Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft picks

JSn · Aug 7, 2009

Isn't it tougher to collect sacks when you're trailing in a game?

c_nice_37 · Aug 7, 2009

PATRIOTSFANINPA said:
Fox Sports just reported that a Raiders official says its a trade for a 2010 3rd and 4th rounder with the 4th being conditional

Since NE has no 5th rounder in 2010,if they somehow obtain a 5th rounder before next offseason then the Raiders get a 3rd and a 5th,or right now its a 3rd and a 4th

Anyone else hear this?

Yes, this was in Chris Gasper's piece in the Globe.

Rob0729 · Aug 7, 2009

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

Deus Irae said:
It's not semantics. It's a different situation that you're trying to shoehorn and I'm refusing to accept. Just as signing a franchise player would be different, so is a RFA.

That's just the reality of the CBA.

Whether it is a different animal or not, the results are the same. You give up a draft pick to acquire a player. Even in trades, there is usually a fixed cost that the team trading the player won't go below or another team drives up the fixed price higher by their offer forcing your team to either match or beat the value (as the Eagles did in this case). In all scenarios, the team trying to acquire the player has to determine whether it is worth giving up the picks to get the players.

In the end, a team gives up draft pick(s) to acquire the player. Acquiring a RFA or UFA is basically a trade with a fixed cost. Even in trading a player on the roster, there may be a team imposed fixed cost minimum. I don't see that much difference.

Rob0729 · Aug 7, 2009

JSn said:
Isn't it tougher to collect sacks when you're trailing in a game?

In theory it should be since the team ahead especially if it is later in the game and have a sizable lead will play conservative offense and even when they pass are usually short, quicker, safer passes. Don't know if the numbers back up that theory though.

jmt57 · Aug 7, 2009

Here's something by Chris Price from last May on Burgess: It Is What It Is Deconstructing Derrick Burgess

Tanier, a contributing editor to FootballOutsiders.com and co-author of the Pro Football Prospectus, believes that the wear and tear of playing so many defensive snaps the last few years for a subpar team like the Raiders has taken a toll on his body. As a result, his sack totals have decreased steadily the last four years.

Tanier says Burgess is an “underrated” run defender, and offers a statistical argument: According to Football Outsiders, he made 18 tackles on running plays, and 15 of them qualified as “stops,” meaning he tackled the running back for a minimal gain. His 2007 numbers (33 run tackles, 28 stops) are similar.

“Burgess is very good at flattening out and making plays from the backside,” Tanier said. “If the running back is running right, Burgess can chase him from the left side of the formation and make the stop.”

Rob0729 · Aug 7, 2009

jmt57 said:
Here's something by Chris Price from last May on Burgess: It Is What It Is Deconstructing Derrick Burgess

Every scouting analysis I have read about Burgess is that he is pretty good vs. the run and his weaknesses can be cured by him in a standing position not lining up on the OT on every play. I still think he may be an every down OLB for the Pats (well, he may come out on some subpackages). I think people may be selling this guy short.

Personally, the only thing he appears not to have that Vrabel had is coverage ability. Although AD will most likely be the OLB to do that anyway.

NE39 · Aug 7, 2009

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

Deus Irae said:
It's not semantics. It's a different situation that you're trying to shoehorn and I'm refusing to accept. Just as signing a franchise player would be different, so is a RFA.

That's just the reality of the CBA.

He was willing to give up a 2nd to sign the player. In fact, he was willing to give up more than that. A lot of people thought he was crazy to do so as well, given Welker was considered a ST/backup player by most.

Between that and Dillon it shows that Belichick doesn't blink about giving up as much as a second round pick if he feels the player is worth it. So you can't use history to say this is out of character.

Deus Irae · Aug 7, 2009

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

BradyManny2344 said:
Come on...Moss could have and should have gone for a #1. The #4 is not indicative at all of the value. You can't use that as a frame of reference for anything.

Of course I can. It's one of the moves that have given the Patriots their reputation as shrewd dealers. Furthermore, I noted that even if it were just for a generic #1 wr instead of a Moss, it was still a 4th round pick.

BradyManny2344 said:
His sack production might have been down this season, but his QB hurries was still up. That tells me he's getting to the QB. Maybe it wasn't turning into sacks, probably b/c the team defense is weak.

It tells me that he wasn't getting to the QB. Clearly.

BradyManny2344 said:
Again, throw Moss out, that trade was a joke. Gabriel and Starks both were busts, and we're aiming a little higher for Burgess. Given his track record, he should cost more than those two.

The RFA situation with Welker is applicable, we ended up trading for him outright. We valued him as a 2nd rounder and a 7th rounder. That's been worth it and then some.

Honestly, Dillon is the best comparison - Dillon was coming off of a down year himself.

Again, another factor to consider is that Burgess is a FA, if he leaves, he could go sign a contract that would earn us a 4th or 5th in compensation anyway. That has to be considered when evaluating this trade, the Raiders know they will at least get that if he were to walk.

Welker is not applicable since he was a RFA, Dillon was a HOF candidate who'd had over 1000 yards the year prior to his last Bengals season, and Burgess has nothing like that to back him up, given his decline over several seasons.

