Patriots Interested In Trading for Burgess

by LiveAdam on May 18, 2009 7:51 PM PDT Comment 43 comments

Christopher Price of WEEI is confirming a previous ESPN story reporting the Patriots are interested in trading for DE Derrick Burgess in exchange for a 2010 2nd or 3rd round draft pick.

Burgess is going into a contract year, and even though he has not wined and complained about it like Anquan Boldin or Thomas Jones, it is clear he has not been particularly happy about his contract. While Burgess signed the contract when he was coming off an injury, he certainly outplayed it for the few years, and has since suffered more injuries and letdowns.

If the Raiders can get a second round pick for Burgess I think they should take it. Most on this board believe Burgess would be moved back to a nickel rusher in the Raiders DE rotation this year, which may increase his sack production, but I believe the Raiders have sufficient nickel rushing depth to trade Burgess and acquire the draft pick. With Burgess out of the rotation the Raiders could use Trevor Scott, Greyson Gunheim, Stryker Sulak, or others as nickel pass rushing specialist. This groups is very young, but they should be able to put their speed and agility to their best use pinning their ears back on passing downs. Also, to my knowledge Kalimba Edwards has not yet signed with another team and could be brought back as a nicker rusher, rather than trying to have him play RDE nearly full time as he did last season with mixed results.

Acquiring a 2nd round pick for Burgess is likely more valuable for the Raiders than letting him play out his contract and then having him walk away after this season. If the Patriots are serious about giving up that high a draft pick the Raiders should pull the trigger.

What are your thoughts on potentially trading Derrick Burgess?

UPDATE

Jerry McDonald wrote about this situation at his Inside the Raiders blog today:

The dilemma for the Raiders is whether to dump Burgess in a contract year, when he could be motivated to produce a big season to drive up his value in free agency. If the Raiders were to reduce his snaps and use him as a situational pass rusher, he could be of some value.

The other side is that Burgess’ stats have dwindled in each of his four years in Oakland, going from 16 sacks to 11 to 8 to 3.5, and that 2008 draft pick Trevor Scott could be ready to be the primary pass rusher.

Out of a 3-4 defense, the Patriots would look to use Burgess as an outside rusher.

Given Burgess’ lack of production and health issues, I’m having a hard time believing Bill Belichick would give up a second- or third-round pick to get him.

If such a pick is offered, the Raiders should take about a split-second to say yes and not worry about what Burgess does as a Patriot.

Even if Burgess were to go to New England and post 10 sacks as a part-time player, that doesn’t mean he was going to do it in Oakland, where his body language suggests he wants out.

Throughout the offseason, the Raiders have been loading up not only on speed, but on players who appear to want to be in Oakland. Burgess does not. A second- or third-round pick would be a gift.

At least one Raiders beat writer has the same view as most of us - a second round pick for Burgess is a gift and if offered the Raiders should take it.

0 recs | Comment 43 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’d do it for a second or third round pick in a heartbeat.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on May 18, 2009 7:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah what you said! I think he is on the fade and would be a better fit there.

by samiam2112 on May 18, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Acquiring a 2nd round pick for Burgess is likely more valuable for the Raiders than letting him play out his contract and then having him walk away after this season. If the Patriots are serious about giving up that high a draft pick the Raiders should pull the trigger.

The Pats have a gift for singing veterans and FA, but if they want him that bad let him go.

by dram5780 on May 18, 2009 7:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't

What if we take someone who was supposed to be taken late in the draft early with that pick?

J-Mac got arm, D-Mac is unique, DHB got the hands, and he can move his feet.
Niners got Hill, he is really cheap, now they got Crabtree, hey don't fall asleep.

by Rayder K on May 18, 2009 9:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Did we really just go back there so soon?

by samiam2112 on May 18, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm divided over this...

The way I see it:
1. We trade our best pass rusher for the last 4 seasons with no clear successor on the team to take his spot. I mean did anybody step up and get double digit sacks last year with Burgess injured?
2. What kind of production will we get from him this year? Do the coaches expect him be back to his best?
3. What kind of production do we expect from the rest of the pass rush? Are we planning to blitz more with the LBs and rely less on just expecting the D line to get pressure?
4. This does seem like pretty good value for him however and a 2nd and 3rd would be good in the next draft.
5. Do we really want to give a SuperBowl contender even more decent players? I mean with Brady back this year the’re going to score 30 points a game anyway so how much of a pass rush do the Pats need?

by KiwiRaiderFan on May 18, 2009 10:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It all boils down to if Trevor Scott is ready

To start at RE

then we move Richardson to LE with Shuaghnessy (as a floater on both sides)

Sulak and Gunheim as pass rushers, I would not be suprised if this did in fact happen.

