Lombardi: Seymour's not looking for a contract, he's just pissed.

[DaBruinz]

Why? I wasn't claiming that Seymour had shown any loyalty.

No, you were the one claiming that the Patriots have shown NO loyalty. So, someone asked you for an example of where Seymour had shown loyalty to the Pats.

The reasoning behind the question is that, if Seymour hasn't shown loyalty to the Pats, why should the Pats show loyalty to him..

I'm still confused on how you think that a team trading a player is a lack of loyalty to the player..

 

[Bostonian1962]

How is trading Vrabel to the Chiefs where Pioli is guaranteeing him his roster bonus and playing time not being loyal to a player?? Where as, if Vrabel had stayed with the Patriots, there was a good chance of him getting cut and losing out.

You don't seem to understand what loyalty is, Deus. Not in the case of an NFL Football player.

Sorry, but the nature of football and all professional sports for that matter, is that your job with a particular team is not guaranteed. That once you start failing to perform to expectations, you could lose your job. That another team may want you and you may get traded. As was the case with Seymour. The Raiders came to the Pats. Not the other way around.

This idea that its somehow disloyal to trade a player is mind boggling. The idea that the team somehow is supposed to take responsibility for a player's family is also mindboggling.

Please explain how it is disloyal to trade a player.

Please explain how it is disloyal to cut a player who no longer is performing up to the agreed expectations.

DaBruinz is 1000% correct! There have been thousands of trades over the years, in all sports. In fact, trades are part of the fun to us fans. Does each trade affect all the players involved family-wise? Of course. That is not disloyalty! Is every organization in the NFL that ever made a trade disloyal? That would mean, by some definitions here, that every organization that ever made a trade, or ever decided not to sign a player is disloyal!

That kind of thought process makes my teeth itch!

 

[FalconHeavy]

{ring}

"Hello"

"Ummmm, Hi Bill....... It's Al"

"What do you want".

"Ummmm, That Mr. Seymour guy won't come out here to play on our little football team"

"Hmmmmmmm, that is a problem Al. Tell you what I'll do cuz I like like you. I'll take that Seymour kid and I'll give you our 2019 sixth rounder".

"Ahhhhhhhh, gee Mr. Bill that doesn't seem like very goo..........."

"HEY AL, it is what it is Babe, take it or leave it"

"ummmmmm, ahhhhhhhh, okay"

{click}
:singing:

Man did you bug BB's phone or what ??

 

[Deus Irae]

You're statement was false. The Patriots don't demand absolute loyalty and show none in return. That was your statement. People are showing how your statement is FALSE. And the smaller leads to the bigger.

The Pats have stood by Seymour every step of the way. Even when Seymour missed practice for his Grandfather's funeral. They told him that they understood, but that he needed to understand about the team rules and that players who don't practice, don't start. He went on bashing them and such, yet he missed ONE series. And people have tried to mention Izzo and Faulk as examples, yet, when Izzo and Faulk played the weekend after their missing practice, NEITHER one started..

The Pats stood by Seymour when his father took his own life. Even though there were plenty of people out there slandering Seymour's dad.

Even on the last contract negotiation, the Pats had agreed to let Seymour stay down in wherever with his family until they could official turn in the extension. They had re-structured Seymour's contract the August prior, so they had to wait until the 1 year was up before re-submitting the new extension.

So, I don't get this idea of yours that the Pats are somehow not loyal to their players.

I'm not going to delve into this, because it's not as if this is something that hasn't been proudly noted in the media. However, benching someone for being late due to a funeral is not being loyal in my eyes.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, you were the one claiming that the Patriots have shown NO loyalty. So, someone asked you for an example of where Seymour had shown loyalty to the Pats.

The reasoning behind the question is that, if Seymour hasn't shown loyalty to the Pats, why should the Pats show loyalty to him..

I'm still confused on how you think that a team trading a player is a lack of loyalty to the player..

That was not the claim I made, as I showed you in a follow up. Now, you can keep asserting things I didn't say all you want. I don't intend to respond to them.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

What would it take for some of you guys to come out from under your Kool-aid induced anesthesia and admit that BB acts like a jerk sometimes. Maybe there's a reason he's gotten the reputation he has (regarding his people skills).

Think about it...

1. Tells Drew Bledsoe he'll have a chance to compete for his job back and then reneges on it later. Drew says BB lied to him.

2. Unexpectedly cuts Lawyer Milloy five days before the season without warning. Many players voice their displeasure at the way Milloy was treated including Tom Brady.

