tukafan21

Take a step back and look at that objectively though. If you're saying Burns has been the 9th best pass rusher over the last 2 seasons, then I think you're making the argument for Burns being paid more than what the team wants to give him. He'd have done that during 2 seasons in which we were not good and thus losing a lot and teams running it more than passing against us. So if he was still the 9th best pass rusher during that time, imagine what he could be if we're playing with leads and he can pin his ears back and rush the passer on more snaps. I think that is something that people tend to forget when looking at his past years and trying to project his future.

They won't in the end CMC for example will get restructured as he has a $14 million cap hit and an $11.8 million salary. They'll end up re-structuring that to be like a $10 million roster bonus and a $1.8 million salary so they can spread that 10 million into future seasons. Do that with 3-4 of the guys on that list and they cleared up a solid 20-30 million from that alone for next year.

ehhhhh, you sure about that? I'm not saying I'm 100% sure myself, but I was pretty sure that I read once that incentives still need to be worked into that season's cap number and you have to make sure you have enough room in the cap to satisfy any potential incentives. Which is also why incentives are usually a set number based on hitting a mark, easier to make sure you have the cap room available, as opposed to just "X amount of money for every Y stat over Z number" So it's not a big problem for teams to keep 5-6 million a year in extra cap room for possible incentives and then if they don't hit, that extra cap gets rolled over into the next season anyways.

Well that depends on what side of the fence you currently sit on in regards to all this. If you're on the side of "Burns isn't worth the elite pass rusher money" then no, this isn't good for us. But if you're like me and on the side of, "we turned down 2 firsts, we have to get it done and not worry about the money since in a few years it will be a bargain contract when the next batches of pass rushers get their deal" then this is OUTSTANDING news. It now gives the team the ability to give him his 28-30 a year that he wants, which while it's more than the team wants to pay, it keeps him solidly below the top number, which will then continue to get topped over the next few years. So we give Burns his 28-30 a year now, we'll feel much better about that when Parsons gets 36-38 next offseason.

I think the whole tier system is also a fallacy Elite players don't grow on trees, this isn't like an accountant, where if the person you want is asking for too much money, you can easily pass on him and go out and get someone equally as good for less money. You don't pay a player because of what they're worth, you pay a player because of what they're worth to another team because you have to beat them out on contract offers. If Burns were an unrestricted FA right now, he'd easily get a contract over $25 million and probably pushing $30, because another team in need of pass rushing would give it to him as you have to overpay to get players of his talent. So in essence, you're never paying the player for what they're worth, you're paying what it takes to keep the player from going to another team, and once you look at it like that, you can't look at players in terms of tiers of elite status or even what others have been paid. You can see the same thing in reverse right now for RB's. There were a ton of RBs on the market this year, which is why they struggled to get good contracts, because if a team passed on an RB, there were a plethora of other options out there, which isn't the case with top end pass rushers.

No, just a hard no There is nothing wrong with including incentives, but that one would hamstring our cap situation. If he went out there and dropped a 20 sack season, which isn't out of the question if he plays 17 games and has a great year, that's an extra $8 million he'd earn. The only way to make that work is to ensure we're well under the cap during the season and play the year with probably a good $10-12 million in free space to ensure we don't have issues with any of his incentives. If he then only gets the 12 sacks, that's $8-10 million we didn't spend that season, or basically an above average starter at another position.

People really need to stop comparing a potential Burns deal to deals signed a year or two ago. It's not hard to understand, every off season the next batch of elite players at a position pass by the previous high contracts. It's the reason Mahomes is like the 10th highest paid QB after he was the Top guy the second he signed his deal a few years ago. I guarantee there will be no less than 5-6 players in the next 2 years that will sign bigger deals than whatever we give Burns, plus the couple guys who would still have bigger deals than him right now. If I were to tell you that in 2 years, we'd have Burns locked up for another 4 years while being paid in the 10-12th highest paid lineman/pass rusher in the league, is there anyone who wouldn't be thrilled about that? Stop looking at the moment and look at the bigger picture.

