Skip to content

Eagles to sign Derrick Burgess

GARF7006.JPG

Derrick Burgess is returning to the organization that drafted him nine years ago.

With rookie Brandon Graham out for the season, Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Derrick Burgess will sign with the team.  Burgess, much like Adalius Thomas, hasn’t found a job since the Patriots cut him.

Burgess spent his first four seasons in Philly before experiencing far more success with the Raiders.

Permalink 20 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill
20 Responses to “Eagles to sign Derrick Burgess”
  1. ampats says: Dec 14, 2010 2:24 PM

    Hopefully for Eagle fans he looks 1000x better than he did in pre season.Burgess looked old and slow.

  2. homelanddefense says: Dec 14, 2010 2:24 PM

    Good luck with that Philly!

    -from a Pats fan.

  3. grogansheroes says: Dec 14, 2010 2:25 PM

    The Pats cut him because he didn’t want to play. I wonder what has changed? Thought he decided to retire.

  4. igglesfan13 says: Dec 14, 2010 2:27 PM

    He wasn’t very productive as an Eagle the first 4 years of his career. Had some success in Raider nation and was cut by the Patriots. At least he should be well rested. GO BIRDS!!!

  5. rickah8888 says: Dec 14, 2010 2:32 PM

    Just a stopgap!
    Only need him to perform spot duty behind Jaqua Parker for, at least, 3 games….possibly 6!

  6. barneyrumble says: Dec 14, 2010 2:37 PM

    Sometimes sitting out for a while re-ignites a fire and I think this will be one of those cases.

  7. pastabelly says: Dec 14, 2010 2:39 PM

    Adalius Thomas hasn’t found a job because he sucks. Burgess wasn’t going to make anyone in New England forget Willie McGinest. But he may have made the team if didn’t retire.

  8. cleverbob says: Dec 14, 2010 2:58 PM

    rickah8888 says:
    Dec 14, 2010 2:32 PM

    Just a stopgap!
    Only need him to perform spot duty behind Jaqua Parker for, at least, 3 games….possibly 6!
    =====================================

    Exactly. They’re not expecting him to set the world on fire, just provide a little depth on a team that sorely lacks it.

  9. bobbybythepound says: Dec 14, 2010 3:17 PM

    If the Pats cut you, then that must mean you lost a step. Right Richard Seymour? Uh wait….

  10. free kill says: Dec 14, 2010 3:30 PM

    The Pats didn’t cut Richard Seymour. They traded him for a first round draft pick.

  11. pfinnj says: Dec 14, 2010 3:34 PM

    If the Pats cut you, then that must mean you lost a step. Right Richard Seymour? Uh wait….

    Seymour was traded. The Pats get Oakland’s first round pick this year.

  12. norcaleagles says: Dec 14, 2010 3:40 PM

    Im not expecting any big performances from Burgess, but I hope he can play his role as a backup and give Juqua a breather every now and then. Philly also has rookie DE Daniel Te’o-Nesheim. Im sure he’ll be getting more reps than Burgess. And of course Burgess didnt do well in N.E. He’s a 4-3 DE, not a 3-4 OLB. He had a little bit of success in Philly, especially in the ’04 playoffs. He had a great game against Vick in the ’04 conference championship.

  13. tonyromes says: Dec 14, 2010 3:40 PM

    His best game for the Birds, ironically, was in the ’04 Championship Game in which we shut down Vick.

  14. kellyb9 says: Dec 14, 2010 3:46 PM

    There is a monumental difference between cutting a player and trading him for a first round draft pick. I think the Patriots still got the deal of a century. They weren’t going to be able to resign him.

  15. jesusjustletmeregister says: Dec 14, 2010 3:54 PM

    The Eagles just did it because they didn’t want to let the Phillies have all the spotlight today.

  16. joetoronto says: Dec 14, 2010 3:55 PM

    “Burgess spent his first four seasons in Philly before experiencing far more success with the Raiders”

    …..and then bombed out in NE, after the Pats gave Oakland a 3rd & a 4th round draft choice for him.

  17. fortphiladamsterdam says: Dec 14, 2010 3:58 PM

    there are 90 years left in the century…

  18. igglesfan13 says: Dec 14, 2010 4:45 PM

    @ jesusjustletmeregister, Isn’t that the truth?!

    GO PHILS & BIRDS!!

  19. bwisnasky says: Dec 14, 2010 5:34 PM

    Experiencing far more success? I guess if you consider malingering and constantly being injured to the point you can’t play successful, then yes, I’d have to agree with you… So to go back to the point of the Seymour thing… Essentially, the Raiders got Seymour and a 3rd and 4th for a Burgess and 1…. I think both sides did okay… except Burgess never was a factor for the Pats before the cut him…. But we do thank you for King Richard’s services…..

  20. upperdecker19 says: Dec 15, 2010 12:44 PM

    Jerome McDougal must have been unavailable

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!