Sometimes the deal you don’t make is the BEST DEAL…. LOL @ Giants

[SmokinwithWilly]

21 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

This is what people don't understand.  Scott Fitterer got fired before he would have made either of those 1sts.  Was it the right decision to trade Burns to the Rams for the Panthers?  Yes.  Was it the right decision for Scott Fitterer?  I'd argue no.  And I think Dan agreed with him for the same reasons.  That's not a trade you can make unless you have assurances that you won't be fired.

I think part of the problem though is Fitts never embraced the rebuild and had a bigger picture plan for building a team. He was constantly trying to add a piece here or there to be competitive. Sometimes you just need to tear it down and start over. Rhule was gone. We were going to be hiring a new coach. New coach means new QB. And whether or not you are using them this year, future 1sts are valuable trading material plus we would have had their 2nd that year to add an edge rusher if we so chose. 

How much different would it have looked if the trade for Bryce had been our 1st (9) and the Rams 2 1sts instead of our 24 1st which ended up being number 1 and DJ. A much better scenario for going and getting your new HC his new QB for his new offensive system instead of gutting the WR room. Sure, we would still end up losing Burns, but there was always the possibility that was going to happen anyway. 

Self preservation no doubt played a role, but Fitts wasn't looking too hot already. It's never a good thing to see your GM panic in the draft room. 

[PNW_PantherMan]

4 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

I think part of the problem though is Fitts never embraced the rebuild and had a bigger picture plan for building a team. He was constantly trying to add a piece here or there to be competitive. Sometimes you just need to tear it down and start over. Rhule was gone. We were going to be hiring a new coach. New coach means new QB. And whether or not you are using them this year, future 1sts are valuable trading material plus we would have had their 2nd that year to add an edge rusher if we so chose. 

How much different would it have looked if the trade for Bryce had been our 1st (9) and the Rams 2 1sts instead of our 24 1st which ended up being number 1 and DJ. A much better scenario for going and getting your new HC his new QB for his new offensive system instead of gutting the WR room. Sure, we would still end up losing Burns, but there was always the possibility that was going to happen anyway. 

Self preservation no doubt played a role, but Fitts wasn't looking too hot already. It's never a good thing to see your GM panic in the draft room. 

I agree with all of that and Fitterer definitely sucked.  Some of that may also be blamed on the fact that he did not start with a fresh regime to come in.  So he had already burned some of his wick when we were starting over with a new coach (twice).

The reality is that we do not often see players traded for that kind of package in the NFL today.  We don't see teams selling off star players for large hauls to start a re-build.  Whether or not that is the correct decision is up for debate.  But in the NFL it's observable that the opposite is mostly the case.  Teams tend to over value present assets vs future assets.

It all goes back to the fact that "now" is all that matters if you're running an NFL team.  They say the NFL stands for "not for long".  You don't have the luxury to sow a field that won't be harvested until after you're gone.  Nobody's that selfless in NFL front offices.

[SmokinwithWilly]

7 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

I agree with all of that and Fitterer definitely sucked.  Some of that may also be blamed on the fact that he did not start with a fresh regime to come in.  So he had already burned some of his wick when we were starting over with a new coach (twice).

The reality is that we do not often see players traded for that kind of package in the NFL today.  We don't see teams selling off star players for large hauls to start a re-build.  Whether or not that is the correct decision is up for debate.  But in the NFL it's observable that the opposite is mostly the case.  Teams tend to over value present assets vs future assets.

It all goes back to the fact that "now" is all that matters if you're running an NFL team.  They say the NFL stands for "not for long".  You don't have the luxury to sow a field that won't be harvested until after you're gone.  Nobody's that selfless in NFL front offices.

I don't think it's necessarily selfless to make that trade. I think it's all in how you plan and if you can objectively view the player. You know you're going to have a new coach and be taking a QB in the draft. Whether or not he wanted to admit it, we were going to be beginning a rebuild with a new offense and new defense. Depending on the coach, Burns may not have even been a good fit for the scheme that coach wanted to run.  So, if you're not 1st, you're going to need to trade up. Burns likely is going to want in the 30m per year range. While an effective pass rusher, he was never a complete DE. He wasn't a JJ, TJ, Bosa, or Garrett. He was more Reddick, and while good, never going to be in that top tier contract caliber. 

So the question becomes, knowing that you need a QB to go with a new coach, is it better to have your 

23, 24 and 25' 1sts 

extra 24 and 25 1sts

an extra 23'2nd 

and 30m aav of future contract cap space to get a QB and edge rusher 

Or

your 23, 24 and 25 1sts

and a good, but not elite DE on an elite tier contract. 

