Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[tukafan21]

8 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

So why did we trade cmc then?

Because we were stupid

I still hate that trade, especially after giving Miles a decent contract.

I'd so much rather have given up some more of our own picks in the trade to get Bryce than have the ones from the 49ers to use there.

Just imagine putting CMC in the same backfield as Bryce and having his route running and ability to be a check down guy.  They'd be a perfect match made in heaven together and would dominate the league for the next 3-5 years.

[frankw]

3 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Damn good question. Looking at how we could have been offensively with him here, I think it was a mistake. But I know they were thinking to get as many picks as they could while he was healthy given his injury concerns. It wasn't all about the money.

Not enough data to answer as of yet. It remains to be seen if he will stay healthy or revert back to being dinged up. He was top 5 in touches last season the 49ers damn sure are getting their investments worth out of him. At one point he had a rushing receiving and passing touchdown. Not even we put him out there for all that. I don't foresee that being a recipe for sustained injury free play for long.

[Gerry Green]

32 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Burns is about to be public enemy number 1 by the Huddle when he signs his new contract. Every play that isn’t a sack will lead to anger.

 

No one throws a hissy fit like a Panther fan done wrong. LOL

[UnluckyforSome]

2 hours ago, Saca312 said:

Name a better player on defense than Burns. I'd be hard pressed to name one.

Yeah, he'll get paid. The Panthers would be dumb at this point not to.

Being dumb has been no obstacle in the past. Different regimes though, so maybe different results.

[NAS]

[Cdparr7]

Just out of curiosity. What is Brian Burns trade value? Anyone have a reasonable guess?

[UnluckyforSome]

26 minutes ago, frankw said:

Not enough data to answer as of yet. It remains to be seen if he will stay healthy or revert back to being dinged up. He was top 5 in touches last season the 49ers damn sure are getting their investments worth out of him. At one point he had a rushing receiving and passing touchdown. Not even we put him out there for all that. I don't foresee that being a recipe for sustained injury free play for long.

Do you happen to read Peter King's column anymore? If not, he has a line in this week's that goes along the lines of how great it is CMC is finally in a system that can maximize him as a player. If you feel that's a bit of a slight or an insult, you should, since he became the 3rd player to have a 1000/1000 season on one  of our awful 5 win teams. No mention made of that though.

[WhoKnows]

41 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

You're conflating how business works and operates with "the fans pay the player's salaries so they have a right to complain how it's spent" and they couldn't be further from the truth.  Yes, the salary cap is set based on league revenue, which is based off TV contracts, which yes, are then also based off what the networks will be able to get from advertising money.

But to say "we pay their salaries" when you buy a tube of toothpaste is a significant and rather farcical leap of correlation between the two.

That same Crest commercial is also going to run on Real Housewifes of Atlanta.

Are you saying when you buy that $5 tube of toothpaste, that you're partially paying for Brian Burns' contract as well as paying Betty Joe Sue's contract to be on that show?

Of course not

Brand's budgets for advertising on NFL games is solely set by the number of eyeballs that watch the games, not based on how many tubes of toothpaste the ads sell, because there is no way to ever correlate sales to any TV commercial.  The brands who advertise during NFL aren't mom and pop places, they're global fortune 500 type of companies, the ones who are going to have massive sales regardless of how many football fans buy their products.

You buy a tube of toothpaste from Target, Target bought that toothpaste from a distributor, the distributor bought it from Crest, Crest paid CBS and Fox for commercial time, CBS and FOX paid the NFL for the games, the NFL pays teams the TV revenue, the teams pay players.

If you're seriously trying to say that you buying that tube of toothpaste gives you the right as a fan to complain about how YOUR money is being spent on players, then I think you're the one who doesn't understand how business works.

I'm guessing if P&G spent $0 on NFL advertising, while maybe their sales take a small hit, they'd still be one of the biggest companies in the world.  But they spend it there because they know it has a ton of eyeballs so it's a smart use of their advertising money that they'd be spending to place ads somewhere else instead if not on the NFL.

Your argument about if nobody bought P&G products or if all NFL fans started to only watch soccer aren't real life scenarios.  You were saying that in response to if fans spent $0 or $1 million that it wouldn't change how they spend, but I clearly wasn't saying ALL fans, it was individually.  Your scenario would literally take almost every fan of the sport to just stop watching it, which is just nonsense.

If I go out and buy $10 million of Panthers gear today, or even $100 million, it's affect on what we'll pay our players is literally the exact same thing as me spending absolutely nothing.  Because teams want to be competitive, so they spend based on what the cap is, not how much merchandise sales they have.  This isn't European Soccer to where those merchandise sales are what allow you to purchase players from other teams, where they don't have salary caps but caps on what you can spend based on what you bring in.

And all that is set at multitudes of levels away from NFL fan's individual spending on products advertised during games.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. If you actually think P&G doesn’t know which marketing channels work and which ones don’t and they just advertise wherever, you are missing the boat. Heck, if you stream now the ads that you get are targeted based on what shows you watch. There is a ridiculous amount of data out there on you and all of us NFL fans. That’s why advertisers continue to pay outrageous amounts for spots during the Super Bowl.

