Raiders sent the 5 day letter to Seymour - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Patriot_in_NY · 09-10-2009, 07:19 PM

I wonder what the exact wording to the letter was?

Quote:

Dear Richard,

Please stop being a big p*ssy and get your azz out to Oakland to play for our crappy team. If you don't we are going to jam it so far up your hind end that you will be begging to not only play for us, but to wear our silly pirate costumes to.

Sincerely,
Uncle Al Davis.

p.s. This letter will self destruct in 5 days.

***Bobs My Uncle*** · 09-10-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I've thought this over and could see a scenario where that could be possible, but unlikely.
If Seymour reports to take the phyiscal and tells the Raiders he won't play for them, then the Raiders would have an incentive to be overly strict in the physical.
There are numerous problems with this theory though.
1) It assumes the Raiders have been convinced by the media that they made a bad trade
2) Why would Seymour take the physical if he doesnt want to play for the Raiduhs?
3) The Raiduhs would expose themselves to a boatload of problems for failing Seymour with an injury that is less severe than they have allowed players to play with. Think of it. Seymour failed his physical because of his knees. Raiduh X has knee issues, then sustains an even more serious knee injury. Lawyer X subpoenas the Seymour file and sue's the Raiduhs for negligence because they let the player play with a more severe injury than Seymour had when they said Seymour was too injured to play. Big can of worms to open.

In the end the only way for a phony fail on the physical is if Seymour reports to take it and then the Raiduhs decide they dont want him. They would only not want him if he was going to hold out, and if he was going to hold out he wouldn't show up for the physical.

Am I missing an angle?

Assuming full disclosure of the findings aren't required by league office, my guess is the reason for failure would be some abstract issue that only the Raiders test for.

***AndyJohnson*** · 09-10-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobs My Uncle

Assuming full disclosure of the findings aren't required by league office, my guess is the reason for failure would be some abstract issue that only the Raiders test for.

Does that overcome all of the other issues?
Can you assume full disclosure isnt required? Do you really think Saint Godell would allow 'the shield' to be jeopardized by shenaningans without investigating and ruling unilaterally?

SVN · 09-10-2009, 07:38 PM

Raiders send Seymour letter | ProFootballTalk.com
i dont know about the contractual language florio talks about but it would be embarassing for al davis to take the pick back because a player does not want to report or play for oakland. this is as much about ego too IMO

EDIT:i just saw the earlier thread on this-sorry. mods please merge

***AndyJohnson*** · 09-10-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Does that overcome all of the other issues?
Can you assume full disclosure isnt required? Do you really think Saint Godell would allow 'the shield' to be jeopardized by shenaningans without investigating and ruling unilaterally?

Remember the only criteria for a decision by the NFL is that Godell thinks that it is what should be done

***shmessy*** · 09-10-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVN

Raiders send Seymour letter | ProFootballTalk.com
i dont know about the contractual language florio talks about but it would be embarassing for al davis to take the pick back because a player does not want to report or play for oakland. this is as much about ego too IMO

EDIT:i just saw the earlier thread on this-sorry. mods please merge

No prob, man.

***mgteich*** · 09-10-2009, 07:48 PM

I don't believe that Belichick was ever offered a 2010 first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

I wonder if this is why Belichick opted for the 2011 pick. If it's a 2010 it's a bit of a distraction but by 2011 this situation resolves itself even if it means the Raiders send him somewhere for a #1 pick in 2010 or 2011.

That would be funny ... if we end up picking before them in 2011 with their own pick.

***mayoclinic*** · 09-10-2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I'd rather it just end

Amen to that.

I'm VERY pleased that Oakland finally sent out the 5 day letter, and that this soap opera will get some resolution soon. The amount of confusion created over this matter has been unreal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I dont believe Al Davis can feed himself at this point, much less put the screws to anyone.
But I do agree that Seymour gains nothing by not playing and the Raiders are the wrong kind of enemy to have, mostly because they will spend money to ruin you even if it they cant gain anything themselves.
If you don't like Richard Seymour you couldnt have wished for a better development that this trade.

Seymour has never been a personal favorite of mine. When he's on, he's the best 3-4 DE I've ever seen, and I recognize his accomplishments, value, and what he's brought to this team in the past. But he always seemed injured a bit too much, inconsistent a bit too much, and about himself a bit too much for me to jump wholeheartedly on the Big Sey bandwagon. I'm sorry it had to end this way, but I do feel that he brought some of this on himself.

The Pats, the Raiders, the NFL office, and the CBA all recognize that Seymour is the property of Oakland pending a failed physical, which he has no reason to fail. Now maybe he can grow up and come to terms with it.

***mgteich*** · 09-10-2009, 07:53 PM

I expect that Seymour will have his physical and then the real drama can begin. However, tha patriots will not be involved. After all, the raiders can't suspend one of their players for the season sitting out 2 or 3 games.

***tanked_as_usual*** · 09-10-2009, 07:59 PM

the raiders can't make crap up on the physical.....they would have to prove a problem exists that would keep him from playing........its not like they can say 'we don't like his tats