REPORT: Panthers and Brian Burns not at all close to extension

[tukafan21]

5 hours ago, Toomers said:

The last 20+M/yr deal to an edge was Max Crosby an 23.75M/yr. Crosby is every bit as good a pass rusher and instead of being a liability on 40% of his snaps, he one of the best run defenders in the NFL. So how is Burns close to that value. The Steelers just gave Alex Highsmith 17M/year. After 14.5 sacks and a better run defender than Burns. So again, what is this magical value he holds at any price? 

The theory you put out here, about Burns' worth because of his run defense should be less than those guys, is just a fallacy based in non-reality about how free agency works in the NFL.

What you are saying makes sense if there are regularly available elite players every year in free agency, particularly pass rushers.

The problem with your theory is that it couldn't be further from the truth, pass rushers of Burns ability rarely, if ever, hit the open FA market.

Even if for the sake of argument, you say that Burns is the exact equivalent to Crosby or Highsmith as a pass rusher, but lacks in the run defense, it doesn't mean that we should be trying to pay Burns less than them because of it.  If there were a half dozen elite pass rushers available in free agency every year, and we could then pay one of them more than we want to pay Burns, it would make more sense, but it doesn't work that way.

Take run defense out of the equation, solely look at pass rushing ability, players of Burns' ability just don't become available in free agency, they sign long term deals before it gets to that point.  Because of that, if by some miracle a player of Burns' pass rushing ability does hit free agency, then some team out there in desperate need of pass rushing will pay him a monster contract to get him, rush defense aside.

So in the end, it comes down to........

Are you really going to try and hold Burns' feet to the fire over a few million dollars per season because you don't feel he's an elite run defender?

If we don't re-sign him this year and we don't franchise tag him (because c'mon, players on franchise tag rarely works out for the team in the long run), one of 3 things happen next off season.....

1.  He balls out, gets 15+ sacks and to keep him from someone stealing him, we have to make him the highest paid defensive player in league history and overpay him more than we would have to right now.

2.  He balls out, gets 15+ sacks and we refuse to make him the highest paid defender and someone else does, we just lose him and likely end up not even getting a comp pick for him because we'll be flush with FA money that will be spent elsewhere and thus negate getting a comp pick in return.

3.  He doesn't ball out because he struggles with the new scheme and we lose him because someone who runs a 4-3 will still give him a massive contract and then we still lose him for nothing.

I don't know about you guys, but none of those options look great to me, I'd much prefer one of the following two options.........

1.  We re-sign him now for above his current market value, he balls out and gets 15+ sacks, then when new monster defensive deals are signed in the next 2 off seasons, he falls from being one of the top 3 paid defenders to being borderline top 10 and we have a bargain contract for him.

2.  We re-sign him now for above current market value, he struggles in the new scheme and it's proven that he should be in a 4-3 system.  So we decide to eat the cap hit and trade him like the Raiders did with Khalil Mack and get 2 Firsts and potentially a few more middle round picks for him.

[Toomers]

17 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

The Huddle thinks pass rushers fall off trees.

 

The Huddle after we trade Burns for the 2 1st round picks. "Guys we really need to double down on pass rushers with those 2 1st round picks we have no pass rush".

 

Huddle Shenanigans...

Or they could spend the saved 25-30M on a more “complete” EDGE. Use those top 10 picks to trade for one. 4-5 high quality players. 3 on rookie deals. I asked already. Why should he get as much as Crosby. Or why more than Highsmith? Why should his name even be mentioned with Watt? 

[Tr3ach]

35 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

The Huddle thinks pass rushers fall off trees.

 

The Huddle after we trade Burns for the 2 1st round picks. "Guys we really need to double down on pass rushers with those 2 1st round picks we have no pass rush".

 

Huddle Shenanigans...

To be fair then you have two pass rushers instead of one and they are both on cheap rookie deals for a long time.

[CamWhoaaCam]

17 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

See what I mean? The Rams thought enough of Burns to offer 2 1s and a 2. Yet we have Huddlers who think he still needs to have a prove it year. Nobody disrespects Panther players like Panther fans.

Tell me about it.

 

They rather talk about Sam Howell than our own QB Bryce Young.smh

[CamWhoaaCam]

7 minutes ago, Tr3ach said:

To be fair then you have two pass rushers instead of one and they are both on cheap rookie deals for a long time.

That's not how it works.

 

Just because you draft 2 edge rushers doesn't mean they will be elite. It's a gamble on who you pick. Burns is already a sure thing.

 

It's crazy we don't even want our own home grown talent. 

[CamWhoaaCam]

18 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Or they could spend the saved 25-30M on a more “complete” EDGE. Use those top 10 picks to trade for one. 4-5 high quality players. 3 on rookie deals. I asked already. Why should he get as much as Crosby. Or why more than Highsmith? Why should his name even be mentioned with Watt? 

I don't care what he gets. That's not my business. I only care about him being on the field and helping this defense.

 

Just pay the man I don't care about his money. That's why he has an agent. That's why we are fans.

[Toomers]

13 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

The theory you put out here, about Burns' worth because of his run defense should be less than those guys, is just a fallacy based in non-reality about how free agency works in the NFL.

What you are saying makes sense if there are regularly available elite players every year in free agency, particularly pass rushers.

The problem with your theory is that it couldn't be further from the truth, pass rushers of Burns ability rarely, if ever, hit the open FA market.

Even if for the sake of argument, you say that Burns is the exact equivalent to Crosby or Highsmith as a pass rusher, but lacks in the run defense, it doesn't mean that we should be trying to pay Burns less than them because of it.  If there were a half dozen elite pass rushers available in free agency every year, and we could then pay one of them more than we want to pay Burns, it would make more sense, but it doesn't work that way.

