The Burgess deal

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    In Response to The Burgess deal:
    After seeing how strong this year's draft was, and what kind of players were available even at the 3rd and 5th rounds, one has to again question the trade for Burgess, a DE who has never played OLB in a 3-4, who is in the last year of his contract, for a 3rd and 5th rounder. ....
    Posted by murghkhor


    Good hindsight, but at the time of the Burgess trade, they were somewhat desperate for somebody, anybody who could pressure the pocket.  So they took  a chance and paid a higher than normal price.  Besides, how many draft choices do you want?  They picked 12 players as it is, and no way they have that many open roster spots.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    I think it points out how difficult it is to find good 3-4 OLBs.  Most teams are trying to convert undersized DEs to OLBs and some can play in space and others can't.  I think Burgess was getting better at LB by year end and I won't be surprised if he's back this year and maybe even playing well at the position on a regular basis. 

    The real front office mistake, though, was trading our 26th pick in the first round to Green Bay so the Packers could draft Clay Matthews.  That one really bugs me.  Matthews was a LB at USC who sometimes played DE . . . so you knew he could play the position.  Why did we pass on him?  He was a pro bowler in his first season with 10 sacks.  I guess the Pats had some reason not to like him--and maybe he wouldn't be good in our system--but Dom Capers (what happened to him when he was with the Pats?) and Mike McCarthy saw the talent.  I wonder, sometimes, if BB is looking for too much from his OLBs.  Perfection is hard to find . . . sometimes it makes more sense to settle for good.  It seems like BB is willing to take a chance on a guy like Burgess (who never played the position) to see if he turns out to be "perfect" rather than taking someone like Matthews who may have flaws but at least has played the position.  Similarly, I wonder if he tried to make Adalius Thomas do too much.  Maybe if he just let AD rush the passer that whole deal would have worked out . . .

    Not everyone is Mike Vrabel . . .


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1021us. Show m1021us's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    In Response to Re: The Burgess deal:
    I think it points out how difficult it is to find good 3-4 OLBs.  Most teams are trying to convert undersized DEs to OLBs and some can play in space and others can't.  I think Burgess was getting better at LB by year end and I won't be surprised if he's back this year and maybe even playing well at the position on a regular basis.  The real front office mistake, though, was trading our 26th pick in the first round to Green Bay so the Packers could draft Clay Matthews.  That one really bugs me.  Matthews was a LB at USC who sometimes played DE . . . so you knew he could play the position.  Why did we pass on him?  He was a pro bowler in his first season with 10 sacks.  I guess the Pats had some reason not to like him--and maybe he wouldn't be good in our system--but Dom Capers (what happened to him when he was with the Pats?) and Mike McCarthy saw the talent.  I wonder, sometimes, if BB is looking for too much from his OLBs.  Perfection is hard to find . . . sometimes it makes more sense to settle for good.  It seems like BB is willing to take a chance on a guy like Burgess (who never played the position) to see if he turns out to be "perfect" rather than taking someone like Matthews who may have flaws but at least has played the position.  Similarly, I wonder if he tried to make Adalius Thomas do too much.  Maybe if he just let AD rush the passer that whole deal would have worked out . . . Not everyone is Mike Vrabel . . .
    Posted by prolate0spheroid



    I agree....
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    Burgess was improving by years end and if he is available and the Patriots have a need there by mid training camp I could see him coming back but I have been thinking about Cunningham and body wise and speed /strength wise he might turn out to be a good fit.
    Question is how long does it take him to get comfortable in the elephant position.  I expect there will be a OLB/DE  or two available in this second period of free agancy as it moves along.
    I am certain of only one thing the roster will change by as many as 5 players by the time it is set from what I started this post off with. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BrooklineRob. Show BrooklineRob's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    Did you notice that the Pats got back into the 3rd and 5th rounds by trading back in the earlier rounds?  If anyone can overpay (and they did for Burgess) it's the Patriots because they have a knack for accumulating draft picks. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    In Response to Re: The Burgess deal:
    The Pats did not draft Clay Matthews because they felt he was too small to set the edge against the run i.e. he would only be a 3rd down pass rusher and they feel if you draft someone in the 1st round it better be a 3 down player. Matthews is like a Tully Banta-Cain, he may get sacks but that is it.
    Posted by grammbo14


    He's 6'3" 250 lbs, which isn't bad for an OLB, and he's a three-down player for the Packers. He's gotten 10 sacks, but also had 51 total tackles, a forced fumble, and 7 passes defended. Those are excellent stats for a rookie OLB.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Supernova13. Show Supernova13's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    Burgess came on strong at the end of the year. I am hoping they can resign him to a 1 or 2 year deal. Now that he understands the defense and is used to playing OLB, he could be effective. If you project his stats from the last 4 regular season games to a full year they are 72 tackles and 12 sacks. Those are some great numbers.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    My take on the Burgess deal (and my timeline might be off) was the Pats were strung along by Jason Taylor and thought they would sign him, then when that fell through they were desperate to get an OLB to fill the slot and there weren't many options so they overpaid.  Add to that that Crable once again got injured and AD once again couldn't play and the fact that the Seymour deal was simply too good to give up on and it made for a weak area.  In the end it's still BB fault for not planning, but sometimes stuff just happens.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriots44. Show patriots44's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    In Response to Re: The Burgess deal:
    In Response to Re: The Burgess deal : He's 6'3" 250 lbs, which isn't bad for an OLB, and he's a three-down player for the Packers. He's gotten 10 sacks, but also had 51 total tackles, a forced fumble, and 7 passes defended. Those are excellent stats for a rookie OLB.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid
    He is closer to weighing 240. Most of that weight came from Steroids while at USC. The guy was about 180 coming in to college as a walk on.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    1st I hope we resign Burgess.
    2nd if we were to go back I would want to sign Oher so that he and Sea Bass would be our bookends for the next decade or more.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    Going back I was surprised that the Pats passed on Oher.  But that was the only surprise.  When Maualuga started dropping and the Pats passed on him a 2nd time I knew something was up with the kid.  My only wonder is how far he would have dropped if Cincinati didn't pick him up.  Teams like Detriot, KC and StLouis passed on him in the beginning of the 2nd round.  That said a lot.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: The Burgess deal

    I *really* don't like Burgess.  If he sees the field again, we're in for another year of underwhelming OLB play with minimal pass rush from him.  He's too small to set the edge and bull rush and he's too slow to speed rush.  He doesn't have the handwork to shed and every time he spins he's put on his a*s*s.

    Say NO to one-move Burgess.
     

Share