Reiss: Analyzing Burgess' final four games

[363839]

Those 3rd and 5th round rookies would now have a season under their belts, and Burgess would have been available as a pass rushing DE specialist free agent this offseason, if the Raiders didn't cut him last season.

He'll never have been worth those picks.

They might have a season under their belt. They might have been cut, too. Either that or placed on IR just like Crable and Mackenzie.
The Pats needed a pass rusher for 09 and BB took a chance on the only viable prospect available.

 

[capetide]

Come again??

We could've drafted OLB Thad Gibson in the 3rd Round, and RB Deji Karim in the 5th.

Hell, considering that they were drafted in the 4th and 6th, we could've traded back for 2 4ths and a 6th, and drafted:

OLB Thad Gibson
RT Bruce Campbell
RB Deji Karim

...and THEN gone ahead and signed Burgess.

NOT Coach Bill's best moment.

Who could we have drafted for the 2nd and 7th picks for Welker and the 4th for Moss? Weren't those picks just as "precious" commodities as the ones traded for Burgess?

 

[eom]

you guys are hilarious.

I guess belichick should have looked into his crystal ball and realized that we wouldn't make it past round one of the playoffs, so he could just flush that season, keep those picks, and sign burgess now.

what if we drafted a pro bowler with a 7th round pick --- would a 7th be too much for burgess, since we supposedly could've just signed him as a fa right now?

they'd have a full season under their belts.....lolz!

 

[Rob0729]

In hindsight the Burgess trade was not a good one for the Pats. Burgess didn't really offer what the Pats hoped for until the last month of the season. It doesn't help for last year, but it is a positive sign for this year.

In defense of Belichick, Burgess was like plan E to find a pass rushing OLB. Plan A was TBC which he got. Plan B was Julius Peppers who refused to play ball and sign his franchise tender so the Pats could negotiate with the Panthers. Plan C was Jason Taylor who the Pats thought they had locked up, but he used them to get the Dolphins to resign him. Plan D was Greg Ellis who the Pats made an offer to, but were outbidded by the Raiders (which ironically made Burgess a tradable commodity for the Raiders).

As for the draft picks, the Pats had four picks in the first round. Odds are that one or both of the picks the Pats gave up to get Burgess would have been traded into 2011 picks and people would be biatching about those picks for a different reason.

Yes, in hindsight, the Burgess trade was not a good trade. But if you go back to the time of the trade, most people on this board were happy about the trade. Trades are a gamble no matter how good the player is. There have been some great players who have been traded to teams and sucked. There have been some mediocre players traded for nothing and become Pro Bowlers on their new team.

 

[JSn]

Evaluating in a "what's good about it NOW" way, suppose the 5th was a nubbin' and the third just started to come on at the end of the year, like Burgess did.

Now we have him back, with time in the system AND he's a known quantity. Bill is well aware of his progression, strengths and weaknesses. If we'd signed him this year, we'd be waiting until the last month for production and saying it was a stupid signing.

Now we have a declining but not "done" vet rusher with a year in the system for very reasonable money while we groom some young rushers. Not a terrible set-up in my view, considering you can only play the cards you're dealt.

 

[Patspsycho]

In hindsight the Burgess trade was not a good one for the Pats. Burgess didn't really offer what the Pats hoped for until the last month of the season. It doesn't help for last year, but it is a positive sign for this year.

In defense of Belichick, Burgess was like plan E to find a pass rushing OLB. Plan A was TBC which he got. Plan B was Julius Peppers who refused to play ball and sign his franchise tender so the Pats could negotiate with the Panthers. Plan C was Jason Taylor who the Pats thought they had locked up, but he used them to get the Dolphins to resign him. Plan D was Greg Ellis who the Pats made an offer to, but were outbidded by the Raiders (which ironically made Burgess a tradable commodity for the Raiders).

As for the draft picks, the Pats had four picks in the first round. Odds are that one or both of the picks the Pats gave up to get Burgess would have been traded into 2011 picks and people would be biatching about those picks for a different reason.

Yes, in hindsight, the Burgess trade was not a good trade. But if you go back to the time of the trade, most people on this board were happy about the trade. Trades are a gamble no matter how good the player is. There have been some great players who have been traded to teams and sucked. There have been some mediocre players traded for nothing and become Pro Bowlers on their new team.

I don't think plan B was ever a consideration.

 

[DaBruinz]

Come again??

We could've drafted OLB Thad Gibson in the 3rd Round, and RB Deji Karim in the 5th.

Hell, considering that they were drafted in the 4th and 6th, we could've traded back for 2 4ths and a 6th, and drafted:

OLB Thad Gibson
RT Bruce Campbell
RB Deji Karim

...and THEN gone ahead and signed Burgess.

NOT Coach Bill's best moment.

The Patriots could have drafted those 3 at any time. I have news for you. They passed on them numerous times. That should tell you that the Pats had no interest in them. It should be telling that the Pats chose Zoltan Mesko over Karim in the 5th round.