I'm guessing if they had Burns and Donald, they find a way to keep Ramsey though as well. They also probably would have been able to get a few other vets to come there on cheaper deals to try and make a run at a ring. And yes, Kupp being banged up hurts their prospects, but again, that's a recent thing, he'd have been perfectly healthy during the off season when they'd have still been trying to put together a contending roster. They'd have gone the Saints route and found a way to keep kicking the can down the road to keep a good roster together for another season.

Yea, that hurts because there is a chance we could have ended up either pairing Bryce with say a Marvin Harrison Jr or flipping the pick to a QB needy team for a haul. However, I will say that I think if they had Burns but not their first round picks, their offseason would have been very different and they'd have tried to make sure this year's team could make a real run at the SB again. Hell, just putting Burns next to Donald could have made their defense elite. Good luck trying to give your QB time to pass the ball with the two of them rushing the passer next to each other. It's easy to say we might have given up a Top 5 pick when looking at the Rams this very moment, but if they've had Burns since middle of last season, things likely play out differently.

I did like the "and showing the public" part of that post, how dare you not only prove me wrong, but show it to everyone, not cool man, not cool LOL

I actually don't think a ton of rookie QB's were named captains in their first seasons as of late, some get it, but most end up getting it in their second season. But this one was obvious for months, just the way the rest of the team talked about him and how crazy impressive he is off the field, he took over the leadership role of this team the second he stepped into the locker room, it's just who he is. It's one of the reasons I was okay with drafting him, I still hate how small he is as I'll never not be concerned about him holding up long term in this league, but his ability to lead and his mental side of the game has the chance to be Peyton or Brady level type of stuff.

^^^^ lol.... everyone calls this guy out, but according to him, it's everyone else who is crazy and stalks him. I'm sure he's right and the dozens of people who have called him out over the last few months are all the crazy ones. It's okay bud, you just don't understand how the real life NFL works, you're too stuck in how you can run a team in Madden and manipulate the system to get everyone and anyone you want. Cue the stalking claims (even though he's the latest post on the most active thread on the forum) in 3, 2, 1..............

Yes and no, I think people keep forgetting that we'd only be paying him top dollar for one, maybe two seasons. It won't take long for the next batch of pass rushers to surpass the contracts. Parsons is eligible for an extension next year, I'll bet any amount of money right now that he will sign a contract for more than Bosa.

Which when you think about it, makes these DE contracts almost a bargain. The top QB's in the league right now are making $50+ million a year, second most important position then going for max about 30 a year, that's a steal

If it's a player still on a non first round rookie deal and is playing like an all pro or a vet on a low contract who's career took off after signing it, then I have no problem with them doing it because teams have no issue cutting you if you're not performing up to the contract. But if it's a player on a 10-15 million a year deal who just wants a new contract to be paid 15+ a year, then no, I don't agree with them holding out. You signed that huge deal, you need to honor it, if you wanted more, you should have asked for more at the time or wait until you can sign a new one. This also is in regards to regular season hold outs, I have less of an issue when a player is going into the last year of his deal and he holds out of camp while negotiating. That one makes sense as you don't want to risk injury in camp before you get the deal done, but then you gotta show up and play Week 1 if a deal isn't done yet. I'm okay with not risking injury in pre-season/camp, but not once the season starts, especially if it's someone like Burns who would be getting $16 million for the season, you just gotta play out the contract or hope to get a new deal done during the season.

