Breaking Down The LB Corps

[TruthSeeker]

This team gave away Vrabel and Cassel for just a second, and they just dropped a 3rd and 4th/5th for a player that may be just a part-timer.

I think there's a big difference between the #34 pick in the draft and the #93 (or so) pick in the draft. Talking about these as a second and third round pick is accurate but misleading.

 

[TruthSeeker]

In other words, they paid due to anxiety. That's precisely what I'm saying when I talk about too much but understanding the different perspective, yet people are acting as if I'm pushing their elderly relatives down the stairs.

Why does it have to be about anxiety? Why can't it just be that they were filling one of the few remaining needs that was obvious to most everyone on this forum?

It was a free market and several teams (Eagles and Patriots) both thought Burgess was worthy of at least a third round pick. I get it that you have a different opinion. But that doesn't mean the Patriots are either desperate or anxious; it just means that their evaluation of the worth of draft picks and/or the abilities of Burgess are much closer to my thinking than to yours.

 

[cstjohn17]

Yeah.
Thats the funny part to me.
If the fans perceive a problem, the team is 'serious about winning' if they address it.
But then the season plays out and what actually happens is tremendously different than what the consensus expected.
I guess thats the beauty of a message board, you get to tell them what to do, cirticize them when they dont, and take credit for knowing when they do.

Exactly, internet 101.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

IWho exactly are they sending this clear message to? And why is it necessary/what does it accomplsh?

To me and the rest of the Patsfans. Bill is saying tune in on time Thursday so you see Donovan McNabb's expression when it's 3rd and 9 on the first drive and Thomas and Burgess are standing outside the tackles with their track shoes on. (I can't wait.) :woohoo:

 

[RobertWeathers]

Why does it have to be about anxiety? Why can't it just be that they were filling one of the few remaining needs that was obvious to most everyone on this forum?

It was a free market and several teams (Eagles and Patriots) both thought Burgess was worthy of at least a third round pick. I get it that you have a different opinion. But that doesn't mean the Patriots are either desperate or anxious; it just means that their evaluation of the worth of draft picks and/or the abilities of Burgess are much closer to my thinking than to yours.

Free market is the key terms here, but leverage and knowledge of each party's situation is equally as important when determining if a deal is fair. OAK knew Burgess was a valued commodity by both Philly and NE. NE and Philly knew Burgess wanted out of OAK but was determined to be firm with him and knew he would play regardless. A bidding war ensued and the Pats made the deal believing that they addressed a huge need without giving up the farm.

same situation for Cassel & Vrable. The league knew BB wanted to dump cassel. the league knew BB wanted to do right by Vrable and not pay a 1m roster bonus for an aging LB.

My own personal opinion, the amount of something's value is based on need and the market's desire for the service/product. You can think all you want about Cassel thinking he was worth a 1st rd pick or Burgess being worth a 4th or whatever or Vrabel being worth a 5th, 6th. The climate of the market ALWAYS determines true value. Not some sportswriter or certainly any of us on this board. Lets move on.

My .02$

 

[AzPatsFan]

I was satisfied with the LB situation as it was, even if not exactly spectacular.

But much of the LB discussion is misdirected, IMHO.

If you look at the 2008 Defense statistic and eliminate the misleading red zone fluke statistics the real key to the Pats Defense is clear. The Pats were a Top Ten Defense. The lowest statistic attributable to the front seven was the 15th in the League rating, against the Run.

Belichick penetrated to the heart of the issue, and spent a second round draft pick, on Ron Brace to give Wilfork a legitimate NT relief to keep him fresh. No longer playing rookie ILBs will also certainly help. They are sophomores now.

The Pats had devastating injuries to its its SS/LB hybrids. They lost Tank in the preseason after spending a considerable amount of time with him, as an over-the-middle short coverage SS/LB. Then Rodney went down too.

