Patriots trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders!!!

[SteveBsFan]

The more I think about it, the less I like this trade. I'm not happy. This was a bad move and we will see the results on the field.

I can't really see how people can consider this in any way a 'bad' move. If you get offered a 1st round pick for a 9th year defensive player who never really reached his potential, and is in a contract year, you take it.

Then there are a lot of variables.

How high will the pick end up? With Oakland, it's likely high.
How deep are you in that position? Patriots are in good shape
What were your chances of re-signing that player to a good contract? That is unknown.

and plenty other variables, but no matter the variable, in this situation, nothing will change the fact the Patriots got a good deal. Worst case, they 'only' got a good deal, best case, they got an absolute steal.

 

[BradyFTW!]

For those who think that the loss of Seymour won't be felt:

Adjusted Line Yards for running on the Pats (and ranking)

Left End: 4.30 (20th)
Left Tackle: 2.88 (2nd) <--- Seymour
Mid/Guard: 4.18 (14th) <-- Wilfork
Right Tackle: 4.26 (22nd) <-- Warren
Right End: 4.41 (24th)

Which of these numbers is not like the other? Since most people only seem to evaluate defensive players for their sack totals, Seymour doesn't get anywhere near his due, because his greatest value is in that he absolutely shuts down the run. It's impossible to run behind the left tackle when Seymour's playing.

So basically, we just lost our best run-stopper and our top pass-rusher on the DL. AKA, the MVP of our defense. I get that we got value for him before he walked, but don't be surprised when our run defense suddenly becomes a problem this year. Maybe Belichick's banking on our opponents playing from too far behind to exploit Seymour's absence against the run, but this isn't going to help us win any games in january...

 

[SteveBsFan]

Re: Patriots must be certain about lockout

I think this move was also made because the PATS FO must be sure that there will be a lockout in 2011.
This is one way to prepare for the lockout by not tossing megabucks out teh window in 2009 and 2010, especially for players they feel they are not getting equal value in return.

By preparing financially for 2011 lockout, the Patriots will be in better shape than 95% of the team sin this league

This was on the Adam Schefter article too, a quote from a league exec..

"But the most ominous note came from one exec who wrote, "Pats see 2011 lockout.""

I'm still confused why. Seymour was likely gone by then anyway, so financially how does this relate to the lockout? And how does it impact that pick?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I can't really see how people can consider this in any way a 'bad' move. If you get offered a 1st round pick for a 9th year defensive player who never really reached his potential, and is in a contract year, you take it.

Then there are a lot of variables.

How high will the pick end up? With Oakland, it's likely high.
How deep are you in that position? Patriots are in good shape
What were your chances of re-signing that player to a good contract? That is unknown.

and plenty other variables, but no matter the variable, in this situation, nothing will change the fact the Patriots got a good deal. Worst case, they 'only' got a good deal, best case, they got an absolute steal.

How the hell did Seymour 'never fully reach his potential'? He's by far the best 3-4 DE in the NFL, and has been for nearly a decade. The rest of your post makes sense, but that stuck out.

 

[DefenseRules]

For those who think that the loss of Seymour won't be felt:

Adjusted Line Yards for running on the Pats (and ranking)

Left End: 4.30 (20th)
Left Tackle: 2.88 (2nd) <--- Seymour
Mid/Guard: 4.18 (14th) <-- Wilfork
Right Tackle: 4.26 (22nd) <-- Warren
Right End: 4.41 (24th)

Which of these numbers is not like the other? Since most people only seem to evaluate defensive players for their sack totals, Seymour doesn't get anywhere near his due, because his greatest value is in that he absolutely shuts down the run. It's impossible to run behind the left tackle when Seymour's playing.

So basically, we just lost our best run-stopper and our top pass-rusher on the DL. AKA, the MVP of our defense. I get that we got value for him before he walked, but don't be surprised when our run defense suddenly becomes a problem this year. Maybe Belichick's banking on our opponents playing from too far behind to exploit Seymour's absence against the run, but this isn't going to help us win any games in january...

Amen. I absolutely agree with you.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Want to thank Seymour for his contributions and wish him all the best. All I can infer here is that BB had no intentions to resign Seymour next year so lets get what we can now.

