Brian Burns has never had a double digit sack season

[Rags]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Now do Miami 

And not a lick of that poo rly mattered until the got Mike McDaniels and Tyreek Hill.  And they then STILL had to trade for a pass rusher after drafting one the year before.

[Panthercougar68]

5 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Where were you last week?

Go lick your wounds 

[Proudiddy]

9 hours ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Because without a QB, it doesn't matter how elite of an edge rusher he is, we aren't having a winning season, much less going to the SB. Those picks give us a better chance to either draft a franchise QB, or move up if necessary. Without a QB, this franchise is going nowhere, with or without Burns. 

And I'll be the first to admit that, and have stated the exact same thing repeatedly, irrespective of Burns.  But, you still don't cut your nose off to spite your face.  Yes, we need a QB, buy the goal is to hold on to as many of the young core players we have and find the QB in the process.  And again, with the atronomical bust rate, especially for QBs specifically, it really doesn't matter if you stockpile 20 picks and use every one of them on a QB.  Because if you take 1 in the first and they suck, you likely just cost the HC and GM their job anyway and the next regime has to come in and give it a swing, which likely sets you back another 3 years, regardless of the number of picks you have.  The key is hitting on one, and you don't have to have a million picks for that.

[pantherclaw]

He's terrible leader, and can't wait to leave Charlotte either! 

Oh, and I heard he only likes white girls. 

Racist. 

[pantherclaw]

9 hours ago, RJK said:

Y’all gonna be crying about this contract in a couple years 

Nope, because I have NEVER gotten but hurt over a veteran signing his second contract. 

Understand the game, or quit crying. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by pantherclaw

[Aussie Tank]

7 hours ago, Rags said:

How'd that work out for teams that traded their franchise players like the Jags w/ Ramsey and Jets w/ Adams?

So you’re saying the Jags and Jets would have been perennial playoff contenders if they didn’t trade them? 

[SmokinwithWilly]

2 hours ago, Proudiddy said:

And I'll be the first to admit that, and have stated the exact same thing repeatedly, irrespective of Burns.  But, you still don't cut your nose off to spite your face.  Yes, we need a QB, buy the goal is to hold on to as many of the young core players we have and find the QB in the process.  And again, with the atronomical bust rate, especially for QBs specifically, it really doesn't matter if you stockpile 20 picks and use every one of them on a QB.  Because if you take 1 in the first and they suck, you likely just cost the HC and GM their job anyway and the next regime has to come in and give it a swing, which likely sets you back another 3 years, regardless of the number of picks you have.  The key is hitting on one, and you don't have to have a million picks for that.

And in the meantime, you're paying 30m a year to a good player that isn't going to help you win more than 5 games a season. We've been in QB purgatory for years. We need out. If stockpiling extra picks could possibly get you out, then it's a move you have to make IMO. It's not an easy choice either way, and likely picking wrong costs you your job. I rank order of importance as QB, blind side tackle, and DE as top needs in that order. Giving up 3rd important to improve our chances at getting 1 is a move as a franchise I think you have to make. We could have gotten those picks and whiffed at getting a franchise QB or we could hang onto Burns, pay him 30m a year and there's a chance we still get a franchise QB on a rookie salary. IF we end up winning 6 or 7 games because players don't tank, then our draft position will cost us severely if we want to move up for a QB and that's where those picks could really come in handy. It's all weighing risk vs reward plus factoring in Fitts job security makes it all a very iffy situation. That's why we get to bitch on a message board and someone else gets paid millions to make these decisions. Time will tell who is right. 

[DaveThePanther2008]

Those that want to trade Burns basically imply that we should never sign a veteran to a 2nd contract.  What they'd rather do is keep under the cap so we can sign 1- or 2-year Free agents to fill gaps until we get lucky and draft another great prospect.

To hell with keeping our Core together.  You don't let players like this go just to save money.  

I find it funny that those that bitch and moan about not trading Burns are the same ones that bitch and moan that we are living in mediocrity. 

 

[SmokinwithWilly]

12 minutes ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Those that want to trade Burns basically imply that we should never sign a veteran to a 2nd contract.  What they'd rather do is keep under the cap so we can sign 1- or 2-year Free agents to fill gaps until we get lucky and draft another great prospect.

