Why carolina can not* afford to lose Burns

[Davidson Deac II]

5 hours ago, KSpan said:

Like how he was a top DE before he was unhappy with his contract, right? Making all of those big game-changing plays?

There is 5 years of tape on Burns. He is a known quantity, and people tend to suddenly get better/play harder before the contract, not after. This team only lost by 2 possessions or less several times - Burns had his chance to show he took the next step and deserves elite money. He failed to do so. 

In fairness, you have to have a decent team before many game changing plays can be made.  I mean if you get a sack when your team is down by a few points, but your offense can't move the ball, then there is no chance of a game changing play.  

Edited January 30 by Davidson Deac II

[Khyber53]

11 hours ago, Donald LaFell said:

We likely wouldn’t replace him for a while. We’d get players on offense. 
 

Burns is the kind of player that would make a great defense elite but he can’t be an anchor. He needs to go somewhere where he can be a pass rush specialist that is ok against the run. Trade him for what you can get or let him test the market. 

 

This ^100%. It's not that he's not really, really good, it's just that he needs a running mate or he just gets washed out of the game. He's the perfect complimentary pass rusher and can beat a single lineman with speed and bend like no other. Single linemen. He's not blowing through double teams and wrecking plays every time the other team drops back to pass.

He'd make the perfect Edge2 along the line and I'd be all for keeping him if we could pay him that way. Putting him at top of the league in pay, though, is disastrous for us.

[KSpan]

53 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

In fairness, you have to have a decent team before many game changing plays can be made.  I mean if you get a sack when your team is down by a few points, but your offense can't move the ball, then there is no chance of a game changing play.  

What an offense does is irrelevant - a strip-sack late in a close game (as one example) is definitely impact and game-changing. Burns, or any other defender, can't control what happens on the other side of the ball.

With that said you could substitute 'memorable' for 'game-changing' and the result is the same. I've watched almost every game and don't recall a single outstnading, memorable play that Burns has made. It's hardly scientific of course, but when I think back to Peppers I can remember blocked field goals, the Denver game in 2004 (Plummer out at the 1, 99 yard interception return very next play), touchdown return vs Atlanta, and him just generally taking over games. 

I'm not saying that Burns or anyone else needs to be Peppers to be a quality player, because Peppers is a lock for the Hall. But he wants to be paid like guys that play on that level in today's NFL and the production and impact just isn't there.

[Ricky Spanish]

I was all for keeping Burns but that was under the impression he was going to be extended.

We didn't give him a contract, he asked for more money, then his play dipped.

Tag and trade him. Potentially to Cincy in a player for player swap with Tee higgins if they want to tag and trade as well.

[MHS831]

First of all, thank you for presenting data to support your argument.  This is interesting, and until Evero leaves, these numbers are telling.  While these do not indicate number of snaps, I do have a few observations:

Gross Matos must hold the edge while rushing instead of pinning his ears back.  19 pressures in very encouraging.  Secondly,  Barno seems to be a specimen of an athlete who pressured the QB nearly as frequently as Burns in the number of plays he was in the game.

If those two players develop and are given more opportunities, as a salary cap manager/GM, you have to look at the productivity difference.  In 2023, Barno was in on 20% of the snap counts (188).  Burns was in on 83% of the snap counts (814).  So if you mathematically give Barno the same number of snaps that Burns had, Barno would have had 37 pressures.  This is not to say the Burns sucks, it is to demonstrate the fine line between a guy drafted with the 10th pick in the first round and a guy drafted with the 10th pick in the sixth round. 

Barno lacks the sacks, and it is a fair argument to suggest that he was not facing the attention of the offense given Burns.  But Burns' numbers do not reflect an elite edge rusher. 

Instead of comparing him to the teammates he is taking playing time from, lets look at the players he sees as his equals in terms of expected salary:

Nick Bosa makes $34m per season, a salary similar to what Burns wants.  At the time, that salary was the largest in NFL history for a non-QB. 

In 2022, for reference, Bosa finished No. 1 in the league last season in pressures (73), sacks (18.5) and sack rate (4.0%), according to Next Gen Stats.

Brian Burns wants nearly $30m, close to Bosa's salary.  If you Cherry pick his statistics, you can make a case for a salary in the Maxx Crosby range ($23m).  However, the stat that bothers me most about Burns is underlined below--he is ineffective, according to this stat, nearly 90% of the time:  "Burns has recorded 30.5 sacks over the last three seasons — seventh most in the league — and his 174 total pressures ranked fourth. Nonetheless, his pass rush win percentage remains low, averaging just 10.5% over that time span."  Nick Bosa, in 2023, doubled Burns pressure total (82 to 40) and more had  2.5 more sacks even though it was a disappointing year for him.  But Burns wants to be paid somewhere between Maxx Crosby ($23.5m) and Bosa ($34m).  Crosby had 73 pressures and 14.5 sacks in 2023. 

Burns performance suggests that he should be paid less than Crosby.  Burns is probably worth $21-22m per season--maybe $23m with inflation.  He wants $29-30m, the way I understand it.

 

 

Edited January 30 by MHS831

[Davidson Deac II]

20 minutes ago, KSpan said:

What an offense does is irrelevant - a strip-sack late in a close game (as one example) is definitely impact and game-changing. Burns, or any other defender, can't control what happens on the other side of the ball.