Guess I'm in the minority when saying I like the deal. For this year it is a little worrisome since the defense already had enough ?'s heading in, but in the past the DL depth has stepped up to the plate in his absence. I have faith that whatever we lose this season will be eclipsed by having a top 10 pick on 2011. This will make it alot easier to keep Mankins, and Wilfork I don't think they are going to let go of either.

Not sure why Oakland would do this deal. I'm pretty sure Seymour will jet after 1 year in that craphole, and the team is going nowhere with or without him for this season.

 

[ramon]

Re: Patriots must be certain about lockout

This was on the Adam Schefter article too, a quote from a league exec..

"But the most ominous note came from one exec who wrote, "Pats see 2011 lockout.""

I'm still confused why. Seymour was likely gone by then anyway, so financially how does this relate to the lockout? And how does it impact that pick?

True...Seymour would be gone by 2010, but a 2010 first round pick will almost certainly NOT be under a rookie cap. By waiting to take the pick until 2011 there is a better chance thta rookie high draft picks will be slotted to reasonable salaries...this is key if there is a lockout in September 2011 and the teams start losing big dollars

 

[maverick4]

This trade is absolutely brilliant, because in 2011 the top draft picks are going to be on a fixed rookie pay scale like what the NBA does, to keep salaries low for elite rookies.

In 2011 Belichick is going to have what the 80's Celtics had, when they won a championship then drafted Len Bias!! However, unlike what happened to Bias, the Pats are going to select a stud who stays alive and keeps the dynasty going.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can't really see how people can consider this in any way a 'bad' move. If you get offered a 1st round pick for a 9th year defensive player who never really reached his potential, and is in a contract year, you take it.

Then there are a lot of variables.

How high will the pick end up? With Oakland, it's likely high.
How deep are you in that position? Patriots are in good shape
What were your chances of re-signing that player to a good contract? That is unknown.

and plenty other variables, but no matter the variable, in this situation, nothing will change the fact the Patriots got a good deal. Worst case, they 'only' got a good deal, best case, they got an absolute steal.

Could you let me know how becoming the best in the business and a Hall of Fame caliber player at 3-4 defensive end is somehow not reaching his potential?

If the deal had been done in reverse, Patriots fans would be laughing their asses off at Davis for trading the best 3-4 D-lineman in the game, who's only turning 30 in October, for a pick 2 years down the road.

 

[Lampshade]

Still entirely in two minds about this.

One the one hand, IF Sey wasn't going to be here next year, and IF there is a switch to 4-3 AND IF the drop-off from Sey as a 4-3 end to the next best 4-3 end isn't as significant as the drop-off in the 3-4, then I can see the logic in getting something (and something quite significant) for him now.

On the other hand, he has been an absolute beast, and there will more than likely be a decrease in production this year, no matter how small.

Green, Brace, Burgess, Wright, Pryor, Banta-Cain, it's time to step up.

 

[JD10367]

Seymour is approaching 30, and hasn't been the force he was four or five years ago.

They probably couldn't pay both Seymour and Wilfork. Wilfork IMO is more important.

Seymour isn't quite as effective in the 4-3, which they apparently will be playing more of.

They're very deep on the D-line and, if ever they were able to absorb Seymour's loss, now's the time.

They got a 1st-rounder in trade--probably a top-15 first-rounder, judging by the Mongolian cluster$%@# that has been the Raiders organization of the past six year--for a guy who was probably leaving after this season.

There's not exactly a Bruschi-like love between the organization and Seymour. Look at the last negotiations. Seymour's hold-out. The cryptic comments by Hobbs about guys faking injuries. Just saying, something's fishy.

The thing about Belichick is that he's very pro-active. It's been said before, and it should be said again: better to cut a guy loose a season too early, than to hang onto him a season or two too late. It's been the pattern with them, starting way back with Chad Eaton, right up through everyone else. Deion Branch, David Givens, Damien Woody, Daniel Graham, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Willie McGinest... name your player. Every one of them let loose with gas still in the tank, and fans scratching their heads a bit; every one of them shown to be the right decision, as they've moved on to be, in most cases, someone else's overpaid and underperforming headache to deal with.

