Pats acquire DE/OLB Derrick Burgess for draft picks

[Brady_Moss]

We are now officially the NY Yankees of the NFL

 

[Rob0729]

We are now officially the NY Yankees of the NFL

The Redskins are the Yankees of the NFL. The Jets are closer to the Yankess of the NFL. The Pats are nothing like the Yankees. When was the last time the Pats went on spending spree to buy the top talent in the league.

The Pats are the Anti-Yankees. The Pats go after lower priced older veterans with a lot of wear on their tires and try to squeeze a year or two out of them. The Yankees overpay for the top talent in free agency.

 

[ScottieC]

We are now officially the NY Yankees of the NFL

Try and pay more attention, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And be careful about how you use the word "we".

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Try and pay more attention, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And be careful about how you use the word "we".

maybe he meant it as a way of saying we will win many more championships.

 

[Brady_Moss]

maybe he meant it as a way of saying we will win many more championships.

That's exactly what I meant...what I was basically saying was that we're lookin good with all of this star quality talent on the team....lol u guys are funny, once u see or hear Yankees, u explode

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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

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.

When I first saw the terms of the trade, I was a bit surprised. I thought Al would eventually cave in and we could get him for less. But the Eagles increased the price tag, and the 3rd (plus player) was a solid offer from what I've read.

If Crable was healthy, maybe we aren't as desperate to make this move, and try to coach him up and see how he can develop. Or if McKenzie didn't get hurt, he could have filled AD's spot, and we could let AD rush like Vrabel did. Or maybe we would have went after Burgess anyways.

Either way, it may have cost more than we wanted to pay, but it wasn't so expensive that it's going to seriously impact us in the future.

 

[ScottieC]

maybe he meant it as a way of saying we will win many more championships.

That would be a convenient out.

 

[ScottieC]

That's exactly what I meant...what I was basically saying was that we're lookin good with all of this star quality talent on the team....lol u guys are funny, once u see or hear Yankees, u explode

Never took it that way.

 

[RayClay]

That's exactly what I meant...what I was basically saying was that we're lookin good with all of this star quality talent on the team....lol u guys are funny, once u see or hear Yankees, u explode

Since we have a salary cap, why not use a team that did it with brains instead of buying it?

The Celtics of football would be a good goal.

*Yankees, sheesh*

 

[captain stone]

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.

Good post, and certainly food for thought. I'm looking forward to Thursday night now more than ever, though I'll be pleasantly surprised if Burgess plays much. How well he already fits, and how much Bill will adapt to maximize his skills, prob. won't be known by us until Opening Day, or the Bye.

 

[captain stone]

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

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?

I don't care about the other 31 FOs.

 

[LeonPowe]

Nobody in the NFL can be the Yankees because there is no salary cap in baseball. The Yankees can spend as much money as they want, and they do.

 

[captain stone]

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.

I wonder just what exactly those pre-draft terms were. Considering how many picks we had in this year's draft, I wish that Bill had used a couple of those instead of 2 from next year, when we dont have nearly as many of them.

 

[kas]

Something that I don't think has been brought up yet: FA implications

BB loves his vets and we've been very successful for the most part at plugging roster holes with proven vets.

There are particular rules regarding this FA period if no resolution is worked out with the CBA. I'm far from an expert so anyone please feel free to add/correct anything.

I believe the final four teams are restricted in that they can only sign a new FA from a different team for every player they use. Therefore, by trading for another expiring contract, BB is giving himself a little more leeway to grab a vet or two. A guy like Burgess could be even more valuable if he has a good year because he is the type of pass rusher who gets signed early in FA.

Would I have liked to give up a little less? Of course. However, we already have four earlier picks. Even if we parlay that into only 3 guys BB really likes, the roster is pretty stacked as it is. Just think about how many mid round picks/quality vets are populating the rosters of the BB coaching tree around the NFL...

Quality pass rusher for this year plugging the biggest hole on the roster
+
Ability to sign an extra FA next year (or re-sign Burgess himself)
=
Good deal IMO

 

[bostonia3333]

NYY hasn't won a world series in 9 years---if the Pats don't win a title for four more years, then you can make a case they are like the Yankees

 

[JoeSixPat]

We are now officially the NY Yankees of the NFL

Try and pay more attention, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And be careful about how you use the word "we".

In his defense I think his use of the term "we" is fine as I believe he meant "we" in referring to sports fans who actually think they know more than the front office

 

[ScottieC]

In his defense I think his use of the term "we" is fine as I believe he meant "we" in referring to sports fans who actually think they know more than the front office

Agreed - Unless you are making a boneheaded/stupid analogy about "Your" team. Then you should be careful how you use "we".

