Patriots will make final decision on Derrick Burgess within a week

[SanAngeloState]

What a shame, can you imagine if we had that 3rd and 5th heading into this draft with what we already have? Talk about Chess Board pieces. Oh well, it was bad trade and It is what it is.

With that said, I don't see anyone else knocking his door down, so I am sure BB will play this out to the end and give him a rock bottom deal to keep a job. Who knows, maybe BB didn't utilize his strengths, maybe it was the system, but hard to believe a guy that had this pass rushing pedigree could lose it THAT quickly.

The RIDDLER makes a good point again. 3rd and 5th for this stiff is just painful. You can get good players in the 3rd round or even the 5th. We got a one year rental on a stiff.

He should offer to play for free after robbing us last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

It was a bad deal but you guys need to move on. We traded a #3 and #5. But we also got two extra #2s through the trade downs. And while the Brace pick looks iffy, the Butler pick looks rock solid. You aren't going to win every trade and you can't beat yourself up over every bad one.

You can when they were obvious, as this one was.

 

[BelichickFan]

You can when they were obvious, as this one was.

On balance our draft choice trades last year were very good. The trade for Burgess was met about 50-50 on the thread back then - to your credit you said it was terrible back then so you aren't just saying that now.

 

[WhiZa]

I truly think we will be looking DE in this year's first round. Burgess would be the perfect stop gap at hopefully the cheapest contract possible which may be why it's taken this long to resign him.

 

[captain stone]

I'll sign Burgess for the vet minimum, no bonuses, for one year...and not one effin penny more.

That trade stunk the microsecond it was announced, as did the drafting of Brace instead of Connor Barwin, who I feel would've given us just as many sacks - if not more - than Burgess did.

 

[mgteich]

I suspect that we will sign Burgess. The cost, if we decide to cut him in camp, will be small. The reality is that we can talk about the prospects of Richard or Grady (our current replacements for Green and Burgess) if we wish.

The reality is that, we have at least three front seven positions to be filled: the positions held last year by Green, Burgess and Thomas. Five replacements would be better (also replacing Crable and Alexander).

We could go with one fewer front seven player, but I would prefer 16
5 DL (need one to replace Green)
2 DE/OLB's (need Burgess or replacement)
4 ILB's (could use one instead of Alexander)
5 OLB's (need one to replace Thomas and hopefully one to replace Crable, Woods or Ninko)

I expect 2-4 rooks in the 16, added to Brace and Pryor from last year.

 

[Deus Irae]

On balance our draft choice trades last year were very good. The trade for Burgess was met about 50-50 on the thread back then - to your credit you said it was terrible back then so you aren't just saying that now.

Burgess, Lewis, Smith, Hobbs.... I'm not sure where the good draft choice trades you're talking about were, but that's four bad trades right there. With four like that, I don't see how you deem the balance to be very good, so I'm probably looking at a different trade picture than you seem to be. Are you talking about the general shifting about as opposed to the players for picks?*





* In the interest of full disclosure, while I didn't like the Hobbs trade because of the potential downside (which we saw during the season), and said so, I did also say that I understood the trade.

 

[BelichickFan]

Burgess, Lewis, Smith, Hobbs.... I'm not sure where the good draft choice trades you're talking about were, but that's four bad trades right there. With four like that, I don't see how you deem the balance to be very good, so I'm probably looking at a different trade picture than you seem to be. Are you talking about the general shifting about as opposed to the players for picks?*

Yeah, the trades down which got us Butler (who I wanted in the 1st anyway) plus the two seconds this year (though thirds) and Edelman. Hobbs I could go either way with as he was an upcoming mediocre UFA, the others were bad but involved lesser draft picks.

The trade for Burgess and the pick of Brace are looking bad. The rest is fairly inconsequential to me and getting Edelman and two extra #2s this year more than makes up for it especially as Brace isn't a definite lost cause just yet.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, the trades down which got us Butler (who I wanted in the 1st anyway) plus the two seconds this year (though thirds) and Edelman. Hobbs I could go either way with as he was an upcoming mediocre UFA, the others were bad but involved lesser draft picks.

The trade for Burgess and the pick of Brace are looking bad. The rest is fairly inconsequential to me and getting Edelman and two extra #2s this year more than makes up for it especially as Brace isn't a definite lost cause just yet.