I'm done with this, though. I've got to make a trip today, and I'm tired of going around and around about this.

Deus Irae · Aug 7, 2009

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

NE39 said:
He was willing to give up a 2nd to sign the player. In fact, he was willing to give up more than that. A lot of people thought he was crazy to do so as well, given Welker was considered a ST/backup player by most.

Between that and Dillon it shows that Belichick doesn't blink about giving up as much as a second round pick if he feels the player is worth it. So you can't use history to say this is out of character.

Yes, I can. The rules are different. They aren't the same. It's in the CBA, in black and white, so to speak.

VJCPatriot · Aug 7, 2009

Dillon was also technically a '1 year rental'. But the Pats chose to extend him after his great performance in 2004. Unfortunately he could not repeat that performance in 2005/2006. Still considering that the Pats got a ring out of the deal, the 2nd round pick was well worth it.

Please note that Dillon also had a 'down' injury plagued year in Cinci before rebounding with the Pats, at age 30 no less.

Corey Dillon Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

NE39 · Aug 7, 2009

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

Deus Irae said:
Yes, I can. The rules are different. They aren't the same. It's in the CBA, in black and white, so to speak.

It still is giving up a pick to acquire a player. It is a different method of acquisition, but he didn't blink at surrendering the pick (to a division opponent, no less) to get the player he wanted.

The facts show Belichick will surrender value to get a player he wants. He will do that in the draft, in free agency or in trade. I'm not sure how you can say this was a "desperate" move, given his history. He didn't desperately try to fill a hole at WR after Deion Branch was dealt. He has shown consistently he will make a deal once he sees value in it.

This move was consistent with Belichick's mode of operation. He makes a move when he thinks it makes his team better and there is value. He makes mistakes at times like anyone else, but he is correct more than almost everyone else.

The fact is the Pats needed to upgrade their pass rush. Burgess does that, coming in immediately and filling in as a nickel and dime rusher. That makes them a better team, and he only gave up a couple of middle-round picks. I think that is a great move.

Rob0729 · Aug 7, 2009

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

Deus Irae said:
Yes, I can. The rules are different. They aren't the same. It's in the CBA, in black and white, so to speak.

The rules are different, but the results are the same. Whether you get a player through a trade or by acquiring a RFA, you give up a draft pick or multiple picks to get a player.

Ring 6 · Aug 7, 2009

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

Deus Irae said:
He was brought in to be a #1 WR. Even if you just call it "generic #1 WR", it's still just a 4 for that position.

Burgess' sack production reads like a mountain peak, and it's been in decline over recent seasons. He's 30 years old and in the last year of his deal.

The % of Burgess becoming a starting caliber player is irrelevant. This is a team that drafted about a dozen players this season, and loads up on picks year after year. They just paid more for a conversion project and/or part time pass rusher than for Moss, Gabriel or Starks. Only Dillon cost them more, given that Welker was a RFA situation and not applicable.

I have no problem with the team bringing in Burgess. I happen to think that they overpaid for him, which makes me think there was a much higher level of concern at the OLB position than they were letting on.

Moss is a terrible example. He was refusing to return, there was no market at all for him. We got what was perceived as damaged goods. At the time, the general consensus wasnt Oh My God we got RANDY MOSS for a 4th!!!!!!!!! It was, shrewd because if he screws around we will cut him.
In fact there were many people predicting he would be cut during camp in 07 because he was injured. You cant take what he accomplished here and use it to revise the circumstances he was traded under.
Gabriel? He was benched, and not going to be allowed to ever play again for the Raiders. That isn't exactly a fair assessment to say we overpaid for Burgess because we paid more than we did for the guy who was going to be cut.
Starks? We paid about the same for a guy with bigger questions. Remember Starks had severe injury issues,that it turned out he never recovered from.

Should we include Ross Tucker, Dana Looker, and Jermaine Wiggins in the analysis as well?

HEY BRO! WHAT UP? · Aug 7, 2009

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

Wretch said:
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.

Good point. I could see Thomas at ILB on early downs but in a rush LB spot on passing downs. When Thomas was playing ILB, he pretty much kept opponents TE's in check. However, when Colvin went down, Thomas had to switch to OLB. Although the Pats sacks went up, opposing TE's were starting to find cracks in the Pats defense and it was '06 all over again. In the end, the Burgess move gives BB a lot of flexibility with this defense.

MoLewisrocks · Aug 7, 2009

Here is the only opinion that counts on Burgess:

“He primarily plays on the left side, very athletic guy, competitive, tough, a hard-working guy that I think has a good playing style,” said Belichick, noting that he coached Burgess in the 2006 Pro Bowl and prepared game-plans against him when facing Philadelphia and Oakland in recent years.

Belichick did not specify what Burgess’s role will be in the Patriots’ system, but he thinks Burgess is a “pretty talented player who has some versatility. … He’s had a lot of production. He’s not just a pass rusher. He’s a strong player. He’s not the biggest player, but he’s a very strong player for his size, plays with good balance, and I think he’s a good player in the running game.

