Consensus SB Favorites A Few Days Ago

[mgteich]

People were shocked when Clayton all of a sudden picked the patriots to go 10-6 and for the steelers to win the Super Bowl. Personally, I expect to see a lot more of this from other writers.

The patriots were almost consensus Super Bowl favorites with Seymour. Now patriots have removed one of their best players from the team to be replaced by some backup (Wright or Green). We shouldn't be shocked if analysts actually think that Seymour would have been impact player for the patriots in 2009 and that we will feel his loss by losing more games than we would have with him here.

It is not unreasonable to believe that Seymour might have made the difference in a playoff game or in the Super Bowl.

We believe! We drink the kool-aid! We understand that even if Seymour is gone and a couple of key plays go down to injury, that we will still win the Super Bowl!

However, you should be prepared for the writers and analysts who made the patriots favorites just weeks ago might just change their minds.

 

[Deus Irae]

People were shocked when Clayton all of a sudden picked the patriots to go 10-6 and for the steelers to win the Super Bowl. Personally, I expect to see a lot more of this from other writers.

The patriots were almost consensus Super Bowl favorites with Seymour. Now patriots have removed one of their best players from the team to be replaced by some backup (Wright or Green). We shouldn't be shocked if analysts actually think that Seymour would have been impact player for the patriots in 2009 and that we will feel his loss by losing more games than we would have with him here.

Frankly, any Patriots fan that does not seriously re-evaluate their expectations for this team in light of this change on top of all the prior uncertainties should probably be Baker Acted (or whatever their state's equivalent might be called).

It is not unreasonable to believe that Seymour might have made the difference in a playoff game or in the Super Bowl.

Given that the decision to go with Kyle Brady rather than getting Daniel Graham to return might have cost the team the Super Bowl against the Giants, I'm in complete agreement with this.

We believe! We drink the kool-aid! We understand that even if Seymour is gone and a couple of key plays go down to injury, that we will still win the Super Bowl!

Sips, not gulps, is the key.

However, you should be prepared for the writers and analysts who made the patriots favorites just weeks ago might just change their minds.

And you might seriously want to think of joining them.

 

[2000army]

So has anyone taken a look at the Pats Record without seymour? 18-2 or something like that. Not too worried about it.

 

[Deus Irae]

So has anyone taken a look at the Pats Record without seymour? 18-2 or something like that. Not too worried about it.

They're 11-5 without Brady, too. Let's trade that bum!

 

[shmessy]

We're DOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!

(somebody had to say it )

 

[Deus Irae]

We're DOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!

(somebody had to say it )

Hell, let me crack out the picture, then and save the homers the trouble.........

I do love this one.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Obviously BB either:

1. Has no idea what he is doing


2. Intentionally wants to sink the Patriots Super Bowl chances


3. Doesn't understand how to evaluate defensive personnel



Who cares what the media says? I'm shocked anyone reads the Herald or Globe or any of those papers for anything, let alone sports.

 

[jmt57]

The fact the media is spending 10x as much of its time and coverage on a player's relationship with a wannabe 'reality' celebrity than on a consensus playoff and superbowl contender trading a pro bowl player who was one of that team's best players - well, that pretty much sums it up the state of sports and the media right now.

Outside of New England the big NFL news being jammed down our throats is Shawne Merriman and a bad night with a bad actress. It's pathetic that the Merriman incident is more newsworthy around the nation than the Seymour trade.

 

[shmessy]

The fact the media is spending 10x as much of its time and coverage on a player's relationship with a wannabe 'reality' celebrity than on a consensus playoff and superbowl contender trading a pro bowl player who was one of that team's best players - well, that pretty much sums it up the state of sports and the media right now.

Outside of New England the big NFL news being jammed down our throats is Shawne Merriman and a bad night with a bad actress. It's pathetic that the Merriman incident is more newsworthy around the nation than the Seymour trade.

Has Kerry Rhodes tweeted any updates?

