Seymour did nothing - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

***BradyFTW!*** · 10-04-2011, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shockt327

So now you are trying to claim that any mention of penetration is somehow useless?

If you think pointing to a DTs ability to penetrate is akin to some sort of consolation prize cause it didn't result in a highlight reel play -- then you simply don't get it. This isn't a black and white deal. Just because a play doesn't result in a sack doesn't mean that penetration wasn't there. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet doesn't mean it doesn't exist....or that the O-line just sort of let him through...or whatever it was you were previously trying to argue.

The only official way to "quantify" a DTs ability to penetrate is sacks. And at only, what, a dozen a year for even the best of the best - then it's hardly ever going to be quantifiable within a single game. Especially when playing against one of the least sacked QBs in the NFL: Brady. So to say that there is no way to quantify his ability to penetrate does not somehow prove he had a poor game.

You may as well be arguing that DB coverage can only be good unless there are INTs. In reality, that's crap. There is no statistic to "quantify" a DBs ability to cover his man, and make the QB look elsewhere. Same with penetration. It matters. It matters even more than sacks...cause those only happen less than once per game.

The existence of this thread is an agenda at work. Don't expect to convince him, his mind was made up a long time ago, and any evidence, no matter how flimsy and irrational, is apparently going to have a whole thread dedicated to it.

***AndyJohnson*** · 10-04-2011, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

The existence of this thread is an agenda at work. Don't expect to convince him, his mind was made up a long time ago, and any evidence, no matter how flimsy and irrational, is apparently going to have a whole thread dedicated to it.

How could my mind be made up a long time ago about how Seymour played on Sunday? No agenda here, just obsevation. Are you disagreeing and saying he played well?

dhamz · 10-04-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bostonian1962

Seymour helped the Patriots more in the game, that at any time during his last 2 years with them.

His 8 sacks in his last year in NE clearly didn't help.

The Scrizz · 10-04-2011, 08:09 AM

Why can't we appreciate that Seymour was a great player for us and also that it was probably time for him to move on and getting Nate Solder for him looks like it will end up being a pretty good deal.

I wouldn't say Seymour did nothing during the game, but the simple fact is that his huge mistakes on that first drive did more damage to his team than any positives he may have come up with later. He was a net negative in the game because he played stupid. He would be getting killed on this board if he played that dumb in a game for us.

I'm sure he wanted to prove to BB that he made a mistake so was fired up, but you can play with emotion and still play smart. I think it was a combination of his emotion getting the better of him combined with good old-fashioned Raider lack of discipline football.

At Least Hue pulled him for a series after the off-sides I believe, which is more discipline than I'm used to from a Raiders team. He looks like one of the better coaches they've had in awhile.

condon84 · 10-04-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsWickedPissah

It is utter folly to evaluate the trade of a very good player based on one game. Sure we all felt good seeing Big Sey self destruct and hand us 1/3rd of a scoring drive and do nothing significant for his team while Wilfork where we spent out cap $ had his 2nd pick. But it's his absence for years vs what we got for however long that makes or breaks the deal. Yesterday was a very nice day for the trade.

I was being sarcastic.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 10-04-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by condon84

I was being sarcastic.

Got me
10 chars