Revisiting The Richard Seymour Trade - Oakland Raiders Fans Not Happy - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

PatsFan2 · 10-09-2012, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

You'd rather have Solder than JJ Watt? Seriously?

Say Watt???

Bhelmet · 10-09-2012, 03:23 PM

Of course they are upset, what do the Raiders' fans have to be happy about anyway?

patfanken · 10-09-2012, 03:30 PM

Why are you guys even talking as if JJ Watt was an option. He was NOT! Watt was picked 6 full picks before we had a chance to choose.

Listen, Richard Seymour was a great player for the Pats for several years. But the lessons of overpaying aging vets is just too clear. Its hard enough to make that kind of commitment jump in their 2nd contracts let alone their 3rd. And while he has been a good player for the Raiders, between injury and age, he has never risen to the elite level he was in his prime, and certainly has NOT been a good value for Raiders

I would guarantee you that neither the Raiders, Seehawks, OR Eagles would over pay for the likes of Seymour, Branch, or Samuel if they had a do over. In fact how happy can the Eagles be with their latest CB mega-investment. Some teams never learn. The times when that kind of investment works out are very rare indeed.

BSR · 10-09-2012, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patfanken

Why are you guys even talking as if JJ Watt was an option. He was NOT! Watt was picked 6 full picks before we had a chance to choose.

We aren't talking about him as if he was an option. I was talking about how the trade would have been viewed if Oakland was supposed to suck the year before the draft as they were supposed to so we would have had a top ten pick. You're losing it old man.

condon84 · 10-09-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Because there are no direct correlation between the examples you gave. It is the general understanding that the Pats felt they could only keep either Seymour or Wilfork and not both. They chose Wilfork.

Also, who says it is revising history? We never know for sure what the Pats are thinking and what their real organizational system can and can't handle, but the general consensus of people in the know was that the Pats could only keep one of Wilfork and Seymour.

To point out other bad moves they made are a bit of a red herring to divert from the original premise. Personally, I am more than happy to move on. Seymour has been gone for years and the Pats have been one drive away from winning a Super Bowl since. The Pats have moved on too.

We're playing the "What-if" game so every transaction the team did that led to Seymour getting traded should be up for debate. Signing Adalius to that big contract certainly didn't help.

In regards to the idea that the Pats could only keep Wilfork or Seymour, who said this? It's a ridiculous idea. Unless you can find a quote directly from Bill, I call BS. We just signed both Gronk and Ahern who play the same position to big contracts. Wilfork and Seymour are arguably better players and more valuable to the team. Our defense hasn't been the same since Seymour left. Meanwhile, it seems like Brady can get any Tom, Dick, and Harry to look great.

It was a stupid trade then and probably cost us some important wins.

RI Patriots fan · 10-09-2012, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

I hated the trade at the time, because I thought that, with Seymour, we could have won another title in '09 (and/or in '10 if we'd found a way to tag/keep Seymour). People seem to have already forgotten how good he was, but he was pretty much impossible to run on and also generated a credible pass rush at the same time. Once-in-a-generation type talent at his best, and he was still pretty close to his prime.

Over time, I've softened my stance. I still think that there's a >25% chance that this trade cost the Pats a fourth Lombardi, especially when the Ravens knocked us out at home in '09 by attacking where Seymour should have been (and remember, this was a year that a fairly unimposing Jets team went to the AFCCG). That said, if the economic reality was that it was literally impossible to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, then letting Seymour go was the right call. Wilfork's brought his game to a whole new level over the last couple of seasons, and Seymour isn't quite so valuable in the defense that the Pats run these days.

On the Oakland side, I don't see what they're complaining about. Seymour has been a leader and an impact player for them, and they would have whiffed on the pick anyway.

The year before he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders went 5-11. His first year with the Raiders they improved to....5-11.
He has been with them for 4 seasons with this being his 5th and they haven't had one winning season...not one.

The year he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders had the 27th ranked defense. His first year with thr Raiders they improved to.....26th....wow.
Last year, Oakland's defense was ranked 29th. This year they're all the way up to 25th.

After this year, Seymour will be gone from the Raiders and we will have our starting Left tackle for the next 10 years.

Slam dunk.

***BradyFTW!*** · 10-09-2012, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RI Patriots fan

The year before he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders went 5-11. His first year with the Raiders they improved to....5-11.
He has been with them for 4 seasons with this being his 5th and they haven't had one winning season...not one.

The year he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders had the 27th ranked defense. His first year with thr Raiders they improved to.....26th....wow.
Last year, Oakland's defense was ranked 29th. This year they're all the way up to 25th.

After this year, Seymour will be gone from the Raiders and we will have our starting Left tackle for the next 10 years.

Slam dunk.

Now look at all of the defensive players that they've lost in the interim.

Walpole Pats Fan · 10-09-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFan2

But have we won any SB's since Big-Sey left?

Like BB said time and time again guys like Richard Seymour don't grow on trees. I still think we have won at least one of our last two SB's if we had him.

Haven't read the whole thread, but guys like Vince Wilfork don't grow on trees either.

***patsfan13*** · 10-09-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSR

The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:

#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt

Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.

A franchise LT is worth more than any of these guys even Watt, especially what e now know about Matt Light's Crone's disease issue.

***ausbacker*** · 10-09-2012, 06:37 PM

It's funny how when people make up their mind, they lose all objectivity. Seymour has been just fine for the Raiders.