To hell with keeping our Core together.  You don't let players like this go just to save money.  

I find it funny that those that bitch and moan about not trading Burns are the same ones that bitch and moan that we are living in mediocrity. 

 

It's not about saving money. We got a ridiculous offer from a really bad team for an edge rusher about to be given one of, if not the highest, contract to a DE in NFL history. If we had a franchise QB or at least one developing, I have no issue at all telling the Rams to fug off. But we don't and we didn't. Allowing Rhule to remain coach this offseason was a colossal fug up.

We need as much ammo as we can muster to be able to find that QB. Whether or not Fitts, Morgan and whoever the new HC is are the guys to do that, we'll that remains to be seen. But a 1st and 3 2nds this year, 2 1sts in 2024 and 2 in 2025 is a lot of opportunity to use in finding that guy. Even if Burns turns out to be the greatest DE to ever play the game, without a QB, this team still finishes under 500 every year. It sucks, but that's just the reality of becoming and staying a contender in the NFL. 

[DaveThePanther2008]

10 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

It's not about saving money. We got a ridiculous offer from a really bad team for an edge rusher about to be given one of, if not the highest, contract to a DE in NFL history. If we had a franchise QB or at least one developing, I have no issue at all telling the Rams to fug off. But we don't and we didn't. Allowing Rhule to remain coach this offseason was a colossal fug up.

We need as much ammo as we can muster to be able to find that QB. Whether or not Fitts, Morgan and whoever the new HC is are the guys to do that, we'll that remains to be seen. But a 1st and 3 2nds this year, 2 1sts in 2024 and 2 in 2025 is a lot of opportunity to use in finding that guy. Even if Burns turns out to be the greatest DE to ever play the game, without a QB, this team still finishes under 500 every year. It sucks, but that's just the reality of becoming and staying a contender in the NFL. 

I get your logic; however, DE is almost as important as a QB.  Without Pressure on a QB, just about any QB can win games.  Darnold showed that yesterday.  

You are also assuming that we hit on that traded pick.   If you expect your GM to hit on his first couple of picks you should also assume that if there is a QB outside of the top 5 we are going to target him too.

So let me ask you this.  If Fitt and Morgan along with the HC (new or old) feels that Corral might be the answer or that a 2nd round pick at QB is just as good, do you trust them?   These guys spend far more time than you and I (probably combined) doing their homework on every player we have on our board.  I would have to trust their judgment.  

Just for the record, I haven't given up on Corral and think with some valuable Reps and time he can be as good as any QB coming out in this draft. 

[WUnderhill]

13 hours ago, Proudiddy said:

I always ask people, aside from cap implications, name a time these trades works out...  QBs, tackles, and pass rushers are the 3 most valuable positions in football, with WRs now pushing for one of those most valuable spots...  but as it stands, that's the way it is and has been.  And yet, people want to trade away the best one we've had since Pep?

How did trading away Mack work out for the Raiders utilizing the same cap-saving strategy?  The bust rate on picks is astronomically high, so why trade away a proven asset?

I think the Seahawks and Lions are pretty happy with their trades right now, they both currently have top 5 picks from trading their franchise QBs and better records than the teams they traded them to.

[cookinbrak]

Imagine if Chicago had kept good players instead of trading everybody once they showed promise.

Edited November 28, 2022 by cookinbrak

[NorthTryon]

17 hours ago, Proudiddy said:

I always ask people, aside from cap implications, name a time these trades works out...  QBs, tackles, and pass rushers are the 3 most valuable positions in football, with WRs now pushing for one of those most valuable spots...  but as it stands, that's the way it is and has been.  And yet, people want to trade away the best one we've had since Pep?

How did trading away Mack work out for the Raiders utilizing the same cap-saving strategy?  The bust rate on picks is astronomically high, so why trade away a proven asset?

They have busted on sooooo many picks lately, straight up cutting 1st rounders. I think of some of those guy's character issues and think about how we don't have to worry about Burns off the field at all whatsoever.

[Move the Panthers to Raleigh]

17 hours ago, Shocker said:

When Burns a Super Bowl MVP, I will gladly retract my statement.