Rams Offering Two (Future) Firsts for Burns

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, glenwo2 said:

 

And?

So we stop looking for a QB because of this?

How are we going to find one if we don't draft one?

It means stop using the same logic on skipping over a HUGE need and waiting for the next year.  Draft one this year not in 2024, no 2025, no 2026....  We should have sucked it up and drafted Fields IMO 2 years ago.  

[CRA]

7 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

He will get a bunch for sure and with Rhule here I might agree. But Wilks has them fired up and they are a top 10 unit.  Peppers was here longer before he got discontent.

we didn't look like a top 10 unit on Sunday in Atlanta. 

Beating the Bucs is our signature moment.  But given they have lost 5 of their last 6?  It isn't as impressive of a moment as we would have thought coming in to the season.  The Bucs and Rams also have no ability to run the football.   Atlanta did and the D couldn't stop anything they did as a byproduct of that. 

 Not sure I would say we are a top 10 unit

 

[outlaw4]

9 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

This thread is both sides saying the same thing over and over. Has anyone changed their stance yet?  

My stance is that I can't decide between the two options. I suppose the determining factor is how much we would pay for Burns if we keep him and whether we have to let other players go because of the salary cap implications. 

[pantherj]

Odd Detroit fans are mentioning Burns a lot right now.

[Catsfan69]

25 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

Burns still has upside, is a face of the franchise type of personality, is only 24, amd plays a premium position, and some of you guys are whining about run defense. Man, I can't imagine being that dull

He doesn't produce. On the list of players we've had he's Mike Rucker 2.0

[Brooklyn 3.0]

33 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

The Rams have a super bowl ring currently, maybe they can spot talent better than a message board full of f150s

Ohhhhhhhh thanks for signaling why you want to keep Burns. Idiot.

[JawnyBlaze]

15 minutes ago, glenwo2 said:

 

And?

So we stop looking for a QB because of this?

How are we going to find one if we don't draft one?

The point is we need to go ahead and be prepared to take one instead of kicking the can down the road because “next year’s QBs are better”.  They’re saying we need to draft one. 

[grimesgoat]

21 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

No what you said is stupid logic.  Who know what happens in 2025? You don't value potential which can vary from a number 1 pick to a number 32 pick the same as a proven commodity. Burns cost us a top 10 pick and has been everything we thought he would be.  He has stayed healthy and is the best DE we have.  Future picks are always valued less than current picks and should be.  While we aren't a player or two away we also don't need a complete rebuild. He is a core of the defense and teams gameplan against him. That is worth more than what we could get years from now.

clarification - Burns was the 16th pick.

[LordOfDaWingz]

2 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

He doesn't produce. On the list of players we've had he's Mike Rucker 2.0

Didn’t realize Burns was playing opposite of a HOF DE.

[amcoolio]

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

The point is we need to go ahead and be prepared to take one instead of kicking the can down the road because “next year’s QBs are better”.  They’re saying we need to draft one. 

This year's QB class is looking to be historically bad... Pickett is a turnover machine ala Bortles and Willis can't complete a pass, meanwhile we got one of the best LT in the NFL already....I'd say they made the right decision kicking the can another year

2020... Neither Fields or Mac Jones (or Wilson...or Lance) look to be great QB's. 

[ImaginaryKev]

4 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Ohhhhhhhh thanks for signaling why you want to keep Burns. Idiot.

Lol what reason is that, clown?

You and Catsfan69 are two peas in an imbecile pod, I'm glad you two have found each other and can compete for worst take imaginable 

Edited November 1, 2022 by ImaginaryKev

[Brooklyn 3.0]

2 minutes ago, ImaginaryKev said:

Lol what reason is that, clown?

You and Catsfan69 are two peas in an imbecile pod, I'm glad you two have found each other and can compete for worst take imaginable 

By YOU saying "F150s", YOU are saying that people don't want Burns because he is black. That might be the most ignorant take ever.

[ForJimmy]

23 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

That still doesn't devalue the picks

It's also why we couldn't just give NE our future 3rd for their 3rd to draft Corral.  They needed more since a future 3rd doesn't equal a current 3rd.

[LordOfDaWingz]

Keep him. Two future first rounders? I’ll pass. You’d be insane to think the Rams are not about to build them up a contender during the offseason, meaning late first round picks.

 

Burns was listed right outside the top 75 NFL players and he’s only 24. He hasn’t posted double digit sacks bc teams plan for him. I saw ATL doubling him a lot.