Take run defense out of the equation, solely look at pass rushing ability, players of Burns' ability just don't become available in free agency, they sign long term deals before it gets to that point.  Because of that, if by some miracle a player of Burns' pass rushing ability does hit free agency, then some team out there in desperate need of pass rushing will pay him a monster contract to get him, rush defense aside.

So in the end, it comes down to........

Are you really going to try and hold Burns' feet to the fire over a few million dollars per season because you don't feel he's an elite run defender?

If we don't re-sign him this year and we don't franchise tag him (because c'mon, players on franchise tag rarely works out for the team in the long run), one of 3 things happen next off season.....

1.  He balls out, gets 15+ sacks and to keep him from someone stealing him, we have to make him the highest paid defensive player in league history and overpay him more than we would have to right now.

2.  He balls out, gets 15+ sacks and we refuse to make him the highest paid defender and someone else does, we just lose him and likely end up not even getting a comp pick for him because we'll be flush with FA money that will be spent elsewhere and thus negate getting a comp pick in return.

3.  He doesn't ball out because he struggles with the new scheme and we lose him because someone who runs a 4-3 will still give him a massive contract and then we still lose him for nothing.

I don't know about you guys, but none of those options look great to me, I'd much prefer one of the following two options.........

1.  We re-sign him now for above his current market value, he balls out and gets 15+ sacks, then when new monster defensive deals are signed in the next 2 off seasons, he falls from being one of the top 3 paid defenders to being borderline top 10 and we have a bargain contract for him.

2.  We re-sign him now for above current market value, he struggles in the new scheme and it's proven that he should be in a 4-3 system.  So we decide to eat the cap hit and trade him like the Raiders did with Khalil Mack and get 2 Firsts and potentially a few more middle round picks for him.

   That depends on what “level” you put Burns. Hendrickson, Riddick, Z. Smith, Judon have been available in past years. What has he done to be considered above that group Josh Uche has one less sack in 1/3 of the snaps. 

  And you can’t take 40% of the plays out of the equation. He’s not even average. He’s a liability and the first thing any OC will go after. If a LB couldn’t cover anyone, are you paying him elite money anyhow. 
 

And Burns will get a huge bonus and other guarantees. So you won’t get what Mack, who was already a DPOY and multiple AllPros, brought in trade. The 1M left of his salary was why the Rams offered so much. Now he’s 16M. Then they would have to eat a huge dead cap hit while trying to build around their rookie contract QB. 

[Toomers]

6 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I don't care what he gets. That's not my business. I only care about him being on the field and helping this defense.

 

Just pay the man I don't care about his money. That's why he has an agent. That's why we are fans.

   Then Dont get involved in the discussion if you don’t care what he gets paid whether it hurts the team or not. This is salary cap issues. 
 

He’s not elite. And shouldn’t be paid like he is. 

[CamWhoaaCam]

3 minutes ago, Toomers said:

   Then Dont get involved in the discussion if you don’t care what he gets paid whether it hurts the team or not. This is salary cap issues. 
 

He’s not elite. And shouldn’t be paid like he is. 

This dude thinks he's an agent.lmao

 

seek help pocket watcher

[Panthers8969]

He’s on a 5th year so has to play if he wants to hit FA lol. Otherwise it’s 5th +tag + tag again possibly. Doubt he wants that. Unfortunately he’s delusional. Let’s call up niners and see if they want to do a bosa burns straight up trade. Brian seems to think he’s just as valuable, maybe niners agree 

[CamWhoaaCam]

6 minutes ago, Panthers8969 said:

He’s on a 5th year so has to play if he wants to hit FA lol. Otherwise it’s 5th +tag + tag again possibly. Doubt he wants that. Unfortunately he’s delusional. Let’s call up niners and see if they want to do a bosa burns straight up trade. Brian seems to think he’s just as valuable, maybe niners agree 

We might be the only fanbase in the country who talks crap about our best players.

 

 

[frankw]

29 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

That's not how it works.

 

Just because you draft 2 edge rushers doesn't mean they will be elite. It's a gamble on who you pick. Burns is already a sure thing.

 

It's crazy we don't even want our own home grown talent. 

Oh no for sure if we made the trade every pick would be an elite level NFL player out of the gate and require little to no time to develop. Also in the meantime while we are waiting on those first round picks none of the people in favor of the trade would ever complain about our lack of pass rush when we're losing games because every mediocre to average QB carves us up since he has enough time in the pocket to make himself lunch.

[PappyMay]

We have 55 Mil next year to spend. Cut Thomas and restructure Moton and the amount goes up. We can afford to pay him next year. The salary cap keeps going up and up so paying a star 23-25 mil a year wont seem as high in 2-3 years as the market continues to reset. We don't need to let that man leave. He's clearly a leader in the locker room and stays out of trouble off the field. The whole point of having a QB on a rookie deal is to build around him. Not let talent walk.  

[MHS831]

Personally, I have trouble rating my own team's players, but I give Burns a B+.  Not elite like Bosa or even Crosby--but good at what he does.  I think he should get good money, but do not break the bank for him to such a degree it cripples the team moving forward.

We had a similar situation with Moton, and he is slated to cost us $30m in 2024 and 2025.  Worth it?  To me, in today's NFL, how you manage the cap is how you win.  I think we are far from the days when Hurney was handing out huge contracts to RBs and re-signing personnel from a 4-12 team (like Charles Godfrey and a ridiculous deal--at the time--for Charles Johnson)--that is how this mess starts. 

If we tag him, we keep him for 2 years or so--that needs to be our play if he refuses good (just not elite) money.  Make it so that he loses money by playing out his deal if he refuses, but don't make it so he and Tepper have the same financial planner.