The Carolina Panthers are Idiots

[Khaki Lackey]

24 minutes ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Yep 2024 and 2025. It would be one thing if it were 2023 for one of them I feel.

exactly

[SetfreexX]

12 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I dont understand the concept of "Trade 2 first round talents who are established in the league for 3 first round picks." 

Trading DJ would kill our cap situation and give us 20million in total dead cap. Trading Burns creates a huge hole on the roster. 

People are enamored with the ''idea'' of ''more picks'' people often forget the teams that stock piled picks and that the acquisition of picks does not equate to wins / helping a rebuild, a lot of times those picks don't pan out, especially outside the top 15, none of which we were offered. The referenced 1sts would have likely been 20s to upper 20s the talent. There's an argument LAR could be bad in 23' and 24' but that is a BIG risk to jettison the one pass rusher that we do have. 

It's best to keep young, performing ascending, core talent. The fact team's are interested should reassure you of their value to your current team, the ''fire sale'' concept is rarely IF ever seen or successful for that matter. I really can't recall a time in recent years. 

The CMC trade made sense, regarding an overpaid running back, that is a position where for years you see that the financial investment is capped, and we were paying him around 18-20M in annual average salary, you can't do that and expect to have a healthy cap. I UNDERSTAND why the extension was done as we has the face of the franchise, but it is clear a new chapter is about to start. 

Having the two 2nds, a 3rd, and two 4ths, and 5ths as a result of this deal will allow the team to add value and depth at positions like (HB / LB / IOL / Edge) to compliment what we already have.

 

[SetfreexX]

18 minutes ago, Panthercougar68 said:

So who do the Colts sell off in the offseason? Leonard? Pittman? Quentin Nelson? 
 

oh they don’t need to because they just need a new qb and coach

Firesales are what bigger market teams want smaller market teams to do to benefit their own team not the team doing the “selling”

That part, if a team in a playoff / SB window wants your best player(s) by giving you essentially a lottery ticket that should tell you something. 

In simpler terms, you have $1,000 in hand, someone says I'll give you a ticket that could be anywhere from $0 up to $1,000 -- are you taking that ticket?

That is what these draft picks are, ''chances'' to draft a bust / average / good / great player. If what you have in hand is legit, keep it, and look for a more efficient way to increase draft capitol ie: the CMC trade. 

[mrcompletely11]

5 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

People are enamored with the ''idea'' of ''more picks'' people often forget the teams that stock piled picks and that the acquisition of picks does not equate to wins / helping a rebuild, a lot of times those picks don't pan out, especially outside the top 15, none of which we were offered. The referenced 1sts would have likely been 20s to upper 20s the talent. There's an argument LAR could be bad in 23' and 24' but that is a BIG risk to jettison the one pass rusher that we do have. 

It's best to keep young, performing ascending, core talent. The fact team's are interested should reassure you of their value to your current team, the ''fire sale'' concept is rarely IF ever seen or successful for that matter. I really can't recall a time in recent years. 

The CMC trade made sense, regarding an overpaid running back, that is a position where for years you see that the financial investment is capped, and we were paying him around 18-20M in annual average salary, you can't do that and expect to have a healthy cap. I UNDERSTAND why the extension was done as we has the face of the franchise, but it is clear a new chapter is about to start. 

Having the two 2nds, a 3rd, and two 4ths, and 5ths as a result of this deal will allow the team to add value and depth at positions like (HB / LB / IOL / Edge) to compliment what we already have.

 

Miami says "whats up"

[DJ feed me moore]

48 minutes ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Problem is the Rams 1st are years out and packers first pick will probably be 15-17

same packers that have lost 5 straight and just lost to the last team with 1 win?

[mrcompletely11]

14 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

People are enamored with the ''idea'' of ''more picks'' people often forget the teams that stock piled picks and that the acquisition of picks does not equate to wins / helping a rebuild, a lot of times those picks don't pan out, especially outside the top 15, none of which we were offered. The referenced 1sts would have likely been 20s to upper 20s the talent. There's an argument LAR could be bad in 23' and 24' but that is a BIG risk to jettison the one pass rusher that we do have. 

 

 

https://theathletic.com/podcast/211-the-athletic-football-show/?episode=534

 

25 minutes in.  They breakdown the future of the Rams.  In a nutshell it aint pretty and we fuged up royally not taking advantage of them.  They have a second this year and 2 5ths.   Thats it.   They basically said the Rams were "insane" to offer that for Burns.  Sigh

Edited November 7, 2022 by mrcompletely11

[SetfreexX]

7 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Miami says "whats up"

One example of a team that sold the picks...who we buying with 2024, and 2025 picks in 2023...