“I think he can rush the passer. He’s had a lot of production. He’s primarily rushed off the left side. Normally you see more pass-rush production off the right side but he has been able to produce quite a bit from the left side. Those are some of the things that are unique to him. I’m not saying that’s exactly what is going to happen with us. I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see how all that turns out.”

Patriots blog - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

patfanken · Aug 7, 2009

After reading most of this marathon thread, I feel compelled to post, even though I'm not sure I have much to add....except my opinion.

My initial reaction to a 2010 3rd, was THAT's TOO HIGH! to go along with a 4th or 5th in 2011, to which my reaction was, "I could be by then, so who cares". BTW does anyone actually have the final OFFICIAL dispensation for this trade. 38 pages and every few pages I read something else.

I have very low expectations for the 5 reasons He's over 30, he's had diminishing results the last 3 years, he hasn't played the defense, he's injury plagued, and he's taking $3.5MM on the cap. On the other hand, some people (BB included) think he's a legit pass rusher.

IMHO if we had done nothing, We'd have been OK. However by adding Burgess, we certainly aren't worse. We now have more depth at the positon that was at least a perceived need. I'm assuming he'll be better than a 2008 Rosie Colvin, so I can't "hate" the deal, and my problem with giving up a 3rd is kind of nitpicking since the draft is a crap shoot in every round, and we still have 4 "first day picks".

BOTTOM LINE - The Pats are improved with the deal, but its not an earth shattering acquisition.

MoLewisrocks · Aug 7, 2009

patfanken said:
After reading most of this marathon thread, I feel compelled to post, even though I'm not sure I have much to add....except my opinion.

My initial reaction to a 2010 3rd, was THAT's TOO HIGH! to go along with a 4th or 5th in 2011, to which my reaction was, "I could be by then, so who cares". BTW does anyone actually have the final OFFICIAL dispensation for this trade. 38 pages and every few pages I read something else.

I have very low expectations for the 5 reasons He's over 30, he's had diminishing results the last 3 years, he hasn't played the defense, he's injury plagued, and he's taking $3.5MM on the cap. On the other hand, some people (BB included) think he's a legit pass rusher.

IMHO if we had done nothing, We'd have been OK. However by adding Burgess, we certainly aren't worse. We now have more depth at the positon that was at least a perceived need. I'm assuming he'll be better than a 2008 Rosie Colvin, so I can't "hate" the deal, and my problem with giving up a 3rd is kind of nitpicking since the draft is a crap shoot in every round, and we still have 4 "first day picks".

BOTTOM LINE - The Pats are improved with the deal, but its not an earth shattering acquisition.

He is not $3.5M on the cap ken, he's $2M (less whoever he ultimately knocks out of the 51). the Raiders paid his roster bonus earlier this spring and that stayed with them on their 2009 cap. Bill seems to think he is more than a pass rusher and has some unique skills. Since he coached him in a pro bowl and planned against him for a couple of seasons, maybe just maybe he knows more about him and the market than anyone posting here does. They had been trying to get a deal done with Al since BEFORE the draft per BB. And it's a 2010 3rd and (effectively) a 2010 5th. If we win it all that will be the last pick in round 3. We draft 2nd and 3rd rounders who never amount to much because in the end it's all a crap shoot and BB is more comfortable - particularly when addressing specific needs - assessing guys who have actually played some in the league...

captain stone · Aug 7, 2009

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

patsfan55 said:
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!

Justifying the price paid for somebody who is 31 years old, has declining sack totals, has hardly ever played the position he will be asked to play, and is in the final year of his contract, by reminding us how often the FO has swung & missed during the rounds in which that price will be paid, does not exactly instill maximum confidence in the FO for either the drafting or the trading departments.

Then again, considering how well I think that Bill has performed over the last 5/6 drafts, maybe I should hope that he trades away all of his draft picks for experienced vets, as George Allen did with the 'Skins. Because as of now, Burgess is our 2nd-best, if not best, pass-rusher...and he hasn't even played a down for us yet.

Edit: Sorry for the double post. My computer froze after I hit Submit; and when it finally unfroze, the Reply page was still onscreen, so I hit Submit again. My Humble Opinion remains unchanged, however.

BPF · Aug 7, 2009

PATRIOTSFANINPA said:
Fox Sports just reported that a Raiders official says its a trade for a 2010 3rd and 4th rounder with the 4th being conditional

Since NE has no 5th rounder in 2010,if they somehow obtain a 5th rounder before next offseason then the Raiders get a 3rd and a 5th,or right now its a 3rd and a 4th

Anyone else hear this?

Yes and it looks like BB may be trying to acquire a 5th Rounder that's why today he said the following: "There are some conditions on the trade that won't be finalized for probably a couple/few weeks."

All Things BB (AllThingsBB) on Twitter

JR4 · Aug 7, 2009

Simply, Derrick adds more to an already very good D.

How much he'll play? Don't know. But
I feel strongly that if the PATs are in a situation this year that
they really need to get to the QB ... they'll have the tools to do it.
When PATs decide to bring the house this year it's going to be a Mansion

Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft picks

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Practice Squad Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderator

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Pro Bowl Player

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Banned

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-up

Similar threads