There's only one piece of the New England Patriots puzzle that is essential to winning a Super Bowl: it's the guy with the knee brace and the hot model wife. Everything else, they can work around.

 

[SteveBsFan]

How the hell did Seymour 'never fully reach his potential'? He's by far the best 3-4 DE in the NFL, and has been for nearly a decade. The rest of your post makes sense, but that stuck out.

I don't understand how that matters. Not every team in the league runs a 3-4 defense, so that statement is basically saying he's the best DE on the teams that run a specific system. I doubt if every team converted to 3-4 tomorrow, he'd still be the best 3-4 DE in the NFL.

Anyway, yes he did have a great season last year, but for a 6th overall pick, he's never been a consistent threat on the outside. Some years he's great, others he's pretty good, etc.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't understand how that matters. Not every team in the league runs a 3-4 defense, so that statement is basically saying he's the best DE on the teams that run a specific system. I doubt if every team converted to 3-4 tomorrow, he'd still be the best 3-4 DE in the NFL.

Anyway, yes he did have a great season last year, but for a 6th overall pick, he's never been a consistent threat on the outside. Some years he's great, others he's pretty good, etc.

He's been "great" every year that he hasn't been injured or recovering from that injury. Sheesh!

 

[wpdougie2180]

I don't like the move even though they got 1st round pick for him which is 2 years from now by the way. First one of the things everyone was banking on was having a highly motivated Seymour playing in a contract year which could only help the team and secondly with the uncapped year in 2010 one of the big factors was if you finish in the top 8 I believe you can't sign any free agents without losing one that's equal to the one you lost. Which means even though it's an uncapped year the Patriots can't sign any big name free agents unless the player is released or the lose someone the caliber of Wilfork or Mankins.

 

[gomezcat]

I have to say that I am shocked and am not overly happy about this. I guess there is more to this than meets the eye. Sey will be missed; if you have access to game tapes from last year, watch how much attention he got and how effective he was in spite of that. The guy attracted a large number of double teams and was a monster in the run as Brady FTW said.

Still, BB and the organisation know what they are doing, so I'll accept it and move on.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Seymour is approaching 30, and hasn't been the force he was four or five years ago.

While I think it is a great deal, Seymour is coming off a monster season in 08. I'm hoping that the showings by Pryor and Brace had a significant effect in BB's decision making here.

 

[farn]

I see both sides...

#1 - The value is MORE than fair. A 30-year-old (basically) for a (potentially) top 5 pick.

#2 - I'm afraid it hurts 09-10... Deion NOT being there to catch the ball in the endzone against Indy still stings a bit (I know, can't play "what ifs") - but we DID get great value for Branch.

 

[Pats726]

I'm sorry..TALKING about Seymour and the reason they readed him a lockout is one of teh silliest things I ahve heard!! Got your tinfoil hat ready??
The reason was that they can get value for him now...versus ZERO at the end of teh season.. I think most of those yapping about it now would be yapping JUST as much if not more if the team got zero after the season.
It was either him or WIlfork..they made a deal to get something. Yes, seymour was a solid player, but I have read many many complaints how he was not worth the money...I don't agree with them, but they are out there and have been heard for the past years.
I think it's obviously a LOSS for the D...but I don't want to say a BIG BIG loss..or in any way conclude that it will be large. That is speculation..and only time will tell. In the long run, it's a great move..how much it hurts this year is open to question.

 

[ramon]

Is it possible that in 2010 draft there will be no slotted salaries or cap for draft choice salaries either.
This could mean that 2010 first round picks could demand astronomical salaries and that is why the PATS want to minimize exposure to first round picks in 2010

don't be surprised if they trade their own 2010 first round pick

 

[Lampshade]

I have to say that I am shocked and am not overly happy about this. I guess there is more to this than meets the eye. Sey will be missed; if you have access to game tapes from last year, watch how much attention he got and how effective he was in spite of that. The guy attracted a large number of double teams and was a monster in the run as Brady FTW said.

Still, BB and the organisation know what they are doing, so I'll accept it and move on.

I've said before that if you watch tapes from last year, even if you don't really know what you're looking for, it's immediately evident how much attention Seymour got. IMO he got more attention from offenses than Wilfork.

Definitely a deal that needs to be played out before I make my mind up on it.