With that said you could substitute 'memorable' for 'game-changing' and the result is the same. I've watched almost every game and don't recall a single outstnading, memorable play that Burns has made. It's hardly scientific of course, but when I think back to Peppers I can remember blocked field goals, the Denver game in 2004 (Plummer out at the 1, 99 yard interception return very next play), touchdown return vs Atlanta, and him just generally taking over games. 

I'm not saying that Burns or anyone else needs to be Peppers to be a quality player, because Peppers is a lock for the Hall. But he wants to be paid like guys that play on that level in today's NFL and the production and impact just isn't there.

I disagree.  Can't have a game changing play if you aren't in the game. 

Against Tampa, Burns had a second half sack that forced Tampa to settle for a fg in the red zone.  On our following possession, we march down the field, but don't score.  In fact, didn't score at all that game.  

Could have been a game changing play, but it wasn't because we never had a chance to win the game as the offense got shut out.  

Edited January 30 by Davidson Deac II

[Tr3ach]

9 hours ago, PleaseCutStewart said:

Honestly, I disagree a lot. We can very much afford to lose burns because we are beginning a pretty long rebuild. There is no way I am paying him the 30 million per year he wants to be an above average pass rusher that can't play the run.

I won't argue that he has no other talented pass rushers around him, but he isn't in the top end elite category that would command the money he wants. Honestly, I'm not sure any team pays him that

Give me whatever the best pick we can get for him after the franchise tag and lets go.  He doesnt fit in with where the Panthers roster is right now and im fairly sure he wants a change of scenery.  Its a win/win.

[KSpan]

28 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

I disagree.  Can't have a game changing play if you aren't in the game. 

Against Tampa, Burns had a second half sack that forced Tampa to settle for a fg in the red zone.  On our following possession, we march down the field, but don't score.  In fact, didn't score at all that game.  

Could have been a game changing play, but it wasn't because we never had a chance to win the game as the offense got shut out.  

In fairness to your comment I went and looked up the highlight... Brown already had a fistful of Baker on that play after he and Luvu blew up the pocket, and Baker was backpedaling and falling down when Burns finished him off. Burns did nothing of note on that play but got the statistical credit. This is not at all a counter to my point.

[AU-panther]

13 hours ago, micnificent28 said:

The Burns bashing is way beyond the levels of crazy. Did he have a down year by his standards yes, but so did the entire team. Being the sole pass rushing threat on the defense teams must account for is difficult enough. Not to mention playing on the tag risking serious injury or financial ruin.

When other held out for contracts Burns showed up to camp ready and excited to join his teammates. Despite what the huddle thinks hes still well regarded around the league and would still demand a first round compensation. 

The problem with trading him is you have to replace him, and replacing his first round pedigree with anything other than a first round talent(dj johnson and gross) is near impossible. You would have to burn another first and hope he becomes a top 10 presence. I mean look at the pressure generated by the defense and if you listen to the way fans tell it Burns is the problem.

I don't understand why people can't understand this, but when you trade a player who you are abuot to have to pay big money to, you don't have to replace him with the draft pick.  You replace them with the cap savings, the draft pick is just a bonus.

Can you replace Burns production with $30m and draft picks?

Also, it just isn't about replacing Burns production, it's about making the team better.  Maybe you use $15m and replace 90% of Burn's production, then you use the other $15m to greatly improve a different position, then with the draft picks you might get lucky and slightly improve two other positions.

 

[strato]

If you are thinking about winning games with Bryce Young leading your offense? You don’t want to mess up your defense. 

But I’d be okay with trading Burns if you make sure you are going to replace him with comparable. I don’t think his production would be tough for us to replace.

Who sees us being in shootouts or up big, where we are gonna be rushing the passer all game? It is a little less important however they go.

 

 

[CRA]

3 hours ago, Davidson Deac II said:

In fairness, you have to have a decent team before many game changing plays can be made.  I mean if you get a sack when your team is down by a few points, but your offense can't move the ball, then there is no chance of a game changing play.  

true, you can't make a game changing play if you aren't "in the game".   But we actually were in a lot of games.  Our defense wasn't making big plays.  Dead last in the NFL in takeaways.   For all the talk about Ejiro's defense.  They didn't take the ball away.  They didn't make many big plays.  Which in what you actually want in a D in today's NFL. 

And Burns flat out just doesn't make a lot of plays in general.  Whether we are in the game or not.  Which can't be said about Brown, Luvu, etc.  For the last 2 seasons, they have been our best 2 overall defenders, not Burns.  I'd lock up Brown and Luvu first. 

[WhoKnows]

13 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Literally no one can understand that decision. It was one of the top 2 or 3 worst in franchise history.

Yep, especially when Sweat and Young went for 2nd and 3rd round picks. Could have had Sweat for slightly less $$$ and swapped a 2nd for 2 1sts. I’d much rather have Sweat and 2 1sts over Burns, $5M less cap per year and a 2nd.

Fitterer literally couldn’t have been more wrong about everything.

[mickeye76]

Give Brown and Luvu extensions. Let Burns test the market or trade him. We are not ready for those big contracts at pass rusher. Heck we don't even know who our DC is gonna be. 

[Wundrbread33]

It’s a damn shame how often players become the villain when their cheap rookie deal runs out and they want to cash in on their hard work. 
 

The salary cap is good for parody, but it also causes unreasonable anger toward players who need to make as much as they can before their bodies are broken. 
 

Burns is not the cream of the crop, but he is an excellent player.

Words like “average” or “liability” get thrown around because of a trade that didn’t happen (not Burns fault) and because his contract is up and lord forbid if he wants to make as much as he can.