D. Burg out for Sunday?

[Silver&Blackout]

Originally Posted by ice4444

OMG; you've got to be kidding; there are backups in the NFL with more tackles and sacks than burgess. Burgess is never double teamed and Edwards is better than Burgess.

Look at the Tapes; the only one on the DL getting double teamed is Warren.

The Burgess fan club is fine but he's often injured, and against the run he's invisible. He's not a constant threat either.

IMHO for years fans act like some of these players are so awesome and they are not. Burgess was a starter on the DL last year that was near last in sacks, run defense, scoring defense, and 3rd down defense. Burgess is not a starter on a good team.

Yeah, he had a calf injury if you recall and went to the Pro Bowl 2 times in a row before that and led the NFL in sack 2005.

I agree, he gets dinged alot. Seems like thats always been a knock. Small guy for the position and I thinkl thats part why he gets washed in the run.

When he's on, he's so quick and if he gets that first step he's unblockable.

If he can play we need him against last years #1 pass protection. They gave up only 16 sacks last year.

[RaiderRakasaan]

Give Scott a chance. Especially around the 4th quarter if he is fresh and the NO offensive is all used up. He's on the roster then why not use him? I'm tired of other teams getting late drafts picks and they turn out to be gems and we never really play our picks. I feel the same about Schliens, Shields and watkins.

[RaiderMac]

Originally Posted by ice4444

OMG; you've got to be kidding; there are backups in the NFL with more tackles and sacks than burgess. Burgess is never double teamed and Edwards is better than Burgess.

Look at the Tapes; the only one on the DL getting double teamed is Warren.

The Burgess fan club is fine but he's often injured, and against the run he's invisible. He's not a constant threat either.

IMHO for years fans act like some of these players are so awesome and they are not. Burgess was a starter on the DL last year that was near last in sacks, run defense, scoring defense, and 3rd down defense. Burgess is not a starter on a good team.

Burgess couldn't start for 2 teams in a 4-3 defense in the NFL, when regarding sacks thus far for this season.

4-3 teams in the NFL............

Falcons - DE J.Abraham leads the NFL in sacks with 7.

Packers - DE A.Kampman next DE with 4 sacks.

Seahawks - DE P.Kerney 4 sacks.

Texans - DE M.Williams 4 sacks.

Eagles - DE J.Parker 3.5 sacks.

Bucs - DE G.White 3.5 sacks.

Bears - DE A.Brown 3 sacks.

RAIDERS - DE K.EDWARDS 3 SACKS.

Colts - DE D.Freeney 3 sacks.

Saints - DE C.Grant 3 sacks.

Panthers - DE J.Peppers 3 sacks.

Giants - DE J.Tuck 3 sacks.

Titans - DE K.Vanden Bosch 3 sacks.

These last two teams are the only 4-3 teams in the NFL who wouldn't need Burgess's services. How many 4-3 defenses are there in the NFL you ask? (22 TEAMS) More than half of the NFL. And yet, you can sit here and tell me that 20 out of 22 teams in the NFL wouldn't need Burgess services?

Eagles - DE D.Howard 2.5 sacks.

Packers - DE C.Jenkins 2.5 sacks.

Burgess has been on the injury report every year there is no questioning that, but when you start to make statements that he couldn't start for "most good teams in the NFL" there are 10 teams who have a .500 or better record who currently run a 4-3 defense and there are 7 teams who currently run a 3-4 defense who have a .500 or better record overall.
Yet, out of the 10 teams who run a 4-3 defense NINE of them could use his services opposite of their DE.

You can continue to point out his "INJURY" problems or his rush defense problems, currently when we're ranked 17th in the NFL in stopping the run, which in return you didn't seem to mention players like Sapp whose loss of weight of close to 50lbs last year, Washington/Schweigert/Robert Thomas/S.Williams, T.Sands/G.Warren substitution, and a rookie DE in Richardson to help matters with last years rush defense. BLAMING "ONE" PLAYER IS STUPIDITY in regards to last years rush defense.

