PDA

View Full Version : Pats tade for Derrick Burgess


TitleTown088
08-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Patriots acquired OLB/DE Derrick Burgess from the Raiders in exchange for "undisclosed draft considerations."
The Raiders were believed to be asking for a third- and a fourth-rounder, but the price may have dropped with Burgess' holdout. The talented but injury-prone veteran fills the Pats' biggest defensive need as a pass rushing presence at weak outside linebacker. He'll likely replace Pierre Woods as the expected starter while giving the Pats' defense/special teams a fantasy boost.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Headlines.aspx?sport=NFL&hl=147360




And I can't spell Trade.

Bigburt63
08-06-2009, 05:03 PM
It had been rumored for a while now, but the chatter had dropped of recently. I'm glad this got done because even if he isn't the full time starter, our depth at OLB behind Thomas was ridiculously thin even counting the unproven guys.

ChezPower4
08-06-2009, 05:06 PM
Good pick up for the Pat's. The move also helps Burgess get out of a bad situation in Oakland. Burgess is still a very talented player.

TACKLE
08-06-2009, 05:07 PM
Nice pick up for the Pats. Burgess is still an effective linebacker and I think in can do well as an OLB/DE in a 3-4.

Paul
08-06-2009, 05:12 PM
I like it. Good move by the Pats as usual.

Wootylicous
08-06-2009, 05:31 PM
Freakin finally. Thank God.

Strongside
08-06-2009, 05:32 PM
Great move for the pats.... Again

619
08-06-2009, 05:43 PM
The trade details are as follows: third round pick in 2010 as well as a fifth rounder in 2011 in exchange for Burgess.

Honestly, I won't miss him, and I don't believe the team will either. He never held a very strong presence in the locker room according to what I've read. An unmotivated Burgess wouldn't produce much better this season than even an aging vet like Ellis or the promising sophomore Scott.

BlindSite
08-06-2009, 05:44 PM
That's not exactly a small trade 3rd rounder... for what 5 sacks?

Geo
08-06-2009, 05:47 PM
Leigh Bodden was meh, but signing Shawn Springs and drafting Darius Butler was super. And now this Burgess acquisition potentially makes the Patriots scary good. I'm worried about them as a Colts fan.

Yeah we said the same thing about Jason Taylor to the Redskins last year, but this is different. The Patriots offense can actually score, which allows a pass rusher to, you know, rush the passer.

bearsfan_51
08-06-2009, 05:47 PM
Good pick up for the Pat's.
Not to be a total grammar nazi, but how do you get a possessive out of this sentence?

Geo
08-06-2009, 05:49 PM
The Pat is the guy on the old logo. And the Patriots are his team. Hence, the Pat's.

lol

bearsfan_51
08-06-2009, 05:55 PM
That's not exactly a small trade 3rd rounder... for what 5 sacks?
It will very likely be a late 3rd rounder. Lets say pick #93. (This is a random # before I check)

From 2003-2007 the 93rd pick was:

2003: Chris Brown, runningback- Not a bad player. Had a 1,000 yard season but is now no longer with the team

2004: Keyaron Fox, linebacker- a decent backup player who has found a nitch in the league. No long with the Chiefs.

2005: Trai Essex, guard- still with the Steelers, but has only started four games in his career.

2006: Dominique Byrd, tight end- has done almost nothing in the league.

2007: Garrett Wolfe, runningback- basically a special teamer, although he is used sparingly in special packages.

So there you have it. 5 years and the best player is probably Chris Brown, who by any account is a very replaceable player.

We tend to get way too caught up in draft picks here. If the Pats can get 5-6 sacks for the next 2-3 years out of this deal they will have easily won.

RaiderNation
08-06-2009, 06:07 PM
Good trade for Oakland. Burgess is old, and gets hurt to often. He is horrible against the run and isnt on the field enough to rack up sacks. He was going to leave after this season any ways since he would be a F/A so we picked up 2 picks :D

bigbluedefense
08-06-2009, 06:12 PM
It will very likely be a late 3rd rounder. Lets say pick #93. (This is a random # before I check)

From 2003-2007 the 93rd pick was:

2003: Chris Brown, runningback- Not a bad player. Had a 1,000 yard season but is now no longer with the team

2004: Keyaron Fox, linebacker- a decent backup player who has found a nitch in the league. No long with the Chiefs.

