JSn
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,428
- Reaction score
- 1
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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?
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.
Isn't it tougher to collect sacks when you're trailing in a game?
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.”
Here's something by Chris Price from last May on Burgess: It Is What It Is Deconstructing Derrick Burgess
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I can. The rules are different. They aren't the same. It's in the CBA, in black and white, so to speak.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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!
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?