ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
With sixth-round pick Myron Pyror playing well (even getting calls from other teams checking his availability)
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
We saw Pryor run with the 1s in preseason. Brace is looking promising. Green and Wright are very capable backups/spot-starters (Green in particular, who in the past has shown nice flashes). Even without adding a player, the Pats will approach Seymour's absence with a "DL by committee" approach. They'll even have TBC and Burgess up there for certain formations, I'm sure. If everyone stays healthy, they can compensate for his loss. It will be interesting when we review this gamble at the end of the season to see if it paid off or not. All I know is, Belichick would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch, if you sent him to Foxwoods with a stack of black chips...
Seymour is still talented and can still be effective, but he's very inconsistent. He's a flash player, and if you grade the flashes, he can be disruptive, but there are times when he's not a factor on the field.
For this move to work, Seymour has to play at a high level, and the Raiders must re-sign him. Giving up a one for a player for potentially only one year is not a good move, even in the eyes of diehard Raiders fans. At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.
Re At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.
If he's right that the Pats were willing to trade Seymour for, say, two 2nds, that somewhat (not entirely) supports mgteich's perception of the value the Pats were willing to accept for him.
__________________
"To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." -- Oscar Wilde
Re At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.
If he's right that the Pats were willing to trade Seymour for, say, two 2nds, that somewhat (not entirely) supports mgteich's perception of the value the Pats were willing to accept for him.
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.
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.
There is so much speculation... it is impossible to know the truth, because BB is the Fort Knox of coaches. That's why we like him (not because he's pretty, obv).
There is so much speculation... it is impossible to know the truth, because BB is the Fort Knox of coaches. That's why we like him (not because he's pretty, obv).
It's kind of fun to read all the quotes from anonymous "league sources" trying to read deep into the BB tea leaves.
Here's what we can say with authority:
- Bill Belichick traded Richard Seymour, and did not trade Vince Wilfork.
- Bill Belichick thinks Oakland's #1 pick in 2011 is worth more than Richard Seymour's 2009 season + a potential comp pick.
If anyone had thoughts that would get us nearer the truth, it would be Mike.
His objective view of Seymour and that little note about Pryor causing phone calls, are solid parts to an article by someone I think always brings good insight and objectivity to football analysis.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.
If he's right that the Pats were willing to trade Seymour for, say, two 2nds, that somewhat (not entirely) supports mgteich's perception of the value the Pats were willing to accept for him.
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.
Lombardi on Seymour trade
Linear Mode
