Consensus SB Favorites A Few Days Ago

[Deus Irae]

You forgot that 2007 team. They were missing Graham, right?

I'm sorry. Was that a rebuild with a last minute move?

Johnson announced his retirement on July 28th. The O'Neal signing was announced on September 1st. The Branch trade happened on September 11th.

Your post has no relevance.

 

[mgteich]

I am also very optimistic about the season. We still have one of the top 5 teams and the best coaching staff. I have confidence that when we get to the playoffs, we will have a great shot at taking it all.

That being said, I think we would have had a significantly higher likelihood with Seymour on the squad. We had the very best DL. We now have Green or Wright starting.

As Parcells always preached, the first goal is the division, and then anything can happen in the playoffs. And we have a very weak division.

I do not think it is unreasonable to say that our defense is impacted less by one player than most, or all others.
First BB preaches (and inacts) a team defense concept. The heart of the 2 gap is that whereever you run we have 2 guy responsible for the gap. Over the years there has been abundant reporting of how the team stresses do your job and worry about only your job.
Secondly, historically we have lost 'star' players to injury and not missed a beat.
Perhaps I am overly optimistic. Losing Seymour is a big blow, but I'm more concerned with whether or how we overcome it than performing an autopsy on the cicumstances of it.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sayng that picking one personell decision out of the dozens made each year, and ignoring that there are cap ramificaitons to all of them is short sighted.
Its too easy to say they could have found a couple of million when for 7 years we've have lived on the side of the equation of not being able to afford everything we wanted.
My opinion is that while I do not agree with every decision, I agree with the direction and mentality, and I and not going to assume that any one of them could be made differently without affecting the others.

My opinion is that this team makes mistakes just like every other team, and I'll give the team the benefit of the doubt, but I won't chug the koolaid like a fat man in the desert the way some people have been doing on this deal.

When I think a move has problems, I'll say so. When I think a move is great, I'll say so. When I think a move sucks, I'll say so.

 

[mayoclinic]

My opinion is that this team makes mistakes just like every other team, and I'll give the team the benefit of the doubt, but I won't chug the koolaid like a fat man in the desert the way some people have been doing on this deal.

When I think a move has problems, I'll say so. When I think a move is great, I'll say so. When I think a move sucks, I'll say so.

Of course we make mistakes like every other team. We've made some big ones IMHO, some of which you've cited - the failure to address the LBs in 2005-2007 or the secondary last year, for example. Some trades and draft picks have been horrible in retrospect, such as Chad Jackson and Starks.

Could this trade be a disaster? Absolutely. I personally don't think so, for a couple of reasons, but I could easily be wrong. My reasons:

1. BB was not making this trade out of duress (such as the Deion Branch trade), and he would not gut the DL of a SB contender unless under severe pressure, so I think he has confidence in the other guys on the DL, and he thinks that with the schemes he will be running Seymour's contributions may not be missed as much. BB is fallible and could be wrong about this, but I don't see him making this kind of move if he felt the DL would be severely affected. I think he has a lot more confidence in this defense than most people on this board.

2. Seymour was almost certainly gone after 2009 anyway. While MgT and others can rationalize that we didn't get much more than we would have if he had become a FA (e.g., MgT's argument that we are getting a 2011 1st rather than a 2010 3rd comp which = a 2011 2nd, or that the 2011 1st is only the equivalent of a 2009 3rd) I think that is bogus. There's at least a reasonable chance the 2011 Raider's pick will be top 10 - no guarantee, but given that they've picked 7-4-1-7-7-2 in the last 6 drafts it's not a bad bet - vs. a 2010 comp which would be around pick #97-100. No comparison.

I don't think I'm "chugging koolaid" about this move, but I'm ok with it. It's a calculated gamble, and one which could backfire in the short term, but I suspect we'll be ok.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course we make mistakes like every other team. We've made some big ones IMHO, some of which you've cited - the failure to address the LBs in 2005-2007 or the secondary last year, for example. Some trades and draft picks have been horrible in retrospect, such as Chad Jackson and Starks.

Could this trade be a disaster? Absolutely. I personally don't think so, for a couple of reasons, but I could easily be wrong. My reasons:

1. BB was not making this trade out of duress (such as the Deion Branch trade), and he would not gut the DL of a SB contender unless under severe pressure, so I think he has confidence in the other guys on the DL, and he thinks that with the schemes he will be running Seymour's contributions may not be missed as much. BB is fallible and could be wrong about this, but I don't see him making this kind of move if he felt the DL would be severely affected. I think he has a lot more confidence in this defense than most people on this board.

