Seymour to Report on Saturday...Ready for Monday's game???? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***MoLewisrocks*** · 09-12-2009, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patspsycho

Not sure the lockout year is a factor. Doesn't it automatically roll over?

Nope. Teams get to name their franchise player each year. They will have a pretty good idea in March 2011 if there is going to be a lockout.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 09-12-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Hold the horses:

Reiss, a few minutes ago:

Union files grievance for Seymour - The Boston Globe

"The Richard Seymour saga has a new twist.

The NFL Players Association filed a grievance on behalf of Seymour yesterday, according to a source familiar with the union’s thinking. The grievance claims that the Oakland Raiders were not within their rights to send him a “five-day letter,’’ which noted he could be suspended for the season if he doesn’t report to the team by Tuesday.....

......Seymour has not spoken publicly since the trade, but the grievance appears to be a strong indication that he does not want to play for the Raiders."

I doubt they will prevail. There are rules in the league's procedural manual that cover trades and their validity once approved. Tough to argue they can be invalidated by not completing the requirement for a physical when it is the player's refusal to report that has caused the physical not to be performed.

PYPER · 09-12-2009, 12:21 AM

The odds may be against it but Seymour's Patriot days may not be over with. This is turning into a very interesting situation. If Seymour is successful at defeating the trade I'm curious as to what BB's reaction would be and whether he'd welcome him back on the roster at some point down the line or if Seymour would even accept that.

I love BB but I love Seymour too.

***shmessy*** · 09-12-2009, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

I doubt they will prevail. There are rules in the league's procedural manual that cover trades and their validity once approved. Tough to argue they can be invalidated by not completing the requirement for a physical when it is the player's refusal to report that has caused the physical not to be performed.

In the meantime, Reiss' report seems to contradict Schefter's.

These are two of the best beat reporters out and within minutes they have two very differing reports on the situation.

captain insano · 09-12-2009, 12:27 AM

its not over till he takes a physical.

***mgteich*** · 09-12-2009, 12:30 AM

They could put him in at fullback in the jumbo offense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

How can he play on a defense when he knows none of their playbook or calls...or names. One of his more astute future teamates was mulling this a couple of days ago...

Well the letter must have gotten his attention. Either that or Rodney told him to man up.

***shmessy*** · 09-12-2009, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

They could put him in at fullback in the jumbo offense.

That's worth a 2011 1st rounder.

JSn · 09-12-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

They could put him in at fullback in the jumbo offense.

Maybe if he can run really well on his knees.

Satchboogie3 · 09-12-2009, 12:37 AM

This situation is out of control. The league needs to come down HARD on Seymour. They simply can not set the precedent of a player being able to void a trade by throwing a temper tantrum. I hope Goodell takes the fat end of a bat and sho.... oh, um, never mind.

***Frezo*** · 09-12-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

They could put him in at fullback in the jumbo offense.

HAHA...Then they could tender him next year as a fullback.