2005: Trai Essex, guard- still with the Steelers, but has only started four games in his career.

2006: Dominique Byrd, tight end- has done almost nothing in the league.

2007: Garrett Wolfe, runningback- basically a special teamer, although he is used sparingly in special packages.

So there you have it. 5 years and the best player is probably Chris Brown, who by any account is a very replaceable player.

We tend to get way too caught up in draft picks here. If the Pats can get 5-6 sacks for the next 2-3 years out of this deal they will have easily won.

I remember the Garrett Wolfe pick. I loved him coming out as an experimental player, but I thought he'd be a 6th rounder. 5th rounder at best. That was a major reach right there.

NIN1984
08-06-2009, 06:15 PM
Yeah, I like the deal. Burgess had one year left on the contract and it seems like the coaching staff wants Trevor Scott on the field more but I would not be surprised if Burgess has a good season for the Patriots, if he can stay healthy.

BmoreBlackByrdz
08-06-2009, 06:16 PM
Wow, if Burgess can play anything like his first two seasons in Oakland, the Patriots will have made a great deal. I think this is a great trade for both teams.

bearsfan_51
08-06-2009, 06:18 PM
I remember the Garrett Wolfe pick. I loved him coming out as an experimental player, but I thought he'd be a 6th rounder. 5th rounder at best. That was a major reach right there.
In comparison to the previous picks before him, not really.

That's my point. I think you stop having reaches past the early 3rd round. If you want a guy in the late 3rd round you take him. 90% of them end up being backup players or out of the league anyway.

bigbluedefense
08-06-2009, 06:20 PM
In comparison to the previous picks before him, not really.

That's my point. I think you stop having reaches past the early 3rd round. If you want a guy in the late 3rd round you take him. 90% of them end up being backup players or out of the league anyway.

I always felt you build your stars in the 1st 2 rounds, and you build quality depth throughout the rest of the draft.

Every now and then you find a mid round gem.


I just much rather have youth than age. At least a young player can give you 6 years. You can't say the same with older players.

The Pats have proved time and time again though that FA can win you championships too.

MetSox17
08-06-2009, 06:22 PM
The worst part about this, is that i'm sure Derrick f'ing Burgess will end up getting like 8-10 sacks for them this year. Somehow, some way, they'll once again end up ripping the other team off.

Don Vito
08-06-2009, 07:26 PM
I've been waiting for this move for a looooong time. I really wanted us to get Burgess or Ellis and I'm very pleased with Burgess. We needed to add a veteran pass rusher badly and Burgess fits the bill for what we need, not to mention he's a former Reb!

Oakland to NE pipeline forming? Nnamdi Asomugha please?

Geo
08-06-2009, 07:31 PM
Per Adam Schefter on Twitter (http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter):

The two teams in on Burgess all along were the Eagles and Pats. Eagles were offering a 3rd-round pick and a player. Pats offer trumped it.

Thumper
08-06-2009, 07:34 PM
They payed a third (2010) and a fifth (2011) for him.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Update-Burgess-trade-details.html

The Eagles offered a third and a player but obviously the Patriots offer was better (although I wonder who the Eagles offered). (Per Adam Schefter's twitter) http://twitter.com/ADAM_SCHEFTER

Beans
08-06-2009, 07:40 PM
not a bad tade

bearsfan_51
08-06-2009, 07:43 PM
That must have been a pretty awful player to not be worth a 5th rounder in 2011, especially considering the Pats are at least slightly favored to be better than the Eagles next year.

This isn't the first time it seems like the Raiders have given preferential treatment to the Pats. Maybe it's love.

Nalej
08-06-2009, 08:50 PM
Friggin' sweat.

Bigburt63
08-06-2009, 08:59 PM
Not to mention, the Pats have 3 2nd round picks next year, so losing a 3rd round pick isn't the end of the world.

Nalej
08-06-2009, 09:00 PM
Yup, I thought about that as well.
We'll probably trade one of 'em and get back into the 3rd or some crazy **** as usual

Shane P. Hallam
08-06-2009, 11:16 PM
The deal is AT LEAST a 3rd and a 4th rounder, may be more, FYI.

http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter/status/3169915799

GB12
08-06-2009, 11:32 PM
That's my point. I think you stop having reaches past the early 3rd round. If you want a guy in the late 3rd round you take him. 90% of them end up being backup players or out of the league anyway.
I don't agree with that. Last year the Packers had 11/22 starters drafted in the 4th round or later. I'm sure a lot of other teams come close to that.

