Dolphins extend Chubb

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Its like we fleeced ourselves.

Again 

[NorthTryon]

Burns is a franchise cornerstone type. When we first drafted him, it was looked at as a major coup and teams, fans were mad that he fell to us. He is an asset to the community, the locker room, and is rarely hurt. Why don't people get that culture matters? When the team starts to compete, it will be good to have Burns around showing rookies how to work, how to be professional, and how to be coachable. Guys get out of line and aren't team oriented, Burns will be there to mentor. How quickly we forget the scene where the vets talked to Donte Jackson. Who cares about a bunch of picks down the line for guys we don't even know yet? This is not Madden!

[OldhamA]

1 hour ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Not only is he better he is way more durable

Durable is not a word I'd associate with Burns.

[t96]

1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

Thanks to the franchise tag, we will always have the leverage. Declining the trade does not provide any leverage to burns. I’m actually interested in how you think us not trading creates “leverage” for burns 

It definitely does create leverage for Burns, former agents in the media have said so themselves. If Burns is comfortable playing on the tag for a season then he holds all the cards. We're not gonna tag him 2 years in a row and after turning down the picks we better not let him walk so the team kinda has to cave to what he wants at that point. 

[JawnyBlaze]

10 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Kirk’s is 4 years $72M plus incentives up to $3M a year. If he gets $21M a year he’s worth it as he would have achieved his maximum incentives. He’s only got two years guaranteed so he’s an easy cut after year 2 with no ramifications (any dead cap would be from cap savings in year 1/2).

We gave Robby $30M for two years so Kirk isn’t much more per year than that unless he does really well. Then again the Robby deal was bad!

Also, I’d rather have Hill at $30M than Burns. I’m sorry, but Hill has taken over games. Burns does not do that. If you give me Parsons over Hill, definitely, but guys like Chubb and Burns, nope, I’d take Hill every day of the week.

Yea I was agreeing with that. Hill is worth more than Burns. Not Kirk. 

[ForJimmy]

Wait so is Burns overrated or way better than Chubb (who is a good pass rusher)? Huddle has me confused…

[t96]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Gotta love the justification being a GM doesn’t want a pick he may not make. That’s one of the big reasons we are where we are and we needed to make up picks with CMC. We played like we could compete or played like we could get fired. I think those Rams picks are going to be good. I’m not sure why Barnwell mentioned McVay and Donald. Yes, they mentioned retirement but Stafford is the weakest link. No QB to replace him, no 1sts until we would have used theirs and he’s one hit away from being done for a year or honestly walking away. His OL isn’t getting better and he'd be 35 and 36, having taken a good amount of abuse.

And again, no mention of having maybe $30M a year for FAs. The firsts can be used for anything as can the $30M a year. Oh well, the opportunity is gone so we’ll see what happens.

McVay went to a Super Bowl with Jared ffriggin Goff lol, even if Stafford falls off a cliff McVay will be able to find a QB to win with, if he's still coaching then. The Rams picks that far out could wind up being really good but they could also still be mid/late 20s and if that's the case they hold much less value than 2023 picks at the same spots. The only way I'd have traded Burns would've been for the 2 firsts the Eagles have this year; NO's will likely be high, Eagles' won't be, but them both being 2023 would've been huge.

[mav1234]

50 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

For sure but in regards to a hypothetical trade we will never get 2 firsts again 

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 

[AU-panther]

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

Seeing as how Reddick produces almost the same stats for only $15M, we are out two firsts and an extra $10-15M a year. I still would have rather had Reddick, Corbett and 2 firsts than Burns because with the new contract that’s exactly what it will be. If the Rams tail off like I expect, ooh wee. Still like Burns but that’s a haul. People seemed so into the firsts without realizing how much Burns will cost and that that $25-30M would have given us his replacement/two very solid starters and the two firsts are the cherry on top.

^This, I'm not sure why its so hard for people to understand.

When you trade a player like Burns you don't have to replace him with the draft picks.  You replace him with the $25-30m you save.  Most years you can find a decent edge for that amount.