Name "ONE" player along the Raiders defensive line who has had more sacks than Burgess since he has been here?...................

K.Edwards - 3 sacks

C.Clemons - 8 sacks

J.Richardson - 2 sacks

L.Johnstone - 2 sacks

K.Huntley - 2 sacks

B.Hamilton - 2 sacks

T.Brayton - 1 sack

D.Grant - 1 sack

T.Kelly - 1 sack (last year when he was playing DE)

D.Burgess - "37 sacks" in the "4 years that he has been a Raider". Meaning that he's getting nearly 10 sacks a year based on the 4 years that he has been here in Oakland.

Say what you want about Burgess, but when you line opposite of him, such as K.Edwards/C.Clemons have over the past two years, you're going to get YOURS.

2005 - 16

2006 - 11

2007 - 8

2008 - 2 (4 games, thus far)

Again, the double teams in 2007/08 only help my cause in defending Burgess. Why you ask? Take a look at C.Clemons (2007) "8 sacks" and K.Edwards (2008) 3 sacks and PLEASE TELL ME THAT THEY DON'T "BENEFIT" FROM HAVING D.BURGESS OPPOSITE OF THEM!!!!!


BTW ice4444, HOW MANY SACKS DOES C.CLEMONS HAVE THIS YEAR WHEN HIS TEAM IS TIED FOR THE LEAGUE LEAD IN SACKS WITH 18 THIS YEAR?.........................................NONE . Exactly, 3 TACKLES TO HIS NAME.

[dberg56]

awesome raidermac ty for your knowledge

[RaiderMac]

Also ice4444, just adding to what I stated about Burgess, where exactly does C.Clemons stand along the depth chart at DE, being that his #'s are down this year into four games? Reserve at both DE spots.

LDE:

J.Parker - 4 sacks

V.Abiamiri - 0 sacks

C.Clemons - 0 sacks

RDE:

T.Cole - 2 sacks

D.Howard - 2 sacks


Overall, its beginning to look like players who play opposite of Burgess in which all they have to do is get to the passer in "passing situations" can succeed in getting sacks, just like Edwards (3), Clemons (8), and now even Richardson (2) who have played with Burgess in their careers.

This isn't knocking any of these players talents because I would love to have Clemons here right now in the rotation of Burgess/Richardson/Edwards/and Scott, but give credit where credit is due when you try knocking down one our own "TOP PLAYERS" on defense.

Just ask Asomugha in 2006 if he could do without burgess's services that year, i'm sure he'll tell you the exact opposite of what you've said.

[psycho5150]

Call me crazy but I'd say give that sorry excuse for a LB Sam Williams a shot @ DE see what he can do there!

[RaiderMac]

Originally Posted by psycho5150

Call me crazy but I'd say give that sorry excuse for a LB Sam Williams a shot @ DE see what he can do there!

I always thought he was playing out of position ever since Rob tried bringing in that 3-4 defense. I wouldn't mind seeing Sam line up at DE and go get the qb. His tackling/coverage are question marks at this point, so I don't see why not.

[trur8r]

It’s not looking good for Derrick Burgess with regard to playing against the New Orleans Saints Sunday at the Superdome.

Burgess missed practice for the third straight day with a triceps injury and coach Tom Cable said the two-time Pro Bowl defensive would be seeking more medical advice.

Cable said Burgess would be on the trip to New Orleans but it was doubtul he would play.

In that case, Jay Richardson would move to left end, with Kalimba Edwards opening at right end.

Cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha (elbow), running back Justin Fargas (groin) and guard Cooper Carlisle (ankle) all practiced without restrictions before the Raiders boarded their charter flight headed to New Orleans.

Running back Darren McFadden (toe), linebacker Isaiah Ekejiuba (shoulder) and tight end Ben Troupe (foot) were limited. McFadden and Ekejiuba should play, Troupe would be available if active.

Cable seemed confident McFadden would play a prominent role along with Fargas.