CC.SD
08-06-2009, 11:36 PM
Why would the Raiders even talk to the Pats after the Randy Moss trade?

http://popcornmuscles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/al-davis1.png

Oh yeah, ugh.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
08-06-2009, 11:40 PM
Al is deffinately stickin it to everybody sayin he cant build a successful franchise anymore...

insane...

RaiderNation
08-06-2009, 11:40 PM
There was some talk about doing a Burgess for Vince Wilfolk trade a few monthes ago. We would probably add a late round pick on to that. Both players wanted new deals, and their teams seem like they wont do it. If we somehow get Wilfolk in the trade I will **** my pants

Staubach12
08-07-2009, 01:06 AM
Crappy move by the Raiders. They'll end up drafting some 90 lb track star with that pick.

kmartin575
08-07-2009, 01:47 AM
The trade details are as follows: third round pick in 2010 as well as a fifth rounder in 2011 in exchange for Burgess.

Honestly, I won't miss him, and I don't believe the team will either. He never held a very strong presence in the locker room according to what I've read. An unmotivated Burgess wouldn't produce much better this season than even an aging vet like Ellis or the promising sophomore Scott.

Just like Moss, I have a feeling that will change once he gets out of the crap hole known as Oakland.

kmartin575
08-07-2009, 01:49 AM
Good trade for Oakland. Burgess is old, and gets hurt to often. He is horrible against the run and isnt on the field enough to rack up sacks. He was going to leave after this season any ways since he would be a F/A so we picked up 2 picks :D

The Raiders suck in the draft so it's not like the pick will help. It's like the 4th round pick you got out of Randy Moss. You turned it into John Bowie. Yeah, great pickup there.

kmartin575
08-07-2009, 01:52 AM
There was some talk about doing a Burgess for Vince Wilfolk trade a few monthes ago. We would probably add a late round pick on to that. Both players wanted new deals, and their teams seem like they wont do it. If we somehow get Wilfolk in the trade I will **** my pants

Trading a young star, one of the best nose tackles in the NFL, for a past his prime defensive end that was never that great to begin with? Yeah, I'm sure that will work out.

EricCartmann
08-07-2009, 02:24 AM
This was a good tade for the Raiders who wanted to release him anyways (but could not).

Pat picked up an aging player who will do nothing.

bearsfan_51
08-07-2009, 02:49 AM
I don't agree with that. Last year the Packers had 11/22 starters drafted in the 4th round or later. I'm sure a lot of other teams come close to that.
Oh, so if the Packers do it then it must apply to the entire league.

Also, the Packers actually prove my point that there is no such thing as a reach past the high 3rd, because they draft obscure people that seem like reaches all the time.

If you read what I said, I didn't say the picks don't matter, I said because they increasingly don't pan out past the high 3rd (and they don't, that's just a fact) I give teams a lot more slack in terms of perceived value to relative drafting position.

923julia
08-07-2009, 03:20 AM
Really ?
But do you like this one ?

http://www.madnike.com

Matthew Jones
08-07-2009, 09:31 AM
Leigh Bodden was meh, but signing Shawn Springs and drafting Darius Butler was super. And now this Burgess acquisition potentially makes the Patriots scary good. I'm worried about them as a Colts fan.

Yeah we said the same thing about Jason Taylor to the Redskins last year, but this is different. The Patriots offense can actually score, which allows a pass rusher to, you know, rush the passer.

So far it's looking like Bodden is going to be the #1 CB. Springs hasn't really been practicing and he might end up as low as #4. I like Burgess for about 6-7 sacks this year, hopefully.

Stash
08-07-2009, 02:50 PM
On one hand I'm glad we got rid of Burgess, he's getting old and wasn't going to be around much longer. On the other hand, did we have to trade him to the Pats? I have a feeling that he's gonna tear it up in NE and we once again helped the Pats become an even stronger force.

TACKLE
08-07-2009, 02:54 PM
There was some talk about doing a Burgess for Vince Wilfolk trade a few monthes ago. We would probably add a late round pick on to that. Both players wanted new deals, and their teams seem like they wont do it. If we somehow get Wilfolk in the trade I will **** my pants

Wilfork will get his deal. Right now he's just severly underpaid. He has a base salry of 800k a year and up to 2.2 million with insentives. That is far too low for one of the best DT's in the league and the best player on the Patriots defense.

