Rams Offering Two (Future) Firsts for Burns

[NorthTryon]

12 minutes ago, pantherj said:

I don't know if this is going to come off mean or not, but I literally have no idea what you are even trying to say here. Good luck on the site.

Nah, not mean at all. If I was as far as you were on the ledge in this thread, I'd feign ignorance and be dismissive too. Take it easy bud. 

[grimesgoat]

3 minutes ago, stbugs said:

And it was a great strategy. Tank year 1 and you are studly after a couple years and godly 3-5 years out. 

until you have to pay for all these studs...

[ThPantherFan]

6 hours ago, 4Corners said:

No 

If they had a 1st for next year and a 1st foe 24, yes.  Rather keep Burns.

[Toomers]

Just now, stbugs said:

No team will just accept a 3rd rounder this year for their 1st rounder in two years. Well, the Rams might. I honestly think they realize their two leaders on O and D are in their 30s and starting to decline and they’ve got 1-2 years left before the window is closed.

I think it’s almost shut now. They are in trouble. I’d bet right now those will be top 15 picks easy. For a very good pass rusher who is scheme specific and a liability against the run that will cost 22-24M/yr. 

[ThPantherFan]

6 hours ago, emcannon said:

Add on one of their 6th rounders in next year's draft to the future 1's and get it done. 

I don't think that's good enough.

[Catsfan69]

16 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

You mean the game against the saints that he didn’t start due to injury and left early bc he re-aggravated it? 
 

if I’m not allowed to use that logic, then how about the fact that burns played 40% of our total snaps his rookie year and only started 5 games. Or that burns missed a game in 2020 due to injury?

Julius peppers started and played every game for his four years and yet burns is on pace to meet or surpass what pep did his first four years….

 

Peppers did not Peppers only played 12 games his rookie year 

[TheCasillas]

2 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Peppers did not Peppers only played 12 games his rookie year 

Ah thanks for the correction. For some reason I thought  he was drafted in 2003.

 

well deduct those four games and the above post still holds valid.

[Hugor Hill]

1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

Ah thanks for the correction. For some reason I thought  he was drafted in 2003.

 

well deduct those four games and the above post still holds valid.

You can make anything valid if you pick and choose what makes it valid.

[ECHornet]

I’ll say this…

 

If we miss on our QB this off-season, we’re going to really miss those extra 1sts in the 2024 draft. We’re looking at potentially a Brian Burns for Drake Maye or Caleb Williams at QB for a decade. 

[pantherj]

29 minutes ago, NorthTryon said:

Nah, not mean at all. If I was as far as you were on the ledge in this thread, I'd feign ignorance and be dismissive too. Take it easy bud. 

No pretending here. I had fun in this thread.

[ForJimmy]

25 minutes ago, stbugs said:

In the same way, do you think you’d be able to trade your 2nd this year for a 1st next year every year? If that’s exactly how it’s valued, let’s just setup a trade with Philly and we’ll give them our 2023 2nd for their 2024 1st and so on. They should be fine with it, right?

The reason why we had to sweeten the pot so to speak is because we wanted Corral and we had to convince NE to give up that pick.

I understand when you are initiating a trade with a team they will devalue next year’s pick because you are asking them to change and because if they are an actual contender they lose a year of playing time, but there are also plenty of teams who value the future 1st more than the current 2nd, which is why they accept the trade. We are rebuilding or should have been so future firsts have more value to us because that’s a more talented player than the 2nd rounder this year. Statistically speaking we will be a better team in 2024+ with a 2024 first rounder and 2025 first rounder instead of a 2023 2nd rounder and 3rd rounder. We should be caring about 2024 and beyond more than 2023.

I'm not saying the value is spot on, but future picks will always hold less value that current ones.  Yeah if the Eagles were offering us next year's first it would take MORE than that to get our first this year, even if we were picking at 32.  The Saints did it last year with the Eagles. The traded number 18 for 19 and 16 plus a 23 first, a current 7th, and a 24 2nd.  The 18 is higher than the 19 so right away (ignoring the 16th pick for now) the Eagles are winning that.  Now the 16th for next year's 1st isn't going to get the trade done (Even with the Eagles winning the first swap 18/19 part of the deal).  They had to include a current 3rd, current 7th, AND future 2nd to make it balance on top of the future 1st.  If future picks were equal it would have been pick 18 and a future 1st for 16 and 19, but no GM is making that trade...

 

I would imagine Fitt has a value for a 24 year old pro bowl pass rusher and 2 future firsts which would be less than this year's first and next year's (which is less than this year's) was less than that value.  

[Move the Panthers to Raleigh]

[ECHornet]

I’ll say this…

 

If we miss on our QB this off-season, we’re going to really miss those extra 1sts in the 2024 draft. We’re looking at potentially a Brian Burns for Drake Maye or Caleb Williams at QB for a decade. 

[Shocker]

4 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

So let's get one THIS year and put an end to the game.  It reminds me of "can he play LT?"

I know…if we wait till 2024 we probably are better off IF Young is gone.  I would not pass on Young personally but he could come out and wreck a knee just like everyone else.