Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft picks

[reflexblue]

I get the impression a lot of peple are down on Burgess, Adalious Thomas has averaged appx. 5.5 sacks since coming here and being surrounded by a lot more talent then Burgess, so i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Another thing, when AD came here he was suposse top beak weak on setting the edge.

I understand he was in a different systom but under the same circumstances what would Burgess have done?

 

[Metaphors]

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

I could see Thomas at ILB on early downs but in a rush LB spot on passing downs.

Isn't it fairly common for teams to pass on "early downs" to stay out of "passing downs" later? I would check to a pass play almost immediately if I spotted AD inside. I don't think it is viable to plan for a defensive player to be at different positions (and taking on different roles) based on a pass play vs. a run.

 

[Easywolf32]

Beautiful.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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

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.

I don't see how anyone can say we over or underpaid at this point. There's no facts on which to base that - unless we're going by production with the Raiders, and Randy Moss can quickly dispel that barometer of success.

Given that he provides what appears to be at the very least, quality depth at a position of need I'm not inclined to look at the draft trade value chart and say they gave up too much even at this stage... time will tell.

If he makes one game winning play this year, who's going to lament the loss of 2 mid round draft picks when they're so well stocked already?

Overall we're talking about a guy who in some ways is replacing Mike Vrabel but at half the financial cost.

If I could choose between Burgess at $2 million and Vrable at $2 million I'd go with Vrabel even though he's 3 years older. But at $4.5 million? Sorry - I don't think I can second guess the front office at that cost for Vrabel - and certainly don't second guessing having them include Vrabel in a trade to 1. ensure that Vrabel got all has money and 2. ensure that Vrabel wasn't cut and landed in the AFC East.

 

[OhExaulted1]

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.

patfanken,

If you click on your name, go to your user CP and find Edit Options then scroll down to the box that says Number of Posts Per Page and you can change it to 40 instead of 10.

Just a friendly shout-out and it saves time on moster threads like these.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Beautiful.

:agree:

10chas

 

[captain stone]

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

1) I don't see how anyone can say we over or underpaid at this point. There's no facts on which to base that - unless we're going by production with the Raiders, and Randy Moss can quickly dispel that barometer of success.

Given that he provides what appears to be at the very least, quality depth at a position of need I'm not inclined to look at the draft trade value chart and say they gave up too much even at this stage... time will tell.

If he makes one game winning play this year, who's going to lament the loss of 2 mid round draft picks when they're so well stocked already?

2) Overall we're talking about a guy who in some ways is replacing Mike Vrabel but at half the financial cost.

If I could choose between Burgess at $2 million and Vrable at $2 million I'd go with Vrabel even though he's 3 years older. But at $4.5 million? Sorry - I don't think I can second guess the front office at that cost for Vrabel - and certainly don't second guessing having them include Vrabel in a trade to 1. ensure that Vrabel got all has money and 2. ensure that Vrabel wasn't cut and landed in the AFC East.

1) I somewhat disagree; after all, a line of compensation must be drawn somewhere, even one more resembling the Maginot Line than the Great Wall.

2) I very much agree, exc. maybe the Burgess v. Vrabel for $2M question, an excellent one whose answer will not be known until prob. a half-year from now.

 

[bigfandan]

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

This may not have been the news Rob Ninkovich was waiting to hear...

The last time I checked this Ninko kid was making some waves in training camp.

So happy to have Derrick Burgess on board. With improved secondary and beefed up DL. this team can supass 50 sacks hands down if they play it right.

 

[SacPete1]

I spoke with a friend of mine who played with Burgess in Phili and his thoughts on him were:

-great motor, never stops
-pretty strong guy (hence he's played DE) and tough to block
-didn't drop into coverage much
-good in the locker room; no-nonsense and very professional

 

[Shockt327]

I dont think he's an upgrade over Pierre Woods. I think he is a complement to Pierre Woods.

Anyone who thinks Derrick Burgess is going to be transformed into an every down 34 2gap OLB after all these years of never doing that, will probably be disappointed in this trade.
Anyone who thinks he can provide a nice pass rush in sub packages will probably end up pleased with the move.

I agree, Burgess isn't an every down, 3-4, OLB. But here's the question: how often do the Pats play out of their base 3-4? My own untrained eyes have lead me to believe that the Pats have been running out of a 4/2/5 Nickel (with the OLBs acting as DEs) more often than their base 3-4. I can't find any stats to back up my hypothesis. But when I was doing some outside reading on the Packers transition to a 3-4; this interesting quote from Mike McCarthy stuck with me:

"Do you know how many snaps of base New England was in last year?" McCarthy said. "Something like 154 or 156 (out of about 1,000)."