FlyingElvis
08-07-2009, 03:13 PM
That's not exactly a small trade 3rd rounder... for what 5 sacks?

This was a good tade for the Raiders who wanted to release him anyways (but could not).

Pat picked up an aging player who will do nothing.

Quoted for later use . . .

Gauging a player based on their performance in Oakland seems unfair. lol

EricCartmann
08-07-2009, 09:25 PM
Quoted for later use . . .

Gauging a player based on their performance in Oakland seems unfair. lol

don't forget to take a picture.

Geo
08-07-2009, 10:30 PM
Crappy move by the Raiders. They'll end up drafting some 90 lb track star with that pick.
I really like this move by the Raiders, thanks to them signing Greg Ellis a few weeks ago.

In a way, they turned Derrick Burgess on the last year of his contract and griping about that (including no-showing to practices) into Greg Ellis and two draft picks.

Now granted, Ellis (33) is almost exactly three years older (two or three days difference), but he's been healthier the last two years and can be a very effective DE/pass rusher still.

d34ng3l021
08-07-2009, 10:42 PM
Its not as if the Raiders will make use of the draft picks...I feel as if I can make better decisions than the Raiders during draft time.

LizardState
08-09-2009, 09:35 AM
That's not exactly a small trade 3rd rounder... for what 5 sacks?

That's recently, 3 yrs ago he led the league in sacks for an entire yr. & got a big raise out of Al Davis for it, something that's remarkable when you consider they were the most cash-strapped team in the NFL at the time. He was an "every down" DE for the Raiders too, not a situational guy. He was one of the cornerstones of that very good unsung Raider defense built up by Rex Ryan when their offense was dead last in the league & the front office was in complete chaos & anarchy, that defense was solidified with drafting Kirk Morrison & Asomugha the same yr I think as acquiring Burgess as a FA from the Giants.

No mistake, Burgess was a real deal defensive star for the down franchise with Oakland, that's why I was taken aback that NE got him so comparatively cheap. Moving him to OLB was a mistake & that's one the Raiders consistently make, always tweaking something that's not broken but they fix it & break it worse -- see another DE converted to OLB there, Tyler Brayton, pretty much ruined him.

A 3rd & a 5th in 2 yrs. is a steal for this player despite his dropoff in production lately, & yeah I know it's the NFL & it's all about what have you done for me lately for these millions I'm paying you kind of league, but the Pats as usual got another lapsed superstar at bargain basement rates whose career they will revive in NE, that's their rep now. Say didn't that used to be the Raiders rep, rejuvenated careers? How's that been working for the Just Win, Baby team lately? IMO this is the Raiders loss & as usual Bellichick's gain.

If the Raiders are still the team where players go to resurrect their careers, let's see what they do with Greg Ellis in that same converted DE to OLB position.

Prowler
08-09-2009, 10:10 AM
he'll be good for the patriots. 8+ sacks

bernbabybern820
08-09-2009, 10:35 AM
That's recently, 3 yrs ago he led the league in sacks for an entire yr. & got a big raise out of Al Davis for it, something that's remarkable when you consider they were the most cash-strapped team in the NFL at the time. He was an "every down" DE for the Raiders too, not a situational guy. He was one of the cornerstones of that very good unsung Raider defense built up by Rex Ryan when their offense was dead last in the league & the front office was in complete chaos & anarchy, that defense was solidified with drafting Kirk Morrison & Asomugha the same yr I think as acquiring Burgess as a FA from the Giants.

No mistake, Burgess was a real deal defensive star for the down franchise with Oakland, that's why I was taken aback that NE got him so comparatively cheap. Moving him to OLB was a mistake & that's one the Raiders consistently make, always tweaking something that's not broken but they fix it & break it worse -- see another DE converted to OLB there, Tyler Brayton, pretty much ruined him.

A 3rd & a 5th in 2 yrs. is a steal for this player despite his dropoff in production lately, & yeah I know it's the NFL & it's all about what have you done for me lately for these millions I'm paying you kind of league, but the Pats as usual got another lapsed superstar at bargain basement rates whose career they will revive in NE, that's their rep now. Say didn't that used to be the Raiders rep, rejuvenated careers? How's that been working for the Just Win, Baby team lately? IMO this is the Raiders loss & as usual Bellichick's gain.

