Pats get Burgess...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]If Burgess can't even start in the base 3-4, then what is the point of giving up a 3rd round pick for him?  Teams will be throwing at him all day.

    RESPONSE: "In Bill We Trust". Obviously, BB sees things differently. Mighty, no matter how you slice it, the Pats had to try to upgrade the OLB position. The guys they currently have aren't cutting it.  

    Dillon may have helped in the regular season but he didn't do much in the AFC championship or the super bowl.  And an extra 2nd round pick may very well have helped us get that elusive 4th ring during the past 4 agonizing years of disappointment. 

    RESPONSE: You have a short memory in regards to Dillon's accomplishments with the Pats, my friend. Who can forget how he steamrolled over the hated Colts in the 4th quarter during the 2004 playoffs? The guy had one brilliant season, and two other solid years. He averaged 12 rushing TDs per season, and rarely fumbled: http://www.nfl.com/players/coreydillon/profile?id=DIL255767.

         As to whether the late 2nd rounder in 2004 would have been a factor in later years, you fail to take into account that Dillon was a factor from 2004-2006, and that the 2004 draft class was extremely weak, depth-wise. Go back and check the players taken that year...and you'll how very few of the players taken after the 2nd round "Dillon slot" made any impact in the league. 

    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

         Mighty...Burgess may or may not be the answer. But he was the best available option to fill a desparate need...and was obtained at a reasonable price.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Yeah I know BB knows what he's doing but I'm really bored at work so I'm trying to stir things up, ok?

    Yes, Dillon helped in the Colts game.  But he was pretty much invisible against the Steelers and Eagles (1 rushing TD against the Eagles, big deal).  And Dillon flat out sucked in 2005 and 2006.  Sorry but he did, and that's when he wasn't injured.  His rushing TDs came in goal line situations - it was the result of good blocking upfront.  Lots of other backs could have done it.  And he was always winded by the second half, even when splitting reps with Maroney, Faulk and Evans in the 2006 AFC championship.  Just because the Cardinals and Cincinnati wasted their picks doesn't mean BB/SP would have. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from schwank. Show schwank's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Bottom line....they'll spot him in situations in which he will excell.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from will71. Show will71's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]he had 3 1/2 last yr.
    Posted by ZigZig[/QUOTE]
    only cause he didnt play the whole season out injured with a tricept no big deal good player on a bad team imagine him the on a good team
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Dillon may have helped in the regular season but he didn't do much in the AFC championship or the super bowl.  And an extra 2nd round pick may very well have helped us get that elusive 4th ring during the past 4 agonizing years of disappointment. 

    In the 04 playoffs Dillon ran the ball 65 times for 292 yards for a 4.5 yard average. He also averaged 97.3 yards per game, second only to Dunn for that year. In the AFCCG he rushed for 73 yards and 1 TD, which was more than Bettis did. In the SB he was the leading rusher, albeit only for 75 yards. Brian Westbrook only rushed for 44. With Branch's 11 receptions it was clearly a pass first game. As far as second round picks go, the pick traded was #64, I believe. Belichick trades for seconds like a kid in the schoolyard trades for baseball cards! I seriously doubt that #64 pick would have been a future HOFer! For some reason you are down on Corey Dillon, that's your perrogative. But he was a tremendous help to this team in 04, and still contributed in 05. And I'm not sure how that in any way is related to them trading for Burgess. Unless you are suggesting that they use all their draft picks and never trade any away...except to get other or more picks. That wouldn't make sense to me. I would bet good money that they aquire a pick in the 10 draft which will fall before the one they traded to Oakland, making your objections moot.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]Yeah I know BB knows what he's doing but I'm really bored at work so I'm trying to stir things up, ok? Yes, Dillon helped in the Colts game.  But he was pretty much invisible against the Steelers and Eagles (1 rushing TD against the Eagles, big deal). 

    RESPONSE: Defenses had to play honest because of Dillon...which opened up the passing game.

    And Dillon flat out sucked in 2005 and 2006.  Sorry but he did, and that's when he wasn't injured.  His rushing TDs came in goal line situations - it was the result of good blocking upfront.  Lots of other backs could have done it.  And he was always winded by the second half, even when splitting reps with Maroney, Faulk and Evans in the 2006 AFC championship. 

    RESPONSE: Any RB could have scored in goal-line situations? Please name any Patriot RB  who has scored 10 or more rushing TDs in a season, since Dillon? Answer: ZERO. The highest # of rushing TDs post Dillon? Maroney scored 7 TDs in 2007.

         In 2005, Dillon was hurt most of the season. In 2006, he split carries with Laurence Maroney. Surely you're not blaming Dillon for the loss to the Colts in the 2006 AFC title game? The Pats lost that game because they could not put any pressure on Geek-boy...just as they lost the SB in 2007 because they couldn't get to Geek-boy's brother. 