But it will hurt me greatly, Burgess is going to have a monster year so it should be fore conditional draft pick ranging from a 1st (probowl), 2nd (8-10 sacks), 3rd (anything else) but I seriously fear its going to be a bargain for the Patri-Nazis

"I need a couple A's for Q's, I'm not an Asshole I'm just a little confused"
-Aesop Rock

by DarthDavis on May 19, 2009 7:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Starting DEs

I definitely agree that Richardson will be the starting LE, regardless of whether Burgess is on the team or not. I actually envision Shaughnessy as the starter at RE simply to provide a bit more protection on run downs, with a pass-rusher backing him up for nickel and dime packages. I think Scott’s and Sulak’s value is highest just pinning their ears back and letting them go after it.

If John Marshall actually does implement more LB blitzing into the defensive scheme and runs more of a 4-3 Over/Under scheme, losing a bit of pass rush from the base DEs would be sufficiently compensated by having one of the outside LBs blitzing with greater regularity.

Slade Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

ESPN’s draft coverage missed the moment when Al Davis and Tom Cable each took turns using Mel Kiper’s mock draft as toilet paper. - Chris Shellcroft

by LiveAdam on May 19, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The pick has to be conditional

A 2nd round pick from the Pats is like a third rounder because everyone knows they are going to one of the top 5 teams in the NFL. This means that the pick will be somewhere around pick #59-64. That doesn’t seem like very good value for a guy who hasn’t played very hard the last 2 years because he felt disrespected and now is in the final years of his contract. He will finally have the motivation to put in the effort he did when he was first sgned. Back then he was working for a new contract that never came. Once e realized it wasn’t going to ever come until the end of his curent contract, he slowed down the motor. The way i see it, if the Raiders think they can be a contending team, which I think they can be, they should keep him and get 10-15 sacks out of him. If they think the team is still rebulding then get what you can for him but make sure it’s at least a second with the stipulation that if he makes the probowl or puts up double didget sack totals the raiders would, at the very least, get a third and swap our second for thier first.

by RXRAIDER on May 19, 2009 7:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i dont see this trade happening usually im all for gettting what you can get for a player, if you know he wont be there next year but burgess healthy is a beast and without teams having to worry about him we would have to blitz alot more. its tough

by pablopaul25 on May 19, 2009 7:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

100% Yes - It's a move for the future

The Raiders are not going to win the Super Bowl this year, no matter what Burgess does. If the Raiders can get a second rounder for him they should. It’s not just about where in the second round the Patriots pick, it’s about what the Raiders could do with that pick if they got it. I know they don’t ever trade up but, if that opportunity presented itself, having another second round pick to work with could be very valuable. It would give the Raiders a lot more flexibility. Do it, especially if he’s an unhappy player right now. Get him out of the locker room.

by LechlerFan on May 19, 2009 9:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Lechler fan

all signs point to Cable wanting to rid the team of negative players, and going young. They accomplish both with letting Burgess go and if they get a 2nd round pick so much the better, get draft picks.

by Laoren on May 19, 2009 9:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

it would have to be 2nd and 3rd.

since the Pats are already making space in the cabinet for another Lombardi Trophy this year. That would give us two additional picks next year at the back end of each round and everyone knows that the Patriots will work their way back up to double digit picks anyway by next year.
With a new DC and Cable calling the team chemistry shots, its possible that this would happen. Burgess sat out the mini camp with the flu which I don’t think sat well with Tom Cable. Cable wants players buying into the team, not butt hurt over contracts.

looking forward to the next 30 years of this team

by 30yearR8RFan on May 19, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Get what you can!

There is no guarantee that Burgess will not get hurt again this year. He will not sign with the Raiders after the year, so I believe we should get what we can before we end up with nothing. He is undersized and runs himself out of position to avoid being enveloped by tackles. Yeah he has something to play for this year, but we need to begin stacking up on the types of players that will fit our goals, both chemistry-wise and athletically. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always loved D Burgess, but if he is unhappy…let’s rid the locker room of this distraction. Positivity baby!

by dirtyred on May 19, 2009 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

naw I’d hold on to him…just because things are going to change so much this year

by K-RAZ on May 19, 2009 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Would have to be a conditional pick though. 3rd rounder is unacceptable.

by dirtyred on May 19, 2009 1:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I disagree that a 3rd is unacceptable.

There are plenty of good players in the 3rd and 4th rounds, get what you can and take the pick. Of course a 2nd would be great, but a 3rd is fine. Granted that would almost certainly be a late 3rd round pick but for too many years the Raiders have been trading their picks and going into the draft with only 5 or so picks.
I believe they have already traded next years 6th round pick to move up in the last draft.

by Laoren on May 19, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No hurry

The Raiders and Pats can have discussions now but the best thing to do is wait and hold on to Burgess till preseason. Let the youngsters compete in camp and preseason, see who stands out, if there is a suitable replacement(s) for Burgess, then you trade him. If not, then he is worth it to keep in his contract year until a replacement emerges.

