope, right? If the offers keep going up, gonna be hard not to take one.

Because each team starts two primary pass rushers, whether DE or OLB. That means there are 64 starting pass rushers in the NFL. If he's the 17th best guy, he still obviously has room for improvement and he's already better than 75% of his peers. Stop acting like HOF is the only acceptable path to SB rings. It's just not true. Step back and give yourself some additional context. How many pass rushers get drafted in the draft every year? How many of those wind up being better than Burns? Some miniscule percentage. Do you really think any of the 15 or so guys you'd rather have can be acquired somehow without crippling our roster or hamstringing our future?

So your premise is that only HOF worthy pass rushers are worth keeping? Your post doesn't explicitly state this but it seems implied. Do SB champion teams always have HOF worthy pass rushers, or do they often have multiple outstanding but not HOF worthy pass rushers? Two starting pass rushers who each produce 10 sacks have an advantage over the HOFer who hits for 20. First, it's far easier to get your hands on that than the HOFer, second, injury risk means you're not all or nothing. If your HOFer gets bit by the injury bug in a violent game, your pass rush doesn't simply evaporate. Pointing out that Burns, just entering his prime, is only 8th on our franchise sack leader list, directly comparing him to retired players who played full careers is just not apples to apples. This is Peppers and Greene. The next 3 players on your list had high sack per game numbers but played only a few seasons during their prime for us. The last two are interesting. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that if you checked Johnson and Ruckers sacks per game numbers at the same point in their careers Burns is at now, he would outperform them. Burns clearly has holes in his game, especially playing the run, and a propensity to fail to bring down QB's in his grasp, but his ceiling is obviously higher than grinders like Johnson and Rucker when it comes to pass rushing. I think you deal Burns if he doesn't want to stay, but if he does, you keep him because of the difficulty in replacing him. Only about 15 to 20 players per season hit the level of production he's currently hitting, and his numbers can clearly go up.

Thanks. I only speak english. They didn't offer crackhead in school when I was there.

That's going to be true because the value of any non top 10ish pick is heavily dependent on the relative skill of the people doing the picking. The very top players in each draft are sometimes no brainer obvious prospects, beyond that, it's all about can your braintrust make better decisions picking than the other 32 teams? We've been at square one for four or five years now. Improvement by the FO is the only thing that will change that.

Did Montana play ahead of a higher round rookie pick?

You are not wrong that they say this. You are wrong if you think they mean it. Please cite for me an instance where a HC has sat a highly drafted rookie QB behind a lower round might as well be a rookie prospect.

This analysis is wrong on OL and CB, both position groups are better than when Tepper took over. More importantly, it ignores the fact that owners don't draft players, GM's and coaches do, and the coach and possibly GM who will be using these picks remain to be determined. Did Tepper whiff badly on his first coach hire? Yes. Does that automatically mean every hire he makes will be horribly inept and therefore acquiring picks will never matter the sky is falling let's slit our wrists nobody likes us everybody hates us guess we'll go eat worms? No. The next hire could suck too, but the only alternative to hoping it's better is to resign yourself to misery as a fan or stop watching. Personally I've chosen to stop watching until the team gives me a reason to watch. YMMV.

I I just wait... What?

If I were Burns I would sit tight and see what I think of the new coaching staff. If your Burns, this isn't the4 worst situation in the world. Our crap offense means the D will constantly be on the field rest of the season, giving him plenty of opportunities to pad his stats and beef up his resume, whether for the rest of the league or to make his extension here bigger. If he doesn't like what he sees from the new regime, he can bail.

That's the thing about the NFL, the pay and fame tend to attract freaks of nature. The league has a surprisingly high percentage of them compared with say...accounting.

*stabs him in the eye with a fork for bringing up the real world.*

Yes, as opposed to the even more that not trading him would have been.

I will grant that a legitimate debate can be had about whether Burns is the guy long term. He tends to fail to bring down QB's he has in his grasp for too often for my liking, but his current production does project to double digit sack numbers this season, and he had 9 each of the last two years. Those guys matter to winning ball games and they do not grow on trees. Over the past few seasons, about 15 players a year have posted double digit sacks. Whether DE or LB, most teams employ two primary pass rushers, that means Burns produces at a level that only one in four pass rushers achieves. Is he perfect ? No. Is he easily replaced? No.

if you want a top pick, that's exactly one of the reasons you get rid of him ASAP as we did. Don't want to screw around and win games that would only remove us from a shot at pick number one. There is zero chance this team wins anything meaningful this year, and the coaching staff who will instill a culture of winning has likely not been hired yet.