We can find outliers for almost ''any'' scenario, it's best to use and deal with what is ''most likely'' to happen.

They also had to fire a coach that was potentially holding the offense back to get to where they are, spent on Armstead and other guys via FA. 

And keep it in context, it all started with the idiot coach in HOU that got fired and traded D Hop for a 2nd and an injury prone running back. Not to mention, the picks they got had MORE value as they were high in the draft, not in the mid to upper 20s. 

Common sense says ''what up'' tho.

[Tr3ach]

57 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

I dont understand the concept of "Trade 2 first round talents who are established in the league for 3 first round picks." 

Trading DJ would kill our cap situation and give us 20million in total dead cap. Trading Burns creates a huge hole on the roster. 

Burns definitely should have been traded for 2 firsts and a second.  I dont see how anyone could think differently.   Hes about to have to sign a new contract off of his rookie deal and he is a specialized player.  He is a speed rusher that can get picked on in the run game and misses sack sometimes because he can be a one direction rusher.   Rejecting the Burns deal is one of the worst moves the franchise has made in recent years personally and it still aggravates me every time I think about it.  I could see arguments made on both sides about moving Moore for a first.  I also think he is a specialized player that is more of a great #2 than a true #1.  A true #1 doesnt have some effort concerns and can get open by running really good routes alone, not by being schemed open mostly.   I love Moore but with a strong WR class I would have probably took that deal too but that one is more debatable.  Like I said he is a really good if not elite #2 with the right coaches.

[SmokinwithWilly]

5 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

https://theathletic.com/podcast/211-the-athletic-football-show/?episode=534

 

25 minutes in.  They breakdown the future of the Rams.  In a nutshell it aint pretty and we fuged up royally not taking advantage of them.  They have a second this year and 2 5ths.   Thats it.   They basically said the Rams were "insane" to offer that for Burns.  Sigh

Exactly. They've sold themselves out so much to win now, they're going to crash. You have to be able to build through the draft. Anyone that thinks they're going to build a continual winner out of UDFAs, no matter how good McVay is, is fooling themselves. 

[Wolfcop]

It blows my mind that people think Burns is worth more than what we were offered by the Rams. THEN, consider what we will have to pay him vs. his production. Stupid to reject that trade IMO. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Wolfcop
add

[Panthercougar68]

10 minutes ago, DJ feed me moore said:

same packers that have lost 5 straight and just lost to the last team with 1 win?

If they would have had Moore this weekend they score more points than the lions.

[mrcompletely11]

5 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

One example of a team that sold the picks...who we buying with 2024, and 2025 picks in 2023...

We can find outliers for almost ''any'' scenario, it's best to use and deal with what is ''most likely'' to happen.

They also had to fire a coach that was potentially holding the offense back to get to where they are, spent on Armstead and other guys via FA. 

And keep it in context, it all started with the idiot coach in HOU that got fired and traded D Hop for a 2nd and an injury prone running back. Not to mention, the picks they got had MORE value as they were high in the draft, not in the mid to upper 20s. 

Common sense says ''what up'' tho.

What does it matter that the picks are 2/3 years away?  We are not in a win now mode and next year looks like more of the same, why not have a clear plan mapped out for multiple seasons?

[Sgt Schultz]

I don't see any way, given the eight ball they are behind, that the Rams picks are mid to upper 20s of each round.  The most likely scenario is they are going to be drafting no better than the middle of the respective rounds, and in 2024 and 2025 quite possibly in the top 10-12.

They essentially sold the farm to win last year.  Hats off to them, they did it.  But they did so knowing full well what the price would be when the slide started....and the slide has started.

The irony of their offer is as good as Burns can be, I don't think he is their magic elixir to extend their run.  Unless they think he is going to help them hold teams under 10 points every week, their primary problem is the other side of the ball.

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, Panthercougar68 said:

If they would have had Moore this weekend they score more points than the lions.

nope, it takes time for wr's to acclimate to a new team and qb. 

 

I've said the Moore trade offer was incredibly debatable given the state of the packers right now.  Still probably not worth it unless we could have squeezed another pick out but at least its debatable.  It potentially could be a top 10 pick but I am fine keeping him due to his contract and rookie qb coming on board.

 

The burns offer isnt even a debate, it should have been an immediate "YES" and now we are getting mocked nationally.  Its almost like the Bengals intentionally game planed to run at burns just to show he sucks against the run to mock us more.