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!
He's always been a run player first and foremost. I don't see anything in that quote that suggests what you're saying he said.
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
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhamz
The 2009-2010 Patriots defense misses Seymour. They aren't as good without him as they would have been with him. I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that.
He was going to leave after the 2009-2010 season for no compensation because the Pats were not going to pay him the big $ and big years at his age with his injury history that someone else will. Again, I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that based on what we know about both parties.
Bill B thought the long term benefit of that future first round pick was worth the short term pain the team was absorbing by not having Seymour this year. He was willing to put a lessor team on the field this year in order to try to gain some long term advantages. Time will tell on whether it was a good move or not.
Pretty much spot on. Really nothing more to discuss in this thread.
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertweathers
Not as much as you think at OLB. AD plays a full 16 games last year and that projects out to 9 sacks- close to TBC's 9.5. Vrabes had 4. Burgess has 5. Thats a wash.
But AD didn't play a full 16 games last year. That's the point.
Also, to address some other posters re: Seymour's injury history: what injury history? He's had one significant injury in his career, which he sustained while playing FB and has since fully recovered from. Other than that, he's shown himself to be no more injury prone than Warren or Wilfork.
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunescribe
The Patriots finished the season with 31 sacks, one more than last year when Richard Seymour had one of his best seasons. I say BB's decision to ship him out has been vindicated. Looking forward to that extra No. 1 pick, or whomever/whatever it brings.
Richard, by the way, finished the season with a whopping four sacks (including two in his first game as a Raider), tying him for 82nd in the league. Keep in mind that this was in a system designed to maximize his potential as a pass rusher.
All I can do is compare him to his replacement, Jarvis Green. And Jarvis Green is no Richard Seymour, against the run or the pass.
Let's put it this way, I'd feel better about the upcoming postseason with Seymour on this roster right now. I doubt many people would argue with that sentiment. I'm not saying it was a bad trade - but its hard to argue that he doesn't make the team better, stats or no stats.
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhamz
The 2009-2010 Patriots defense misses Seymour. They aren't as good without him as they would have been with him. I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that.
He was going to leave after the 2009-2010 season for no compensation because the Pats were not going to pay him the big $ and big years at his age with his injury history that someone else will. Again, I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that based on what we know about both parties.
Bill B thought the long term benefit of that future first round pick was worth the short term pain the team was absorbing by not having Seymour this year. He was willing to put a lessor team on the field this year in order to try to gain some long term advantages. Time will tell on whether it was a good move or not.
Unless you know something about compensation for lost free agents in the uncapped year that I don't (I looked for a change in the CBA regarding this, but couldn't find one), Seymour could have yielded a compensatory pick (likely a 3rd), as well as the extra year of service, even if the team had let him walk after this season.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertweathers
I hear ya. Not a huge difference. I would agree w/ you that overall, the rush off the edge is better this year, but it's not clear-cut.
Seems the impact of his loss is more felt along the line.
My .02$
I agree that it's felt on the line too, which makes sense since Warren, in particular, is seeing more double teams now that Seymour is gone. Wilfork isn't on the field on passing downs anyways. I know that this gets a little subjective at this point, but I will say that Burgess and TBC are *much* better at pressuring the QB than Woods and Vrabel were in 2008. The reason why the 2008 OLB's sack #s are even comparable to the 2009 group's is because there's nobody on the defensive line collapsing the pocket in 2009. If Seymour were with us, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that TBC would be at 12+ sacks this year. He's the best pass-rusher we've had at OLB since Willie McGinest, and they would have been coming off the same side.
That's the problem in comparing OLBs between 2008 and 2009 based on sack numbers alone. There are a number of variables that haven't been controlled for- most relevantly, Seymour.
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradyFTW!
He's always been a run player first and foremost. I don't see anything in that quote that suggests what you're saying he said.
I guess what I'm trying to say, so I can be as clear as possible. Seymour hasn't been a dominant player since he was 27. He's been on a steady decline since that point and I can name you only about 5 dominant DL's in the history of the league that played well once over age 30. Now, I'm not saying he couldn't be servicable but not any longer dominant. You don't get 1st Rd picks in return for servicable DL's and he is headed there quickly if not already. Seymour was at his best from 2002-2006, if you recall he missed most of the undefeated season due to injuries -- played 9 games. His best season was 2003. 2008 was an ok season stat wise but he wasn't dominant, everyone could clearly see that. He wasn't relentless and as active knocking down passes in addition to creating pressures. He did have 8 sacks but those numbers were very deceiving, his overall pressures were down. Would I feel better about the playoffs if we had 2003 Seymour, hell yeah!! But 2007 -2009 Seymour wouldn't really make a big difference.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit."
Aristotle
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Socrates
Location: Central MA by way of the great state of New Hampshire
Posts: 7,377
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradyFTW!
I agree that it's felt on the line too, which makes sense since Warren, in particular, is seeing more double teams now that Seymour is gone. Wilfork isn't on the field on passing downs anyways. I know that this gets a little subjective at this point, but I will say that Burgess and TBC are *much* better at pressuring the QB than Woods and Vrabel were in 2008. The reason why the 2008 OLB's sack #s are even comparable to the 2009 group's is because there's nobody on the defensive line collapsing the pocket in 2009. If Seymour were with us, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that TBC would be at 12+ sacks this year. He's the best pass-rusher we've had at OLB since Willie McGinest, and they would have been coming off the same side.
That's the problem in comparing OLBs between 2008 and 2009 based on sack numbers alone. There are a number of variables that haven't been controlled for- most relevantly, Seymour.
Yep- agreed on collapsing the pocket observations. Thats why you're seeing Wright line up in the interior/over the center on 3rd down.
Gotta wonder what their real position is on Wilfork. 2 down player w/ a very limited pass rush ability.
__________________
“I'm not really concerned about the other 31 teams,” - Bill Belichick
"If a player has talent and doesn't succeed, that means that they either don't want to be successful or I have failed as a coach." - Bill Belichick
Last edited by robertweathers; 01-05-2010 at 01:44 PM..
Re: Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in
Final results are in?
The final results will be in when you compare a year of Seymour with whatever we get with the pick we got for Seymour.
I think there will be less discussion then.
Seymour was a great player for us, and he left us a legacy in the form of a first round pick.
__________________
“When we look at the board, based on everything we want in a football player at that particular time, we evaluate them and take the player that fits best for our football team. That’s what we always do, and I think the last nine years we’ve put a pretty competitive team out there on the field every year. I think that’s how you do it – you get good football players. Sometimes they are not always at the No. 1 position, but I don’t think you pass up good football players to get the guys who aren’t as good just because they’re at a position that somebody feels you need.”
BB on his draft philosophy, April 2010
Last edited by spacecrime; 01-05-2010 at 01:42 PM..