“Absolutely, we’ll spot it,” Cable said. “I see those guys being able to do a lot, like we did in Kansas City, a good mix of the two of them.”

Safety Gibril Wilson, out with the flu the previous day, practiced without restrictions Friday.

He's out

[Silver&Blackout]

Originally Posted by RaiderMac

Burgess couldn't start for 2 teams in a 4-3 defense in the NFL, when regarding sacks thus far for this season.

4-3 teams in the NFL............

Falcons - DE J.Abraham leads the NFL in sacks with 7.

Packers - DE A.Kampman next DE with 4 sacks.

Seahawks - DE P.Kerney 4 sacks.

Texans - DE M.Williams 4 sacks.

Eagles - DE J.Parker 3.5 sacks.

Bucs - DE G.White 3.5 sacks.

Bears - DE A.Brown 3 sacks.

RAIDERS - DE K.EDWARDS 3 SACKS.

Colts - DE D.Freeney 3 sacks.

Saints - DE C.Grant 3 sacks.

Panthers - DE J.Peppers 3 sacks.

Giants - DE J.Tuck 3 sacks.

Titans - DE K.Vanden Bosch 3 sacks.

These last two teams are the only 4-3 teams in the NFL who wouldn't need Burgess's services. How many 4-3 defenses are there in the NFL you ask? (22 TEAMS) More than half of the NFL. And yet, you can sit here and tell me that 20 out of 22 teams in the NFL wouldn't need Burgess services?

Eagles - DE D.Howard 2.5 sacks.

Packers - DE C.Jenkins 2.5 sacks.

Burgess has been on the injury report every year there is no questioning that, but when you start to make statements that he couldn't start for "most good teams in the NFL" there are 10 teams who have a .500 or better record who currently run a 4-3 defense and there are 7 teams who currently run a 3-4 defense who have a .500 or better record overall.
Yet, out of the 10 teams who run a 4-3 defense NINE of them could use his services opposite of their DE.

You can continue to point out his "INJURY" problems or his rush defense problems, currently when we're ranked 17th in the NFL in stopping the run, which in return you didn't seem to mention players like Sapp whose loss of weight of close to 50lbs last year, Washington/Schweigert/Robert Thomas/S.Williams, T.Sands/G.Warren substitution, and a rookie DE in Richardson to help matters with last years rush defense. BLAMING "ONE" PLAYER IS STUPIDITY in regards to last years rush defense.

Name "ONE" player along the Raiders defensive line who has had more sacks than Burgess since he has been here?...................

K.Edwards - 3 sacks

C.Clemons - 8 sacks

J.Richardson - 2 sacks

L.Johnstone - 2 sacks

K.Huntley - 2 sacks

B.Hamilton - 2 sacks

T.Brayton - 1 sack

D.Grant - 1 sack

T.Kelly - 1 sack (last year when he was playing DE)

D.Burgess - "37 sacks" in the "4 years that he has been a Raider". Meaning that he's getting nearly 10 sacks a year based on the 4 years that he has been here in Oakland.

Say what you want about Burgess, but when you line opposite of him, such as K.Edwards/C.Clemons have over the past two years, you're going to get YOURS.

2005 - 16

2006 - 11

2007 - 8

2008 - 2 (4 games, thus far)

Again, the double teams in 2007/08 only help my cause in defending Burgess. Why you ask? Take a look at C.Clemons (2007) "8 sacks" and K.Edwards (2008) 3 sacks and PLEASE TELL ME THAT THEY DON'T "BENEFIT" FROM HAVING D.BURGESS OPPOSITE OF THEM!!!!!


BTW ice4444, HOW MANY SACKS DOES C.CLEMONS HAVE THIS YEAR WHEN HIS TEAM IS TIED FOR THE LEAGUE LEAD IN SACKS WITH 18 THIS YEAR?.........................................NONE . Exactly, 3 TACKLES TO HIS NAME.

oOOOOOOOooooh!

Suh-NAP!

Service with a smile.

Awesome post toasty.