Schefter: Burgess re-signed to one-year deal

[eom]

ok, burgess supposedly played 26 of 53 snaps vs jax, primarily left end in dime and 3-3 nickel.

ty played 5 snaps.

edit: and it looks like they credit burgess with a sack, so maybe they really don't know wtf they're doing.

more edits: oho! my apologies, pff, as it might have actually been burgess with tbc getting credit.

 

[Frezo]

What defense would you start against the Colts? They will likely be on the field for the entire series of downs.

Thanks for the replies everybody.

What I see from Manning is control. Part of his game is waiting for a team to substitute, then get the ball snapped, 5 yard penalty. We've all seen this plenty of times. When Manning lets a defense substitute it's because he's looking for a more favorable match up. This is surely in the Colt's playbook and is probably modified on a weekly basis.

To best defend this a defense must be composed of players with enough stamina and versatility to stay on the field, throw a few different alignments at Manning and blitz from different positions. This was the McGinnest era Pats. I miss those guys. Right now I see 3 different front 7 positions up in the air. That's OLB, ILB and end. If that's the case making substitutions won't make the defense better from a talent standpoint, but it will at least be different forcing the offense to adjust. The Pat's ace in the hole is that BB will be calling the D.

Back to the original question. "What would your starting defense be against the Colts as the team is currently constituted?"

 

[eom]

I think I am going to do every week for the hell of it.....
week - opp + score - (pass plays per pff) burgess snaps, sacks, hits, pressures

1 - v buf 25-24 (33) 41, 1, 0, 1
2 - @ nyj 9-17 (24) 14, 0, 0, 0
3 - v atl 26-10 (29) 19, 0, 0, 0
4 - v bal 27-21 (50) 36, 0, 0, 4
5 - @ den 17-20 (52) 38, 0, 0, 1
6 - v ten 59-0 (lol) (16) 42, 0, 0, 1
7 - @ tb 35-7 (35) 52, 1, 0, 2
8 - bye
9 - v mia 27-17 (40) 28, 0, 2, 1
10 - @ ind 34-35 (49) 66, 0, 1, 5
11 - v nyj 31-14 (23) 17, 0, 0, 0
12 - @ no 17-38 (24) 26, 0, 0, 0
13 - @ mia 21-22 (54) 37, 0, 0, 1
14 - v car 20-10 (34) 16, 1, 0, 2
15 - @ buf 17-10 (35) 31, 1, 0, 4
16 - v jax 35-7 (30) 26, 1, 1, 0
17 - @ hou 27-34 (43) 62, 1, 2, 0
wc - v bal 14-33 (11) 8, 0, 0, 1 --- baltimore clearly trying to keep burgess off the field.....


edit:
first 8 games - about 34 snap average, 2 sacks, 2 hits, 10 pr
last 8 games - 35 snap average, 4 sacks, 4 hits, 12 pr
didn't count wildcard

 

[eom]

now, as a follow up I will take the last 8 reg season games, multiply by 2 to get 16, and compare his stats to other players around the league.
also, the 24 guys ahead of him on this list average 862 snaps, so I included an 862 snap 'projected burgess'.
it's certainly true that all these guys play different positions and in different circumstances and schemes --- comparing him to a 1 gap lb, pure 4-3 de, etc may be pointless, and projecting out his snaps, which are probably purely passing downs, is just as unfair, but I'll leave it to the reader to digest.


16 games = 562 snaps, 8 sacks, 8 hits, 24 pressures

pressures:
player - pressures (snaps)