         THE PATS DESPARATELY NEED A PASS-RUSHER.

    Just because the Cardinals and Cincinnati wasted their picks doesn't mean BB/SP would have.

    RESPONSE: Go back and look at the players the Pats "missed-out" on in weak 2004 draft class...by not having that 2nd round pick. Its' a sorry lot.
     
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

         You've been miserable since 2004 largely because the Patriot's defense has let you down. They will again this season, unless they improve their pass-rush.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2.. Show Tcal2.'s posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Eli turned a below average Super Bowl victory performance into $97 million.  His career passing rating is a dismal 76.1
    Brady's is 92.9

    I'd say whatever little we spent on Dillon, paid huge dividends in 2004. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess... : If Burgess does turn out to be a stud and signs for a big contract somewhere else, the Pats would likely get a compensation pick the following year - likely a 4th round if he signs for a decent deal elsewhere. 
    Posted by bobomul[/QUOTE]
     Good observation, I hope he has a monster year and we regain a pick.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    People forget Burgess played LB in college. He can play the hybrid end and flex out. In Oakland, he was an every down end, but here expect to see him in Will because he is a 3 technique tackle quick enough to shoot C-D-E gaps or execute stunts as 7 or 9 technique. Anyone can shoot a D gap, but it takes speed to time a C gap, because that is a RT/TE gap. We will see how Burgess handles two-gap responsibility (he only had one-gap in the 4-3); apparently BB thinks he can or he would not be here. If Burgess plays three point stance lined up in 7 or 9 tech, watch to see how he slants on rolled coverages. That will basically tell us how much success he will have in the 3-4. Otherwise he sticks to sub packages.

    People think we run 3-4 all the time, but honestly expect to see plenty more nickel/dime subs, with beefed up fronts. Why? Because the 3-4 is the new in, and so you get offenses gearing to go around that. I would not be surprised to see us run sub packages all day long.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostOfLombardi. Show GhostOfLombardi's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    tebucky jones to the saints led to the pick that was traded to miami led to the pick that miami gave us led to corey dillon

    tebucky jones, in effect, for corey dillon
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

         Heres' more on Burgess: http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/sp_fbn_patriots_burgess_07_08-07-09_ISFAK6I_v2.345df18.html
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]People forget Burgess played LB in college. He can play the hybrid end and flex out. In Oakland, he was an every down end, but here expect to see him in Will because he is a 3 technique tackle quick enough to shoot C-D-E gaps or execute stunts as 7 or 9 technique. Anyone can shoot a D gap, but it takes speed to time a C gap, because that is a RT/TE gap. We will see how Burgess handles two-gap responsibility (he only had one-gap in the 4-3); apparently BB thinks he can or he would not be here. If Burgess plays three point stance lined up in 7 or 9 tech, watch to see how he slants on rolled coverages. That will basically tell us how much success he will have in the 3-4. Otherwise he sticks to sub packages. People think we run 3-4 all the time, but honestly expect to see plenty more nickel/dime subs, with beefed up fronts. Why? Because the 3-4 is the new in, and so you get offenses gearing to go around that. I would not be surprised to see us run sub packages all day long.
    Posted by patpscyho[/QUOTE]

    Psycho - tell us in English.  Charts, definitions would be greatly appreciated.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]People forget Burgess played LB in college. He can play the hybrid end and flex out. In Oakland, he was an every down end, but here expect to see him in Will because he is a 3 technique tackle quick enough to shoot C-D-E gaps or execute stunts as 7 or 9 technique. Anyone can shoot a D gap, but it takes speed to time a C gap, because that is a RT/TE gap. We will see how Burgess handles two-gap responsibility (he only had one-gap in the 4-3); apparently BB thinks he can or he would not be here. If Burgess plays three point stance lined up in 7 or 9 tech, watch to see how he slants on rolled coverages. That will basically tell us how much success he will have in the 3-4. Otherwise he sticks to sub packages. People think we run 3-4 all the time, but honestly expect to see plenty more nickel/dime subs, with beefed up fronts. Why? Because the 3-4 is the new in, and so you get offenses gearing to go around that. I would not be surprised to see us run sub packages all day long.
    Posted by patpscyho[/QUOTE]

    John Madden could have explained all of this in under a minute using two turkey legs and a plate as his props.  Where is Madden when you need him?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Gaps:


    E    D   C    B    A    A     B    C    D    E
    (X)       (LT)(LG) (C) (RG) (RT)(TE)        (X)


    Techniques:

    6   5   4  3    2    1    0    1   2   3   4    5    6
         (LT)   (LG)         (C)       (RG)    (RT)      (TE)

    With 0 being pure nose tackle. Wilkfork is a 0-technique, but he isn't called that, just the nose tackle..  7-9 or more, are anywhere above the numbered line, depending on the preference of the DC.  The three tech is responsible for shooting the gaps or executing stunt between the guard and tackle, hence the "three tech." 

