Lombardi on Seymour trade

[SVN]

Diner news: Acquiring Seymour risky move for Raiders - NFL - CBSSports.com Football
this is interesting...

With sixth-round pick Myron Pyror playing well (even getting calls from other teams checking his availability)

 

[JD10367]

We saw Pryor run with the 1s in preseason. Brace is looking promising. Green and Wright are very capable backups/spot-starters (Green in particular, who in the past has shown nice flashes). Even without adding a player, the Pats will approach Seymour's absence with a "DL by committee" approach. They'll even have TBC and Burgess up there for certain formations, I'm sure. If everyone stays healthy, they can compensate for his loss. It will be interesting when we review this gamble at the end of the season to see if it paid off or not. All I know is, Belichick would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch, if you sent him to Foxwoods with a stack of black chips...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I found this even more interesting:

Seymour is still talented and can still be effective, but he's very inconsistent. He's a flash player, and if you grade the flashes, he can be disruptive, but there are times when he's not a factor on the field.

For this move to work, Seymour has to play at a high level, and the Raiders must re-sign him. Giving up a one for a player for potentially only one year is not a good move, even in the eyes of diehard Raiders fans. At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.

 

[Fencer]

Re [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If he's right that the Pats were willing to trade Seymour for, say, two 2nds, that somewhat (not entirely) supports mgteich's perception of the value the Pats were willing to accept for him.


[/FONT]

 

[patchick]

Re [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If he's right that the Pats were willing to trade Seymour for, say, two 2nds, that somewhat (not entirely) supports mgteich's perception of the value the Pats were willing to accept for him.[/FONT]

If he's right, it also completely undercuts all the claims that the 2011 pick was based on the likelihood of a rookie pay scale, or that it shows that the Pats expect a lockout.

 

[farn]

If he's right, it also completely undercuts all the claims that the 2011 pick was based on the likelihood of a rookie pay scale, or that it shows that the Pats expect a lockout.

There is so much speculation... it is impossible to know the truth, because BB is the Fort Knox of coaches. That's why we like him (not because he's pretty, obv).

 

[patchick]

There is so much speculation... it is impossible to know the truth, because BB is the Fort Knox of coaches. That's why we like him (not because he's pretty, obv).

It's kind of fun to read all the quotes from anonymous "league sources" trying to read deep into the BB tea leaves.

Here's what we can say with authority:

- Bill Belichick traded Richard Seymour, and did not trade Vince Wilfork.
- Bill Belichick thinks Oakland's #1 pick in 2011 is worth more than Richard Seymour's 2009 season + a potential comp pick.

 

[JSn]

If anyone had thoughts that would get us nearer the truth, it would be Mike.

His objective view of Seymour and that little note about Pryor causing phone calls, are solid parts to an article by someone I think always brings good insight and objectivity to football analysis.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]If he's right that the Pats were willing to trade Seymour for, say, two 2nds, that somewhat (not entirely) supports mgteich's perception of the value the Pats were willing to accept for him.


[/FONT]

That was one 2nd not two.

 

[PrairiePat]

Lombardi says the exact thing that always comes to mind when I think of Seymour - when he was on/motivated/whatever, he was a force out there. But many games he seemed totally invisible as well. I could usually tell early in the game; Seymour would be in the offensive backfield all the time on his 'good' days, it seemed.

I don't know for sure the problem was entirely Seymour's motivation either; maybe it was the scheme the Pats were playing vs some opponents, maybe it was the opposing OL, who really knows. But his play seemed awfully inconsistent to me.

 

[PatsFan37]

I could usually tell early in the game; Seymour would be in the offensive backfield all the time on his 'good' days, it seemed.

I don't know for sure the problem was entirely Seymour's motivation either; maybe it was the scheme the Pats were playing vs some opponents, maybe it was the opposing OL, who really knows. But his play seemed awfully inconsistent to me.

Good point. I assume a good player is defined as much by his consistency as his talent, and Seymour was more than good. Just as double-covering Moss can take him out of a game, double-teaming Seymour with two good players can take him out. Lombardi knows more about player evaluation than most of the hacks out there, but still, he has a column to write today and how much preparation could he really put into it? How much film did he watch?

The fact remains that Big Sey was a guy who had to be game-planned when healthy. A healthy Seymour, a healthy Warren, and a healthy Wilfork was a fearsome line. They're all healthy right now, right at this moment. Scary, when you think about it and now less so.

We'll miss this guy.

Good as Wright, Green, Brace, and Pryor might be, you can only field one RDE at a time and none are anywhere as good as Seymour.