ware (dal) - 56 (976)
smith (sf) - 44 (977)
freeney (ind) - 41 (583)
abraham (atl) - 39 (703)
mathis (ind) - 37 (608)
BURGESS (NE) - 37 (862) - projected
hali (kc) - 36 (1105)
allen (min) - 35 (945)
edwards (min) - 35 (874)
harrison (pit) - 34 (1032)
peppers (car) - 33 (806)
dumervil (den) - 31 (880)
cole (phi) - 31 (959)
woodley (pit) - 31 (1030)
carter (was) - 30 (979)
smith (hou) - 30 (874)
williams (hou) - 29 (952)
campbell (arz) - 29 (824)
jenkins (gb) - 27 (801)
haralson (sf) - 27 (986)
kiwanuka (nyg) - 26 (730)
hayes (ten) - 26 (682)
vanden bosch (ten) - 26 (781)
ogunleye (chi) - 25 (735)
matthews (gb) - 25 (860)
BURGESS (NE) - 24 (562)- actual

edit: I forgot a couple guys
brown (ten) - 33 (723)
babineaux (atl) - 25 (870)

more edits:
I'll add sacks.......
there were 19 guys with more than 8 sacks, averaging 884 snaps --- half of which are 4-3 ends.
projected burgess, although this is somewhat unfair as noted above, has 12.5 sacks.
this puts him behind 6 guys:
dumervil - 17 (880)
allen - 15 (945)
freeney - 14 (583)
cole - 14 (959)
woodley - 14 (1030)
carter - 13 (979)

 

[eom]

as another bonus follow up, I will compare bogus second half burgess to some of the league's best --- per 1000 snaps.
sacks, hits, pressures

freeney - 24, 20.6, 70.3
mathis - 16.5, 18.1, 60.9
ware - 12.3, 17.4, 57.4
allen - 15.9, 14.8, 37
dumervil - 19.3, 8, 35.2
cole - 14.6, 20.9, 32.3
smith (sf) - 6.1, 16.4, 45

2nd half bogus burgess - 14.2, 14.2, 42.7

 

[Deus Irae]

Burgess stunk last season. If the team is lucky, he'll be better this year. If the team is even luckier, someone who can be an upgrade over him will get cut loose by another team.

 

[Ring 6]

I know what you are saying and it is valid but it is worth pointing out that when an offense goes no huddle they can't change personell so whatever you start with would likely match up well the entire drive. Lets assume the colts come out in a common COlt formation of three wide, 1te, and 1RB. We would likely match by bringing in a Nickle and sure they could run at our nickle but they don't have the best personell to run with as we don't have the best to stop it. I don't think our situational players will have conditioning issues just that they are only useful vs the right personell.

Lately our base vs the Colts has been 3-3-5 which we dont use much against other teams. We've been know to play it with 2 OLBs or 2 ILBs.
We've also used both corners and safeties as the 5th DB.
You can sub against a no-huddle, its just not as easy.
I would imagine the first unit I would put out there as of today would be:

Warren-Wilfork-Wright
TBC-Mayo-Guyton/Cunningham/Spikes (we can use any of the 3 based on field position, etc, because Spikes is a better player to pick up the heavy run D responsiblities that are created by this set, Cunningham the better pass rusher and Guyton the better coverage guy) (No place for Burgess in this set, he would come in after an incomplete pass creates 2nd or 3rd and long and we go to a 4-2-5)
Bodden-McCourty-Butler-Meriwhether-Chung(if he beats out Sanders and McGowan)
If we play man, you could see McCourty on Clark.

 

[Frezo]

Lately our base vs the Colts has been 3-3-5 which we dont use much against other teams. We've been know to play it with 2 OLBs or 2 ILBs.
We've also used both corners and safeties as the 5th DB.
You can sub against a no-huddle, its just not as easy.
I would imagine the first unit I would put out there as of today would be:

Warren-Wilfork-Wright
TBC-Mayo-Guyton/Cunningham/Spikes (we can use any of the 3 based on field position, etc, because Spikes is a better player to pick up the heavy run D responsiblities that are created by this set, Cunningham the better pass rusher and Guyton the better coverage guy) (No place for Burgess in this set, he would come in after an incomplete pass creates 2nd or 3rd and long and we go to a 4-2-5)
Bodden-McCourty-Butler-Meriwhether-Chung(if he beats out Sanders and McGowan)
If we play man, you could see McCourty on Clark.

Did you choose Wright for the pass rush?

 

[patfanken]

Burgess stunk last season. If the team is lucky, he'll be better this year. If the team is even luckier, someone who can be an upgrade over him will get cut loose by another team.

You make your statement that he sucks so definitive DI, yet the stats, especially at the end of the season, seem to belie your opinion.

No one is saying that he's THE answer to the the pass rush question, but it would seem that in the last month of the season, he looked to be PART of the answer

 

[PatsBoy12]

I'm very happy with the retention of Burgess. I believe that even though he may not be what he was years ago, he's still a viable threat to the opposing QB when on the field. He definitely showed me a lot more effort, energy, and burst than that other guy who wore #96.

 

[Ring 6]

Did you choose Wright for the pass rush?

That, and the fact that he is the best player at the position.

 

[Deus Irae]

You make your statement that he sucks so definitive DI, yet the stats, especially at the end of the season, seem to belie your opinion.

No one is saying that he's THE answer to the the pass rush question, but it would seem that in the last month of the season, he looked to be PART of the answer

Stats are great. They're useless without context, though. The games where Burgess didn't look Godawful were against Buffalo, Carolina and Houston. Carolina was a mess, Buffalo had one of the 2-3 worst offensive lines in football (Burgess tallied a sack in both Buffalo games, BTW), and the Houston game was a bit of a joke.

Again, though, if the team is lucky, he'll be better this year. Belichick certainly needs someone to step up. After all, when it comes to the OLBs and the pass rush, this is another year of trying to make chicken salad.

 

[Off The Grid]

You make your statement that he sucks so definitive DI, yet the stats, especially at the end of the season, seem to belie your opinion.

No one is saying that he's THE answer to the the pass rush question, but it would seem that in the last month of the season, he looked to be PART of the answer

NICE.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

Burgess re-signing it a bonus - no 2 ways about it. BB only signs people he thinks can help the team - and after having a 1year trial run - by Burgess being asked back is a good sign. The contract will probably be for low up front money. Gives TC competition and more depth in case of injury. Finally, BB does not OVERPAY for vets - so if BB wants him here and the vet signs, then it is for reasonable money. I don't see any downside to this.........NEP can't have All Pros at each and every position. The 2001 squad was full of wily moderately priced vets. Just like the kind we have signed now (Crumpler, Holt, Burgess, Warren, Lewis, Patten, etc). Along with the young high draft picks we have amassed the last 2 years, and re-signing our key vets - this can be a very good NEP team in '10. Enough to be in the playoff mix for the next several years and that is more than 90% of the other 31 teams could ever hope realistically for.

 

[mgteich]

I strongly support the signing of Burgess. However, there is no particular reason for optimism at OLB/DE because of his signing.

The signing of Burgess does NOT mean that Belichick thinks that Burgess is a starter or a strong player, or even that he will make the roster. The signing provides a veteran to compete with youngsters like Ninkovich and Crable for roster spots.

Yes, I suspect that Burgess will make the roster. He might even play more than 50% of the defensive reps as he did last year.

Or, he might not make the 53-man squad.

In ANY CASE, this was a good signing.

Burgess re-signing it a bonus - no 2 ways about it. BB only signs people he thinks can help the team.

 

[Ring 6]

I strongly support the signing of Burgess. However, there is no particular reason for optimism at OLB/DE because of his signing.

The signing of Burgess does NOT mean that Belichick thinks that Burgess is a starter or a strong player, or even that he will make the roster. The signing provides a veteran to compete with youngsters like Ninkovich and Crable for roster spots.

Yes, I suspect that Burgess will make the roster. He might even play more than 50% of the defensive reps as he did last year.

Or, he might not make the 53-man squad.

In ANY CASE, this was a good signing.

Burgess re-signing it a bonus - no 2 ways about it. BB only signs people he thinks can help the team.

IMO, the state of the OLB position is that we have a few potentially good players we hope will develop this season (Cunningham, and Crable) and a mixture of adequacy (TBC, Burgess, Woods, Ninkovich, Davis and the longshot possiblity of using Guyton or McK there) if they do not.
I think the worse case is the result of the competition for jobs at OLB will leave us at least adequate probably using different players in the base and sub, and at best, we have a new injection of young high quality talent. There is no doubt that if Crable and Cunningham hit their upside this will be a very good OLB group. If they do not, I think we've addressed the spot (along with improving the ILB area) enough that we will be adequate and those 2 players will not hold back the other 9 from being able to become a strong defense.

 

[Urgent]

A note on rookie OLB performance:

Pat Kirwan looked at all 38 DE/3-4 OLB's drafted 2006-2009 in the first and second rounds of the draft, and tracked their tackle and sack performance.

Three posted double-digit sacks - Brian Orakpo, Clay Mathews, and Kamerion Wimbley; a total of five had five or more sacks. 14 posted zero sacks.

Mario Williams, Manny Lawson, LaMarr Woodley, Larry English -- all guys who failed to get even five sacks as rookies.

Those sobering stats set expectations for Cunningham.

 

[captain stone]

Wow, so the Pats should have had five OLBs better than Banta-Cain if only Bill had played his cards right? Cool, tell me who!

Mark Anderson from the '06 draft, instead of Ryan O'Callahan;

Jacob Ford from the '07 draft, instead of Mike Richardson;

Cliff Avril from the '08 draft, instead of Crable;

Connor Barwin from the '09 draft, instead of Brace;

Sergio Kindle from the '10 draft, instead of Gronk; or Daniel Teo-Nesheim instead of Cunningham; or Ricky Sapp instead of Hernandez...and Lindsey Witten instead of any of the 7th-rounders.

All except Kindle are DEs for their current 4-3 teams, but each also displayed the athleticism during the draft process to be considered worthy of converting to 3-4 OLBs.

TBC, Ninko & Bruce Davis would be the camp competition for the above names; Burgess, Woods, Crable, Cunningham & Fletcher would be somewhere else entirely.

 

[Ring 6]

Mark Anderson from the '06 draft, instead of Ryan O'Callahan;

Jacob Ford from the '07 draft, instead of Mike Richardson;

Cliff Avril from the '08 draft, instead of Crable;

Connor Barwin from the '09 draft, instead of Brace;

Sergio Kindle from the '10 draft, instead of Gronk; or Daniel Teo-Nesheim instead of Cunningham; or Ricky Sapp instead of Hernandez...and Lindsey Witten instead of any of the 7th-rounders.

All except Kindle are DEs for their current 4-3 teams, but each also displayed the athleticism during the draft process to be considered worthy of converting to 3-4 OLBs.

TBC, Ninko & Bruce Davis would be the camp competition for the above names; Burgess, Woods, Crable, Cunningham & Fletcher would be somewhere else entirely.

On top of the fact that drafting in hindsight is assinine this is one of poorest posts i have ever read. I have now lost all respect for any football opinion you will ever post.

 

[eom]

A note on rookie OLB performance:

Pat Kirwan looked at all 38 DE/3-4 OLB's drafted 2006-2009 in the first and second rounds of the draft, and tracked their tackle and sack performance.

Three posted double-digit sacks - Brian Orakpo, Clay Mathews, and Kamerion Wimbley; a total of five had five or more sacks. 14 posted zero sacks.

Mario Williams, Manny Lawson, LaMarr Woodley, Larry English -- all guys who failed to get even five sacks as rookies.

Those sobering stats set expectations for Cunningham.

well.......I don't doubt the point, and I really haven't expected 1000 snaps out of cunningham at any point to date, but is this really any kind of meaningful study?
what did burgess have last year --- 5 sacks?
I think he logged maybe 562(?) snaps, so we're talking about 550+ snaps unaccounted for, and 5 as a measure of his season.

if cunningham were to log 400 snaps and give us 4 sacks I don't think I'd be unhappy with that.
hey --- maybe you even get 30 pressures on those 400 snaps for all you know.

maybe I'll do my own study........
do we have a link to kirwan's study?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d818130b7&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
nevermind, I got it.