Once again, Belichick penetrated to the issue. He spent his first pick in the draft on a SS/rover-back, who has played as a passing down LB, in Pat Chung. Now he has both Tank & Pat.

The improvement in the Run Defense will also transform the Pass Defense too. Instead of 3rd and 2 or 3, allowing a choice of pass or run, the opposition will more likely be facing 3rd and 5 or 6. These are obvious passing downs, and much less fearful about replacing a real LB with a SS/LB hybrid.

Lack of sacks is a partially misleading statistic. Seldom do sacks come on short yardage pass attempts. You need to force longer routes, to allow the pass rushers time to pass rush. You have to close off the short completion void, to have half a chance. And of course the Pass Rush produced only 31 sacks, better than more than half the teams in the League, and only 9 sacks from a good to great rating.

Belichick is a true Sherlock Holmes diagnosing the REAL problem.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Free market is the key terms here, but leverage and knowledge of each party's situation is equally as important when determining if a deal is fair. OAK knew Burgess was a valued commodity by both Philly and NE. NE and Philly knew Burgess wanted out of OAK but was determined to be firm with him and knew he would play regardless. A bidding war ensued and the Pats made the deal believing that they addressed a huge need without giving up the farm.

same situation for Cassel & Vrable. The league knew BB wanted to dump cassel. the league knew BB wanted to do right by Vrable and not pay a 1m roster bonus for an aging LB.

My own personal opinion, the amount of something's value is based on need and the market's desire for the service/product. You can think all you want about Cassel thinking he was worth a 1st rd pick or Burgess being worth a 4th or whatever or Vrabel being worth a 5th, 6th. The climate of the market ALWAYS determines true value. Not some sportswriter or certainly any of us on this board. Lets move on./quote.


As far as I am concerned, the Pats got a great deal on Cassel & Vrabel.

The quick trade got the Pats a second in 2009, and freed CAP allowed a first (Galloway), another first (Taylor), and a third (Baker), and a starting quality pair of CBs in Springs (former first), and Bodden. That's quite a draft pick haul, IMHO

 

[RobertWeathers]

I was satisfied with the LB situation as it was ,even if not exactly spectacular.

But much of the LB discussion is misdirected, IMHO.

If you look at the 2008 Defense statistic and eliminate the misleading red zone fluke statistics the real key to the Pats Defense is clear. The Pats were a Top ten Defense, The lowest statistic attributable to the front seven were the 15 th in the League rating against the Run.

Belichick penetrated to the heart issue and spent a second round draft pick, on Ron Brace to give Wilfork a legitimate NT relief to keep him fresh. No longer playing rookie ILBs will also help.

The Pats had devastating injuries to its its SS/LB hybrids. They lost Tank in the preseason after spending a considerable amount of time as an over-the-middle short coverage SS/LB. The Rodney went down too.

Once again, Belichick penetrated to the issue. He spent his first pick in the draft on a SS rover-back, who has played as a passing down LB, in Pat Chung. Now he has both Tank & Pat.

The improvement in the Run Defense will also transform the Pass Defense too. Instead of 3rd and 2 or 3, allowing a choice of pass or run, the opposition will more likely be facing 3rd and 5 or 6. These are obvious passing downs, and much less fearful about replacing a real LB with a SS/LB hybrid.

Lack of sacks is a partially misleading statistic. Seldom do sacks come on short yardage pass attempts. You need to force longer routes, to allow the pass rushers time to pass rush. You have to close off the short completion void, to have half a chance. And of course the Pass Rush produced only 31 sacks, better than more than half the teams in the League, and only 9 sacks from a good to great rating.

Belichick is a true Sherlock Holmes diagnosing the REAL problem.

I agree, RZD is not the end all-be-all when making the determination if a D is good or crappy but it is a variable to take into account when making the determination if a team can make plays in space. Statistically speaking, Pats were horrible in RZD in 07 and in 08 (30th and 31st). That tells you something, right?