After this years draft, I think that with all their trading activity, the Patriots have something like 4 to 5 2nd round picks. They can afford to give up one of them for Burgess.

Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.

by TheRaiderWay on May 19, 2009 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I dont know

but if we strike while the iron is hot, a second rounder would be a good value. Derrick deseves a chance to play for a chance to win a superbowl and we are still a couple of years away

"May the wind be at our back, here comes the Silver and Black "

by RUKidding on May 19, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

do it now

I’ve been calling for Burgess to be traded since the end of the season. Now we can get a second or third, go for it please. He’s no longer an every-down guy and isn’t even as good as he used to be against the pass. Besides, he’ll get injured at some point and then will have no trade value. I’m surprised he has any as is.

Randy Blythe, Singer of Lamb of God- "Words can be broken, so can bones....." Omerta by Lamb of god

by KA1Z3R on May 19, 2009 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And what are we going to do

With a 2nd or 3rd round pick, choose a DB or the fastest player available, then all you guys are going to whine and bitch about how stupid it was to trade Burges for a draft pick. I can already see the posts and complaints about it.

"THE RAIDERS DON'T REBUILD THEY RELOAD"

by raiderlalo81 on May 19, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

does it matter

its either get a 2nd or 3rd rd even 4th rd pick for him or getting nothing at the end of next year. Its a no brainer.

The future is uncertain... and the end is always near. JMorrison

by S-n-B4life on May 21, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unlikely

I don’t see the Patriots giving up that much for a player that’s been injury prone for the last few years and is on the down-swing. Add the rumor that Burgess wants out of Oakland and they may offer no more than a 4th rounder. Considering he had been their best D-lineman and watched while lesser players got bloated contracts I would be surprised if he wanted to stay.

On the other hand Davis may still be seething over giving away Moss for practically nothing and may demand too high a price from NE out of spite. If the chiefs can get Cassel and Vrabel for a mere 2nd rounder then how the devil is Burgess worth anything near that much?

If they offer a 4th or 5th I say grab it, or Burgess walks for nothing next year.

by lurker88 on May 19, 2009 4:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Trade

a) The Pats won’t give us a 2nd round. They’re way smarter than that
b) Why would it matter, we can’t draft to save our live
c) Our only hope for a consistent team is for Al to step aside. Keep hoping, like I do, but know that we have one of the most pathetic franchises in all of sports. Al has to go.

by enohoss on May 19, 2009 4:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

OK Wrong.

a) Pats have three 2nd round picks next year and Burgess is a good fit for them.
b) 2007: Russel, Higgins, Bush 2008: McFadden, Branch, Schilens. Raiders for the future.
c) 12 division titles, 5 superbowls, 3 rings. Love him or not, he made the Raiders.

by dram5780 on May 19, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

an hes bringing them apart

ME8 for MVP

by NH101 on May 19, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well aren't you the defeatist

"I need a couple A's for Q's, I'm not an Asshole I'm just a little confused"
-Aesop Rock

by DarthDavis on May 19, 2009 7:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

no

were to weak there all ready and still has good production. with his contract up he will be playing for one and aswell as his moneey coming off the book next year

ME8 for MVP

by NH101 on May 19, 2009 7:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Burgess

to me he should stay I always thought he was an upside in our defense. He hasn’t had the best years lately due to injuries and stuff looks like he will start and get some sacks for us this year. Hopefully he can do what is expected from him and give us more of a rush defense and we all know how good we were at that last year.

Amazing, Jamarcus Russell hands off to McFadden who pitches it back to Russell who finds Darrius Heyward Bey in the Middle of the Field wide open 30, 20,10,5 Touchdown Raiders! Amazing. This telecast is Brought to you by Cable.

by nishal26 on May 20, 2009 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

TRADE HIM

GO WITH THE 2ND OR 3RD ROUND PICK AND SAY THANKS FOR THE YEARS TO BURGESS WITH A LOT OF SACKS, 16, 11, 8 AND 3.5 WITH A INJURY THAT YEAR. THE RAIDERS HAVE ALOT OF DE AND ARE YOUNGER AND I LIKE TREVOR SCOTT. TAKE THE TRADE AND BURGESS CAN GO TO THE PATS

by sports with steve on May 20, 2009 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sounds Reasonable

THE RAIDERS HAVE ALOT OF DE AND ARE YOUNGER

I agree with this. I can now see why getting rid of Burgess would benefit us. We have so many guys on the squad that getting them time to play will only benefit us. Plus, a second rounder sounds great.

J-Mac got arm, D-Mac is unique, DHB got the hands, and he can move his feet.
Niners got Hill, he is really cheap, now they got Crabtree, hey don't fall asleep.

by Rayder K on May 20, 2009 9:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Please Don't Trade Burgess!