Haven't kept up with the talk about this, but if I'm remembering the order of stuff happening, my issue with not filling that spot yet is that it could have been Corral. Why did we cut Corral to make room for other moves, when we knew we'd then put Sullivan on the IR a day or two later? Originally it was because I thought there was a move they were making that needed the spot right away, but if/since they haven't, it's been a wasted roster spot. Had we kept Corral around this whole time instead, it might have been easier to get him through waivers and onto the PS by cutting him later this week when they inevitably make this final roster move before week 1

I'm sure a few of them have contracts that can be restructured by converting the season's salary into a roster bonus so it can be spread along the rest of the contract while taking the vet minimum on the season to help get the cap down. Keeping highly paid rosters together is much easier than bringing in highly paid talent because you can find ways to keep restructuring and kicking the can down the road. Eventually you'll have to pay the toll, but you hope at that point you're into the re-build like the Saints did with the Brees era.

seriously? they're going to risk losing Bosa over 3.5 per year? that's like a rounding error in cap management in the long run, that's just dumb.

I’ll take their first, Jones, and maybe another 3rd rounder at this point. Or I’d really love to get Adams and their first, but that might not happen and it would hurt our pass rush a lot.

it's not stalking when you post in almost every thread non stop, anytime I open the site, there you are with your terrible takes.

lol... fair point, but if he quotes me and essentially is fighting me while I'm actually agreeing with most of what he's saying, I'm going to call him out for the stupidity of it.

Are you even reading my posts or are you just seeing that it's me and getting angry so posting something completely nonsensical in regards to what you were quoting? Nowhere once did I mention anything about the player taking a pay cut to help the team cap. and you said "I don't understand why people are so against players making the most money they can" but in what you quoted from me, I literally said, "Again, say you don't blame them for asking for the most possible, that's totally fair" Because, and I say this yet AGAIN... All I'm saying is that using the "need to feed their families" argument in defending them is nonsense, that's it. They have made and would make on what we're offering far more than they need to feed their families. I'm not saying he shouldn't be asking for the most possible, and in fact in these threads, I've consistently argued for the team to just pay him more than they want to and get it done with. Because what he's fighting for is what you're talking about, generational wealth, not the ability to feed his family, which you initially said. But keep quoting my posts and responding with something completely irrelevant to what I said, because you like to argue with me for some reason.

Yes, and it is their choice to live that way. They could limit themselves to even as if they made 200k a year salary and live a very nice and comfortable life, and if smart with how you invest, that would probably end up being generational wealth as well. My point is just that using the "need to feed my family" argument when you're talking about someone who has already earned that kind of money is ridiculous. A small fraction of what he's made right now would be enough to "feed his family" I really don't feel bad for any of these superstar athletes who go broke, it's their own fault. The guys making minimum's is different, but the guys who end up getting 10+ million a season and then are broke in short fashion is because they're just dumb with their money. Again, say you don't blame them for asking for the most possible, that's totally fair, but just don't say "they need to feed their families" when we're talking about a guy who has made 14 million already and will make another 16 this year if he doesn't sit out.

Did you mean to quote someone else with this response? Because I'm literally saying the Panthers should be the ones to bite the bullet and sign a deal they don't want to, not Burns. The "we" I was referring to was clearly the team, not as if I was speaking for Burns. My point was that once we turned that down, it was a clear signal to Burns that we would need to meet more at his end than the other, he knew he had the team screwed at that point.

Can't stand the "families to feed" argument when it comes to professional athletes and contract negotiations. If you want to say you can't blame them for trying to get max money, that's fair, but not the need to feed their families. Burns has already made almost $14 million in his career. If you make $100k a year, you make a solid living and feeding your family isn't an issue (making much less than this that is also true, but this makes for easier math). It would take someone making 100k a year to work for 140 years to make that much money. No player who makes that kind of money should ever have to worry about feeding their family, and if they do, it's their own fault and thus not something that you should be saying in support of them looking for a better contract. Burns has already made enough money that if he was smart with it, he could never work another day in his life and his kids (and maybe grandchildren) should be financially comfortable for life. Yes, I know these guys all live a much nicer lifestyle than "normal people" but that is still their choice. The players who make that stupid money, all they have to do is live 1 or 2 years as if they're a normal person making $75-100k a year and in that time alone they'll have saved enough money to have a fun rest of their life regardless of what other future contracts they get.