2. Seymour was almost certainly gone after 2009 anyway. While MgT and others can rationalize that we didn't get much more than we would have if he had become a FA (e.g., MgT's argument that we are getting a 2011 1st rather than a 2010 3rd comp which = a 2011 2nd, or that the 2011 1st is only the equivalent of a 2009 3rd) I think that is bogus. There's at least a reasonable chance the 2011 Raider's pick will be top 10 - no guarantee, but given that they've picked 7-4-1-7-7-2 in the last 6 drafts it's not a bad bet - vs. a 2010 comp which would be around pick #97-100. No comparison.

I don't think I'm "chugging koolaid" about this move, but I'm ok with it. It's a calculated gamble, and one which could backfire in the short term, but I suspect we'll be ok.

Don't take offense, but I'm going focus on only your last paragraph. I thin your approach as laid out there is the only reasonable way to 'like' this deal. I understand your point, and I have no problem with it.

Unfortunately, that's not how most people here have been responding to those who've questioned the wisdom of a trade that offers nothing positive this season and only possible improvement years down the road.

 

[Ring 6]

I am also very optimistic about the season. We still have one of the top 5 teams and the best coaching staff. I have confidence that when we get to the playoffs, we will have a great shot at taking it all.

That being said, I think we would have had a significantly higher likelihood with Seymour on the squad. We had the very best DL. We now have Green or Wright starting.

As Parcells always preached, the first goal is the division, and then anything can happen in the playoffs. And we have a very weak division.

I just do not believe that you can pat BB o the back for building a dynasty by understanding the cap ramifications of every player, getting value whereever he could, always protecting the future, and getting rid of players a year too soon instead of a year too late, and then rip him for keeping to form.
The thought process that got Seymour traded is the same one that built the dynasty. Perhaps this was a poor decision, but I think we owe the benefit of doubt to see the results first.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, we always owe Belichick the benefit of any doubt. However, for me, this is very different that other decisions. This is geting rid of a key player in his prime.

I just do not believe that you can pat BB o the back for building a dynasty by understanding the cap ramifications of every player, getting value whereever he could, always protecting the future, and getting rid of players a year too soon instead of a year too late, and then rip him for keeping to form.
The thought process that got Seymour traded is the same one that built the dynasty. Perhaps this was a poor decision, but I think we owe the benefit of doubt to see the results first.

 

[Ring 6]

My opinion is that this team makes mistakes just like every other team, and I'll give the team the benefit of the doubt, but I won't chug the koolaid like a fat man in the desert the way some people have been doing on this deal.

When I think a move has problems, I'll say so. When I think a move is great, I'll say so. When I think a move sucks, I'll say so.

Anyone who makes decisions, especially important ones, makes a lot that are incorrect.
But I think its wrong to criticze the fact that Graham wasnt resigned as a free agent as if it were a choice that had no ulterior motives, such as better use of the cap money.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, we always owe Belichick the benefit of any doubt. However, for me, this is very different that other decisions. This is geting rid of a key player in his prime.

But it follows the pattern of not getting nothing in return, which would have happened. And it follows the pattern of getting rid of a player one year too soon rather than one year too late.
I do not believe that if BB felt Seymour was the lynchpin of the success of the team he would have made this trade.
In my book BB does not get the benefit of the doubt for the decision because he makes bad ones, but the benefit of the doubt is that he knows more about the player, their attitude, their impact on the team, and the dropoff to the next guy than I do.
In other words if BB sees Seymour through my eyes, this was a bad move.
The benefit of the doubt is that he must see Seymour differently than me, and in that regard he is 100000 times more likely to be right. If his knowledge were limited to what ours is, I don't think the trade is made, and if so, he did the wrong thing.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, we always owe Belichick the benefit of any doubt. However, for me, this is very different that other decisions. This is geting rid of a key player in his prime.

Has Belichick ever made another decision that would give you the impression that if he believed Seymour was his best player and in his prime, he would have made this trade?
I don't know of any. I think the perception differs from the reality before I believe Belichick made such a big decision on the eve of the season that is inconsistent with all of the other ones he has made in his tenure.