OK, I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, but that's largely because I was separating player trades from maneuvering trades. I do think we both agree that the players taken with the picks were a solid group of prospects, no matter how it all turns out in a few more years.

 

[BelichickFan]

OK, I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, but that's largely because I was separating player trades from maneuvering trades. I do think we both agree that the players taken with the picks were a solid group of prospects, no matter how it all turns out in a few more years.

Yeah, I'm basically looking at trading a 3rd (Burgess), 5th (Burgess), 5th (Smith), and LeKevin Smith (completing the Burgess deal) and ending up with two #2s and Edelman (I think that's how the trade downs worked out). That combination of good and bad is on the positive side of the ledger for us even if Burgess leaves for nothing.

We still have the questionable looking pick of Brace but that's a separate issue and overall I think we are all happy with how our picks looked from last year. But, yeah, the straight "pick for player" deals couldn't have been much worse.

 

[RayClay]

I suspect that we will sign Burgess. The cost, if we decide to cut him in camp, will be small. The reality is that we can talk about the prospects of Richard or Grady (our current replacements for Green and Burgess) if we wish.

The reality is that, we have at least three front seven positions to be filled: the positions held last year by Green, Burgess and Thomas. Five replacements would be better (also replacing Crable and Alexander).

We could go with one fewer front seven player, but I would prefer 16
5 DL (need one to replace Green)
2 DE/OLB's (need Burgess or replacement)
4 ILB's (could use one instead of Alexander)
5 OLB's (need one to replace Thomas and hopefully one to replace Crable, Woods or Ninko)

I expect 2-4 rooks in the 16, added to Brace and Pryor from last year.

Please, if you're going to be mentioning Grady for any reason, don't as a substitute for Burgess. Both players you mentioned are defensive tackles. Burgess is a not really big DE/OLB hopeful. Green is a DE/pass rusher and their is no indication Richards could do what he does.

260 lb pass rusher does not equal 6'1" 298 lb. tackle (Grady).

 

[Bostonian1962]

LOL, that's not exactly saying much. We should try to retain him for $1M per year, but we should also be looking for someone who can actually make an impact at least once in a season at the position who can start in front of him and either keep him for depth or cut him in training camp once we find said person. I have no idea whether or not Crable is that guy, but I doubt it.

EDIT: T-Minus 8 posts until 10,000.

On Crable, I don't know either. He puzzles the heck out of me. He flashed in his rookie camp, and many of us got pumped. He's been hurt, more or less ever since. Is he a bum, a great player, something in between, or none of the above?

 

[BritPat]

Bring him back, he's a solid vet who seemed to be really stringing it all together down the stretch.

I'd be interested to see Box or Jays do a tape breakdown of his games.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Sign him and Jason Taylor, and few draft picks the defense might be ok..

 

[PatsChamp88]

Please, if you're going to be mentioning Grady for any reason, don't as a substitute for Burgess. Both players you mentioned are defensive tackles. Burgess is a not really big DE/OLB hopeful. Green is a DE/pass rusher and their is no indication Richards could do what he does.

260 lb pass rusher does not equal 6'1" 298 lb. tackle (Grady).

You might be onto something..

 

[DarrylS]

My vote, fwiw, is to keep him.. played well down the stretch.. he may be beneficial alsoa s a "bridge" player if we bring in a lot of young'uns...

 

[Sicilian]

If it's really for about $1m, I don't see how this wouldn't be a good move. It keeps a roster spot filled with a reasonable depth player, which gives us draft flexibility. If we end up signing/trading for/drafting someone who beats him out, the cost of cutting him would be minimal. Seems like a no brainer if he'll go for it.

 

[Marqui]

Sign him and Jason Taylor, and few draft picks the defense might be ok..

Sounds like a good plan to me. But of course that means the Pats will draft 2 TEs 3 WRs and some QBs.

 

[Rob0729]

I think Burgess was starting to get it the month of December. I think he would be a far better player this year than he was last year. I thought he would pick up the defense far quicker than he did, but once he did he played pretty well.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Would gladly take him back for that kind of money. At the very least he is needed depth with Green's departure. At the current time I think we need 2 more DE, this would allow us to draft one and be okay depth wise at the position. Not sure if we'll find a true Seymour 'replacement' until that Oakland pick next year, but I think a DL of Wilfork,Warren,Wright,Pryor,Burgess,Brace,first day pick can do for this year.