What I realized about a Burns Trade:

[SaltAndPepper]

I was watching Colin Cowherd for the herdline news when they brought up Thomas Brown, and as usual instead of sticking to the topic they go off on a random tangent, this time, would the Panthers be sellers at the trade deadline? Logically they brought up Brian Burns because he's the only semi-household name on the team. When both of them tried to think about playoff teams that would part with draft capital to make a Super Bowl push, they couldn't. Their best guess was Miami (but they already paid Bradley Chubb). Eventually they went silent for 10 seconds before moving on... But it made me think. 

Who would he even get traded to? or more specific, Who needs him? 




These are the 7 playoff teams. This thought experiment goes off of the assumptions that 1) These are the playoff teams we'll see in January. 2) They won't trade foralso  someone else. This also keeps in mind that Burns is not really good in the running game, so teams aren't really tradiing him for run support. 

Starting with the AFC: 

1) Kansas City Chiefs:  Tied for the 12th most sacks (17). They have Chris Jones, and George Karlaftis (1st Round Pick). Trade Possibility : 3/10
2) Miami Dolphins: Tied for the 3rd most sacks (21). They traded for Bradley Chubb last year for 1st Rd. Pick + change, and gave him long term money. Also have to pay Tua and Waddle. Trade Possibility : 0/10
3) Baltimore Ravens: The Ravens are tied for the most sacks with 24. They have two young rushers, and a Linebacker they're paying a lot (Smith). Trade Possibility: 0/10
4) Jacksonville Jaguars: They have a horrible pass rush, tied for 4th worst in Sacks (12). They do have two young pass rushers though in Travon Walker and Josh Allen. Trade Possibility: 2/10
5) Buffalo Bills: Tied for the most sacks. Have arguably the best depth defensive line wise not named the Eagles. Trade Possibility: 0/10
6) Pittsburgh Steelers: While they're middle in the pack in terms of sacks, they already have two handsomely paid Edge Rushers. (Watt & Highsmith) Trade Possbility: 0/10
7) Cleveland Browns:  The browns are middle in the league in sacks. They have one of the best though in Garrett, but haven't been able to find a proper long term replacement. They do have Zadarius Smith who is a cut candidate in the offseason. Unfourtunately, they don't have a first round pick this year. Trade Possibility: 3/10

So far, the only AFC contending team that could pay for a Brian Burns trade to make a realistic superbowl push, and to help their Pass Rush, is the Cleveland Browns. But they don't have their 1st round pick, so a trade would only result in 25 and maybe a 26 first round pick. 

Now with the NFC: 

1) San Francisco 49ers: The niners are middle of the road in sacks, but already have expensive Contracts for Hargrave and Bosa. Wouldn't be fiscally responsible to trade heavy draft capital and give Burns a hefty extension. Trade Possibility: 1/10. 
2) Philadelphia Eagles: The Eagles have an embarassment of Pass Rushers, and are 5th in Sacks (20). They are also paying for Hassan Reddick, so like the niners, a trade for Burns wouldn't make sense to them. Trade Possibility: 1/10. 
3) Detroit Lions: The Lions are middle of the road in Sacks (15). They have Aidan Hutchinson, who will be getting a significant extension, but he really doesn't have a proper running mate. This results in him getting put in choke holds that are egregious holds (good job zebras). A trade for Burns would honestly scare me on par with the niners and Eagles, and their GM has shown to make unorthodox moves before (see RB at draft choice 12). Trade Possibility: 6/10.
 4) Bucs:  I don't even have to review them. Possibility: 0/10
5) Dallas Cowboys: The Cowboys have 16 sacks, right on par with league average. They have a 3-4 good rushers, led by Micah Parsons. Considering that he's going to ask for QB type money, they can't pay for a Brian Burns. Possibility: 1/10. 
6) Seattle Seahawks: The Seahawks are a team that is in the upper third in sacks. Boye Mafe and Jarren Reed lead the team in sacks, but they don't have a true bonafide Pass Rusher, something they had in the LOB days. Scotty Fitt also came from Seattle. They also have shown they're willing to pay significant capital for a defensive Player: Trade Possibility: 6/10. 
7) Los Angeles Rams: The rams only have 10 sacks, as AD seems to be getting stopped more than usual + age.  They are also rebuilding and are not interested in paying a significant piece, instead opting to put more resources back into Offense. Trade Possibility: 3/10. 

So, out of the NFC, the best places are Detroit and Seattle. The other NFC teams 1) Have no need for Burns 2) Can't pay Burns 3) Both. 

So, in this thought experiment, the Browns, Lions, and Seahawks are the only teams that can really make a push for Brian Burns. Assuming we want to get a first round pick this year, this leaves the Seahawks and the Lions. And they would be expected to part with significant draft capital AND pay Burns an extension when both teams have weaknesses. (Seattle: Offensive Line) (Detroit: Secondary) 

Thank you for making it this far, if you did. This was my first time actually making a valuable contribution to this Board. 


TDLR: Don't expect a Burns trade unless it's from the Seahawks or Lions... and even then don't expect it. We messed up buy not trading him to the Rams last year for that haul. 


 

[ChibCU]

Appreciate that well-thought out analysis! It does seem like the Lions are the ones we need to be courting, but we'll need some others to show interest if we want to maximize what remaining trade value he has at this point.

And in our situation, draft picks don't even need to be for next year.