Patriots sign Derrick Burgess

eagle eye

We picked up Burgess for undisclosed draft considerations. This is great, I can imagine that Raiders fans are not too happy. This adds depth at the one area of most concern in the Patriots defense which is OLB. We have a new secondary which I'm hoping is pretty decent but I think we are now all set for a serious run at the SB again.
http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=38215&pcid=47

Reading on profootballtalk that Michael Lombardi says we gave up a 3rd and a 5th in 2011 for this.

Chucky the tree

It was for a 2010 3rd and 5th rounder. Delighted with that and delighted we're rid of him, he's been far to injury prone and hasn't been good since 06. I think he would of struggled to get ahead of Scott and ellis anyway, the fact he's useless against the run never helped are situation.

eagle eye

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It was for a 2010 3rd and 5th rounder. Delighted with that and delighted we're rid of him, he's been far to injury prone and hasn't been good since 06. I think he would of struggled to get ahead of Scott and ellis anyway, the fact he's useless against the run never helped are situation.

Just to clear that up, its a 3rd rounder in 2010 and a 5th in 2011. We didn't have a 5th to give away next year.

Max Power1

Great pick up for the pats - he'll probably thrive in the belichick defense!

heyjude

eagle eye wrote: »

We picked up Burgess for undisclosed draft considerations. This is great, I can imagine that Raiders fans are not too happy.

On the contrary, this Raider fan is very happy, as Burgess has been very injury prone for the past two seasons(I think he only played in 5-6 games last year), he hasn't seemed motivated, he was holding out for an improved contract(or wanted out of Oakland no matter what they offered), he was unlikely to be starter this season and was developing into a locker room cancer. Freeing up a roster spot, not having to offer an improved contract and getting two draft picks for a backup player seems like a good deal(providing the draft picks work out :rolleyes:)

eagle eye wrote: »

Reading on profootballtalk that Michael Lombardi says we gave up a 3rd and a 5th in 2011 for this.

The deal could be even sweeter than this, its reported on http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2009/08/06/burgess-nets-probably-a-third-and-a-fifth/#comments that "As it stands, the Raiders get a third and a fourth round draft pick in 2010. The Patriots, however, wanted to give Oakland a third and a fifth. Problem is, they don’t currently have a fifth-round draft pick. So it was stipulated that if New England acquired a fifth-round pick from someone else, that pick would be dealt to Oakland.

So expect the Patriots to acquire a fifth-round pick from someone else so they can keep their selection in the fourth round."

So the Raiders could still end up with the Patriots 3rd and 4th round picks next year, if the Patriots can't manage to get a 5th round pick to give them. Either way it seems that both picks will be next year.

tallaghtoutlaws

heyjude wrote: »

So the Raiders could still end up with the Patriots 3rd and 4th round picks next year, if the Patriots can't manage to get a 5th round pick to give them. Either way it seems that both picks will be next year.

As a Pats fan that doesn't bother me. When have the Patriots ever had a normal draft where we didn't shuffle and trade picks all over the place? Take them Oakland be sure to spend them wisely.

Oh and we still have 3 2nd round picks dont we?

Edit Scefter has said this on his twitter: "I'm told Raiders got more than a third- and fourth-round pick, though nothing confirmed yet. Remember, Pats were scheduled to have 3 2's."

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As a Pats fan that doesn't bother me. When have the Patriots ever had a normal draft where we didn't shuffle and trade picks all over the place? Take them Oakland be sure to spend them wisely.

Oh and we still have 3 2nd round picks dont we?

Edit Scefter has said this on his twitter: "I'm told Raiders got more than a third- and fourth-round pick, though nothing confirmed yet. Remember, Pats were scheduled to have 3 2's."

Id be shocked if the Patriots gave up more than a 3rd and 4/5th.

There are v low odds of the Raiders keeping the Patriots 4th round pick, considering how much trading they do.

eagle eye

heyjude wrote: »

On the contrary, this Raider fan is very happy, as Burgess has been very injury prone for the past two seasons(I think he only played in 5-6 games last year), he hasn't seemed motivated, he was holding out for an improved contract(or wanted out of Oakland no matter what they offered), he was unlikely to be starter this season and was developing into a locker room cancer. Freeing up a roster spot, not having to offer an improved contract and getting two draft picks for a backup player seems like a good deal(providing the draft picks work out :rolleyes:)

Burgess played 10 games last year and that was his least productive year as a Raider, in fact the similarities with the Moss trade don't end there either. There is a real deja vu about this trade, Randy Moss was unhappy and talking about it for quite a while in Oakland just like Burgess and he missed a couple of games also in his final season there. Corey Dillon is another one that it reminds me of, he had his worst season with the Bengals the year before he joined the Pats.

This is what Belichick had to say on Burgess

“He primarily plays on the left side, very athletic guy, competitive, tough, a hard-working guy that I think has a good playing style,” said Belichick, noting that he coached Burgess in the 2006 Pro Bowl and prepared game-plans against him when facing Philadelphia and Oakland in recent years.

Belichick did not specify what Burgess’s role will be in the Patriots’ system, but he thinks Burgess is a “pretty talented player who has some versatility. … He’s had a lot of production. He’s not just a pass rusher. He’s a strong player. He’s not the biggest player, but he’s a very strong player for his size, plays with good balance, and I think he’s a good player in the running game.

“I think he can rush the passer. He’s had a lot of production. He’s primarily rushed off the left side. Normally you see more pass-rush production off the right side but he has been able to produce quite a bit from the left side. Those are some of the things that are unique to him. I’m not saying that’s exactly what is going to happen with us. I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see how all that turns out.”

Craig87

eagle eye wrote: »

We picked up Burgess for undisclosed draft considerations. This is great, I can imagine that Raiders fans are not too happy. This adds depth at the one area of most concern in the Patriots defense which is OLB. We have a new secondary which I'm hoping is pretty decent but I think we are now all set for a serious run at the SB again.
http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=38215&pcid=47

Reading on profootballtalk that Michael Lombardi says we gave up a 3rd and a 5th in 2011 for this.

Burgess is a DE not an LB. I no the Pats play 3-4 but asking him to step out as an OLB in the 3-4 is a big ask. Plus he had a horrible year last season only 3.5 sacks. Injuries have been a problem for him as well.

As far as OAK they will be happy to get him gone. He was holding out of training camp for a new contract and he was in his last year so OAK done what was best.

eagle eye

Craig87 wrote: »

Burgess is a DE not an LB. I no the Pats play 3-4 but asking him to step out as an OLB in the 3-4 is a big ask. Plus he had a horrible year last season only 3.5 sacks. Injuries have been a problem for him as well.

As far as OAK they will be happy to get him gone. He was holding out of training camp for a new contract and he was in his last year so OAK done what was best.

I'm sure you said the same about Moss when we took him. He was demanding a new contract or a trade, it wasn't specifically a new contract he was looking for. We just inherited his contract and he is playing for a new one now. Burgess played OLB with the Raiders for a short time when they used 3-4, but he clearly is more used to the outside of a 4-3 and that will come in handy for us too as I'd imagine we will use some bigger front line packages against wildcat teams. He will be great to have in audible situations where we threaten a 4 man front against the likes of Miami.
Moss, Dillon, Seau and Harrison were all in their 30's when they joined the Patriots. What makes you think it will be any different with Derrick Burgess?
I quoted what Bill Belichick had to say about him, and BB has been chasing him all summer. The rumours about a trade have been around since at least May.
I'm also interested to see how Andrew Walter does.

Craig87

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm sure you said the same about Moss when we took him. He was demanding a new contract or a trade, it wasn't specifically a new contract he was looking for. We just inherited his contract and he is playing for a new one now. Burgess played OLB with the Raiders for a short time when they used 3-4, but he clearly is more used to the outside of a 4-3 and that will come in handy for us too as I'd imagine we will use some bigger front line packages against wildcat teams. He will be great to have in audible situations where we threaten a 4 man front against the likes of Miami.
Moss, Dillon, Seau and Harrison were all in their 30's when they joined the Patriots. What makes you think it will be any different with Derrick Burgess?
I quoted what Bill Belichick had to say about him, and BB has been chasing him all summer. The rumours about a trade have been around since at least May.
I'm also interested to see how Andrew Walter does.