3. Arrogantly assumes he is above reproach by the league because of a technicality in the rule he thinks he can exploit and continues to videotape defensive signals from the sidelines. The decision backfires and does irreparable harm to the organization's image.

4. Unexpectedly trades Mike Vrable to Kansas City as part of the Matt Cassell deal. Vrabel expresses surprise and displeasure at the manner in which he was treated.

5. Unexpectedly exiles Richard Seymour to NFL Hell. Seymour expresses surprise and displeasure at the way he was treated.

I love BB as a coach too but how many more times do we need to see him do this stuff before we're willing to admit that BB just might have earned some of the criticism that always seems to come his way?

 

[shmessy]

What would it take for some of you guys to come out from under your Kool-aid induced anesthesia and admit that BB acts like a jerk sometimes. Maybe there's a reason he's gotten the reputation he has (regarding his people skills).

Think about it...

1. Tells Drew Bledsoe he'll have a chance to compete for his job back and then reneges on it later. Drew says BB lied to him. Perhaps you are confusing the words "chance to compete" with "being handed".

2. Unexpectedly cuts Lawyer Milloy five days before the season without warning. Many players voice their displeasure at the way Milloy was treated including Tom Brady.

3. Arrogantly assumes he is above reproach by the league because of a technicality in the rule he thinks he can exploit and continues to videotape defensive signals from the sidelines. The decision backfires and does irreparable harm to the organization's image.

4. Unexpectedly trades Mike Vrable to Kansas City as part of the Matt Cassell deal. Vrabel expresses surprise and displeasure at the manner in which he was treated.

5. Unexpectedly exiles Richard Seymour to NFL Hell. Seymour expresses surprise and displeasure at the way he was treated.

I love BB as a coach too but how many more times do we need to see him do this stuff before we're willing to admit that BB just might have earned some of the criticism that always seems to come his way?

He's definitely not as nice as Pete Carroll.

I'm in complete agreement with you.

The free agents around the league must be avoiding New England like the plague.

Re#1: Bledsoe was able to compete for "his" job when he return from the injury - - every single day in practice. His performance there came up short compared to Brady's.

Re #2: Watch NFL Films' America's Game (about the 2001 Super Bowl Season). You would do well to watch the studio interviews with Lawyer Milloy in 2006.

Re #3: This one I have always agreed with the point you made. That's the one that was completely unnecessary and showed a personality flaw affecting the team.

Re #4: Business. Happens all the time.

Re: #5: Business. Happens all the time.

 

[JSn]

This thread reminds me of the special olympics.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

What would it take for some of you guys to come out from under your Kool-aid induced anesthesia and admit that BB acts like a jerk sometimes. Maybe there's a reason he's gotten the reputation he has (regarding his people skills).

Think about it...

1. Tells Drew Bledsoe he'll have a chance to compete for his job back and then reneges on it later. Drew says BB lied to him.

2. Unexpectedly cuts Lawyer Milloy five days before the season without warning. Many players voice their displeasure at the way Milloy was treated including Tom Brady.

3. Arrogantly assumes he is above reproach by the league because of a technicality in the rule he thinks he can exploit and continues to videotape defensive signals from the sidelines. The decision backfires and does irreparable harm to the organization's image.

4. Unexpectedly trades Mike Vrable to Kansas City as part of the Matt Cassell deal. Vrabel expresses surprise and displeasure at the manner in which he was treated.

5. Unexpectedly exiles Richard Seymour to NFL Hell. Seymour expresses surprise and displeasure at the way he was treated.

I love BB as a coach too but how many more times do we need to see him do this stuff before we're willing to admit that BB just might have earned some of the criticism that always seems to come his way?

1 - it is BB's job to win games, not keep promises to players

2 - you conveniently leave out the point about lawyer milloy refusing to take a pay cut

3 - irreparable harm???? please.....in the opinion of the majority of coaches in NFL, no such harm was done

4 - vrabel would not have had the same career had BB not signed him......Vrabel should just be happy with the money he got here since he likely would have never gotten it any where else and would have likely wound up with the vet minimum every year.......

5 - seymour earned it.......he was the one who turned the relationship into a 'business' when he held out.......

none of us are in the position to judge........BB is doing everything he deems necessary to keep this team competitive for both the near and long terms

 

[tanked_as_usual]

he's definitely not as nice as pete carroll.

I'm in complete agreement with you.

The free agents around the league must be avoiding new england like the plague.

Btw, watch nfl films' america's game (about the 2001 super bowl season). You would do well to watch the studio interviews with lawyer milloy in 2006.