Did the Pats get 3rd and 5th value out of Burgess? No. But to theorize that they could have gotten players that it was clear they had no interest in is just silly.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. You seem to be missing my point. The Pats had a need for a veteran pass-rusher last year. BB thought it was a good idea to trade a 3rd and 5th round to Oakland for Burgess. Did Burgess pan out the way BB had hoped? No. I think BB would be the first one to agree with you. Now they've resigned him for one more year. Obviously BB sees something he likes and thinks Burgess will be a better fit this year.

The fact that they gave up those draft picks last year is an after-thought. If you want to sit there and fret over that and totally negate the fact that BB is the master of accruing future picks then more power to you, but I for one think he's pretty ******* good at what he does.

If the pass rush was such a desperate need for last year, the Seymour trade shouldn't have been made (This is not brought up to talk about that Seymour deal on its own, but just to note that he helped generate pass rush and was traded away). The Burgess trade was terrible at the time it was made, and it looks even worse in hindsight. It was one of many Belichick mistakes last season, and it has repercussions moving forward because of the lost draft picks. Belichick may be good at what he does, but he's not perfect and he was way off of his game last year.

And if draft picks were such an afterthought, BB wouldn't be trading all over the place to get more of them.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't think plan B was ever a consideration.

I think Plan B was a consideration as long as they could get him at a price they were willing to get. Far from a likely outcome, but not impossible.

 

[patfanken]

You know, I know it seemed like a lot to give up for Burgess, but OTOH, BB had the draft capital to spend. As it is we will have several more rookies on this team than roster spots for them. 2 more wouldn't have made the logjam any less foreboding.

BTW- a low 3rd and 5th round pick isn't that high for a proven situational pass rusher....IF he proves to be effective at his job. Only time will tell if those last 4 games were a picture of what we should expect this season, or just an aberration.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The Pats were desperate at the time for a pass rush, just for clarification sake it was a 2nd and a 7th for Welker, a 4th for Moss, and a 3 and 5th for Burgess.

I thought he played much better at the end of last year. Re-signing him really can't hurt, (although he could have brought some more comp picks if someone else signed him to a contract).

 

[eom]

(although he could have brought some more comp picks if someone else signed him to a contract).

dude..........

 

[Off The Grid]

Who could we have drafted for the 2nd and 7th picks for Welker and the 4th for Moss? Weren't those picks just as "precious" commodities as the ones traded for Burgess?

Umm...Did you miss the part where Welker and Moss are phenomenal players??

It's called Return on Investment: a 2nd for Welker and a 4th for Moss is AMAZING Return on Investment.

A 3rd and a 5th for a guy who walked as a Free Agent, and who any of 32 teams could have signed, on the other hand...That, junior, is what is known as HORRIBLE Return on Investment.

Were you able to follow along THAT time, sport?

 

[Off The Grid]

what if we drafted a pro bowler with a 7th round pick --- would a 7th be too much for burgess, since we supposedly could've just signed him as a fa right now?

You might want to complete grade school before expressing your thoughts again, sport: It was your genius buddy who broached the idea of "what if", even though we're talking about 2010 draft picks who haven't played a single down.

So YOUR philosophy is to dump a 3rd and a 5th for an aging D Lineman who we could've picked up a year later for nothing, eh? A guy who'd already lost his job as a starter to ANOTHER aging D Lineman??? Got it!!

Dan Snyder would LOVE you guys!!

 

[Off The Grid]

In hindsight the Burgess trade was not a good one for the Pats. Burgess didn't really offer what the Pats hoped for until the last month of the season. It doesn't help for last year, but it is a positive sign for this year.

In defense of Belichick, Burgess was like plan E to find a pass rushing OLB. Plan A was TBC which he got. Plan B was Julius Peppers who refused to play ball and sign his franchise tender so the Pats could negotiate with the Panthers. Plan C was Jason Taylor who the Pats thought they had locked up, but he used them to get the Dolphins to resign him. Plan D was Greg Ellis who the Pats made an offer to, but were outbidded by the Raiders (which ironically made Burgess a tradable commodity for the Raiders).

As for the draft picks, the Pats had four picks in the first round. Odds are that one or both of the picks the Pats gave up to get Burgess would have been traded into 2011 picks and people would be biatching about those picks for a different reason.

Yes, in hindsight, the Burgess trade was not a good trade. But if you go back to the time of the trade, most people on this board were happy about the trade. Trades are a gamble no matter how good the player is. There have been some great players who have been traded to teams and sucked. There have been some mediocre players traded for nothing and become Pro Bowlers on their new team.

Nonsense. Trading a 3rd and a 5th for an aging D Lineman who had just lost his job to another aging D Lineman, and who ~ 9 months later ~ was made to wait nearly 4 months as a Free Agent while any of 32 teams could've picked him up for NOTHING...was a DEMONSTRABLY awful trade at the time it was made, and I said so.

And there's NO defense for being in that position: Belichick had an entire Draft and Off Season to take care of business, and he failed in SPECTACULAR fashion.

