Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trade for Derrick Burgess???

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    hahahahahahaahaa!! hahahahahahaahaa!! hahahahahahaahaa!!


    [catches breath]



    Looks like Al is expecting a gimme after the stupidity that was the Randy Moss trade. Good luck with that. I think I can hear BB & Bob Kraft laughing from here.

    Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Nalej View Post
      I don't get it. He's 6'2 260 (According to the Boston.com article I read)
      Wasn't BB's excuse for not drafting an OLB was their height? No 6'4-6'5 players. They were too short?
      Isn't that what he said?

      At 30+, I don't like the idea of bringing in someone who's never played in the 34.
      He would upgrade our pass rush but only in obvious passing downs.
      Would Woods play 1st and 2nd and Burgess on 3rd and long?

      It better not be anything more then a 3rd. Even that seems to much for a 30+ who has been fighting injuries recently
      Belichick's not going to draft an OLB in the first unless there's a DeMarcus Ware available. Bottom line. There wasn't. There's too much to learn to waste that roster spot and money on a guy who will likely be useless to Belichick for a year or two (at least).

      Burgess played in Rob Ryan's defense, which shares a vast quantity of similarities and versatilities with Belichick's defense. His transition would be very smooth.

      Willie McGinnest couldn't cover anyone either. That's really not the biggest concern. I like Burgess, he's a terror when he's in a good defensive system with players who do their job.

      Comment


      • #18
        Yea, except that there were still OLBs available in the 2nd.
        We drafted a S, a CB, a back up NT and a project RT in the 2nd.
        You telling me that he's willing to take a project and a backup but refuses to draft an OLB that isn't D. Ware?
        Then he'll NEVER draft an OLB then, if that's the case.

        I wasn't talking about just the 1st rd- it's about EVERY round.
        We didn't draft ONE olb in this draft when its clearly our weak spot
        When asked about that- he responded with (paraphrasing)- They were all too short. No 6'4 or 6'5 guys.
        If height is the reason why he didn't use a 2nd rd pick on an OLB
        then what's the point of trading for an OLB who is too short by BB standards?

        That's my point.
        It's whateva though.
        I don't really agree with that height comment anyways.
        I just want our pass rush improved
        if Burgess would do that for us then I'm all for it
        -Boston Red Sox-New England Patriots-Boston Celtics-

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RavenOfProphecy View Post
          Like I said, if I had the choice between drafting Sebastian Vollmer or trading for Derrick Burgess with the #58 pick, I'd take Burgess. I would also take Burgess over Kevin O'Connell. I might even take Burgess over our second round pick in next year's draft, only because the Patriots have a big weakness with their pass rush, and I wouldn't be surprised if their defense cost them another Super Bowl. But the combination of the three is a definite no-go. I think the Raiders are just scared of trading with the Patriots after they traded Randy Moss for (I believe) John Bowie.
          If that's the case, give us Vollmer. Trading Burgess for only O'Connell would be useless considering there's still a good chance for Russell to succeed, and you don't trade a solid starter for insurance. Vollmer would be a project for the team, but I think the need for a long-term solution at RT is great enough where the deal could be made. As a Raiders fan, the second round pick is less appealing than the other two options because there's no way in knowing what Al's crazy mind could waste it on next, lol.

          Also, Al does have a tendency to overvalue his own players, only to later trade them away for significantly less.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Nalej View Post
            Yea, except that there were still OLBs available in the 2nd.
            We drafted a S, a CB, a back up NT and a project RT in the 2nd.
            You telling me that he's willing to take a project and a backup but refuses to draft an OLB that isn't D. Ware?
            Then he'll NEVER draft an OLB then, if that's the case.

            I wasn't talking about just the 1st rd- it's about EVERY round.
            We didn't draft ONE olb in this draft when its clearly our weak spot
            When asked about that- he responded with (paraphrasing)- They were all too short. No 6'4 or 6'5 guys.
            If height is the reason why he didn't use a 2nd rd pick on an OLB
            then what's the point of trading for an OLB who is too short by BB standards?

            That's my point.
            It's whateva though.
            I don't really agree with that height comment anyways.
            I just want our pass rush improved
            if Burgess would do that for us then I'm all for it

            And it's an excellent point at that. Bill clearly will have contradicted himself if he goes out an trades for Burgess. Then again, the guy is certainly more established than any rookie. IDK, I'd rather have a guy with potential than a proven but wasteland dwelling conversion project.

            Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nalej View Post
              Yea, except that there were still OLBs available in the 2nd.
              We drafted a S, a CB, a back up NT and a project RT in the 2nd.
              You telling me that he's willing to take a project and a backup but refuses to draft an OLB that isn't D. Ware?
              Then he'll NEVER draft an OLB then, if that's the case.

