Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft picks

[efin98]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

A 3rd round pick and a conditional 4th round pick this upcoming year..which becomes a 5th rounder should New England acquire a 5th rounder in a trade...which may happen given that they have 3 2nd round picks...

People complaining about giving up that extra pick when that pick may be negated if the Patriots do what they always do on draft day and trade for more picks later on and next year- much ado about nothing really, they got what they needed in Burgess and they got it for a respectable price.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

It was a silly post, to say the least. However, I'll keep it in mind for the next time you disagree, even slightly, with Patriots management.

Remember, from now on, you're not allowed to disagree with anything BB does.

What do you and Patriots management have in common? Nothing. So, why does the fact that someone else shot you down make you think that you are some how closer or more in alignment with Patriots management than anyone else?

The only think we can conclude about Patriots management in regards to Burgess is this:
1) They feel he improves the Patriots defense and team
2) They felt he was worth a 3rd and 5th, but had to settle on a 4th since they don't have a 5th available yet. And the 4th will become a 5th if/when they acquire one.

Other than that, we don't know much.

 

[DocE]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Couple of points:

1) I don't think the Pats will play with a front seven (4-3 or 3-4) much more than 50% of the time. Pats opponents are going to be involved in shootouts and probably playing from behind quite a bit...so expect to see the Pats in nickel and dime sets a lot.

I should have stated that better, I also expect to see the nickel and dime defenses on the field often. Maybe that it is possible to see more 4-3 than 3-4 in base defense situations.

2) Playing a true 4-3 changes the whole makeup of the defense, not just substituting a lineman for a LB. The Pats really don't have any linemen who fit well as a 4-3 end (Jarvis conceptually could but I'm not sold he could pull it off full-time). That means the Pats DL depth (Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Green, Wright, Brace) would only see the field in the 2 tackle spots. Who would play DE in a 4-3? AD and Burgess would be the best options there...but now who the hell is playing linebacker? Mayo should be fine at MLB and I could see Guyton as a WLB. I'm not sure I like any of the options at SLB. Instead of clarifying the situation on defense, switching to a 4-3 for any significant amount of time puts top linemen on the bench and puts already inexperienced linebackers in potentially ill-fitting situations.

I think Seymour is fully capable of playing the LDE position. If Carter was added, the Pats could have Seymour and Burgess on the Ends with Carter and Green backing them up. I'd play Adalius Thomas on the strongside, Mayo in the middle and Guyton on the weakside. I think they could all fit in well at those positions in a 4-3, but I see the depth as a huge issue. Bruschi would be the no.1 backup at both MLB and WLB and I don't think Woods and Crable would be great fits as 4-3 LB's. I am not advocating more 4-3 looks just speculating on the possiblity considering what I've heard from camp and the addition of Burgess.

3) I can see Burgess being a situational rush linebacker, not necessarily a "well-rounded" 3-4 OLB. Think Jarvis' role but at OLB. So while Woods may still be the starter opposite AD, the Pats opponents should be passing enough to get Burgess quite a few meaningful snaps.

I think this is the more likely situation as well, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Burgess rush from a 3 point stance as opposed to standing up.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

I'm pretty sure that this message board is set up in part so that people can voice their opinions, even when they don't align exactly with team management.

Says the same guy who loves to cites any criticism of the offense with the same 'But Belichick supports it' excuse.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Understood, and I was all for Moss coming in, which should help people to understand that I wasn't saying "move sucks!" just because of one stat line. However, pointing out a potential problem isn't something that should be avoided, in my opinion. One thing that's happening on this site is that any questioning is immediately considered outright bashing. Hell, I acknowledged the different perspectives of BB and myself and I'm still getting some nonsense about context.

The reality is that there are plenty of cautionary flags that come with Burgess, and they do impact his trade value. Belichick was willing to pay far more for Burgess than I would have. Stuff happens. I haven't, until now, even noted that the deal potentially gives the Raiders even more than that first report of 3rd and 5th. Anyone who doesn't think this was a desperation trade is welcome to believe that, and it's possible that they may be correct, although I think 'anxiety' certainly played a major part in this move.

Others will note that the two teams involved both had LB issues and will note the high price paid for a player that was holding out and slated to be a backup on one of the worst teams in the NFL. The Eagles have lost a starter for the season already and the Patriots have been trying to bring in OLBs all offseason. Those two teams battled it out for a player who's sack numbers read like a mountain peak. I happen to think there's much more behind that than both teams liking the color of Burgess' last sportsjacket.

lots of words but little to base your opinion........anxiety drove the pats to get moss and welker........anxiety forced the pats to get ted washington, corey dillon.........they all seemed to work out........duane starks did not.......

fact is, these kinds of deals have been part of the way the pats have done things since BB has been around........

burgess' age and ability stands to give him some productivity here........will he succeed or fail? I believe he will do more than either of the picks would have for the pats........

the only flaw in the logic as I see it is that the pats could have had him for the same around draft time or just after which would have gotten him in here much sooner for some of the mini camps........

the good news is that he's playing for a contract, so we can at least expect a good effort

 

[reflexblue]

Re: DAM ... Belichick must be a HUGE Riaders fan ?