To Patchick's point, we still don't know if BB ever wanted to trade Wilfork to anyone at any time. Though we know BB didn't trade Wilfork, we shouldn't infer anything from that (not that you did).

 

[mcsully]

That pick, as one high-level NFL executive told me Sunday, might be the replacement for Tom Brady down the line.

My brother and I were talking about this..

Its two years away and if there is a rookie scale in place, the Pats (if there is a QB deserving of the pick) could draft their replacement for Brady.. Have him sit two years and by that time in year 3, Tom would be 37 and the new kid would be ready.. Just a thought..

 

[Captain Cliche]

Nice article...clear, concise, some inside info...no drama, no agneda, no, "hey everybody look at me, I'm a sports writer."

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe, if the Patriots are really, really lucky, the pick they got from the Raiders can be used to get a Richard Seymour kind of talent.



Oh, wait............

 

[bigfandan]

Lombardi's version seems more solid than the Papas guy.

Time will tell. I am not loving this move... I need to see some proof that our defense can perform at a high level without big Sey. If the D suffers as the result, then we are worse off for making the trade. Bill thinks others will step up and get the job done, we will have to wait and see.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Maybe, if the Patriots are really, really lucky, the pick they got from the Raiders can be used to get a Richard Seymour kind of talent.



Oh, wait............

And if they do, they'll have a freakish talent on the cheap for six years..... oh wait.

 

[Deus Irae]

And if they do, they'll have a freakish talent on the cheap for six years..... oh wait.

Given that the expectation (pure speculation, but who cares, right) is that the pick will be a top 5 pick, that "on the cheap" wouldn't happen under the current rules.

But, on the other hand, what's the downside of possibly losing out on a Super Bowl victory because the team weakened its defense when you can bring in a gamble 2 years later that will be 2 rounds higher than you'd get without making the trade, and you can hope that the salaries have been adjusted, the player is as good as a Hall of Famer, and there won't be any drop in play evidenced by players like Moss and Brady?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That pick, as one high-level NFL executive told me Sunday, might be the replacement for Tom Brady down the line.

My brother and I were talking about this..

Its two years away and if there is a rookie scale in place, the Pats (if there is a QB deserving of the pick) could draft their replacement for Brady.. Have him sit two years and by that time in year 3, Tom would be 37 and the new kid would be ready.. Just a thought..

They could also draft Brady's replacement in 2011 in the 6th round or in 2013 in the 7th or find an overlooked UDFA in 2014... Bill has little reason to go looking for developmental QB's any higher than the 5th... Baring additional unforseen injury Brady is good to go thru 2016 or so. Using a 1st on a QB, let alone prematurely, would be a colossal waste of capital.

But that is a reality few other high level NFL executives have yet been able to wrap their heads around.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Given that the expectation (pure speculation, but who cares, right) is that the pick will be a top 5 pick, that "on the cheap" wouldn't happen under the current rules.

But, on the other hand, what's the downside of possibly losing out on a Super Bowl victory because the team weakened its defense when you can bring in a gamble 2 years later that will be 2 rounds higher than you'd get without making the trade, and you can hope that the salaries have been adjusted, the player is as good as a Hall of Famer, and there won't be any drop in play evidenced by players like Moss and Brady?

Top picks will make less under the new CBA as it makes sense for both the NFLPA and the NFL. Unless everything I've read on the subject is false, this is something that BOTH sides will address in negotiations.

I was simply replying to your notion that we might get a telent as good as Seymour... that was your words, not mine. If we do, he will be MUCH cheaper than Sey whether the NFLPA has a change of heart or not.

It seemd clear that you were mocking the idea that a 2011 Raiders first round pick wasn't good value for Sey, by saying that the Pats just might get a player of similar talent. I simply added a little context. You did know that he playing on 3rd downs, right?

 

[spacecrime]

Given that the expectation (pure speculation, but who cares, right) is that the pick will be a top 5 pick, that "on the cheap" wouldn't happen under the current rules.

On the cheap compared to paying Seymour? Of course it will happen.

No pick, not even the first pick in the draft, will cost more than Seymour would. And Seymour is not likely to give 6 years of All-pro effort.

Everyone, probably even NEM, has acknowledged that the Pats cannot pay both SEymour and WIlfork, and that of the two, Wilfork is the more valuable. Add all the complaints about our D over the last two-three years, and the effect that one top-ten pick had, I am amazed that anyone would not like to trade a year of Seymour for 5-6 years of hot new DL talent to pair with Wilfork.