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree, RZD is not the end all-be-all when making the determination if a D is good or crappy but it is a variable to take into account when making the determination if a team can make plays in space. Statistically speaking, Pats were horrible in RZD in 07 and in 08 (30th and 31st). That tells you something, right?

It is illuminating that the change of only TWO red zone TDs to FGA, would have altered that misleading fluke stat. The Pats simply stopped most opposition drives BEFORE they got as close as the red zone. Similarly, closing down the multitude of short over-the-middle completions would alter the questionable pass completion %, and third down conversion %, as well. Requiring longer completions for more yardage, Will allow the pass rushers more time to get to the QB, too.

 

[RobertWeathers]

As far as I am concerned, the Pats got a great deal on Cassel & Vrabel.

The quick trade got the Pats a second in 2009, and freed CAP allowed a first (Galloway), another first (Taylor), and a third (Baker), and a starting quality pair of CBs in Springs (former first), and Bodden. That's quite a draft pick haul, IMHO

..and the 2nd netted them either Chung or Brace or Butler. I forget what the origional KC pick got them. Might have been Chung...

Thats another thing that Pioli had over them. He knows how much BB values payroll, roster, team-building flexibility. This is not Carolina were talking about where they will let a single player (a very good one at that) in fanchising Peppers hold their entire cap hostage. It's all leverage. Like buying/selling stocks. If i know you are heavily leveraged and need to be liquid, why would I pay the last trade price (Cassel netting a #1 b/c some moron paid 2 #1 for Shaub before the economy tanked)? Seems silly to me.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It is illuminating that the change of only TWO red zone TDs to FGA, would have altered that misleading fluke stat. The Pats simply stopped most opposition drives BEFORE they got as close as the red zone. Similarly, closing down the multitude of short over-the-middle completions would alter the questionable pass completion %, and third down conversion %, as well. Requiring longer completions fro more yardage Will allow the pass rushers more time to get to the QB, too.

I agree 100%. There are different ways to skin the cat. In 2001, teams ran up and down the field on that D, but when it came time for offenses to put it in the end zone, Pats D was stout. In 02, teams started to run better and pass better, and score more frequently inside the rz. Washington, harrison, poole, Colvin (IR).. etc.

 

[captain stone]

You do realize that you can't force the other team to trade for what you want to give, right?
Are you saying if the Raiders would not take less than the picks we gave them, that you would have passed, not obtained Burgess, and hoped to draft players next year that helped us out? That seems to conflict with your #1 point saying that it was obvious we needed to get a player.
Which is it? Would you have made the trade or not made it, because what we gave up was the price.

I would've held out a couple more weeks until Al came down from his price of multiple picks. This isn't Peppers, Suggs or even Jason Taylor we're talking about, after all.

 

[Ring 6]

I would've held out a couple more weeks until Al came down from his price of multiple picks. This isn't Peppers, Suggs or even Jason Taylor we're talking about, after all.

I disagree. The value of having him here through camp outweighs the possiblity of reducing the trade cost. The player helps us, the fact that we traded a 3 and 5 and didnt get an all pro best in the league kind of player means what exactly?

If BB followed your plan Burgess would probably be in Philly and we would still have those picks. Would you prefer that?

 

[captain stone]

If you look at the 2008 Defense statistic and eliminate the misleading red zone fluke statistics the real key to the Pats Defense is clear.
Why should we eliminate RZ%? Should we eliminate 3rd-down %, too?

Lack of sacks is a partially misleading statistic.
I would prefer to see sacks shown as a % of pass attempts. The more your opponent throws, the more sacks you should record, and vice-versa.

And of course the Pass Rush produced only 31 sacks, better than more than half the teams in the League, and only 9 sacks from a good to great rating.