Conversion formula - JSOnline

I found that interesting. That number seems way, way too low, and it makes me consider just what he considers "base." But he's obviously researched it well enough to recite it off-hand. Also, he's getting his info on NE from Dom Capers, so I imagine it's accurate. So yeah, I agree that Burgess isn't a prototypical 3-4 OLB -- but that doesn't mean he'll just be a "situational" player. A guy like Burgess might already fit into the Pats current scheme far better than any of us realize - and I imagine Bill will further adapt his scheme to suit his new personnel. Just my two cents...

But I'm really curious if anyone has a better breakdown of the Patriots sub-packages; that would shed a lot of light on the matter.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

I don't see how anyone can say we over or underpaid at this point. There's no facts on which to base that - unless we're going by production with the Raiders, and Randy Moss can quickly dispel that barometer of success.

Given that he provides what appears to be at the very least, quality depth at a position of need I'm not inclined to look at the draft trade value chart and say they gave up too much even at this stage... time will tell.

If he makes one game winning play this year, who's going to lament the loss of 2 mid round draft picks when they're so well stocked already?

Overall we're talking about a guy who in some ways is replacing Mike Vrabel but at half the financial cost.

If I could choose between Burgess at $2 million and Vrable at $2 million I'd go with Vrabel even though he's 3 years older. But at $4.5 million? Sorry - I don't think I can second guess the front office at that cost for Vrabel - and certainly don't second guessing having them include Vrabel in a trade to 1. ensure that Vrabel got all has money and 2. ensure that Vrabel wasn't cut and landed in the AFC East.

It's an opinion based upon perceived current value, nothing more. It doesn't matter what happens in the future. If Burgess is cut tomorrow or goes on to win the MVP, the value the day of the trade was the same. As a matter of fact, the values were bandied about on a thread before he was even traded for, and BradyManny and I had a polite back and forth about it:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/255226-burgess-can-had-3rd-4th.html

It's purely an intellectual exercise for me, since I understand, as I've noted in multiple posts, that Belichick is looking at it every day and getting a different perspective than I have as an outsider. Belichick is watching the team in person seemingly 24/7/365, while I'm relying upon past performances, statistics and media/blogger/poster reports.

 

[RayClay]

I spoke with a friend of mine who played with Burgess in Phili and his thoughts on him were:

-great motor, never stops
-pretty strong guy (hence he's played DE) and tough to block
-didn't drop into coverage much
-good in the locker room; no-nonsense and very professional

That's nice to hear. Thanks.

 

[bigfandan]

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

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.

.....
My Humble Opinion remains unchanged, however.

You are such an optimist. Are you still searching for the FO with the 100% success ratio? Mind me ask, which FO do you like the most then?

 

[NE39]

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

It's an opinion based upon perceived current value, nothing more. It doesn't matter what happens in the future. If Burgess is cut tomorrow or goes on to win the MVP, the value the day of the trade was the same.

The value is set by the market. Based off all reports, there were two teams competing for Burgess' services, the Patriots and Philly. Philly was offering a 3rd and a player (backup OL), so the Patriots had to offer better value if they wanted the player. It wasn't like this whole transaction tool place in a vacuum, this was a player more than one team wanted to acquire.

Given the comment from Belichick post trade and how happy he seems to be about acquiring Burgess, one should feel pretty good about the value they got for the draft picks surrendered.

 

[Jimke]

The end result will determine whether the deal was a good one.

If the Patriots return to the Superbowl, the price for Burgess was

reasonable. If the Patriots do not reach the Superbowl and Burgess

leaves after only one year, the deal might be questioned.

 

[Rob0729]

I spoke with a friend of mine who played with Burgess in Phili and his thoughts on him were:

-great motor, never stops
-pretty strong guy (hence he's played DE) and tough to block
-didn't drop into coverage much
-good in the locker room; no-nonsense and very professional

It is the coverage thing I worry most about Burgess. Unlike others, I think he will be able to set the edge against the run and will be close to a full-time starter. Granted AD can drop in coverage on plays that require the OLB to drop into coverage.

 

[Rob0729]

Also, one thing that hasn't been discussed (at least as far as I have seen)is that Belichick said he has been trying to acquire Burgess since before the draft. Apparently Belichick is really high on him. I will defer to his judgement over any of us.... At least until he is proven wrong.

 

[sarge]

Has Burgess practiced with the Pats yet?

 

[Rob0729]

Has Burgess practiced with the Pats yet?

Today will be his first practice.

 

[bigfandan]

Today will be his first practice.

He has been sitting out until now. is he in shape?