6 picks and available 30m AAV in cap space vs 3 picks and 0 extra cap space to get a QB and a good, not great, DE. 

To me that is a simple answer and frankly one that could potentially save my job. You have to have vision and be able to recognize value. Fitts over valued Burns like many fans did. I think ultimately what cost him his job was 3 years of not being able to value players correctly. We saw it twice in the draft in 2 separate years when he panicked and couldn't read the draft. DJ Johnson and Matt Corral picks specifically come to mind. 

I don't think it was about being selfless as much as being a strategist. Neither Rhule nor Fitts never struck me as very strategic guys. I think they were more let's throw poo at the wall and see what sticks. Unfortunately for the fans, none of it stuck, but it still all stunk. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 hours ago, electro's horse said:

And no GM in the league is going to make a move that weakens his team for 1.5 years before he even gets to use the picks. 

I mean besides like peak belichick or roseman or something 

Respectfully you are out of your mind

[PNW_PantherMan]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Respectfully you are out of your mind

So you believe if Fitterer made that trade he doesn't get fired?  I find that really hard to believe.  The team would be worse than they were and he still hadn't hit on any draft picks.  You think Tepper's keeping him around to see how that turns out?

NFL teams are run by humans on short timelines.  They frequently do what's in their own best interest before what's better for the team in the long term.  This is observable around the league.  What GM is selling off players for multiple 1sts to stockpile years of picks?  Whether or not its an effective strategy is not relevant.  It's not done for a reason.  If you fail to see that reason, I don't know what else to say.

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

So you believe if Fitterer made that trade he doesn't get fired?  I find that really hard to believe.  The team would be worse than they were and he still hadn't hit on any draft picks.  You think Tepper's keeping him around to see how that turns out?

NFL teams are run by humans on short timelines.  They frequently do what's in their own best interest before what's better for the team in the long term.  This is observable around the league.  What GM is selling off players for multiple 1sts to stockpile years of picks?  Whether or not its an effective strategy is not relevant.  It's not done for a reason.  If you fail to see that reason, I don't know what else to say.

Whether he would have still been fired is anyones guess.  I imagine if he cleared it with tepper prior he may have more leeway but I kindof doubt it.  If Fitt made the call not to trade based on his job security then he should be fired that day.  You do whats best for the franchise.  Period full stop.  And the reason you dont see teams selling off players is because no non qb is worth multiple firsts and a 2nd which goes back to my point, the deal was so astronomically one sided it was criminal not to do it.

 

Now as I think about it and type that post I think if fitt did do that trade he probably gets at least another year as A) he showed he could win trades, B) could argue he traded with the owners blessing his best player and C)he didnt hire Reich

 

K Mack, a defensive player of the year, was traded for 2 firsts and a 3rd.  Macks career is/was on a different stratosphere then burns.  There is simply no way you can argue not trading burns was the right call at any point in that affair

[PNW_PantherMan]

20 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Whether he would have still been fired is anyones guess.  I imagine if he cleared it with tepper prior he may have more leeway but I kindof doubt it.  If Fitt made the call not to trade based on his job security then he should be fired that day.  You do whats best for the franchise.  Period full stop.  And the reason you dont see teams selling off players is because no non qb is worth multiple firsts and a 2nd which goes back to my point, the deal was so astronomically one sided it was criminal not to do it.

 

Now as I think about it and type that post I think if fitt did do that trade he probably gets at least another year as A) he showed he could win trades, B) could argue he traded with the owners blessing his best player and C)he didnt hire Reich

 

K Mack, a defensive player of the year, was traded for 2 firsts and a 3rd.  Macks career is/was on a different stratosphere then burns.  There is simply no way you can argue not trading burns was the right call at any point in that affair

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm trying to explain another perspective.  If you haven't seen this video, I highly recommend giving it a watch.  It's pretty eye opening about NFL front office behavior.

 

[gakonline]

So far Wonnum>>>Burns. 

[electro's horse]

People are insanely overvaluing future firsts, especially considering the team he’d have gone to 

for planning purposes, for first round picks 2 and 3 drafts in the future they’re effectively one pick away from being 33rd overall. Can’t assume they’re going to be higher than that.

and again, keeping burns helped the panthers have their most entertaining stretch since the first half of 2018, and were probably a freak broken arm to Jaycee horn from making the playoffs.

Obviously I don’t think the panthers are at competitive down the stretch without burns. 

[Jackson113.2]

This organization needs to send flowers to the Browns for taking Watson.  That would have really set the organization back. Burns not so much.