 

[Wildo7]

I just do not believe that you can pat BB o the back for building a dynasty by understanding the cap ramifications of every player, getting value whereever he could, always protecting the future, and getting rid of players a year too soon instead of a year too late, and then rip him for keeping to form.
The thought process that got Seymour traded is the same one that built the dynasty. Perhaps this was a poor decision, but I think we owe the benefit of doubt to see the results first.

For years people have been trying to come up with some overarching core philosophy that sums up neatly why the Pats have been successful in only a few words. I've always thought tat approach was silly. If there is a core philosophy to Belichick's approach that can be neatly summed up it's that Belichick tries to make less mistakes than his opponents and usually does. All the other slogans ("the Patriot way," "character guys," "smart veterans," "defensive minded," "cap management" blah blah blah) have fallen by the wayside as Belichick did something that contradicted the media's tagline for the Belichick way, since he isn't nearly as rigid in his ways as many want to think. There is no "true to form" other than usually making a smarter decision than the opponent and in this case I don't think he stayed "true to form" at all unfortunately.

 

[mgteich]

So, you are saying that we should believe that Belichick is likely to value Seymour's current talent level and potential contribution to the team less than we do and therefore this is a reasonbale deal? Further, you are saying that Belichick wouldn't have traded him if he were one of the top 3-4 DE's in his prime, as I have evaluated.

This is certainly a very reasonable way to deal with the conflicting sets of information.

Of course, the other way to frame this is to UNDERSTAND ABSOLUTELY that Belichick's decisions are always the best AT THE TIME, and to try to understand why he is choosing to act as he is.

Has Belichick ever made another decision that would give you the impression that if he believed Seymour was his best player and in his prime, he would have made this trade?
I don't know of any. I think the perception differs from the reality before I believe Belichick made such a big decision on the eve of the season that is inconsistent with all of the other ones he has made in his tenure.

 

[Deus Irae]

Anyone who makes decisions, especially important ones, makes a lot that are incorrect.
But I think its wrong to criticze the fact that Graham wasnt resigned as a free agent as if it were a choice that had no ulterior motives, such as better use of the cap money.

I don't care what ulterior motives were there. It was a bad decision.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't go just half-way. You forgot Borges in there, Deus.

So...... what's Albert Breer's gripe with the Patriots?

 

[ausbacker]

My gripe with the running commentary is we have the position of the outside looking in. BB and the adminstration have the position of the inside looking out. If they think Seymour is expendable now, fine with me.

Whilst I see many the point of immediately putting the team at a disadvantage, BB although not immune to making a bad decision or two has a proven track record, and when the season is all said and done, then I'll evaluate if this was a smart or poor move.

 

[Deus Irae]

My gripe with the running commentary is we have the position of the outside looking in. BB and the adminstration have the position of the inside looking out.

Whilst I see many the point of immediately putting the team at a disadvantage, BB although not immune to making a bad decision or two has a proven track record, and when the season is all said and done, then I'll evaluate if this was a smart or poor move.

This is true of EVERY SINGLE MOVE EVER MADE BY ANY SPORTS TEAM.

So, let's close down the message boards.

 

[ausbacker]

This is true of EVERY SINGLE MOVE EVER MADE BY ANY SPORTS TEAM.

So, let's close down the message boards.

I used to respect your opinion Deus. I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[alvinnf]

If they are really shifting to the 43 they need to lose one of their ends. Seymour or Warren, Warrens locked up Seymours odd man out. They can't replace him on the current roster as a 34 end, but they can easily replace him as a 43 end.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't care what ulterior motives were there. It was a bad decision.

Well there really isnt any point in discussing it then if you feel a decision can be judged good or bad without considering all of the consequences.

 

[Ring 6]

So, you are saying that we should believe that Belichick is likely to value Seymour's current talent level and potential contribution to the team less than we do and therefore this is a reasonbale deal? Further, you are saying that Belichick wouldn't have traded him if he were one of the top 3-4 DE's in his prime, as I have evaluated.

This is certainly a very reasonable way to deal with the conflicting sets of information.

Of course, the other way to frame this is to UNDERSTAND ABSOLUTELY that Belichick's decisions are always the best AT THE TIME, and to try to understand why he is choosing to act as he is.

We will never know.
Think about why fans are upset. They think BB gave up on this year to get a pick in 2011. Does that make any sense at all?
If it doesnt then that likely means that there is more to this than we understand.