Burgess can be had for a 3rd and a 4th...

[WelshPat]

"For instance, would you trade Tryone McKenzie for Burgess?"

Pass rushers are worth more than MLB's, and Burgess has proven he can be elite at this level. So yeah, i would.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's no doubt the Pats would be paying a premium - but there's no other outside options at OLB. Isn't a 3rd rounder worth some insurance at the position?

Again, we have a surplus of early picks next year, we're already to the brim in terms of young players as it is, I think we can spare a late 3rd round pick. For instance, would you trade Tryone McKenzie for Burgess?

While I think we can probably make it work with what we have (especially considering our DL & secondary look strong), its not worth the risk if there is another option.

It's just too expensive for a rental.

 

[patman52]

A third straight up is too much. I would give a 4th sliding to a third if he re-signs with the pats. A third for a one year rental is too much.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Re: Burgess can be had for a 3rd or 4th....

Which dozen players? Based on some of the #'s I've seen pertaining to the draft, the odds of a 3rd rounder sticking in this league is about 1 in 3. Burgess is a known commodity, this team's lone unknown is pass rushing. I would do it.

And don't forget the Pats pick at the bottom of the round (typically), so our 3rd is closer to a 4th.

The draft definitely isn't a sure thing, and you're right about the pick being closer to the 4th. But I guess it really depends on what you think Burgess is going to be. If you think he's the answer (or a large part of the answer) to the hole left by Vrabel, I guess you could justify the third. But I'm concerned about the recent string of injuries and age, and I also think we could get him for less.

As for this year's third round, if we're not talking about fits for the system and strictly on talent/potential, guys like Shonn Greene and Louis Vasquez are a few intriguing names. I'm not a fan of Michael Johnson, but he was a potential first-rounder who dropped, so there could be a value pick there.

And I liked the Pats' picks this year, Brandon Tate and Tyrone McKenzie (too bad about the injury). A guy like Patrick Turner probably won't be a star, but could have developed into a nice third receiver, especially behind Moss/Welker. I like Lardarius Webb and Derek Cox too, and there are several other guys who would have been projects or else could contribute right away, but don't necessarily have a lot of potential.

I'm sure others have picks they'd love to have, or maybe hate the guys I named. But the point is over the next 4 years, I'd rather have one of those guys who could develop, than a declining Burgess.

If we're talking a 4th or 5th rounder, do the deal, it'd be much better. Then it's a low-risk, high-reward deal.

 

[DW Toys]

The question is when is COLVIN going to be resigned?

Cousin,
They say that the draft is an imperfect science. A small percentage of players make the NFL. I feel the Pats messed up by not taking OLB Michael Johnson in the third round and had the ammunition to take him or wait a little longer for Volmer who had a forth round ranking. Yeh...... I know in BB we trust but our drafts have been about a "C" average in the last five years accumulated. Burgess is not worth a three.
It seems that just like in the year of the "Don't worry. We have some good WRs this year" and we brought in three top shelf guys the following season because those good ones were not. Now we have pounded our chest and said "Don't worry. We have some good outside pass rushers this year". And we have to trade away a third rounder (irony=see Johnson) to get a 30 year old guy who is on the down spiral and considered plugging in Jason Taylor who is as old as Vrabel whom we are replacing and would have cost us as much.
You have Crabel who hasn't played a down and has Maroney disease, Woods who had a sure fumble wrestled away from him buy a skinny Giants RB that actually could have been a turning point in the SB. How embarrassing! Alexander, who must have dirty pictures on someone in the Pats organization to still be here and TBC who was so impressive we let him go a few years ago,.... I guess..... to get seasoned in SF? Now we pick up a OLB name Nincompoop or something like that with three years and three teams who was deemed to slow for OLB and to weak for DE as his calling card and has been cut more times than a piece of sushi in your favorite Japanese restaurant.

We had a shot at Ellis who might have been better than the above (like J. Taylor but he is older) but they low balled him on money.