It’s a lot more than just eyeballs nowadays, but again NFL fans absolutely are at the start of the ball of money rolling from us to advertisers to networks to NFL to revenue sharing with players. It’s just that simple and it has nothing to do with if there is a salary cap or not. It is only about the fact that NFL fans do provide the money for franchises to do what they want. That’s the opposite of when people say it’s not our money because these NFL owners aren’t paying players out of their pockets, it’s coming from the NFL revenue sharing.

Also, cherry picking one fan’s spend is far more nonsense than using an example of all NFL fans becoming Soccer fans. My example illustrates the fact that without fan’s spending/watching games, there is no revenue to share with players. The people I am replying to basically think you as a fan should just shut up and let the big boys do what they want and don’t criticize.

[CRA]

1 hour ago, frankw said:

You either pay to play or you go back to throwing darts at the draft board hoping and praying you get a stud. In the meantime that new pass rusher will also take time to develop. While that's going on the team will probably not be winning much. Thus resulting in the squandering of our current core. When looking at it from that angle if we sell Burns why not just sell off the rest of the defensive pieces too?

Again, Reddick, Chubb, Von Miller…

you can get great pass rushers for 40-60 guaranteed.  All recent deals. 

paying Burns 120+ guaranteed is just bad business 

[therealmjl]

25 minutes ago, NAS said:

Smh. Got my hopes up.

[Martin]

1 hour ago, Toomers said:

Who plays strong side? Highsmith? He had 3.5 sacks when Watt was out. 11 when he was playing. 
 

Burns also has 4 years of below average run defense. Something Highsmith will never have. So if you have to “squint” this hard to try and justify Burns being even a little bit better, how can someone believe he’s worth 10M more. Or 80M more guaranteed? 
 

So you are saying Highsmith did much better when Watt got all of the attention, but not as good when Watt was out? Am I reading that right? If so you could also assume Burns would blow those numbers out if the water playing opposite Watt. So you’re kind of making the opposite argument you were thinking, right?

[SmokinwithWilly]

4 minutes ago, CRA said:

Again, Reddick, Chubb, Von Miller…

you can get great pass rushers for 40-60 guaranteed.  All recent deals. 

paying Burns 120+ guaranteed is just bad business 

At some point these contracts are going to end just like the ones did for rookies. It's not feasible to pay less than 20% of your players 80+% of your salary cap and expect to be a perennial playoff contender. 

[carpanfan96]

Does burns deserve more than Payne and Simmons? 22.5 and 23.5m respectively 

[tukafan21]

6 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

Sorry, but you’re wrong. If you actually think P&G doesn’t know which marketing channels work and which ones don’t and they just advertise wherever, you are missing the boat. Heck, if you stream now the ads that you get are targeted based on what shows you watch. There is a ridiculous amount of data out there on you and all of us NFL fans. That’s why advertisers continue to pay outrageous amounts for spots during the Super Bowl.

It’s a lot more than just eyeballs nowadays, but again NFL fans absolutely are at the start of the ball of money rolling from us to advertisers to networks to NFL to revenue sharing with players. It’s just that simple and it has nothing to do with if there is a salary cap or not. It is only about the fact that NFL fans do provide the money for franchises to do what they want. That’s the opposite of when people say it’s not our money because these NFL owners aren’t paying players out of their pockets, it’s coming from the NFL revenue sharing.

Also, cherry picking one fan’s spend is far more nonsense than using an example of all NFL fans becoming Soccer fans. My example illustrates the fact that without fan’s spending/watching games, there is no revenue to share with players. The people I am replying to basically think you as a fan should just shut up and let the big boys do what they want and don’t criticize.

You still are not at all grasping what I'm saying.

First and most importantly, this all started by me just saying that it's completely absurd and disingenuous to say that fans pay the player's contracts and thus they have the right to complain about how that money is spent by the teams.

Yes, I absolutely understand how advertising works and even how, but more accurately, what, can be tracked back to specific ads, have spent over a decade working in advertising for major brands.  Yes, they know what channels work, but what I was saying, is that they can't track specific spend back to TV ads, it's not possible.  There is a difference between knowing what channels work for your brand's marketing and tracking specific spending to specific advertising channels.  Some you can do, some you can't, TV ads is one you can't.

Hence why I was saying that people buying random products that were advertised during NFL games in no way shape or form can be construed into that fan's money going towards paying the players.

And no, my argument on fan spend is nothing like yours.  You were saying that if all fans of the sport stopped watching and switched to another sport, that it would have an affect.  Well no poo, but that's also never going to happen, the entire sport's fanbase isn't going to just up and drop it.

Maybe my individual person example is an extreme, but the theory is the same and still valid.  The franchise with the highest merchandise revenue and the franchise with the lowest, will still spend the same amount of money on their players.  Yes, their facilities may be much nicer as they have more money to spend on the franchise as a whole, but fans actual money spent on merchandise/concessions again have ZERO impact on the money spent on player contracts.

Which I feel is the more accurate comparison to fans in Soccer overseas, because there, the money teams can spend on the players is fundamentally based in how much money the clubs bring in through things like merchandise.  That's how their rules are set up, teams can only spend a specific portion of revenues on players, so the more money a team makes, the more they can spend on players.