It was all about a new contract. He felt that he deserved more than the 2m he was due for this season. An since he is going to be 31 next week and is now becoming more injury prone he wanted more money as insurance just incase anything happened.

Yes Burgess is a loss, but he had not been to training camp in 9 days, the Raiders couldn't risk giving him big money for him to miss half a season or more again. Or even worse go for nothing in FA like he did to PHI.

Also the Raiders just signed Greg Ellis a former Cowboy so they have a readymade replacement for Burgess. A player with a better work ethic and with something to prove since Dallas released him.

The Moss trade was different there was no added porblems like that are with Burgess. Moss wasn't sitting out or demanding a raise or anything like that. The Moss trade was just Al Davis' stupidity and it worked out wonderful for the Pats and Burgess may, if he can stay fit. He no only has Preseason to get fit and learn a new defensive scheme, for anyone thats a tough ask.

eagle eye

Craig87 wrote: »

It was all about a new contract. He felt that he deserved more than the 2m he was due for this season.

But he still has the same contract, nothing has changed there.

Craig87

eagle eye wrote: »

But he still has the same contract, nothing has changed there.

Yes. So ask yourself why was he holding out on the Raiders. To force their hand. He wanted to get paid better to play for Raiders, but because he has a chance to win a Ring with the Pats he is happy to play for them its disgusting behavior from a professional athlete.

I know that OAK is a bit of a mess but still. He was clearly sitting out of training camp for a reason. He said he felt he deserved better pay, but that doesn't seem to bother him in NE. I guess Boston is a cheap city to live in.

Players and contract demands really annoy me. Like Michael Crabtree who is coming off a foot injury and has not caught a ball yet, including practice is demanding to be paid like a top 10 receiver. That is ludicrous. In doing so he has missed all of training camp and will more than likely eat into some of the preseason.

We all seen what happened with JaMarcus Russell. Missed training camp over contract demands then couldn't hack it when he did sign. Its pathetic.

eagle eye

Craig87 wrote: »

Yes. So ask yourself why was he holding out on the Raiders. To force their hand. He wanted to get paid better to play for Raiders, but because he has a chance to win a Ring with the Pats he is happy to play for them its disgusting behavior from a professional athlete.

He gets the chance to play at OLB with us, this opens up a whole different world for him and could add up to 5 years to his NFL career. And he might even get a ring as well. Its perfectly understandable imo.

Craig87

eagle eye wrote: »

He gets the chance to play at OLB with us, this opens up a whole different world for him and could add up to 5 years to his NFL career. And he might even get a ring as well. Its perfectly understandable imo.

I understand he reasoning to play for the Pats they will win ten more rings before the Raiders make the SB again but I just don't like the fact he sat out on OAK but is happy to play for the same money that wasn't good enough in OAK

Chucky the tree

I think he'll do well at NE but I delighted his ass is out of Oakland just how I was delighted we got rid of moss as well, and I'd never in a million years take Moss back either if I had a say in it. The main point people disagreed with you on EE was that us Raiders fans wouldn't be happy, which is definitely not the case.

Craig87

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I think he'll do well at NE but I delighted his ass is out of Oakland just how I was delighted we got rid of moss as well, and I'd never in a million years take Moss back either if I had a say in it. The main point people disagreed with you on EE was that us Raiders fans wouldn't be happy, which is definitely not the case.

Just like what happened in DAL with Pacman / Owen / Tank (even though I felt that tank was being well behaved.) teams would rather loss a player that is causing a disturbance than keep him as a distraction

eagle eye

Craig87 wrote: »

Just like what happened in DAL with Pacman / Owen / Tank (even though I felt that tank was being well behaved.) teams would rather loss a player that is causing a disturbance than keep him as a distraction

Just let me get this straight, you are comparing Derrick Burgess to TO, Tank Johnson and Pacman?

Are you crazy?

Craig87

eagle eye wrote: »

Just let me get this straight, you are comparing Derrick Burgess to TO, Tank Johnson and Pacman?

Are you crazy?

Im not saying that he is like them for theatrics or problems. But I was making that point that the Raiders felt that they would be better off without Burgess than with Burgess sitting on the side demanding a contract raise.