    In a 4-3, one usually just has an one-gap responsibility, namely just one hole to aim for and shoot through. But to have a two-gap responsibility (in a 3-4) requires more discipline (Seau had trouble with this, he couldn't just let the play come to him). He may either have to cover or contain the A and B or the C and D gap, whether stuffing the run or go in on a jet stunt. Most players just want a one gap because then they can attack at the snap, rather than forcing themselves to sit back and diagnose two gaps, then act.

    A stunt and especially a slant is hard because you don't attack the gap you are lined up at, but criss-cross (and with a slant, you do with with two or more linemen doing a loop or cross-face which really tests your IQ and instinct). The idea with a stunt (let's say a jet stunt) is for the DE/DB to go wide of the OT while the DT hits the guard opposite of him. The DE/DB then suddenly works inside that space by the DT, and slips upfield. This renders the OT (offensive tackle) useless because he has to pick his poison. The other man goes for the QB (think Meriweather's perfectly-timed sack in Seattle for a FF).

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    I really hope this is less confusing because this post is actually a lot of oversimplifications- Coaches don't use simple numbers or letters- they go (for example) 3B6 or 4B6 which means you line up six inches on tackle side (outside side) of LG or RG. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Thanks Pyscho.  But I'm still not reading the gaps/techniques clearly.  Any website you could point us to?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]I really hope this is less confusing because this post is actually a lot of oversimplifications- Coaches don't use simple numbers or letters- they go (for example) 3B6 or 4B6 which means you line up six inches on tackle side (outside side) of LG or RG. 
    Posted by patpscyho[/QUOTE] this might help.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsnJ9jh9hik
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Mosse......LOL! that clears it up
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Harleyroadking111. Show Harleyroadking111's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    This is one gap thats needs to be stuffed. Every time I see him on tv I switch the channel....A-hole
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]Mosse......LOL! that clears it up
    Posted by Harleyroadking111[/QUOTE] i know if we cant figure it out,the professors could.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from nightrider495. Show nightrider495's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Burgess will end up being a steal. Just like Moss, I think that the Patriots winning ways will rub off on him. With a solid Defensive line up front, look for him to have a big year. Great pickup for the Pats! Good job Belichick and Co.!!!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from patpscyho. Show patpscyho's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    Probably should just stop at this point. 

    Trust me when I say that compared next to a pro football coach, I know nothing.

    And compared to Bill Belichick, most pro football coaches knows nothing.

    You get the idea.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mosseffect43. Show mosseffect43's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]Probably should just stop at this point.  Trust me when I say that compared next to a pro football coach, I know nothing. And compared to Bill Belichick, most pro football coaches knows nothing. You get the idea.
    Posted by patpscyho[/QUOTE] im not criticizeing,just haveing fun.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]Gaps: E    D   C    B    A    A     B    C    D    E (X)       (LT)(LG) (C) (RG) (RT)(TE)        (X) Techniques: 6   5   4  3    2    1    0    1   2   3   4    5    6      (LT)   (LG)         (C)       (RG)    (RT)      (TE) With 0 being pure nose tackle. Wilkfork is a 0-technique, but he isn't called that, just the nose tackle..  7-9 or more, are anywhere above the numbered line, depending on the preference of the DC.  The three tech is responsible for shooting the gaps or executing stunt between the guard and tackle, hence the "three tech."  In a 4-3, one usually just has an one-gap responsibility, namely just one hole to aim for and shoot through. But to have a two-gap responsibility (in a 3-4) requires more discipline (Seau had trouble with this, he couldn't just let the play come to him). He may either have to cover or contain the A and B or the C and D gap, whether stuffing the run or go in on a jet stunt. Most players just want a one gap because then they can attack at the snap, rather than forcing themselves to sit back and diagnose two gaps, then act. A stunt and especially a slant is hard because you don't attack the gap you are lined up at, but criss-cross (and with a slant, you do with with two or more linemen doing a loop or cross-face which really tests your IQ and instinct). The idea with a stunt (let's say a jet stunt) is for the DE/DB to go wide of the OT while the DT hits the guard opposite of him. The DE/DB then suddenly works inside that space by the DT, and slips upfield. This renders the OT (offensive tackle) useless because he has to pick his poison. The other man goes for the QB (think Meriweather's perfectly-timed sack in Seattle for a FF).
    Posted by patpscyho[/QUOTE]

         Great to see some real football talk here again...instead of the usual troll infested banter. Thanks, psycho! 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats get Burgess...

    In Response to Re: Pats get Burgess...:
    [QUOTE]Thanks Pyscho.  But I'm still not reading the gaps/techniques clearly.  Any website you could point us to?
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

         Mighty One...try this site: http://football.about.com/cs/a/over43defense.htm
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share