O.K. Here is the shocker. BB needs to spend a dime and ring Shanny or Meyer at UF about this kid. Jarvis Moss is 6' 6 1/2" and 265 and runs a 4.68 40 which is faster than Pats target that year of Eagles LB Bradley and as fast as Bill LB Posluzny and almost as fast as the Panthers Jon Beason. A new staff might be the ticket and guys like AD and Teddy maybe put his head on strait.
I bet you can get him for less than Burgess as the Broncos are is a quandary and he can be had. Here are some stats:

"As a sophomore in 2005, he had 25 tackles, nine for loss, and 7.5 sacks. As a junior this year, he became more of an all around threat, finishing with 56 tackles, eleven for loss, and 7.5 sacks.

Moss has big time upside as an edge rusher. He is an excellent athlete, with a great first step. He explodes off the line and immediately puts pressure on the tackle. He has the ability to change direction, and continue his momentum towards the quarterback. Moss has a great frame as well, with a lot of room for additional growth. He has some experience playing in space as well, which could enhance his value to 3-4 teams."
DW Toys

 

[cstjohn17]

No has beat the 'our OLBs suck' drum more than me but a trade for Burgess just doesn't makes sense (this pretty assures he will be traded to the Pats within 10 minutes of this being posted).

The Pats barely have any cap space left (about $4.28 million as of 8/3) and Burgess has a $3.5 million dollar salary. Unless he is willing to take a pay cut the Pats will likely wait until he is released. Another possibility is that they trade a D Lineman for an OLB, unlikely but possible.

 

[captain stone]

Re: Burgess can be had for a 3rd or 4th....

Keep in mind that the Patriots have sent the Raiders a 3 for Duane Starks in 2005, and a 5 for Doug Gabriel in 2006. So they really don't have a whole lot to complain about.

But I agree, no more than a 3, if that.

The FO also gave weird Uncle Al a 4th & a 6th this year just to move up 6 spots, so score that one a win for the Crazy one.

The aging, declining Derrick Burgess is no longer worth a top-100 draft pick, esp. for just one season. Heck, we acquired Moss & Ted Washington each for a 4th-rounder, albeit an early 4th in both cases. I would hold out until Al accepts one of our 5th-rounders instead.

 

[primetime]

Moss has big time upside as an edge rusher.

Moss is a massive bust, has no work ethic, and doesn't fit the Broncos 3-4 defense.

 

[rsd]

Moss is a massive bust, has no work ethic, and doesn't fit the Broncos 3-4 defense.

Heck he is even contemplating retirement

So let's not just randomly pick hyped up players as examples of guys who they patriots should have picked when they have actually done zero in the league (See: Jarvis Moss, Michael Johnson).

I have no problem questioning the Patriots, but at least give us some good examples DW

 

[primetime]

Re: Burgess can be had for a 3rd or 4th....

Ted Johnson each for a 4th-rounder, albeit an early 4th in both cases. I would hold out until Al accepts one of our 5th-rounders instead.

What? Ted Johnson was a 2nd round pick in 1995.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

A D

10 characters.

 

[captain stone]

Re: Burgess can be had for a 3rd or 4th....

What? Ted Johnson was a 2nd round pick in 1995.

Oops.

I meant Ted Washington, who was acquired before the 2003 season for a 4th-rounder in '04.

I guess those Teds must look alike to me.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Burgess can be had for a 3rd or 4th....

The draft definitely isn't a sure thing, and you're right about the pick being closer to the 4th. But I guess it really depends on what you think Burgess is going to be. If you think he's the answer (or a large part of the answer) to the hole left by Vrabel, I guess you could justify the third. But I'm concerned about the recent string of injuries and age, and I also think we could get him for less.

As for this year's third round, if we're not talking about fits for the system and strictly on talent/potential, guys like Shonn Greene and Louis Vasquez are a few intriguing names. I'm not a fan of Michael Johnson, but he was a potential first-rounder who dropped, so there could be a value pick there.

And I liked the Pats' picks this year, Brandon Tate and Tyrone McKenzie (too bad about the injury). A guy like Patrick Turner probably won't be a star, but could have developed into a nice third receiver, especially behind Moss/Welker. I like Lardarius Webb and Derek Cox too, and there are several other guys who would have been projects or else could contribute right away, but don't necessarily have a lot of potential.

I hear you - round 3 presents great value, and I agree the Pats 2 third round picks in 09 will likely end up as contributors. But we have to balance short term and long term goals. Outside of the health of Brady, Moss, AD, etc. and other key players, the only thing potentially stopping the Pats from another SB run would be pass rush.

While I think we can get pass rush from our DL and from AD, adding Burgess would allow AD to play a more flexible and versatile role in the D, and allow BB to throw more packages out there. I agree the price - in theory - is too high, but in the practical sense, considering our needs, I would pull the trigger.

 

[BradyManny]

It's just too expensive for a rental.

We paid a 4th for Moss in 07, in what COULD have been a rental, and that was clearly worth it. Whether we would extend Burgess or not, a 3rd rounder would be worth it if it helped the team win a SB in 09.

 

[Deus Irae]

We paid a 4th for Moss in 07, in what COULD have been a rental, and that was clearly worth it. Whether we would extend Burgess or not, a 3rd rounder would be worth it if it helped the team win a SB in 09.

Moss is a far better player than Burgess and, as you pointed out, it was a 4th.

 

[primetime]

Re: Burgess can be had for a 3rd or 4th....

Oops.

I meant Ted Washington, who was acquired before the 2003 season for a 4th-rounder in '04.

I guess those Teds must look alike to me.

Haha, oh right. I was trying to think of who you were referring to but I was racking my brain thinking of Johnsons and not Teds.

 

[WelshPat]

"Moss is a far better player than Burgess and, as you pointed out, it was a 4th."

Ya but at the time a lot of people thought Moss was done, and he would have ended up being cut by Oakland anyway, he had just given up. His stock was as low as it could get.

Burgess may want out, but he's not so bad that him being on the team is actually hurting you, which is what Moss was like in Oakland. They had to let Moss go. They don't have to let Burgess go.

Moss ended up proving that he was still great, but ATT Moss was worth nothing, Oakland was gonna release him anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

"Moss is a far better player than Burgess and, as you pointed out, it was a 4th."

Ya but at the time a lot of people thought Moss was done, and he would have ended up being cut by Oakland anyway, he had just given up. His stock was as low as it could get.

Burgess may want out, but he's not so bad that him being on the team is actually hurting you, which is what Moss was like in Oakland. They had to let Moss go. They don't have to let Burgess go.

Moss ended up proving that he was still great, but ATT Moss was worth nothing, Oakland was gonna release him anyway.

I wasn't one who thought Moss was done. I can only opine on this based upon my perception of the involved value, because it's about my thought on the value of Burgess v. the draft picks.

 

[WelshPat]

"I wasn't one who thought Moss was done. I can only opine on this based upon my perception of the involved value, because it's about my thought on the value of Burgess v. the draft picks."

Im sure others in the league agreed with you, but with Moss's rep for being a cancer, only a few teams could take him. My point is Moss had no value back when the Pats traded for him. Oakland had no leverage.

Burgess dosen't have quite the same rep and has proven ability, so Oakland can hold out for more.

 

[Deus Irae]

"I wasn't one who thought Moss was done. I can only opine on this based upon my perception of the involved value, because it's about my thought on the value of Burgess v. the draft picks."

Im sure others in the league agreed with you, but with Moss's rep for being a cancer, only a few teams could take him. My point is Moss had no value back when the Pats traded for him. Oakland had no leverage.

Burgess dosen't have quite the same rep and has proven ability, so Oakland can hold out for more.

Oakland can hold out for 34 first round picks for all I care. I wouldn't give up a 3rd for Burgess, and that is the scenario posed.

Now, to be fair, I say that blindly, in that I'm not seeing what the Woods/TBC/etc... crew is looking like every day, the way BB is. If BB gives up a 3rd, I'll consider it too much, but I'll understand that he's had a different perspective on the situation.