              I wasn't talking about just the 1st rd- it's about EVERY round.
              We didn't draft ONE olb in this draft when its clearly our weak spot
              When asked about that- he responded with (paraphrasing)- They were all too short. No 6'4 or 6'5 guys.
              If height is the reason why he didn't use a 2nd rd pick on an OLB
              then what's the point of trading for an OLB who is too short by BB standards?

              That's my point.
              It's whateva though.
              I don't really agree with that height comment anyways.
              I just want our pass rush improved
              if Burgess would do that for us then I'm all for it
              You can stick a project on the practice squad, and still develop them. You can't do that with a first or second rounder (or 3rd or 4th). It takes a rare talent to be able to come in and play in that defense right out of college. And if they can't pick it up in OTA's and early in Training Camp, the Patriots are forced to put them on IR.

              Belichick is not going to waste any time teaching fundamentals to linebackers. This is something he stresses over and over again. Unless there's a complete, total package, stud, the Patriots are not going to make a big investment in a rookie linebacker. The reason that defense has been so successful is that they're able to focus on working on advanced philosophies and looks that other teams can't do. They're able to do this because their linebackers already know their job completely and still have a willingness and ability to pack more complicated information in their brains.

              I don't know if you were calling Burgess a project or not, but he really isn't. He's played a 3-4 OLB role before and, like I said, the dude is a beast if the other people around him are doing their jobs.
              Last edited by nepg; 05-26-2009, 12:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FlyingElvis View Post
                And it's an excellent point at that. Bill clearly will have contradicted himself if he goes out an trades for Burgess. Then again, the guy is certainly more established than any rookie. IDK, I'd rather have a guy with potential than a proven but wasteland dwelling conversion project.
                So you would rather Chad Jackson over Randy Moss....;)

                Just kidding...I get what you're saying. I wouldn't buy too much into what BB says to the media though. He never gives out a ton of information, and when he does it isn't always true.
                Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Bigburt63 View Post
                  So you would rather Chad Jackson over Randy Moss....;)

                  Just kidding...I get what you're saying. I wouldn't buy too much into what BB says to the media though. He never gives out a ton of information, and when he does it isn't always true.
                  lol. Yeah, I must have missed the years where Burgess was considered to be a candidate for GOAT. ;)



                  That and Chad Jackson is just misunderstood.

                  Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    What do yous all think about Greg Ellis for a year if the Cowboys cut him. At 34 I wouldn't give anything up for him but for a one year deal he could still be successful. At least until next year's draft when the Patriots draft Greg Hardy and him and Shawn Crable get 30 sacks each for the next ten years.


                    BoneKrusher killing it with the sig

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by AntoinCD View Post
                      At least until next year's draft when the Patriots draft Greg Hardy and him and Shawn Crable get 30 sacks each for the next ten years.
                      Greg Hardy as a Pat = Me fainting on draft day. If he can stay healthy and put up a monster senior year, he will be off the board very quickly though. Hardy and Crable would be two serious athletes going after the QB with Adailus having a couple more years left in him and hopefully one of Woods/Redd being able to step up.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AntoinCD View Post
                        What do yous all think about Greg Ellis for a year if the Cowboys cut him. At 34 I wouldn't give anything up for him but for a one year deal he could still be successful. At least until next year's draft when the Patriots draft Greg Hardy and him and Shawn Crable get 30 sacks each for the next ten years.
                        3 sacks each per year? ;)


                        Any help at this point is fine by me. Bring in a guy or 3 and make someone win the position. Hopefully it's Crable, regardless of who NE brings in to compete. At least we get the best available option coming out of camp & preseason.

                        Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by FlyingElvis View Post
                          lol. Yeah, I must have missed the years where Burgess was considered to be a candidate for GOAT. ;)



                          That and Chad Jackson is just misunderstood.
                          lol, I never said he was or that Moss wasn't, just that Jackson had potential and Moss was the proven vet who was arguably washed up.

                          I could see the patriots being successful (or unsuccessful) either way, trading for Burgess or sticking with younger guys.
                          Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Yeah, I was just playing along. I get the feeling BB was being honest about the lack of height in the draft. I think Burgess being smaller is a non-issue b/c he's already proven he can do it at that size. A cagey vet always trumps a young guy at the LB position for Bill.



                            Thanks for the vote in JBond's poll. Personally, I think your name should have been up there instead of mine.

                            Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by FlyingElvis View Post
                              Yeah, I was just playing along. I get the feeling BB was being honest about the lack of height in the draft. I think Burgess being smaller is a non-issue b/c he's already proven he can do it at that size. A cagey vet always trumps a young guy at the LB position for Bill.



                              Thanks for the vote in JBond's poll. Personally, I think your name should have been up there instead of mine.
                              BB loves his veteran LB's thats for sure. It's about the only thing that has remained consistent during his tenure here, that and 1st round DL are always acceptable.

                              Np for the vote, I like reading your posts.
                              Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information