Please stop prioritizing RB's in the draft in any way shape or form. With a quality OL, you can sign a guy off the couch who can get you four yards up the middle. Pro Bow? No. What you need from a position that was once key and now matters far less to success than many fans think? Yes. Draft capital should be prioritized for positions it's difficult to acquire FA talent. Decent FA RB's are a dime a dozen.

A generational talent who can't stay on the field is not a generational talent who matters in the end. It's a rare RB indeed who winds up being worthy of a hefty non rookie deal.

Jacob Eason, come on down!

Cap savings is the primary thing you should be looking at with this trade, not just the picks. Cap dollars can be rolled forward, so any money not spent on a RB who won't be part of your competitive team in a few years is good, also if you subscribe to tanking, getting rid of your only offensive weapon that might cause you to screw up and win a game or two could put you out of contention for the QB prospect of your choice.

Are we really sure none of the other bottom feeder teams will be able to out suck us for the top pick? I mean I realize firing your head coach and trading away your only offensive weapon are strong opening moves in that direction, but I wouldn't count the Lions out just yet. They have tons of experience at being awful. Who are the teams we might screw up and beat with a few key plays breaking our way?

Teams with top paid WR's tend not to win SB's, so I'm not in favor of paying them top money either. There is too much talent to go around at WR, and the difference between what you get with a top WR and a decent one you don't pay nearly as much is nowhere near the difference between top talent at the positions I mentioned. Bottom line, you can find people to catch the ball in the NFL, the trickier bit is finding the person to throw them the ball, and the pass protectors who can keep athletic freaks from knocking that guy down.

Note the compensation they gave up to acquire a player regarded as one of the tops at his position. From their perspective, the deal may make sense, they are in a different position than we are in. Even with a likely top pick in the draft and even if we acquire a top QB prospect, do you see this team playing deep into the playoffs in the next two years? If you do I'd like some of whatever you're smoking. If not, a RB with CMC's injury history is almost guaranteed not to be able to contribute to a degree commensurate with his cost on such a team. Far more likely would be dollars spent on him prevent us from acquiring or retaining the talent needed to assemble such a team.

Teams that win Super Bowls in the modern era do not pay running backs a lot of money. As much as we all love McCaffrey, his contract represented poor allocation of scarce resources in a league where high performing teams do not pay running backs heavily. Spare me the arguments about what a great receiver he is out of the backfield and how that changes the equation. The reality is with a solid qb and receiving corps, in an effective modern offense, you are not throwing dump offs to your running back in nearly the quantity McCaffrey has been receiving. In that respect his receiving numbers are actually a symptom of dysfunctional offense. Every dollar put into a great RB, no matter how skilled a receiver, is a dollar that cannot be used to pay a playoff quality QB, or above average talent at OT, CB, pass rusher, or even safety. These positions matter to winning in the modern era far more than talent at RB, and in the case of everything but safety, are much harder to come by than talent at RB, so the need to acquire and retain talent at these positions is of greater concern. Given that unused cap dollars can now be rolled forward, trading CMC needs to be viewed primarily through the lense of the dollars it frees up to pay Burns, Chinn, and down the road Icky and Horn. These players will matter to any future championship aspirations. A RB and a non pass rushing LB (Shaq) do not, except by subtracting their unpalatable contracts from our cap. The silver lining is that for the first time since Moses led his people out of Egypt, we appear to have solid talent on the OL and in the secondary. We need a QB desperately and we need another productive pass rusher, but don't worry so much about receiver, running back or linebacker, those can be had in FA.

There seems to be a very limited understanding of how importance of position, contract, age and other factors play into whether a player is one you trade or one you try to keep. A clue: players who play key hard to fill positions in the passing game, such as disruptive pass rushers entering their prime and still on rookie deals, do not tend to get traded, their very valuable. A second clue: stars underperforming their contracts playing positions not hard to fill or replace and that do not tend to be the difference in winning playoff games, tend to get traded if value can be received in return.

Look I'm gonna be honest, half the time I can't tell em apart. I think the key is to look at the hair. White people do a lot of weird poo with their hair.