'they hate their coach'

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

He's definitely not as nice as Pete Carroll.

Reply of the century

 

[mgcolby]

It's a lot easier for a team acquiring a player to give him a new monster deal since they did not inherit the amortization. Just off the top of my head they could drop his salary to $1m and give him a substantial signing bonus ($12-15M) and amortize it over 5 seasons under the present CBA and have the same cap hit in 2009. Then give him an option bonus ($15-18M) due next March before the open of FA that implicitly guarantees he either sees his money (and they retain his services for another 2-3 seasons) or he sees his freedom in 2010. Although if a lockout is looming in 2011 I'm not sure we're going to see all the big deals players and agents anticipate in the uncapped season.

Yeah, I figured there were ways around it. And I guessed (correctly) that someone would spell it out.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

This thread reminds me of the special olympics.

If this trade were to be voided, it would set one very bad precedent for the league. B*tch about a trade, refuse to report and you'll get it overturned, CBA be damned......Not going to happen, though it has happened in the past
Duane Thomas from Dallas to NE in 1974 or 75, T.O. talking his way out of Baltimore after being traded from SF.Both got trades nullified and IIRC Thomas had some nasty stuff to say about Tex Schramm and Gil Brandt
Let's see if I have this right,

Seymour Option #1
1) Show up and hope to either get a long term deal w the Raiders or not be franchised by them next year.
2) Tell the Raiders you'll show up if they agree in writing not to franchise him (he has little leverage here)
3) Don't show up.
If he doesn't show up.......and either team sends him the 5 day letter
he risks being put on the inactive list for the entire year, losing $3.6 million in salary, having to pay back the prorated portion of his signing bonus (1/4 of $5 million or $1.25 million) and having his contact tolled (frozen) so that he'll be in the same position next year, one year further away from free agency....when he will then be 31..

From the Patriots perspective this deal is done and he either plays for the Raiders or doesn't play for anybody this year.
The Raiders need him more right now than the Patriots need a 2011 draft pick now.....I see them (Raiders) caving in, either giving him a monster deal or agreeing not to franchise him..........If the Raiders play hardball, Eugene Parker has to convince Seymour that losing $3.6 million, writing a check for another $1.25 million and not being a FA next year is a better deal than showing up.....Good luck.....

 

[tanked_as_usual]

at the same time, everyone who comes to the pats is blown away with the environment in foxborough........

if you want to stay in the club, act like you want to stay in the club.......seymour did not act like he wanted to stay in the club, so he is no longer in the club

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I posted this in the other thread but Ordway and Curren just detailed that the problem has arisen because Seymour claims he was led to believe (by his agent Eugene Parker) that he was in negotiations with the Patriots on a to retirement deal...

This is Richard's folly. He always talked tough though he really just wanted a big hug (and a lot of $$$). Too late Rich. Throw your agent under the bus...that's classy.

The league has indicated to Curren that he is Oakland's problem and it's up to them to get him to report. Oakland disagrees because their Oakland. However, this hasn't happened in forever because there are no no trade clauses in football and players eventually show up because they want their money. Closest thing to this was the Plummer deal and he pre empted the 5 day letter (which is a last resort because of hard feelings and consequences) by retiring. Curren assumes the league will get involved at some point and determine who has to do what and how to get this settled.

 

[mgcolby]

What would it take for some of you guys to come out from under your Kool-aid induced anesthesia and admit that BB acts like a jerk sometimes. Maybe there's a reason he's gotten the reputation he has (regarding his people skills).

Think about it...

1. Tells Drew Bledsoe he'll have a chance to compete for his job back and then reneges on it later. Drew says BB lied to him.

2. Unexpectedly cuts Lawyer Milloy five days before the season without warning. Many players voice their displeasure at the way Milloy was treated including Tom Brady.

3. Arrogantly assumes he is above reproach by the league because of a technicality in the rule he thinks he can exploit and continues to videotape defensive signals from the sidelines. The decision backfires and does irreparable harm to the organization's image.

4. Unexpectedly trades Mike Vrable to Kansas City as part of the Matt Cassell deal. Vrabel expresses surprise and displeasure at the manner in which he was treated.

5. Unexpectedly exiles Richard Seymour to NFL Hell. Seymour expresses surprise and displeasure at the way he was treated.

I love BB as a coach too but how many more times do we need to see him do this stuff before we're willing to admit that BB just might have earned some of the criticism that always seems to come his way?

You should really read post #56, you might get a better understanding of most of your examples.