I'll give it to him that he might not have thought thru the statement or meant it another way - But it does not make my point any less relevant.

Feeling a little punchy today. Sorry.

 

[DaBruinz]

I wonder just what exactly those pre-draft terms were. Considering how many picks we had in this year's draft, I wish that Bill had used a couple of those instead of 2 from next year, when we dont have nearly as many of them.

The Pats currently have 7 draft picks for next year. 1st, three 2nds, 6th, and two 7ths. They could get their 4th back if they acquire a 5th prior to the draft.

Also, the Pats are looking at, potentially, another 2-3 compensatory picks. So, they could be looking at as many as 10-11 picks heading into the draft. Why are you complaining about that? OH.. That's right. Because you claim to be smarter than Belichick and be able to tell who can play in the Patriots system and play for Belichick without actually having interviewed them or studied game film with that person.

Please stop your INCESSANT WHINING about BBs drafting already. You're as clueless as Kiper, Schefter, et al when it comes to who will fit into the Pats system.

 

[DaBruinz]

Something that I don't think has been brought up yet: FA implications

BB loves his vets and we've been very successful for the most part at plugging roster holes with proven vets.

There are particular rules regarding this FA period if no resolution is worked out with the CBA. I'm far from an expert so anyone please feel free to add/correct anything.

I believe the final four teams are restricted in that they can only sign a new FA from a different team for every player they use. Therefore, by trading for another expiring contract, BB is giving himself a little more leeway to grab a vet or two. A guy like Burgess could be even more valuable if he has a good year because he is the type of pass rusher who gets signed early in FA.

Would I have liked to give up a little less? Of course. However, we already have four earlier picks. Even if we parlay that into only 3 guys BB really likes, the roster is pretty stacked as it is. Just think about how many mid round picks/quality vets are populating the rosters of the BB coaching tree around the NFL...

Quality pass rusher for this year plugging the biggest hole on the roster
+
Ability to sign an extra FA next year (or re-sign Burgess himself)
=
Good deal IMO

You are correct that, if a new CBA isn't in place by the start of free agency, there are new rules that will apply during free agency.

Collective Bargaining Agreement - Q & A - NFL - CBSSports.com Football

1) Players with Less than 6 accrued seasons, whose contracts have expired, will be considered Restricted Free Agents. Players with 6 or More accrued seasons will be unrestricted free agents

2) Teams will have the option of designating either a 2nd franchise player or 2nd transition player.

3)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]During the uncapped year, the eight clubs that make the divisional playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign Unrestricted Free Agents from other clubs. In general, the four clubs participating in the Championship Games are limited in the number of free agents that they may sign; the limit is determined by the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs. For the four clubs that lose in the Divisional playoffs, in addition to having the ability to sign free agents based on the number of their own free agents signing with other clubs, they may also sign players based on specific financial parameters. [/FONT]

4) There will be no salary cap for the 2010 season.

So, should the Pats win it all, they would only be allowed to sign players who were cut by other teams (what we fans call street free agents) or UFA equal to the players they've lost.

Basically, if the CBA isn't extended and the owners don't lock the players out, then the league is opening a Pandora's box that no one is going to like. And, honestly, it could lead to the league disintergrating as there are franchises like Buffalo, Jacksonville, San Diego, Arizona, Indianapolis, and possibly Carolina that won't be able to compete with the Redskins, Cowboys, Patriots and Raiders in terms of bankroll.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

I strongly disagree.

The value of the trade is inherently dependent on actual production. It's the thoughts of perceived value that we're discussing now which are actually worthless. Who cares about our predictions today? What really matters is what actually happens on the field.

The most ridiculous discussion I've been involved in was with a poster who believed the Patriots overpaid for Wes Welker because they threw in a 7th round pick. In other words, Wes Welker might be worth a 2nd round pick, but not a 2nd rounder and 7th rounder. And the poster continued to feel that way after Welker's first year with the Pats. Incredibly stupid, IMO. Hindsight says that Welker's production is easily worth a first rounder. Some are calling him possibly the best slot receiver of all time! Simply because everyone undervalued Welker doesn't mean that he's not worth a lot more than the Patriots paid. If teams had a crystal ball and could foresee Welker's production, there's no way the Dolphins wouldn't have tendered him higher and there's no way the Dolphins would have agreed to a trade with the Patriots at the bargain price they received.