If the Raiders are still the team where players go to resurrect their careers, let's see what they do with Greg Ellis in that same converted DE to OLB position.

Raiders have never moved Burgess to the OLB position other than for a week at camp just to test it out and just because Burgess was out there as an every down DE doesn't mean he was strong against the run.

Xonraider
08-09-2009, 11:08 AM
That's recently, 3 yrs ago he led the league in sacks for an entire yr. & got a big raise out of Al Davis for it, something that's remarkable when you consider they were the most cash-strapped team in the NFL at the time. He was an "every down" DE for the Raiders too, not a situational guy. He was one of the cornerstones of that very good unsung Raider defense built up by Rex Ryan when their offense was dead last in the league & the front office was in complete chaos & anarchy, that defense was solidified with drafting Kirk Morrison & Asomugha the same yr I think as acquiring Burgess as a FA from the Giants.

No mistake, Burgess was a real deal defensive star for the down franchise with Oakland, that's why I was taken aback that NE got him so comparatively cheap. Moving him to OLB was a mistake & that's one the Raiders consistently make, always tweaking something that's not broken but they fix it & break it worse -- see another DE converted to OLB there, Tyler Brayton, pretty much ruined him.

A 3rd & a 5th in 2 yrs. is a steal for this player despite his dropoff in production lately, & yeah I know it's the NFL & it's all about what have you done for me lately for these millions I'm paying you kind of league, but the Pats as usual got another lapsed superstar at bargain basement rates whose career they will revive in NE, that's their rep now. Say didn't that used to be the Raiders rep, rejuvenated careers? How's that been working for the Just Win, Baby team lately? IMO this is the Raiders loss & as usual Bellichick's gain.

If the Raiders are still the team where players go to resurrect their careers, let's see what they do with Greg Ellis in that same converted DE to OLB position.

This post is full of ****.

Derrick Burgess did lead the league in sacks in 2005, but Simeon Rice was 3rd and Shaun Alexander lead the league in running that year, would you take any of those in your team? Didn't think so... so many things can change since 2005 that it's stupid to use that argument.

Yes, Burgess was an every down Defensive end, only because we didn't have anyone else to play there. He was terrible against the run... just terrible. Btw Nnamdi was drafted 2003, Kirk in 2005 and Burgess was acquired from the Eagles, not the Giants. And our defensive coordinator was Rob Ryan not Rex Ryan

Also, what are you talking about? Derrick Burgess always played DE, he was never an outside linebacker so please do some research before posting out of your ass.

Gay Ork Wang
08-09-2009, 11:11 AM
but besides those arguments, he almost has a point!

Komp
08-09-2009, 11:30 PM
An interesting fact is that even without a healthy Burgess Oakland had more sacks (32) than NE (31) last year. Is there any particular reason (ancient LB's) why NE can't seem to rush the QB like they used to? Or were the Patriots sack numbers inflated before this due to the fact that were almost perpetually ahead in games, leading to an increase in passing plays by opposing teams?

RaiderFan
08-10-2009, 08:46 AM
That's recently, 3 yrs ago he led the league in sacks for an entire yr. & got a big raise out of Al Davis for it, something that's remarkable when you consider they were the most cash-strapped team in the NFL at the time. He was an "every down" DE for the Raiders too, not a situational guy. He was one of the cornerstones of that very good unsung Raider defense built up by Rex Ryan when their offense was dead last in the league & the front office was in complete chaos & anarchy, that defense was solidified with drafting Kirk Morrison & Asomugha the same yr I think as acquiring Burgess as a FA from the Giants.

No mistake, Burgess was a real deal defensive star for the down franchise with Oakland, that's why I was taken aback that NE got him so comparatively cheap. Moving him to OLB was a mistake & that's one the Raiders consistently make, always tweaking something that's not broken but they fix it & break it worse -- see another DE converted to OLB there, Tyler Brayton, pretty much ruined him.

A 3rd & a 5th in 2 yrs. is a steal for this player despite his dropoff in production lately, & yeah I know it's the NFL & it's all about what have you done for me lately for these millions I'm paying you kind of league, but the Pats as usual got another lapsed superstar at bargain basement rates whose career they will revive in NE, that's their rep now. Say didn't that used to be the Raiders rep, rejuvenated careers? How's that been working for the Just Win, Baby team lately? IMO this is the Raiders loss & as usual Bellichick's gain.

