Breer breaks down the Seymour trade

[SVN]

Breaking Down The Richard Seymour Trade - Albert Breer - The Trenches - Sporting News
lot of interesting points...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

The National media seems to have a better grasp of what transpired here than some of the locals and fans. And Breer also references the long history of Seymour never quite developing the all in mentality that any top tier player here MUST embrace.

 

[SVN]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

The National media seems to have a better grasp of what transpired here than some of the locals and fans. And Breer also references the long history of Seymour never quite developing the all in mentality that any top tier player here MUST embrace.

he also makes this somewhat valid pt

This relates to the Branch example. Sure, it's nice to have a full complement of draft picks. But if you cost yourself championship opportunities now, by trading one of the few impact defensive players you have left, and that opportunity has dwindled by the time you get to use those picks, then what good is that?

 

[Tunescribe]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Breaking Down The Richard Seymour Trade - Albert Breer - The Trenches - Sporting News
lot of interesting points...

The one thing he leaves out is who we have in place to fill in for Seymour's absence this season. Let's say we lost Seymour to injury in the preseason and he was IR'd. I have confidence that the likes of Jarvis Green will prevent this defense from unraveling without Richard. The new question now is experienced depth.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

I think when you really step back and think about it rationally, it's a good trade. Sure, it would have been great to have Seymour, but we got GREAT value here. Would you make the best team in the league a little weaker, while making the future possibly MUCH stronger by trading a 1-year rental (what it basically is now) for a future long-term Top of first round type talent? Me, I would.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Yup.

In 2006, Belichick did the "right" thing. Had we won the Super Bowl with the deficiency at WR that he left, then there would have been no second guessing. Belichick rolled the dice and lost. Perhaps we would have lost anyway, but looking back and forward from the day Branch left, it seemed a great risk.

And here we are again. In 2009, Belichick is doing the best thing for the future of the patriots. But, make no question, Belichick is again rolling the dice with the 2009 season.

he also makes this somewhat valid pt

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

he also makes this somewhat valid pt

He's right. But . . . I think Belichick wants to have a good chance to win indefinitely. He knows we could have won in 2005 (crappy PI call), 2006 (one 3 yard completion away), 2007 (we all know what happened), 2008 (if that hit didn't happen). Sh!t happens and I think Belichick would prefer a good chance every year than a little better than a good chance for a couple of years before disintegration. Most championship teams implode from within; this trade lessens our chance this year by a little bit but these trades over the years keep the chances good for a long time. Would we have won in 2007 with Branch ? Maybe; but we may have lost to SD with him, there's no way to tell. I do know that if we use our draft picks well the next two years and re-sign Brady we'll be really good now for about 7 more years.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Yup.

In 2006, Belichick did the "right" thing. Had we won the Super Bowl with the deficiency at WR that he left, then there would have been no second guessing. Belichick rolled the dice and lost. Perhaps we would have lost anyway, but looking back and forward from the day Branch left, it seemed a great risk.

And here we are again. In 2009, Belichick is doing the best thing for the future of the patriots. But, make no question, Belichick is again rolling the dice with the 2009 season.

No doubt about it. We were so close to the SB in 2006, and any one of several things would probably have made the difference, including Branch at WR. There's no question that we could dearly miss Seymour come January.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Yup.

In 2006, Belichick did the "right" thing. Had we won the Super Bowl with the deficiency at WR that he left, then there would have been no second guessing. Belichick rolled the dice and lost. Perhaps we would have lost anyway, but looking back and forward from the day Branch left, it seemed a great risk.

And here we are again. In 2009, Belichick is doing the best thing for the future of the patriots. But, make no question, Belichick is again rolling the dice with the 2009 season.

Let's also not forget that it WAS NOT the offense that lost us that 06 Con-Championship game. We put up 35 points in that game and had a 21-3 lead at half-time. The defense COMPLETELY **** the bed. Another big probably was the fact that the RUNNING game couldn't eat enough clock to keep Peyton on the bench.

It's like blaming the defense for us losing the SB in '07...

 

[RayClay]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Let's also not forget that it WAS NOT the offense that lost us that 06 Con-Championship game. We put up 35 points in that game and had a 21-3 lead at half-time. The defense COMPLETELY **** the bed. Another big probably was the fact that the RUNNING game couldn't eat enough clock to keep Peyton on the bench.

It's like blaming the defense for us losing the SB in '07...

Yeah, I don't think Branch would have been any better replacement for TBC than Alexander was. Talk about faulty logic.

Sure Branch left us scrambling that year, but it was because he decided to not honor his legal contract, not because we decided to trade him. We had no choice. Would have really helped our team to have him on a high dollar long term contract, right?

Adam Seward[/sarcasm], probably would have helped more, and much cheaper.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Believe it or not completed passes would also have kept Manning on the bench. Also, completed passes might have led to another touchdown or two. But the issue is never really the end of the game. We would have had a better chance to win the game with Branch on the team. I don't think there is any question of that.

And yes, in 2007, we would have a better chance had we had an additional top corner. More importantly, we would have done better had we had more depth and health at linebacker and if the players all were forced to have flu shots. But you are correct, the mighty 2007 offense should have scored more points. The defense did enough to win.

Let's also not forget that it WAS NOT the offense that lost us that 06 Con-Championship game. We put up 35 points in that game and had a 21-3 lead at half-time. The defense COMPLETELY **** the bed. Another big probably was the fact that the RUNNING game couldn't eat enough clock to keep Peyton on the bench.