As a result, he PANICKED...and ended up paying a King's Ransom to try to convert an aging D Lineman ~ did I mention that he'd just lost his JOB?? ~ into a LINE BACKER...a move which failed COMPLETELY, lest we forget.

And I NEVER squawk when Coach Bill II trades for future picks: I CELEBRATE. So please spare me the Straw Man argument.

 

[Off The Grid]

Evaluating in a "what's good about it NOW" way, suppose the 5th was a nubbin' and the third just started to come on at the end of the year, like Burgess did.

Now we have him back, with time in the system AND he's a known quantity. Bill is well aware of his progression, strengths and weaknesses. If we'd signed him this year, we'd be waiting until the last month for production and saying it was a stupid signing.

Now we have a declining but not "done" vet rusher with a year in the system for very reasonable money while we groom some young rushers. Not a terrible set-up in my view, considering you can only play the cards you're dealt.

That's a very fair assessment, I think, but you ought to guard against putting words in people's mouths: If we were to sign Burgess now, as in your scenario, after not having him last year, and he were to replicate last year's production ~ 3 months of very little, with a very strong finish ~ only a jack @$$ would call that a bad move, because December is EXACTLY when you want guying rocking and rolling, and because he cost us NO DRAFT PICKS.

So please do us both a favor, and don't try to carry an argument by pretending "we'd" be stupid enough to call THAT a bad move. I sure as hell would not, and I strongly suspect that you wouldn't either.

 

[Off The Grid]

The Patriots could have drafted those 3 at any time. I have news for you. They passed on them numerous times. That should tell you that the Pats had no interest in them. It should be telling that the Pats chose Zoltan Mesko over Karim in the 5th round.

Did the Pats get 3rd and 5th value out of Burgess? No. But to theorize that they could have gotten players that it was clear they had no interest in is just silly.

I've got news for YOU, my friend: the point completely eluded you, as seems to be a constant state of affairs with you.

My point, sparky, was to illustrate who we could have gotten. An example.

And seeing as how Coach Bill did NOT have that extra 3rd and 5th, you don't have even a remote CLUE who he would've picked, DO you, genius?

But you DO gather that we would've HAD those picks...right? I don't want to play over your head, here, but it IS a pretty simple concept.

 

[Off The Grid]

Good LORD.

Maybe I'll just go back to reading this Site, and not engaging in debate. Time is too precious to waste on Debris.

I do NOT suffer Fools gladly ~ especially Fools who try to "win" arguments by telling me what I would think or say ~ and there seems to be a surfeit of them, hereabouts!!

But there IS a solid crew of excellent Writers, around these parts, and I will continue to read you, with gratitude, and perhaps toss out the odd "Attaboy".

Peace.

 

[JSn]

That's a very fair assessment, I think, but you ought to guard against putting words in people's mouths: If we were to sign Burgess now, as in your scenario, after not having him last year, and he were to replicate last year's production ~ 3 months of very little, with a very strong finish ~ only a jack @$$ would call that a bad move, because December is EXACTLY when you want guying rocking and rolling, and because he cost us NO DRAFT PICKS.

So please do us both a favor, and don't try to carry an argument by pretending "we'd" be stupid enough to call THAT a bad move. I sure as hell would not, and I strongly suspect that you wouldn't either.

Well everyone's calling it a bad deal for what we got last year... maybe I need a translator. Is douchebag your native tongue?

 

[Rob0729]

Nonsense. Trading a 3rd and a 5th for an aging D Lineman who had just lost his job to another aging D Lineman, and who ~ 9 months later ~ was made to wait nearly 4 months as a Free Agent while any of 32 teams could've picked him up for NOTHING...was a DEMONSTRABLY awful trade at the time it was made, and I said so.

And there's NO defense for being in that position: Belichick had an entire Draft and Off Season to take care of business, and he failed in SPECTACULAR fashion.

As a result, he PANICKED...and ended up paying a King's Ransom to try to convert an aging D Lineman ~ did I mention that he'd just lost his JOB?? ~ into a LINE BACKER...a move which failed COMPLETELY, lest we forget.

And I NEVER squawk when Coach Bill II trades for future picks: I CELEBRATE. So please spare me the Straw Man argument.

First, you obviously don't know what pass rushers are worth in this league. Yes, Belichick gave up a lot for Burgess, but it wasn't crazy if the guy could have produced 10 sacks or more.

Second, If Burgess did have 10 sacks this year for the Pats or the Raiders, he might not have been available at all. You have to assume that he would be available, there is no guarantee of that.

Third, I do think Belichick should have addressed the outside rush issue better. Some of it was out of his control, but others of it was in his control. The free agent market for OLB/DE types sucked last year, but he could have drafted someone high.

Fourth, just because you celebrate him trading picks into next year, there are a lot of people on this board who hate it (the Felger syndrome). People complain the Pats never use their picks and just endlessly trade their picks into subsequent years so they never have to use them.