You don't even have to fully replace him, maybe you find a player that is 90% as good for $15m and then use the other $15m to improve another position greatly.  Or maybe you use those draft picks to find an edge, who might not be as good but decent, then spend the $25m on a totally different position. 

Fans always look at these moves in a vacuum, the goal is to improve the team not just one position.

Somebody said Reddick is about as good for $15m, so hypothetically what improves our team the most?

Burns or Reddick, two 1st round picks, and $15m a year to spend on a free agent?

 

 

[JawnyBlaze]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Right, but Burns will be getting about 50-67% more. $30M to $18M plus a chance at $21M. Kirk’s deal was definitely rich, almost Robby rich, but it does seem like they are at least getting something. We got nada after the extension was signed.

I’d expect Burns to get closer to $25-27mil rather than 30 if we extend him sooner rather than later. If we wait for more DE contracts to get done it may go up, the tide is always rising.  I keep going back to the Kirk deal because it’s still ludicrous even though it’s less than I remembered. $18+mil a year for another 900 yd 8 td season

[JawnyBlaze]

6 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

^This, I'm not sure why its so hard for people to understand.

When you trade a player like Burns you don't have to replace him with the draft picks.  You replace him with the $25-30m you save.  Most years you can find a decent edge for that amount.

You don't even have to fully replace him, maybe you find a player that is 90% as good for $15m and then use the other $15m to improve another position greatly.  Or maybe you use those draft picks to find an edge, who might not be as good but decent, then spend the $25m on a totally different position. 

Fans always look at these moves in a vacuum, the goal is to improve the team not just one position.

Somebody said Reddick is about as good for $15m, so hypothetically what improves our team the most?

Burns or Reddick, two 1st round picks, and $15m a year to spend on a free agent?

 

 

Sack numbers aren’t everything though. Reddick is only comparable to Burns in that one category, plus Burns is younger. Reddick will need to be replaced again in a couple years probably while Burns will be locked up and productive for longer. Just my opinion, and I liked Reddick, but he had less of an impact despite having a couple more sacks. 

[AU-panther]

6 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Goff was the #1 pick in the draft. He didn’t turn out great but McVay didn’t make it rain with some late pick. Eagles have the same production from Reddick at half the cost. There was no way we’d get those picks.

Even Barnwell said it best, “some” teams value future firsts less. As a team that’s 17-40 the past 4 years including 2-6 now, we shouldn’t be in the “some” teams.

It’s over but I think it was a lost opportunity.

I get that some teams value future first less, general rule of thumb is one round later, but in this situation i really didn't mind it.

First of all, if we go the rookie QB route next year changes are we aren't going to be that good anyway in 2023.  If anything, the later year picks will help us more when we are more likely to be good.  A

Also, with a team like the Rams and the way they have gone "all in" so to speak the past few years those later year picks might be a lot better.  Who is to say they don't have a "reset year" and end up with a top-10 pick.

You can't trade all of your good players, and I really like Burns but if it was truly two first it should have been very tempting.

 

[Toomers]

7 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Sack numbers aren’t everything though. Reddick is only comparable to Burns in that one category, plus Burns is younger. Reddick will need to be replaced again in a couple years probably while Burns will be locked up and productive for longer. Just my opinion, and I liked Reddick, but he had less of an impact despite having a couple more sacks. 

How so? If Burns is less of a liability against the run than Reddick, it ain’t by much. Reddick could be replaced by those 1st rounders and/or the 30-45M the team saved by not overpaying Burns. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Toomers

[JawnyBlaze]

Just now, Toomers said:

How do? If Burns is less of a liability against the run than Reddick, it ain’t by much. Reddick could be replaced by those 1st rounders and/or the 30-45M the team saved by not overpaying Burns. 

Burns isn’t a liability against the run at all. He’s actually quite good against the run despite the rhetoric parroted on here. 30-45 is an extreme exaggeration, and the first rounders in question are 2 and 3 years down the road.  If we had gotten offered two real first round picks (this year) then the deal probably would have had a chance.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush though, we couldn’t necessarily replace either with a first because that first could easily be a bust whereas Burns is a proven young commodity.