31 sacks is way too few for a legit SB contender, plain & simple.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Belichick penetrated to the heart issue and spent a second round draft pick, on Ron Brace to give Wilfork a legitimate NT relief to keep him fresh. No longer playing rookie ILBs will also help.
The improvement in the Run Defense will also transform the Pass Defense too. Instead of 3rd and 2 or 3, allowing a choice of pass or run, the opposition will more likely be facing 3rd and 5 or 6. These are obvious passing downs, and much less fearful about replacing a real LB with a SS/LB hybrid.

Lack of sacks is a partially misleading statistic. Seldom do sacks come on short yardage pass attempts. You need to force longer routes, to allow the pass rushers time to pass rush. You have to close off the short completion void, to have half a chance. And of course the Pass Rush produced only 31 sacks, better than more than half the teams in the League, and only 9 sacks from a good to great rating.

Belichick is a true Sherlock Holmes diagnosing the REAL problem.

That's a great way to look at the problem. It's definitely harder for any defense to defend short yardage situations on 3rd down.

 

[captain stone]

1) I disagree. The value of having him here through camp outweighs the possiblity of reducing the trade cost.

2) The player helps us, the fact that we traded a 3 and 5 and didnt get an all pro best in the league kind of player means what exactly?

3) If BB followed your plan Burgess would probably be in Philly and we would still have those picks. Would you prefer that?

1) No doubt, having him here before the pre-season games start is a good thing. How much is that difference worth? Remember, Ted Washington was traded here just before the last pre-season game, IIRC.

2) It might mean that perhaps we paid too much for him.

3) I guess my answer is Yes, still...what I suppose I would prefer is that the FO had done a better job of drafting pass-rushers without having to trade multiple picks for 31-year-olds with declining #s on the final year of their contracts.

 

[AzPatsFan]

31 sacks is way too few for a legit SB contender, plain & simple.

Capt.

Where did I ever say 31 sacks/season was completely satisfactory? But it was good enough for an 11-5 record. When the Pats cure the short over-the-middle completions problem, that a pass rush doesn't effect at all, the sack dearth will be cured as a byproduct.

The sacks will automatically increase, if longer completions are forced. That 31 sack figure was created by a combination of likely non-recurring problems. An Adalius on IR, a Pierre on IR, a Vrabel going over-the-hill, rookie ILBs, an ailing Warren, and mediocre CBs, and half of the Safeties Tank and Rodney, on IR too.

Changing nobody, merely a return to health, would increase that sack figure from 31, better than half the teams, to the upper 8-10 at greater than 40.

But BB has made substantial changes and improvements in addition as well.

 

[Ring 6]

1) No doubt, having him here before the pre-season games start is a good thing. How much is that difference worth? Remember, Ted Washington was traded here just before the last pre-season game, IIRC..

I dont understand how Ted Washington affects Burgess' ability to learn our defense.

.[/QUOTE]2) It might mean that perhaps we paid too much for him..[/QUOTE]

It could also mean we got a steal. A 3rd asnd 5th for a 'now probowl player' is neither a definite over or under payment.

.[/QUOTE]3) I guess my answer is Yes, still...what I suppose I would prefer is that the FO had done a better job of drafting pass-rushers without having to trade multiple picks for 31-year-olds with declining #s on the final year of their contracts.[/QUOTE]

I suppose I owuld prefer that we never had any needs too, but I found that to be an unrealistic approach when I turned about 13. I kind of always figured its a bit ignorant to look at the best team in the NFL and criticize them for not having an all-pro at every position on the field that they drafted themselves.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I would've held out a couple more weeks until Al came down from his price of multiple picks. This isn't Peppers, Suggs or even Jason Taylor we're talking about, after all.

DAMN that Belichick, out strategized by a fanboy yet again! When will it stop???

 

[Deus Irae]

Looks like the 'deusappearing act' is happening again.

At least yesterday there was a blatant and obvious instance of being 100% totally wrong to run away from. Today, I guess its just the general board reaction to your attitude?

How 'modlike' your behavior is. As I noted on another thread, I had to take a trip. While it may seem as if I'm always here, it's not actually the case.