Or you could simply look at reality.

1. Drew Bledsoe? What did he do in 2000 and in the first two games of the 2001 season to show that he deserved his job back?

2. Lawyer was negotiating a deal with the Redskins and trying to leverage that against the Pats. He forced the cut and then when word leaked of the possible tampering, the Skins backed off.

3. Really? Spygate. Take polaroids of defensive signals, have an artist sketch them out and you are good. Video tape them and you are the anti-christ.

4. Vrabel retained his full salary which was in the 4 million ballpark. No club signs Vrabel for 4 million a year.

5. It seems fairly evident that the Pats understood that they weren't going to resign him, so they got something for him. A first round pick . So what you would rather see, is that the Patriots take a deal that is not in their best interest, because it gives Richard a better chance to win?

Yup, BB is an *********!!!

 

[Absurdly Metro]

He's definitely not as nice as Pete Carroll.

I'm in complete agreement with you.

The free agents around the league must be avoiding New England like the plague.

Come on Shmessy. Players want to win. They know BB will put them in the best position to do that. That's why they come here. Period. I think you know that.

I was in a senior level management position with my last company and we hired a medical director with a serious Napoleon complex. The guy had all the skills, abilities, and "championship" experience but he was a flat out jerk. He treated people like **** and managed through fear. We let him go because after lengthy debate we felt he didn't fit with the company's values i.e. he treated people badly. IMO it's pretty naive to think some of Bill's decisions with regard to his treatment of people hasn't had Kraft reaching for the Alka Selzter.

 

[Julius]

On Raiders.net forum they are saying that Seymour thought his agent was working out a long term deal with the Pats and then next thing he knew he gets traded. Could he be having second thoughts?.....

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I posted this in the other thread but Ordway and Curren just detailed that the problem has arisen because Seymour claims he was led to believe (by his agent Eugene Parker) that he was in negotiations with the Patriots on a to retirement deal...

This is Richard's folly. He always talked tough though he really just wanted a big hug (and a lot of $$$). Too late Rich. Throw your agent under the bus...that's classy.

The league has indicated to Curren that he is Oakland's problem and it's up to them to get him to report. Oakland disagrees because their Oakland. However, this hasn't happened in forever because there are no no trade clauses in football and players eventually show up because they want their money. Closest thing to this was the Plummer deal and he pre empted the 5 day letter (which is a last resort because of hard feelings and consequences) by retiring. Curren assumes the league will get involved at some point and determine who has to do what and how to get this settled.

Probably all true, but I can't believe that they will side with Seymour and void a trade cuz the player was a no show. That would be REEEEEAAAAL bad business for them.

 

[Bostonian1962]

That was not the claim I made, as I showed you in a follow up. Now, you can keep asserting things I didn't say all you want. I don't intend to respond to them.

I'm not taking sides, but you came real close to saying that without exactly saying it. Your words: "The Patriots demand absolute loyalty and return the favor by showing most players absolutely no loyalty at all."

DI, I think the Patriots are a very loyal team. Many have given plenty of examples why. It's easy to listen to the brilliant media and say 'oh, the Patriots must not be loyal'. Sometimes we all have to step back, assess the facts, and figure out that they are wrong.

I'll summarize like this: All teams can either choose to re-sign players or not. All teams can choose to trade players or not. All teams do that, as much, if not more than the Patriots. The Patriots are a high profile, Super Bowl winning team, and the masses know the players. So when the team says, appreciate what you are asking for, but that's too rich for our blood, they get slammed for it. History shows in most cases these decisions have turned out to be the right decision. We, as fans, should be happy about that. Those that are jealous say it's disloyalty, because it's a free shot.

Let me ask it this way: If overpaying for players past their prime makes a team loyal, that's your opinion. However, it probably makes them a losing loyal team.

The Lions gave Woody what he wanted. They have been since, one of the worse NFL teams in the league. The Jets gave Ty Law what he wanted. They have been one of the worse teams in the NFL since then. Ty Law was converted to safety, last year had zero interceptions, and this year NOBODY even wants him. The Browns gave McGinist what he wanted, and are on their 2nd head coach since then. This year nobody has signed McGinist, and he will be most likely "retired" soon. Playoff team Seattle gave Branch what he wanted, and have arguably been on the decline since.

They offered to pay many of these players alot of money. They took more to go elsewhere, and those teams were since seen to have overpaid. If that's disloyalty, I really hope the Patriots keep doing it.

Again, that is NOT disloyalty. It's called having a clue.