Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade
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.
Nobody'y blaming anyone. Simply observing that a small boost in *any* facet of the game probably would have tipped the scales in our favor, including having the MVP of the Super Bowl from 2 years prior. I think the Pats made the right call in 2006, because Branch didn't leave them with a choice. He wasn't going to play that season either way, since they weren't giving him a new contract, so they dealt him.
It's still a compelling example, though, of how one personnel decision in September can have huge ramifications in January. This trade makes the Pats worse in 2009. Hopefully it makes us better in 2011 and onward to such an extent that it's worth what we're giving up now, but if we come as close as we did in 2006 and 2007, only to fall short, we'll have to sit back and realize that Seymour could have put us over the top.
Now, trying to stay perpetually competitive is an admirable goal, and if anyone can pull it off it's Belichick. But there's something to be said for winning while the opportunity is in front of you, and this trade puts us a step back in that regard. When the 2011 draft rolls around, Brady, Moss and Adalius will all be 34, Kevin Faulk will be 36, Neal will be 35. In short, either a) we'll be fielding an entirely new team of leaders, or b) we'll be
old. Figure that the 2011 pick will take a year or two to be contributing at an extremely high level, and he'll be coming into his own right around when Brady, Moss, Thomas, Faulk, Neal, etc. are hitting retirement age.
Making this deal, rather than maximizing our SB chances in '09, is a bold move. And it's a hell of a gamble, and whether it succeeds or fails, it's going to be talked about for a long time. I admire Belichick for having the balls to make the move, because I don't think there are many people in the league that would pull the trigger. The Pats could redefine excellence in the salary cap era, or we could watch the window of opportunity close itself before the pick that we traded Sey for is ready to contribute. Personally, I'm worried. In BB I trust, but I'm more worried right now than I've been at any other point since 2001...