If the Raiders are still the team where players go to resurrect their careers, let's see what they do with Greg Ellis in that same converted DE to OLB position.

This is the most amazingly ignorant post i've seen in a while.

Everydown DE? Wrong his best year was 2005 when he was only a situational pass rusher

Rex Ryan? lol Rex was never a Raider, and only Al Davis is responsible for any defense the Raiders have ever had.

Asomugha was drafted in 2002 long before Burgesss got there.

Burgess was traded from the eagles after he had numerous injuries in a short time period.

Moving him back to OLB? WTF are you talking about Burgess has always played RDE for us racing around slow right tackles.

Greg Ellis will be a DE with the Raiders not a OLB.


You post is so wrong and full of fail, do so ************* research.

Bigburt63
08-10-2009, 10:45 AM
An interesting fact is that even without a healthy Burgess Oakland had more sacks (32) than NE (31) last year. Is there any particular reason (ancient LB's) why NE can't seem to rush the QB like they used to? Or were the Patriots sack numbers inflated before this due to the fact that were almost perpetually ahead in games, leading to an increase in passing plays by opposing teams?

That is half true. In 2007, the sack stats were inflated some because we were up big most of the year, but we were never THAT dominant for almost 3/4 of a season like that ever before. It's a combination of injuries and getting long in the tooth at OLB. Once Thomas went down, we had to bring in some old guys (Colvin) and we also lost some depth when guys like Pierre Woods (who isn't great, but isn't signing FA bad), forcing even lesser players into more playing time. Not to mention Seymour missed time.

Either way, I like the signing as it won't have guys like Crable, Woods etc. playing full-time roles when they aren't ready yet.

RaiderNation
08-10-2009, 11:29 AM
Saying Derrick Burgess is a every down DE and one of the best in the league is a bunch of BS. He had 2 good years with us. Thats it. He was average/hurt all other years. It was good for us to get rid of him, since he was going leave anyway after this season and we have a bunch of young DE's that have some potenial. We have Greg Ellis who is a vet thats out to prove something to Dallas and have Trevor Scott(tied for most sacks for a rookie last year) bulking up 15lbs, Jay Richardson who is mostly a run support DE but has shown flashes of getting to the QB and Matt Shaughnessy who we drafted this year in the 3rd.

LizardState
08-11-2009, 11:34 PM
And here I thought I was defending the quality of this player by saying the Pats got him cheap. They sure moved Tyler Brayton around & ruined him. So they did not move Burgess -- maybe that's what an every down guy means. Their confusion was evident in all aspects of Raider FB, & when the team was in the 4-3, or was it the 3-4 that yr? I don't know Raiders defense you were watching but I saw Burgess out there a lot, RDE, LDE, wherever.

And Ellis was converted from a DE, which is what he was when Dallas drafted him, to an OLB while still a Cowboy, that's what I meant, I guess I have to overqualify everything for Raider fans.

They did build up a good but not great defense that was in chaos before he got there, Burgess undeniably made it better. it was the only p/o the entire team that was noticeably good. I said "I think" as a preface b/c I knew it would bring out the Raider trolls with rcd. books in their laps. I also said I think b/c I'm too lazy to look up exactly when who drafted who or who was there when, the Raiders had this revolving door with personnel, kind of like their coaching staff. But when you lead the league in sacks, they say you're good, & Burgess was good on a very very bad team, that's indisputable.

But keep nitpicking away if it's that important. And WTF do Shaun Alexander or Simeon Rice have to do with it? geez, want them on my team? This thread isn't about fantasy fb.

HellonEarth84
08-12-2009, 01:14 AM
Hopefully he helps the Pats rush

Gay Ork Wang
08-12-2009, 04:24 AM
the point was, that 3 years ago is a long time. That he led the league in sacks that year has nothing to say about his skill set now. But nice reading comprehension

Xonraider
08-12-2009, 07:48 PM
And here I thought I was defending the quality of this player by saying the Pats got him cheap. They sure moved Tyler Brayton around & ruined him. So they did not move Burgess -- maybe that's what an every down guy means. Their confusion was evident in all aspects of Raider FB, & when the team was in the 4-3, or was it the 3-4 that yr? I don't know Raiders defense you were watching but I saw Burgess out there a lot, RDE, LDE, wherever.

