Hunt + Lewis >>>> Burns

[CBDellinger]

11 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

No they weren't. It was a 23' 2nd, 24' 1st, 25' 1st. That's QB value for a defensive player that wasn't even a top 10 edge overall player. You take that and run as fast as you can every damn time. 

I think it was a 24 1st, a 25 1st and a 25 2nd at the deadline of 2022 so 2 and 3 years out… which in Tepper years is like 3 or 4 new head coaches and 2 front offices worth of time.

 

 

[Daddy_Uncle]

Burns was never that great. He's always been severely overrated 

[WhoKnows]

2 hours ago, CBDellinger said:

Nah… the picks is were like 4 or 5 years out… rams just had a first round pick for 1st time in 7 years. I dunno why that’s not part of the conversation surrounding that proposed trade.   

In what world are you living. The first 1st would have just been made in the 2024 draft and we’d have two 1sts in the upcoming 2025 draft. The 2nd was pick 36 in the 2023 draft, so we’d have already used two of the three picks. 4 to 5 years out? It wasn’t part of the conversation because it wasn’t reality.

I kept saying that people who argued against it didn’t get that we’d get two solid starters with the money we saved (Hunt and Lewis) plus be one good GM away from also getting 3 rookie starters, any of whom might be better than Burns by himself. I was 100% right and everyone who argued against the trade was 100% wrong, period.

It was an awful trade to not make. Fitterer fuged up, simple as that. We made the Burns trade one 2-14 year later and turned a 2024 1st and 2025 1st into a 2024 5th and 2025 5th.

The biggest fug up by Fitterer was not using the Burns trade as our feeder into a rookie QB. Making the Rams Burns trade would have basically made the mistake of Young not devastating to our talent. Fitterer doubled down and lost both.

[strato]

4 hours ago, KSpan said:

Which was exactly the point of letting him go, to spread the resources. It was no guarantee that the FO would make the right moves but seems like they made positive decisions with that money thus far.

Yeah. I know. I am cranky over this toothless defense. 

 

all of a sudden having one matters. 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by strato

[KSpan]

35 minutes ago, strato said:

Yeah. I know. I am cranky over this toothless defense. 

 

all of a sudden having one matters. 

 

If it makes you feel any better, Burns wouldn't help at this point AND the offense would possibly (likely?) be worse. 

[ClawOn]

There is a reason the Giants are the Giants. 

[strato]

3 minutes ago, KSpan said:

If it makes you feel any better, Burns wouldn't help at this point AND the offense would possibly (likely?) be worse. 

I'm not bitching about Burns. He wasn't going to be reasonable, let them pay him. I'm bitching about sacrificing the defense for the offense. 

They could have given the D back a taste. No, it's like: "defense, sell one of your guys so we can help Bryce be Drew Brees"; you will get nothing and like it lol. The defense got the short end the last three years. 3 years is too long for that to go on. Even shitty QBs can beat you if you get no pressure. 

And I love OL and I love that the offense looks professional, I do. Go figure, one player does that.

 But it's still the offense gets a steak and potato for dinner the defense gets a hot dog and chips.

[CBDellinger]

2 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

In what world are you living. The first 1st would have just been made in the 2024 draft and we’d have two 1sts in the upcoming 2025 draft. The 2nd was pick 36 in the 2023 draft, so we’d have already used two of the three picks. 4 to 5 years out? It wasn’t part of the conversation because it wasn’t reality.

I kept saying that people who argued against it didn’t get that we’d get two solid starters with the money we saved (Hunt and Lewis) plus be one good GM away from also getting 3 rookie starters, any of whom might be better than Burns by himself. I was 100% right and everyone who argued against the trade was 100% wrong, period.

It was an awful trade to not make. Fitterer fuged up, simple as that. We made the Burns trade one 2-14 year later and turned a 2024 1st and 2025 1st into a 2024 5th and 2025 5th.

The biggest fug up by Fitterer was not using the Burns trade as our feeder into a rookie QB. Making the Rams Burns trade would have basically made the mistake of Young not devastating to our talent. Fitterer doubled down and lost both.

I made a post after that I think you missed and depending on who you read and believe the 2nd was a 2025 pick.

the hindsight is groovy but burns was in the midst if a 12.5 sack campaign in his 3rd year?  I guess they thought 1 in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.  In retrospect he fizzled and it sucks now.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 53 minutes ago by CBDellinger

[BrianS]

5 hours ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

No they weren't. It was a 23' 2nd, 24' 1st, 25' 1st. That's QB value for a defensive player that wasn't even a top 10 edge overall player. You take that and run as fast as you can every damn time. 

Correct.  And additionally, by rule you can only trade away up to three years out.  You can't trade a pick five years out.  People saying that this was a long ways out are just wrong.  Sure, they didn't offer an immediate 1st . . . because they didn't have it to give.

[Waldo]

1 hour ago, strato said:

I'm not bitching about Burns. He wasn't going to be reasonable, let them pay him. I'm bitching about sacrificing the defense for the offense. 

They could have given the D back a taste. No, it's like: "defense, sell one of your guys so we can help Bryce be Drew Brees"; you will get nothing and like it lol. The defense got the short end the last three years. 3 years is too long for that to go on. Even shitty QBs can beat you if you get no pressure. 

And I love OL and I love that the offense looks professional, I do. Go figure, one player does that.

 But it's still the offense gets a steak and potato for dinner the defense gets a hot dog and chips.

They picked up 3 $7 million a year guys and a $5 a year guy...except for the CB I don't think they are playing all that well. I'm not sure that side spending more would have changed much anyways. That's what I'm telling myself until the people brought in under the DC start doing better. 

[strato]

We could list who they had to replace. But we were short the previous season over there with the 3rd rounder on edge setting duty. People talking about it was hidden because teams didn't need to exploit them all game to win. 

It wasn't just who we lost after 2023. We never had it right to start with. 

What are those guards making APY? I guess I'm sour also because of the extended time that Lewis was missing in camp/preseason, and played three games and out again. I like him, and Hunt could be an annual Pro Bowl type. But so much money on guards... 

Edited 17 minutes ago by strato