It's like blaming the defense for us losing the SB in '07...

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

If we had won in 06 or 07 we wouldn't be having these conversations right now. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of luck involved in sports. We were CLEARLY the better team in 07 but things just didn't work out. I just don't think it's fair to single out one thing and say "Ah, if only we had so and so or we didn't trade whom ever". Who is to say that having Branch would have made a difference OVERALL? I'm sure the season would have played out differently. We had a GREAT opportunity to win the SB in 06 and 07 and we blew it. That's life, you can't win them all every year, it's just a darned thing called Luck.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Believe it or not completed passes would also have kept Manning on the bench. Also, completed passes might have led to another touchdown or two. But the issue is never really the end of the game. We would have had a better chance to win the game with Branch on the team. I don't think there is any question of that.

And yes, in 2007, we would have a better chance had we had an additional top corner. More importantly, we would have done better had we had more depth and health at linebacker and if the players all were forced to have flu shots. But you are correct, the mighty 2007 offense should have scored more points. The defense did enough to win.

Things that would have won us the AFCCG:

1. Being able to keep Peyton off the field a bit more in the second half - would have given him less chances and time to come back, and would have rested our defense. Could have been accomplished with a better running game, or with a few timely receptions. Branch would definitely have helped, even just to keep the Colt's defense honest. With no solid WRs for TB to throw to and no running game, we just didn't have enough offensive options. BB clearly saw to that in the 2007 offseason with the Moss and Welker trades.

2. Being able to stop the Colts offense at least once. Our defense was old, slow, and exhausted from the flu. It spent way too much time on the field in the second half. Better speed, youth and depth would have helped.

Probably ANY one of these (or more) would have changed the outcome, given how the Pats led up till the final minute.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

No doubt about it. We were so close to the SB in 2006, and any one of several things would probably have made the difference, including Branch at WR. There's no question that we could dearly miss Seymour come January.

Or, you know, a flu bug running riot through the locker room the week before the game. . . .

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

More importantly, we would have done better had we had more depth and health at linebacker and if the players all were forced to have flu shots.

That's assuming, of course, that the folks that made the flu shots "guessed" correctly, and included the strain that actually hit the locker room.

For all we know, they DID all get flu shots, and STILL got the flu.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

he also makes this somewhat valid pt

Well, we went the other way with Asante and that didn't tip the balance either. Who's to say Branch would have had any impact in that game or even active for it. And the price to keep him proved to be far too steep. He's hanging by his fingernails in Seattle, don't think they don't wish they had a do over.

The defense collapsed. It's been a recurring theme since 2005. He's turning it over.

Best new yet: Borges is due on NECN and he believes this is a big mistake...

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Best new yet: Borges is due on NECN and he believes this is a big mistake...

Now I'm certain it was a brilliant move!!!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Best new yet: Borges is due on NECN and he believes this is a big mistake...

To borrow from someone writing about acerbic critics:

If Borges had been present at the miracle of the loaves and fishes, he surely would have complained that there was no lemon to go with the fish, and would have demanded butter for the bread.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Things that would have won us the AFCCG:

1. Being able to keep Peyton off the field a bit more in the second half - would have given him less chances and time to come back, and would have rested our defense. Could have been accomplished with a better running game, or with a few timely receptions. Branch would definitely have helped, even just to keep the Colt's defense honest. With no solid WRs for TB to throw to and no running game, we just didn't have enough offensive options. BB clearly saw to that in the 2007 offseason with the Moss and Welker trades.

2. Being able to stop the Colts offense at least once. Our defense was old, slow, and exhausted from the flu. It spent way too much time on the field in the second half. Better speed, youth and depth would have helped.

Probably ANY one of these (or more) would have changed the outcome, given how the Pats led up till the final minute.

Yes, but which one do think takes the majority of the blame for that game? An offense that gathered an 18-point lead by halftime and scored 35 points (lets not forget, their "failure" in the second half still managed to score 14 more points) or a defense that gave up 35 points in the 2nd half... Can that even really be argued? Again, that game was either a sign of a terrible defense or was simply a tough-luck game that happened to come at a bad time.

Same with the SB in 07.

We are also not just talking about 1 season here. Let's say they get to the SB this season and the offense has a terrible game and we are looking at having to come up with a couple of defensive stops in a tight 10-7 game. If we went on to lose that game, would you go back and blame it on the Seymour trade? How about if the Pats were to draft and absolute beast for the defense, someone who gives us a good 5+ Pro-bowl seasons. Would we still complain about the trade? Logic guys, use it.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Well, we went the other way with Asante and that didn't tip the balance either. Who's to say Branch would have had any impact in that game or even active for it. And the price to keep him proved to be far too steep. He's hanging by his fingernails in Seattle, don't think they don't wish they had a do over.

The defense collapsed. It's been a recurring theme since 2005. He's turning it over.

Best new yet: Borges is due on NECN and he believes this is a big mistake...

I don't know how ANYONE could blame Asante for SB 07. He helped shut down his half of the field and it was HOBBS that gave up the winning touchdown. Hell, Asante wasn't even to blame for the miracle reception. The Giants need all the luck in the world to score on that drive, lets be realistic here. The freaken golden boy is more responsible for losing that game than Asante.