Man I don’t want to see Derrick Burgess leave the bay. We already gave them Moss and Jordan for last year. What are we the freakin farm system for the Pats or something. Go away Spy Gate!

by fantasy-info on May 20, 2009 10:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I SAY KEEP EM...

Let him earn this FAT contract he wants after this season if he performs well enough to get paid that would mean he balled for us. Double digit sacks and have a good rest of your career. We got him at a bargain when we signed him and he played the prime of his career for us pro bowler and all…thanks Derrick for all youve done for THE NATION and hope you have a career year next year..

They hate to love us....R A I D E R-N A T I O N....

by NATION OF DOMINATION on May 20, 2009 10:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you can get a second round pick you HAVE to take it

Burgess is always injured anyway

"Mel Kiper has his opinion and I respect it. But what does it mean? My 9-year-old nephew can watch film and make an opinion. I think I value the opinion of scouts who get paid to make their opinions. It will carry me through my career. It will serve as motivation for me." - Mike Mitchell

by Ozraider on May 21, 2009 3:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would not trade him

He has had a lot of injuries but, come on If the Patriots want him there is something good about him that we are missing so please no trade.

by nishal26 on May 21, 2009 5:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"the patriots want him so we must be missing something"

Are you serious? thats rediculas, yes they generally make pretty good personel decisions but good personel decisions dont stop injuries and his sack totals have declined significatly over the last few years. i dont know if he is just not motivated to play for us so he sits out with slight injuries but even so if he is not motivated to play for us and you can get a second round draft pick which is generally where the best value is I think its no brainer.

by Ozraider on May 21, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Rediculas"

It’s ridiculous-If your going to insult me use the right word naww I’m just kidding and that Patriots thing was kinda a joke too but, I don’t really want to let him go because I think this year we are ready to explode and I just wonder what Cable has done for him. Hopefully he gave him that motivation that he needs to be that Albert Hanseworth, Tank Johnson, or Damarcus Ware that we all know he has the potential to be.

by nishal26 on May 21, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha sorry I just hate the Pats SOOOO MUCH!!!!

I agree that with the change in culture that cable seems to have been able to intitute he may well have a big year and be motivated to play, Ive never doubted how great a player he is but just hasnt been on the field enough. basically if him playing 14 games minimum can be guaranteed id say keep him for sure otherwise take the second rounder but nothing less than a 2.

by Ozraider on May 21, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I agree with that hopefully he dose do good and if he doesn’t I wouldn’t hesitate to put Trever Scott in there I know he can produce effectively and consistantly we need that threat at D-Line we had Warren Sapp but, he didn’t do anything good for us. If Trever Scott or Derrick Burgess is that good bull rush type player it will also help fix our 31st ranked run defense or just sign some free agent who is good I don’t know who though.

by nishal26 on May 21, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the thing Im really excited to hear is that

Tommy Kelly has been very impressive so far, its obviously hard to judge to much when they are playing without pads but still great to hear so if he plays well along with burgess/scott, our LB’s and help in the box from Mitchell and Branch there is really a good chance of major improvement from our run D (a lot of if’s though).
Yeah turns out Sapp was a real cancer on this team and I feel that he had a major influence on the fall of our franchise – one of the most selfish players ever which seemed to rub off on a lot of other guys.

by Ozraider on May 21, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

btw was that dose or does =D hehehe

by Ozraider on May 21, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Catch

I didn’t see that at all. Now, it seems like our Defense will be better than last year. My major concern is the offensive game plan Tom Cable said that he add a lot of deep 30+ yard pass plays in the playbook so, we should see more throws like the one vs Denver when we won 31-10 that was the first time J-Russ threw it up. Now imagine instead of weak ass Lelie catching think of Chadz, JLH, or Hey-ward bey catching those, a straight up highlight reel. The SP has no flaw that I can think of I mean like what 5 TD’s on SP just keep it like that no changes I hope. We have a Talented football team literally overflowing with Talent but, that selfness is holding us back and Tom Cable seems to be the First coach to find and address that need. Dam Can’t wait till the season starts but, everyone must endure the worst football month which is June there is nothing going on. July is OK with training camp, August finally some football even though it doesn’t count, and then the season where we become a respectable Team again 11-5 or 16-0.

by nishal26 on May 21, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Trade

I would rather NOT trade Burgess. Burgess is their BEST pass rusher. Even though he hasn’t been producing well lately. But c’mon, he’s been battling injuries! Has anyone forget that he was a Pro Bowler a couple of years ago leading the league with 16 sacks? I believe that this upcoming season can be his year to prove that he’s still a quality DE. What do you guys think?

by justinleagueheroes on May 22, 2009 5:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs