Derrick Burgess to New England? (1 Viewer)

[Adebisi]

Link

As first reported by ESPN and confirmed by Christopher Price of WEEI.com, the Patriots are interested in trading a 2010 draft pick to acquire Oakland Raiders pass rusher Derrick Burgess.

The purported deal the Patriots are considering would send either a second-round pick (New England has three in 2010) or a third-round pick to Oakland for Burgess, who is in the final season of a five-year deal he signed after leaving Philadelphia for Oakland as a free agent in 2005.

The 6-2, 260-pound Burgess, a two-time Pro Bowler, has played defensive end in his career, but would be a 3-4 outside linebacker for the Patriots, helping fill the void created when the team traded Mike Vrabel to Kansas City.

The 30-year-old Burgess, who carries a $2 million base salary for 2009, would be a relatively cheap option at outside linebacker and could boost New England's pass rush. In eight seasons, Burgess has collected 47 career sacks in 85 games. He led the NFL and set a Raiders record with 16 sacks in 2005 and followed that up with 11 sacks in 2006.

Injuries have slowed his production the last two seasons -- he had 8 sacks in 14 games in 2007 and 3.5 sacks in 10 games last season.

Reports out of the Bay Area have said Burgess is unhappy with his contract status. He attended the Raiders mini-camp earlier this month, but didn't practice due to stomach flu.

Burgess will turn 31 in August.

Raiders fans, does this guy have anything left? He's battled injuries the past couple of years, and he'd be transitioning from a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB. If he's unhappy with his contract situation, I'm not sure how a trade to New England would help remedy that, since the Pats have a number of their own players looking for new contracts, and they don't have a lot of room under their cap to give him a new deal.

But hey, it seemed to work out the last time we traded a pick to Oakland for a former Pro Bowler.

 

[Boston]

Whether it's Burgess or another defender with pass-rushing ability a deal like this makes sense. IMO the Pats biggest weakness last year was their pass-rush (followed closely by their secondary). They could not get off the field on third downs and if you don't have a pass-rush it doesn't matter who you have in the secondary. While the Pats have had a very productive offseason this area has yet to be addressed and I just don't see them not adding a veteran or two to compliment the kids (Crable, Woods, Redd).

 

[Jene Bramel]

Burgess was again productive last season in the few snaps he was healthy. It was a triceps problem, so the burst he was still showing last season may still be there. As a one-dimensional edge rusher on passing downs, he might be worth using one of the many 2010 second rounders the Pats have. Sure sounds like an overpayment, though.

 

[Adebisi]

I am so freaking' glad that the Patriots thought they didnt need to move up to take Larry English.

Even if they had known going into the draft that English would go 16th, I'm not sure they would have wanted to trade up to #15 get him.

 

[Gatorman]

Jason taylor resigning in Miami causes new england to give up one of its draft picks...Even better...

 

[LawFitz]

At least they can make the trade knowing Al will just F the pick up and draft some guy who is projected to go undrafted until he runs a fast forty.

Trading a pick to the Raiders is comparable to forfeiting the pick. Essentially you just have everyone in the league move up one slot.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'd give a 4th for Burgess.... tops.

I hope this is only speculation.

 

[-baller]

a second is crazy high for that guy.

I'd like to get him, but even a third would be a gift.

while he's at a 2m base, I think there's still some question of a 1.5m roster bonus, which I would imagine would complicate things, although if the pats DID take him, they might be able to cash out on him w/a comp pick.

I expect he'd be a one year rental.

 

[bostonfred]

If the Pats are interested , I'd expect it's to use him situationally, not as an every down player. Coming off an injury and going to a winning team where he will get on national TV during a contract year might do wonders both for his conditioning over the next few months, and his willingness to play through injury. Put those together, and I'm not as worried as some in this thread.

Trading a second rounder next year would essentially be the same as trading a third this year for Burgess, since the Pats traded two thirds this year for two seconds next year. That's not that bad considering the numbers he's put up when healthy. They can live without making the trade, but I think it makes them better this year, and it's at cheap money.

This is one of the last holes on the team. I say go for it.

 

[Adebisi]

Wow... interesting opinions here.

Burgess is 4 years younger than Taylor. Over the past 4 years, he's averaged 9.6 sacks per season compared to Taylor's 10, and has actually averaged more sacks per game (0.69) than Taylor (0.66), but that of course is because Burgess has played in fewer games due to injury (and to be fair, Taylor has always been fairly durable, while Burgess has not been). Based solely on assumption because I'm too lazy to do the research, I would assume that Burgess has done this while facing fewer passing downs than Taylor (given the teams that they've played on). Of course, there is also the fact that Taylor has experience in a 3-4, whereas Burgess does not.

And of course, if he had been available through trade rather than free agency, I'm sure most of you would not advocate giving up much more for Taylor than you would for Burgess at this point.

And finally, they have significantly different body types (Taylor is listed at 6'6, 255 whereas Burgess is listed at 6'2, 266).

All this being said, I think Burgess could potentially help the Pats quite a bit on defense this season. Assuming he could pass a physical, I think I'd probably give up a 3rd for him.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Trading a second rounder next year would essentially be the same as trading a third this year for Burgess, since the Pats traded two thirds this year for two seconds next year.

I can't get with this thinking.I'm aware the Pats hold multiple 2nd rounders in 2010,

but try to look at it this way....

Right now the Patriots own a 2010 2nd round pick.

If they trade away the pick for Burgess,

they will no longer own the 2nd round pick.

 

[-baller]

If the Pats are interested , I'd expect it's to use him situationally, not as an every down player. Coming off an injury and going to a winning team where he will get on national TV during a contract year might do wonders both for his conditioning over the next few months, and his willingness to play through injury. Put those together, and I'm not as worried as some in this thread.

oh yeah, he would be tremendously motivated.even if the superbowl means nothing to him, this next deal would probably be his last chance at a big money nfl deal, and it's in an uncapped year.I'd imagine he plays on a broken leg, if it came down to that, and crawls over for the sack.and if it makes anybody feel any better, I did a little google hunt on him the other day, and one of the comments said he was the kind of guy who always came into the year in shape.

 

[Adebisi]

Trading a second rounder next year would essentially be the same as trading a third this year for Burgess, since the Pats traded two thirds this year for two seconds next year.

I can't get with this thinking.I'm aware the Pats hold multiple 2nd rounders in 2010,

but try to look at it this way....

Right now the Patriots own a 2010 2nd round pick.

If they trade away the pick for Burgess,

they will no longer own the 2nd round pick.

I'm with you on this. It doesn't matter where the pick came from; it's still a 2nd rounder.

 

[massraider]

Burgess has injury concerns, but he is a great pass rusher. I am not sure about in a 3-4, but he can get to the QB. He is definitely one-dimensional, but there are few guys that can get to the QB from the left side as well as he can.

As to the compensation, at first glance, a 2nd rounder seems high to me as well, but the guy ain't old, and really, a team like the Pats, that seems to collect 2nd/3rd rounders, has the luxury of making that move. The Pats are deep, they are not in a rebuilding mode, and have a need at pass rush. If Burgess can help them with that for 2/3 years, with the rest of the team in their prime, he would be more than worth that.

When it comes to trading draft picks for vets, I definitely think picks are overrated.

 

[PrimUomo]

Anybody that is banking on an uncapped season is screwed. Not happening.

Burgess will produce. If he goes to the pays for a second it will be a equal deal. He may get injured but one or two downs out of 3 is not going to hurt them. They expect injury. If they can get a team to the playoffs with players that are good but injured a lot they will take it. And a second rounder to the pats is nothing. They would just trade back into the round if they wanted anyway.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Burgess will produce. If he goes to the pays for a second it will be a equal deal. He may get injured but one or two downs out of 3 is not going to hurt them. They expect injury. If they can get a team to the playoffs with players that are good but injured a lot they will take it. And a second rounder to the pats is nothing. They would just trade back into the round if they wanted anyway.

 

[Chadstroma]

I think this tells you how concerned the Patriots are about their pass rush. For a team that really looks for versatile players on D, Burgess seems like an odd fit considering he really is a one trick pony. Further, they would be asking him to change position. The only thing that fits is that he is a veteran and the Pat's love veterans on their D.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'm still scratching my head as to why BB

gave away Vrable as a throw in, in the Cassel deal.

 

[Adebisi]

I'm still scratching my head as to why BBgave away Vrable as a throw in, in the Cassel deal.

Scouts Inc. actually said that he may not have even made the final roster. I find that hard to believe, but at the risk of stating the obvious, I'm sure his declining play, coupled with his cap number, were the major considerations here.He'll always be one of my all-time favorite Patriots though.

 

[bostonfred]

I think this tells you how concerned the Patriots are about their pass rush. For a team that really looks for versatile players on D, Burgess seems like an odd fit considering he really is a one trick pony. Further, they would be asking him to change position. The only thing that fits is that he is a veteran and the Pat's love veterans on their D.

Do they look for versatile players? Sure. But the main reason he does that is so they can respond to opposing teams' situational packages. Belichick's MO isn't versatile players, it's to build defenses that negate the opponents' strength. If that means having versatile players to negate the depth of an opponent who has lots of specialists, then he likes versatile players. If that means having linebackers who can move around, drop back into coverage, or move up and play the run, then he likes linebackers. But if it means that he needs pass rushers, then he needs pass rushers, and right now he doesn't have many to work with.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'm still scratching my head as to why BBgave away Vrable as a throw in, in the Cassel deal.

If I were to play devil's advocate on that, and this is all just speculation, I'd say there's a possibility Belichick saw some declining production on a guy with a bad back at a position that everybody's already howling about. He wanted to get the younger guys in there, and he was also looking at an older player making a fair bit of money on a team right at the cap.In his cap rich trading partner, Pioli, Belichick had a way to get the guy his money and avoid the embarrassment of cutting him to save cap and transition to his younger players. Frankly, it doesn't look so great on the surface, but they may have been actually doing Vrabes a big favor.Edit re: Burgess.......I don't think this Burgess story really has any implications about any kind of Belichick concerns, as it's just a rumor right now, Oakland's been shopping this guy for months, and Belichick is always looking to improve the team at any position when opportunity arises. As far as I know, the guy HAS actually played 3-4 OLB for Oakland. At the very least, I'm sure the guy would be great on 3rd and longs, which seems to be what everybody's freaking out about.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'm still scratching my head as to why BBgave away Vrable as a throw in, in the Cassel deal.

If I were to play devil's advocate on that, and this is all just speculation, I'd say there's a possibility Belichick saw some declining production on a guy with a bad back at a position that everybody's already howling about. He wanted to get the younger guys in there, and he was also looking at an older player making a fair bit of money on a team right at the cap.In his cap rich trading partner, Pioli, Belichick had a way to get the guy his money and avoid the embarrassment of cutting him to save cap and transition to his younger players. Frankly, it doesn't look so great on the surface, but they may have been actually doing Vrabes a big favor.

This makes some sense.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

If I were to play devil's advocate on that, and this is all just speculation, I'd say there's a possibility Belichick saw some declining production on a guy with a bad back at a position that everybody's already howling about. He wanted to get the younger guys in there, and he was also looking at an older player making a fair bit of money on a team right at the cap.In his cap rich trading partner, Pioli, Belichick had a way to get the guy his money and avoid the embarrassment of cutting him to save cap and transition to his younger players. Frankly, it doesn't look so great on the surface, but they may have been actually doing Vrabes a big favor.

This makes some sense.

Yeah, I really don't want to be the conspiracy guy, but a lot of the time we don't see the real reasons and motivations for those little blurbs we see on the net, and if there was anybody in the league, besides Belichick, who might be inclined to give Vrabel a golden parachute, it'd be Pioli. It's also very possible KC has an actual role for the guy, and cap isn't an issue on that team.When you want to run a 3-4 I'd think Vrabel would be a great asset.

 

[Boston]

If I were to play devil's advocate on that, and this is all just speculation, I'd say there's a possibility Belichick saw some declining production on a guy with a bad back at a position that everybody's already howling about. He wanted to get the younger guys in there, and he was also looking at an older player making a fair bit of money on a team right at the cap.In his cap rich trading partner, Pioli, Belichick had a way to get the guy his money and avoid the embarrassment of cutting him to save cap and transition to his younger players. Frankly, it doesn't look so great on the surface, but they may have been actually doing Vrabes a big favor.

This makes some sense.

Yeah, I really don't want to be the conspiracy guy, but a lot of the time we don't see the real reasons and motivations for those little blurbs we see on the net, and if there was anybody in the league, besides Belichick, who might be inclined to give Vrabel a golden parachute, it'd be Pioli. It's also very possible KC has an actual role for the guy, and cap isn't an issue on that team.When you want to run a 3-4 I'd think Vrabel would be a great asset.

Pioli bringing in Vrabel is very similar to what the Pats did in 2001 when the team was a mess. They had success with veterans like Cox and Phifer as they helped stabilize the locker-room. I'm sure Pioli expects Vrabel's contributions off-the-field to be as important as on-the-field as he helps change the culture in KC. He was very much a leader with the Pats and with his strong personality I don't see that changing with the Chiefs.

 

[bostonfred]

Belichick's MO isn't versatile players,

Thats been widely accepted as his MO on defense for several years now. Funny that its only now that we hear something against this perception.

He is simply going against that stance because of the serious pass rush issue at hand.

And Burgess fits on the left side which makes all the other problems with the scenario melt away.

The team loved Rodney Harrison. What other position did he play? Was he especially good against the pass? If versatility were the only thing they were looking for in a player, then Harrison wasn't a great fit. Did you see Ted Washington dropping back into coverage much? There is definitely a group of guys that Belichick likes for their versatility. Guys like Adalius and Vrabel and Seymour and more. But that doesn't mean that "versatile" is the only trait he's looking for, or even a required trait for every player. It's just another desirable feature of a player. And so is the ability to rush the passer.

 

[Adebisi]

Belichick's MO isn't versatile players,

Thats been widely accepted as his MO on defense for several years now. Funny that its only now that we hear something against this perception.

He is simply going against that stance because of the serious pass rush issue at hand.

And Burgess fits on the left side which makes all the other problems with the scenario melt away.

Where has it been "accepted?" This board? Pretty sure that if history has taught us anything, it's that Belichick pretty much knows more than everyone here combined.

Moss won't work out in New England, Dillon won't work out in New England, the Pats overpaid for Welker, Bledsoe is a better QB than Brady, who is this Mankins guy, Brady is a system QB, Troy Brown at DB lol, why'd they take Seymour 6th overall, the Pats will regret letting Milloy go, Harrison is all done, blah blah blah blah blah...

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/0...-at-the-post-5/

The trade rumors about Oakland Raiders defensive end Derrick Burgess are real. So real, in fact, the Raiders asked the Patriots for their second-round pick this year, Sebastian Vollmer, and back-up quarterback Kevin O’Connell in exchange for Burgess. The Pats turned down that trade proposal, just as the Raiders have turned down a few of the Patriots’. New England remains interested in Burgess, but the prevailing thought in the NFL is that the Raiders will not trade him – they’re just making it seem that they’re making the effort. Burgess has made it clear to anyone who listens that he wants out.

LOLZ