 

[Deus Irae]

Obviously BB either:

1. Has no idea what he is doing


2. Intentionally wants to sink the Patriots Super Bowl chances


3. Doesn't understand how to evaluate defensive personnel



Who cares what the media says? I'm shocked anyone reads the Herald or Globe or any of those papers for anything, let alone sports.

4.) Made a bad decision and trade, and not for the first time in his career.

 

[lamafist]

Given that the decision to go with Kyle Brady rather than getting Daniel Graham to return might have cost the team the Super Bowl against the Giants, I'm in complete agreement with this.

What are you talking about?

Belichick didn't make a decision to go with Brady over Graham; Graham played out his contract with the Pats, and signed with the Broncos for an opportunity to play a bigger role as a receiving TE, and the bigger paycheck that goes along with it.

Whether he might have made a difference in the Super Bowl or not, not paying top dollar to Graham was the right move. Maybe keeping Graham would have meant not getting Moss, or Welker. Maybe it would have meant not getting Adalius Thomas.

There are a million ways the season could have panned out, and in the scheme of things, the decisions Belichick made in the '07 offseason put the Pats one fluke helmet-catch away from 19-0.

 

[Deus Irae]

What are you talking about?

Belichick didn't make a decision to go with Brady over Graham; Graham played out his contract with the Pats, and signed with the Broncos for an opportunity to play a bigger role as a receiving TE, and the bigger paycheck that goes along with it.

Whether he might have made a difference in the Super Bowl or not, not paying top dollar to Graham was the right move. Maybe keeping Graham would have meant not getting Moss, or Welker. Maybe it would have meant not getting Adalius Thomas.

There are a million ways the season could have panned out, and in the scheme of things, the decisions Belichick made in the '07 offseason put the Pats one fluke helmet-catch away from 19-0.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're struggling with. It's pretty straightforward. And if not paying Graham was the right move, perhaps you can explain Thomas, Baker, Smith, et al, to me, because it pretty clearly shows that letting Graham go without the alternatives in place has led to turmoil at the position.

But, thanks for playing!

 

[ausbacker]

Deus when will you be putting your hand up to become a football administrator? It seems you have all the answers of late.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

IIRC the problem with Graham was not paying him what the Broncos would, it was paying him more than they would.

Guy grew up in Denver and his dad was a Bronco. It was pretty well assumed he was going to get there.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus when will you be putting your hand up to become a football administrator? It seems you have all the answers of late.

I offer opinions, like everyone else, including you. That's what these boards are for. It's not as if others aren't posting the opposite as if they're sure of their positions, now is it?

I've been mentioning the Graham issue for a long time. Is it somehow my fault that BB has put the team in another situation where a component of a serious Super Bowl contending team (blocking v. D-line play) is going to suffer because of the loss of an important piece of the puzzle?

For the record, I defended the team when it came to Asante, which was a similar situation, though not identical. Did you give me grief when I did that?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

IIRC the problem with Graham was not paying him what the Broncos would, it was paying him more than they would.

Guy grew up in Denver and his dad was a Bronco. It was pretty well assumed he was going to get there.

Yeah, gotta agree here. I'm not apt to attack Deus as some others do, as I do not feel it necessary. He's entitled to his opinions, and they are usually well reasoned. This time, however, I agree with the idea that he was a very hard player to re-sign at the time. Also agree that the acquisitions of other key players would have been harder cap-wise with Graham. Not that I wanted to see him go, as I did not, he is a very good tight end.

But that was 2 years ago. Looking back at past decisions and playing the what if scenarios is counter-productive.

As for the actual subject of this thread, I said it a few days ago and will continue to: It does not matter what the scribes and squawking heads think. Seymour is a great player, but I have no problem with this trade. I think it could wind up hurting them, but I think it is more likely that what happens is very similar to the Lawyer Milloy situation: very good player, on a unit that has strong personnel, replaced by a lesser player (possibly players in this case), and the sum of the parts still equal up to a strong Super Bowl contender. This is a deep defensive line, and I think they will get production there. Seymour's production is highly unlikely to be fully replaced, but it does not necessarily have to be to make this team great.

