jmt57

Thank you MLR, I missed that in the other (lengthy) thread. I didn't know if that was a due March 1, week one, or somewhere in between, or if it included other bonus incentives.

The 12th Man

Good point also, even though it has been a while. I'm just still a little bitter about Vrabel being gone, especially after seeing who his potential replacement will be now. Vrabel > Burgess.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Burgess picks up BB's defensive scheme right away and helps this team win another Superbowl. Just in the back of my head, I'll always have that "WHY" question. Could the Chiefs been happy enough with just Cassel? Maybe Cassel and a low draft pick? Never know I guess.

__________________
"If you never try, you'll never know."

MoLewisrocks

Vrabel wasn't thrown into that deal to sweeten it for KC. They were taking Cassel either way. He was included in the trade because it was a way to move on without cutting a respected vet who was not ready to hang 'em up (and who also happened to be the NFLPA team rep). It insured he got his full salary plus bonus ($3.2M+) from a team who needed his veteran leadership enough to make him worth that kind of $$$. And it also kept him from signing on with Rex Ryan or someone else we play this season...

The question is will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel, and we won't know that for another 4-5 months. But apparently BB thinks so, and that should be good enough for most of us.

patsfan55

I was and always will be a big Vrabel fan, but his better days are long since gone. For the year 2009 Burgess>>>Vrabel

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


“My favorite ring? I've always said, you know, I always said the next one. The next one is the best,” Brady says.

The 12th Man

What I'm trying to say is that Vrabel was easily worth 4.5 mil cap to keep for at least one more year or extend his contract. BB kept Bruschi even though he's older didn't he? I'm saying that Vrabel brought a LOT to this team and after seeing that he's pretty much replaced by another veteran with 1 year left on his contract, I don't like the Vrabel trade looking back.

And the question should be will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel (defensive captain, locker room leader, experience in system) PLUS a future 3rd and 4/5th round picks, and we won't know that for a few years to come I guess.

__________________
"If you never try, you'll never know."

Armchair Quarterback

Vrabel generated very little pass rush last year. Burgess's speciality is rushing the passer. I imagine that is why they made the moves they did. Only time will tell but Vrabel's best days are behind him. Let's hope Burgess still has something left.

The 12th Man

What do you base that off? Look at their stats, last year's or career total:

Derrick Burgess

Mike Vrabel

Sure looks like Vrabel >>> Burgess

__________________
"If you never try, you'll never know."

The 12th Man

Well if it's his "specialty", then he should be fired after last year's performance. Vrabel's "very little pass rush" got more sacks last year.

__________________
"If you never try, you'll never know."

spacecrime

Isn't this backwards? If we are paying Burgess 2 mil and would have paid Vrabel 3.2 mil, then ...........

__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010

DaBruinz

Stats don't tell the whole story. And this was brought up in the other thread with a counter of Randy Moss' production.

Burgess hasn't exactly played on the best of defenses. In fact, the quality of the other defensive players around him has gone down since 2005. Not to mention the coaching carousel that has gone on there in Oakland. Burgess also was lining up some on the strong side last year instead of his normal side, the weak side. So, that is going to also hamper the number of sacks he got.

Some people claim that is "apologizing" for his stats. The reality is that its all contributing factors that have to be considered when looking at them. Does it guarantee anything? Nope. It doesn't. But some people would have you believe that it does.