Lombardi on Seymour trade - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 09-07-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Of course it hurts the Patriots THIS season.

If they gave the Raiders a ham sandwich on rye with nothing immediate for return, the organization would have been lessesned by a ham sandwich on rye.

In the meantime, the Patriots are VERY deep on the DL. Seymour, while still a very good (though not as great as he was 4 years ago) player ids not a MUST on the Patriots DL at this time.

Immediate gratification is the realm of Daniel Snyder. I get to watch that up close here in Maryland. It's hugely entertaining.

There is nobody on the Patriots defensive line that currently even approaches the overall talent and impact of Seymour. However, I love the immediate gratification line. It'll make everyone who's pissed off about 2007 feel much better to know that putting off that gratification will really help come 2013-2014 when the first rounder gotten in this trade really starts having a major impact. Why worry about winning Super Bowls in 2009 when you can draft someone to help ease Brady into his NFL dotage in 2011?

Fencer · 09-07-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

That was one 2nd not two.

I was giving an example of what "based on" might mean.

***shmessy*** · 09-07-2009, 01:34 PM

[QUOTE=Deus Irae;1490167]The last time I checked, there was no rookie pay scale in the NFL. /QUOTE]

Once again, the draft pick is for TWO YEARS HENCE.

It doesn't matter a hill of beans, the LAST time you checked what the scale IS.

Once again, keep playing checkers, someday you'll learn chess.

vyrago · 09-07-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrairiePat

Lombardi says the exact thing that always comes to mind when I think of Seymour - when he was on/motivated/whatever, he was a force out there. But many games he seemed totally invisible as well. I could usually tell early in the game; Seymour would be in the offensive backfield all the time on his 'good' days, it seemed.

I don't know for sure the problem was entirely Seymour's motivation either; maybe it was the scheme the Pats were playing vs some opponents, maybe it was the opposing OL, who really knows. But his play seemed awfully inconsistent to me.

I suppose this has been speculated on in one of the 200 other Seymour threads, but could big Sey be one of the players Hobbs was talking about who faked injuries?

***shmessy*** · 09-07-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The Feel free to go ask the Bruins how 'anticipating' the outcome of a CBA worked out with regards to the salary cap.

Are you kidding???????

The BRUINS???????

You're comparing Jeremy Jacobs to Bob Kraft in the brains department????????

Thanks for the entertainment!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh geez, Deus, I guess since Jeremy Jacobs (or whoever the "genius" is on Causeway street who turned the Boston Bruins from the #1 most beloved team in Boston into an organization that garners a little more interest than the Northeastern Huskies football team) got singed, then Kraft doesn't have a chance!!!!

Thanks for that!!!!

***shmessy*** · 09-07-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

However, I love the immediate gratification line. It'll make everyone who's pissed off about 2007 feel much better to know that putting off that gratification will really help come 2013-2014 when the first rounder gotten in this trade really starts having a major impact.

You must have been a joy to be around the day Milloy got cut.

At least this time, the Patriots are actually going to get something.

And, yes, they are STILL the favorites to win the Super Bowl this year.

***Deus Irae*** · 09-07-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The last time I checked, there was no rookie pay scale in the NFL.

Once again, the draft pick is for TWO YEARS HENCE.

It doesn't matter a hill of beans, the LAST time you checked what the scale IS.

Once again, keep playing checkers, someday you'll learn chess.

And you keep ignoring the point of my posts. How cute!

everlong · 09-07-2009, 01:49 PM

Seymour is playing for a contract which means he is going to be seriously motivated. So at least for one year the Raiders are going to reap the benefits of this deal.

Here's the interesting thing. It's been rumored Seymour won't report. He has little leverage in this matter but he might push the issue to get one of two things. An extension or more preferable an agreement that the Raiders won't franchise him. The Raiders almost certainly want to extend him but would be foolish to do so now IMO. I'd get the production first then franchise him if it comes down to it. With the possibility of a lockout it saves them from a big signing bonus. If they agree not to franchise him they are bigger idiots than I thought because he, and I would too, is going to bolt ASAP rather than be in football Siberia. Certainly Samuel and Briggs have done it but that was at the end of rookie deals not after a trade.

It would be classic if he bolted and the Raiders gave up a first rounder and gained a third round for one year of service.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 09-07-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

If he's right, it also completely undercuts all the claims that the 2011 pick was based on the likelihood of a rookie pay scale, or that it shows that the Pats expect a lockout.

Or, for that matter, that the Pats were demanding a 1.

***Deus Irae*** · 09-07-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

You must have been a joy to be around the day Milloy got cut.

At least this time, the Patriots are actually going to get something.

And, yes, they are STILL the favorites to win the Super Bowl this year.

And now you toss out irrelevancies.