Actually, the correct call would have been, PERSONAL FOUL, BLOW TO THE HEAD OF THE QUARTERBACK, 15 YARDS, AUTOMATIC FIRST DOWN.

I haven't watched that game in 6 or 7 years, but that was so flagrent i knew what you were talking about right away.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

lots of words but little to base your opinion........anxiety drove the pats to get moss and welker........anxiety forced the pats to get ted washington, corey dillon.........they all seemed to work out........duane starks did not.......

Many players have worked out, many have not. Saying that there's little to base the opinion is just flat-out wrong. You might not agree with the reasons, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

fact is, these kinds of deals have been part of the way the pats have done things since BB has been around........

4th for Moss, 3rd for Starks, 5th for Gabriel. How many trades for veterans have we seen where BB gives up more than he did for Burgess? The 'trade' to avoid poison pill issues with Welker excepted, please, since he was a RFA.

burgess' age and ability stands to give him some productivity here........will he succeed or fail? I believe he will do more than either of the picks would have for the pats........

He may very well succeed beyond our wildest dreams. We don't even know precisely what role BB has planned for him so far. However, his succeeding or failing is independent of the cost of getting him. He'd have succeeded or failed whether he was gotten for a 1st or a 7th.

the only flaw in the logic as I see it is that the pats could have had him for the same around draft time or just after which would have gotten him in here much sooner for some of the mini camps........

the good news is that he's playing for a contract, so we can at least expect a good effort

They were looking at other players at that time, and I don't know what the asking price was for him then either. I've got no problem with trading for him, since I don't see how bringing him in hurts the team. I just think, blindly as I noted, that the team overpaid for him, and that makes me think they were very anxious about what they had without him. I made it clear, on more than one thread, that I understand BB has a different perspective than I do. If people can't accept that, that's on them. I don't need to rubber stamp every move Belichick makes.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

So, you admittedly don't pay attention to the games when they are going on. Nor do you bother to account for the fact that the Pats limited both Woods and Mayo last year in their duties to help them. Woods came on in sub packages and was playing on the strong side. He wasn't asked to pass rush much, just like Mayo wasn't asked to pass rush much. Woods was asked to set the edge and to cover the TE or RB out of the back field. Woods only started because Thomas went down to injury. Then Woods started on the strong side opposite Vrabel. Woods only played in a couple of games as the starter before going down with a broken jaw.

Rushing the passer or not, Woods never made his presence felt. I understand he was asked to do others things like cover the TE and RB, but his play went unnoticed. In fact, the dude was a ghost. Because I'm a fan, I knew Woods was playing, but he hardly did anything to make anybody else remember his name. Believe it or not, I did see him rush the passer on occasion and he did nothing to suggest that he had potential.

You are assuming that Burgess is an upgrade over Woods. However, if Burgess does, in fact, have issues against the run, then Woods will see more playing time on running downs and Burgess on passing downs. Don't go patting yourself on the back when you aren't sure of the whole story.

I think you and I can agree that Burgess is an instant upgrade over Woods in the pass rushing department. However, I could still see Woods as the "starter" but taking a seat when it comes to passing downs. If and when Burgess can seal the edge, there's no question who will be the starter.

 

[patsfan55]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Let's do an exercise. Which of BB's 3rd and 5th (assuming we get one which we will) round picks actually contributed as a starter/sub-pacakge guy (which Burgess will be)

I know this is a very simplistic way to look at it, but whatever it's fun

3rd round draft picks under BB (not including 2008 or 2009-jury still out on O'Connell and Crable):

2006 (none in 07): David Thomas (0 for 1) (this one is kind of arguable)
2005: Ellis Hobbs, Nick Kaczur (2 for 2)
2004: Guss Scott (0 for 1)
2003: none
2002: none
2001: Brock Williams (0 for 1)
2000: JR Redmond (0 for 1) (although he did really help us with those three catches in SB 36)
So, we've gone 2 for 6 in the third rd under BB

let's move onto 5th rounders

2007: Clint Oldenburg (0 for 1)
2006: Ryan O'Callaghan (0 for 1)
2005: Ryan Claridge (0 for 1)
2004: PK Sam (0 for 1)
2003: Dan Koppen (1! for 1)
2002: none
2001: Hakim Akbar (0 for 1)
2000: Dave Stachelski, Jeff Marriott (0 for 2)
So, we've gone 1 for 8 in the fifth under BB

My assumption is right, looks like a damn fine trade to me!!!!

If you want to break it down into ratings I can do that, screw it, who needs sleep

3 is a starter for at least a full season, 2 is a guy who was like the first guy off the bench playing almost as many snaps as a starter, 1 is a role player who stuck for a little while

Thomas gets a 1, Hobbs gets a 3, Kaczur gets a 3, Redmond I'll give a 1
So, out of 6 draft picks (18 available points) we get a total of 8. What does this mean? Well I view Burgess as at least a 2, possibly a 3, so let's give him a 2.5. We averaged a 1.3 on our 3rd rounders.

