Offer 1st Rounder for Brian Burns, Carolina Edge?

[SNDavidson]

I'd off a 1st for Brian Burns immediately, they just fired their coach, might want draft picks...

Brian Burns Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Draft, College | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Checkout the latest stats for Brian Burns. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, college, draft, and more on Pro-football-reference.com.

www.pro-football-reference.com

 

[QWERTY]

I'd off a 1st for Brian Burns immediately, they just fired their coach, might want draft picks...

Brian Burns Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Draft, College | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Checkout the latest stats for Brian Burns. Get info about his position, age, height, weight, college, draft, and more on Pro-football-reference.com.

www.pro-football-reference.com

he's a free agent next year?

EDIT: He has a 5th year option and free agent the year after.

 

[Rat]

I'd love to snag him, but both our first round picks are going to be pretty high in the next draft. I'd try for a 2nd and change first.

 

[SNDavidson]

 

[SNDavidson]

THIS GUY SCREAMS SEAHAWK on tape, let's go Pete, fork over the 1st they're demanding, is this not the single type of talent outside of QB that 1sts are "allowed" on, a beginning of prime sack/fumble artist?

 

[Seattle Person]

If it's just a 1st rounder then I'm all over this. Dude is just going into his age 25 season next year. He's freaking 24 right now and has already 3 seasons of production. He's on pace to have a career year. His win rate is in the 20% range. That puts him somewhere in the top 15 of pass rushers. Testing numbers were through the roof. Most importantly he plays a premium position. These are the types of trades I like.

 

[Rat]

Objectively, he's worth a first-rounder, but I really dont want to give up on our two pick advantage in the next draft. Might need it to move up for a QB.

 

[Maelstrom787]

If Seattle goes into the trade deadline at .500, then I'm cool with sending that native first rounder.

They're going to aim for a young pass rusher anyway - might as well snag a proven talent at just 24. You'll have to pay him sooner, sure, but hey - edge talent is premium.

It's a bummer because "WOO! TWO FIRSTS!" but objectively, it seems like alright process. Problem is, I'm not sure that first gets it done. Eagles are probably going to want to offer more, and at that point, it really becomes a less attractive proposition for Seattle.

 

[hawkfan68]

I believe there will be several teams vying for him. 49ers if Bosa's injury keeps him out any significant. I believe Armstead is also hurt too. Lions would in the mix too since they have a pass rush issue. Possibly even the Falcons as well.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Only if the price is low, which it probably won't be. These big trades that Seattle have tried have left me feeling PTSD. We came out on the losing end of the Jamal Adams, Graham and Harvin trades.

 

[samwize77]

no.....

 

[NoChops]

nope. no reason to give up a first for a guy who would do little to stop the run that is killing us 24/7

 

[Maelstrom787]

Only if the price is low, which it probably won't be. These big trades that Seattle have tried have left me feeling PTSD. We came out on the losing end of the Jamal Adams, Graham and Harvin trades.

I don't think fear should govern personnel decisions. I hate few things more than excessive risk aversion in roster building, personally, and I don't think that previous trades should scare us away from pursuing top-flight talent should the price make sense.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I don't think fear should govern personnel decisions. I hate few things more than excessive risk aversion in roster building, personally, and I don't think that previous trades should scare us away from pursuing top-flight talent should the price make sense.

Being overly aggressive is just as bad. Blind aggression is what Seattle has done in these big time trades. We traded two first for a safety that we had no idea how to use, we traded a first plus an all-pro center for a TE that we used as an inline blocker -- highlighting his weaknesses. We trade an obscene amounts of money for a known locker room cancer and it ended up blowing up.

I don't mind making big moves, but all three of the moves made little sense given the schemes we were running. I think it's fair to be a little skeptical of this organization when it comes to big trades. This is especially true given the position we're likely going to be in come next April. Developing your own young talent is important, especially when we start considering the salary cap.

 

[knownone]

We don't have the cap space. And this year's draft has two potentially generational pass rushers. So I'd pass on Burns unless the front office is absolutely convinced we're a player away from a playoff run.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Being overly aggressive is just as bad. Blind aggression is what Seattle has done in these big time trades. We traded two first for a safety that we had no idea how to use, we traded a first plus an all-pro center for a TE that we used as an inline blocker -- highlighting his weaknesses. We trade an obscene amounts of money for a known locker room cancer and it ended up blowing up.

I don't mind making big moves, but all three of the moves made little sense given the schemes we were running. I think it's fair to be a little skeptical of this organization when it comes to big trades. This is especially true given the position we're likely going to be in come next April. Developing your own young talent is important, especially when we start considering the salary cap.

But how does that relate to this move?

Those moves, and how those players were used, having nothing to do with the prospect of trading for Brian Burns. It's completely irrelevant. Negative association with previous trades isn't a reason to avoid future trades.

My point is that we should be talking about football decisions here, and the football reasons why they may or may not make sense. Not skepticism based on "well, these unrelated trades didn't work, so why trade ever?"

 

[Spin Doctor]

But how does that relate to this move?

Those moves, and how those players were used, having nothing to do with the prospect of trading for Brian Burns. It's completely irrelevant. Negative association with previous trades isn't a reason to avoid future trades.

My point is that we should be talking about football decisions here, and the football reasons why they may or may not make sense. Not skepticism based on "well, these unrelated trades didn't work, so why trade ever?"

I'm saying that being aggressive is not always a virtue. Everything has an opportunity cost and the cost of those three trades above cost the Seahawks dearly.

If we're looking at Burns the player, he's never even played in a 3-4 base which we're looking to transition into. Right now we're running a more hybrid scheme, but the goal is to eventually transition into 3-4. Does he fit what Seattle even wants to do? Trading for Burns would be another Jamal Adams situation given how we're trying to shape our defense. Adams is a good player but he did not fit into Seattle's system and how we used him was a mismatch for his skillset.

It's also worth noting that Burns is not going to fix our defense, not even close to it -- especially considering he doesn't come from a 3-4 system.

Not worth a first rounder, not worth the opportunity cost.

 

[Rat]

And this year's draft has two potentially generational pass rushers.

We'll likely need a top 3-5 pick for either of them.

 

[toffee]

He was from the Collier class, drafted at #16, Collier was #29. Don't think Panther will settle for a 2nd pick, perhaps a 2nd rounder in 2023, and a 5th in 2024?

 

[BASF]

We'll likely need a top 3-5 pick for either of them.

Russ has us covered on that.