Another example that is probably better than the Milloy one due to the quality of player involved: last year, Alan Faneca left the Steelers and created a void that no player could replace. Despite the loss of such a player, the Steelers were able to have a pretty successful season.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think it could wind up hurting them, but I think it is more likely that what happens is very similar to the Lawyer Milloy situation: very good player, on a unit that has strong personnel, replaced by a lesser player (possibly players in this case), and the sum of the parts still equal up to a strong Super Bowl contender.

In Lawyer's case, though, he was replaced by a superior player (Harrison). It caused some very, very short term issues (aka the next two weeks), but even later that year the team was better for having made that swap. Your point still definitely stands to an extent, but I don't think that the situations are quite as comparable as you're portraying.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

4.) Made a bad decision and trade, and not for the first time in his career.

Consider this: while we can't be certain, it stands to reason that someone must have been offering more than a 2009 third-rounder for Asante Samuel back in 2007. But BB felt it was better to have Samuel at a cost of $7M+ than to have whatever pick he might have gotten.

So why, now, does he think that getting rid of Seymour for a 2011 first is, on the whole, in the best long-term interests of the club?

 

[lamafist]

I'm not sure what part of my post you're struggling with. It's pretty straightforward. And if not paying Graham was the right move, perhaps you can explain Thomas, Baker, Smith, et al, to me, because it pretty clearly shows that letting Graham go without the alternatives in place has led to turmoil at the position.

But, thanks for playing!

I'm struggling with the part where you paint a skewed, reductive history of the Pats' offseason that year.

Graham signed with the Broncos right off the bat -- he wasn't hanging around, waiting for the Pats to make a better offer. The Pats would have had to go in and negotiate aggressively for him while simultaneously trying to pull the trigger on Adalius Thomas, whom the Pats were going hard after at that point.

Meanwhile, the Pats didn't simply substitute Graham for Brady, they substituted pretty much their whole receiving unit save Gaffney and Watson for Welker, Moss, Stallworth, Washington, and, yes, Kyle Brady.

All told, I'd say it was something of an improvement, considering that the Pats fielded one of the best offenses the game had ever seen that year. Heck, the offense was good enough that you could take Tom Brady out of it the following year, and still have a credible unit that lead the team to a 11-5 record.

Sure, we haven't had a ton of stabilit at TE since. But then again, considering Graham and Watson were often pretty beat up, it's not like we ever had much stability there. So, given the realities of where NFL offenses are going, with the teams pretty much all using a slot receiver in their base set, don't you think putting out stock in Moss + Welker was the better move than putting it in Graham?

I think the team has gotten leaps and bounds better on offense since Graham left, and I think you'd be being more than a bit naive to see we could have built up this offense while investing $30 million in Graham. Meanwhile, we also had money to spend on Adalius Thomas, whose presence will be that much more important with Bruschi and Vrabel gone.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that what BB does isn't make clear-cut, black/white decisions like you lay out -- he reacts to the realities of the NFL talent market as best he can, and he's done it better than about anybody else of late.

As for the Seymour trade -- I was surprised by it, sure, but I think using Graham or Branch as analogies are pretty specious. This is much more like the Lawyer Milloy situation, in that it happens a week before the teams' 1st game, when the rosters are otherwise set, he pretty much is choosing his backups over keeping the starter.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Maybe i'm not following this correctly. We just traded a great player. That same player could've ended up injured in wk 16, and miss the playoffs. We simply can't say that Sey would cost us another SB. Saying Kyle Brady cost us a SB is another statement that can't be proven. Would a healthy Sey make some big plays this year? Probably, but who's to say Green, or some other DE wont make those same plays. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one knows what going to happen. If the media wants to say we suck because Sey is gone, let them. I preferred being the underdogs anyway.

I understand alot of people are against the trade. I like Sey, and wish he would stay a Patriot, but its simply not in the cards. Atleast they got something in return, instead of just letting him walk next year. Bottom line, im ok with the trade. My concerns are still with ILB depth, and the CBs. Good luck to you Sey, have fun in Oaktown