And Ellis was converted from a DE, which is what he was when Dallas drafted him, to an OLB while still a Cowboy, that's what I meant, I guess I have to overqualify everything for Raider fans.

They did build up a good but not great defense that was in chaos before he got there, Burgess undeniably made it better. it was the only p/o the entire team that was noticeably good. I said "I think" as a preface b/c I knew it would bring out the Raider trolls with rcd. books in their laps. I also said I think b/c I'm too lazy to look up exactly when who drafted who or who was there when, the Raiders had this revolving door with personnel, kind of like their coaching staff. But when you lead the league in sacks, they say you're good, & Burgess was good on a very very bad team, that's indisputable.

But keep nitpicking away if it's that important. And WTF do Shaun Alexander or Simeon Rice have to do with it? geez, want them on my team? This thread isn't about fantasy fb.

Brayton was moved because Rob Ryan came in and wanted to run the 3-4... Tyler Brayton was CLEARLY NOT A 3-4 DE, his best shot was being an OLB. And Ellis was only playing as an OLB because of the 3-4 defense, he is a 4-3 defensive end... I guess I had to explain that to you too.

the point was, that 3 years ago is a long time. That he led the league in sacks that year has nothing to say about his skill set now. But nice reading comprehension

Yeah for Christ's sake.

RaiderNation
05-28-2010, 12:27 AM
Lol I loved reading how this trade was won by the Patriots by some posters on here and the Raiders pretty much gave them a good player. 5 sacks for a 3rd and 5th rounder? I love it. We ended up with OLB Kamerion Wimbley from the Browns through a trade with the 3rd round and with the 5th was used to move up to draft WR/KR Jacoby Ford. 2 young players with some potential for a old pass rusher I love.

Yes I know this is totally random but just wanted to point out we actually won one trade with the Patriots so far lol

GB12
05-28-2010, 12:33 AM
We'll see how funny you think this is when the Patriots have your 9th overall pick next year.

Jvig43
05-28-2010, 12:46 AM
We'll see how funny you think this is when the Patriots have your 9th overall pick next year.

I want to sig quote this.

RaiderNation
05-28-2010, 12:49 AM
I need to make a bet with somebody on here that we wont have a top 10 pick.

CC.SD
05-28-2010, 12:58 AM
I need to make a bet with somebody on here that we wont have a top 10 pick.

It is traded away already so of course not.

J255979-11nine
05-28-2010, 04:25 AM
It is traded away already so of course not.

Technical logic victory!!!!

descendency
05-28-2010, 10:26 AM
Lol I loved reading how this trade was won by the Patriots by some posters on here and the Raiders pretty much gave them a good player. 5 sacks for a 3rd and 5th rounder? I love it. We ended up with OLB Kamerion Wimbley from the Browns through a trade with the 3rd round and with the 5th was used to move up to draft WR/KR Jacoby Ford. 2 young players with some potential for a old pass rusher I love.

Yes I know this is totally random but just wanted to point out we actually won one trade with the Patriots so far lol

After the fourth round pick for Randy Moss, I think bill belichick felt he still owed Al Davis a favor... :(

FlyingElvis
05-28-2010, 02:51 PM
Lol I loved reading how this trade was won by the Patriots by some posters on here and the Raiders pretty much gave them a good player. 5 sacks for a 3rd and 5th rounder? I love it. We ended up with OLB Kamerion Wimbley from the Browns through a trade with the 3rd round and with the 5th was used to move up to draft WR/KR Jacoby Ford. 2 young players with some potential for a old pass rusher I love.

Yes I know this is totally random but just wanted to point out we actually won one trade with the Patriots so far lol

Won by a large margin, at that.
I need to make a bet with somebody on here that we wont have a top 10 pick.

I'd take that bet.

If I thought I had a chance of winning it.

luckyjackaubrey
05-31-2010, 04:52 PM
Doesn't sound like anyone has won this trade. Wimberly has been a bust to this point, and has yet to suit up for your team and Ford has done nothing either.

As far as brave predictions regarding the Raider's finish next year, they have been awful for too long for anyone to chirp about potential. They need to DO IT for a year and then I'll listen to any predictions of success.