Koppen gets a 3, that's all we get in the fifth round. That's out of 8 picks, so we averaged a 0.375 on our fifth rounders.

Yeah, looks like a darn good trade to me!

 

[Kasmir]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Belichick was willing to pay far more for Burgess than I would have. Stuff happens. I haven't, until now, even noted that the deal potentially gives the Raiders even more than that first report of 3rd and 5th. Anyone who doesn't think this was a desperation trade is welcome to believe that, and it's possible that they may be correct, although I think 'anxiety' certainly played a major part in this move.

BB makes a move that you wouldn't have, so he must have been desperate? I think most of us would prefer to believe that BB simply disagrees with you.

 

[smg93]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Kasmir, I could have simply quoted your reply to show my agreement with it, except that you had to put one of these " " at the end of it...

 

[Wretch]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

I think you and I can agree that Burgess is an instant upgrade over Woods in the pass rushing department. However, I could still see Woods as the "starter" but taking a seat when it comes to passing downs. If and when Burgess can seal the edge, there's no question who will be the starter.

Do we know Burgess will supplant Woods? Maybe this move will allow the Pats to move AD inside to replace Bruschi and Burgess will take ADs OLB spot.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

I think this is the more likely situation as well, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Burgess rush from a 3 point stance as opposed to standing up.

OK, I think I get where you are going and I'm more on board with you now. Having Burgess (and/or AD for that matter) play at the line with their hands on the ground is entirely possible. Gives a 4-3 look while still operating with 3-4 personnel.

And based on matchups I could see situations where Burgess/AD play on the line for a majority of the non-nickel/dime snaps (which was your original point that I misinterpreted...my bad).

 

[italian pat patriot]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

nice move; Go Pats !

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

It was a silly post, to say the least. However, I'll keep it in mind for the next time you disagree, even slightly, with Patriots management.

Remember, from now on, you're not allowed to disagree with anything BB does.

:singing: Dude, my post had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with BB (or the Patriots FO). Healthy debate is the cornerstone of any good fan site., including this one.

I was simply mocking the smugness of your post and the imagery it was designed paint.

"Belichick was willing to pay far more for Burgess than I would have."

Get real..... Like you and BB were hunched over the war room table in cigar filled room, pushing red, blue and yellow "value" and "draft" chips around and when Bill moves his a 10/3 and 11/5 over to Burgess, you smirk, roll your eyes and say "tsk, tsk"....... :singing:

It gave me a laugh. It's risky, but a lot less risky other moves, given the little bit of cushion we have in the upcoming drafts.

So you disagree with the move, and I disagree with your disagreement. Big whoop. I just found your tone funny. Then again, I don't follow your post, perhaps that how you always come across. :confused2:

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Love the move. Only can speculate that if Crable was healthy and lighting it up in camp would BB have made this move. BB knows Woods isn't the second coming of Pat Swilling.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

Rushing the passer or not, Woods never made his presence felt. I understand he was asked to do others things like cover the TE and RB, but his play went unnoticed. In fact, the dude was a ghost. Because I'm a fan, I knew Woods was playing, but he hardly did anything to make anybody else remember his name. Believe it or not, I did see him rush the passer on occasion and he did nothing to suggest that he had potential.

So, we should believe you and not Dean Pees, who says that Woods is at his best when rushing the passer? Woods wasn't a ghost. People noticed him. In fact, many praised his ability at setting the edge last year against the run.

I know that Woods did rush the passer a couple of times. But the staff didn't have him do it consistently because they wanted his focus on setting the edge and covering either the TE or the RB out of the backfield.

I think you and I can agree that Burgess is an instant upgrade over Woods in the pass rushing department. However, I could still see Woods as the "starter" but taking a seat when it comes to passing downs. If and when Burgess can seal the edge, there's no question who will be the starter.

Burgess is 30 years old. Could he learn to set the edge? Probably. Will he ever be an every down LB for the Patriots? *SHRUG* I'd have to be clairvoyant.

 

[Scouse Patriot]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

To aquire talent you have to pay sooner or later and thats what we've had to do. It doesn't bother me what we gave up to get Burgess, what does bother me is the D improving, getting more pressure overall on the QB and winning football games. Burgess should help with that so I'm happy.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

The more I think about this, the more I like this move. It is clear how much Belichick wanted him based on what he gave up. I guess you can argue it was a desperation move, but Belichick isn't usually one to make moves out of desperation. Burgess has the measurables to be a very good OLB in the 3-4. Not guaranteed to make the transition, but he has the tools to. Plus, he is somewhat familiar with the Pats' defense. So the learning curve will be a lot less.

I know everyone focuses on his pass rush abilities, but from what I can see he is pretty good vs. the run and many of his weaknesses against the run as DE are diminished as a OLB. Besides, don't forget that Colvin came in here weak against the run and turned out to be pretty good with the Pats (not great, but more than servicable).

I think Burgess could potentially be an every down OLB.

 

[swheeler23]

Re: Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft pick

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl those two picks will be close to a high 4th round pick and a high 6th. The raiders know there is a chance those picks will be late in the rounds.