Seymour "I was blindsided" (merged)

[klinefan]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

So happy they got rid of this guy (not a turd as some have said)....just hope he passes the physical and isn't planning on somehow sabotaging it.

 

[Tunescribe]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

But if Seymour merely needed a few days to adjust and sort out his family stuff, all he had to do was communicate that to the Raiders.

Absolutely. Can't wait for the Borges spin tomorrow. I'm sure he'll skewer the evil, heartless Belichick for dumping all over a loyal player and his family. I wonder if Borg-ass ever told Seymour to his face the Pats made a mistake drafting him instead of David Terrell.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

Of course it's my projection. I never presented it as anything else. But if Seymour merely needed a few days to adjust and sort out his family stuff, all he had to do was communicate that to the Raiders.

i don't know about you, but I'll cop to having not acted as well as I should have a couple times in my life when I was really angry about an employer's or colleague's decision making; i know i've said and done things in private on those occasions that i wasn't proud of later. i'm willing to give it to Richard that he needed a few days to sort things out and get his head back on straight.

and, come to think of it, we don't know what he or his agent actually did or did not communicate to the raiders over those days. since there was no apparent panic on the raiders part (they just did what they should have done throughout), it's quite possible that that communication was indeed made privately.

 

[patchick]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

we don't know what he or his agent actually did or did not communicate to the raiders over those days. since there was no apparent panic on the raiders part (they just did what they should have done throughout), it's quite possible that that communication was indeed made privately.

It's all speculation, but I don't think you get a 5-day warning letter if you've established a clear and amicable understanding that you just need a couple of days to sort out your family's move. Not to mention asking your union to file a grievance.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

i don't know about you, but I'll cop to having not acted as well as I should have a couple times in my life when I was really angry about an employer's or colleague's decision making; i know i've said and done things in private on those occasions that i wasn't proud of later. i'm willing to give it to Richard that he needed a few days to sort things out and get his head back on straight.

and, come to think of it, we don't know what he or his agent actually did or did not communicate to the raiders over those days. since there was no apparent panic on the raiders part (they just did what they should have done throughout), it's quite possible that that communication was indeed made privately.

Makes sense.

Based on what has and has not been said so far, let's cut Sey some slack in this situation. He was a major contributor to 3 rings and now plays elsewhere. Let's move on.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

It's all speculation, but I don't think you get a 5-day warning letter if you've established a clear and amicable understanding that you just need a couple of days to sort out your family's move. Not to mention asking your union to file a grievance.

do we know for sure that the five day letter was sent or did someone just say it was sent? there have been so many rumors that I don't know what's fact and what's speculation any more. same thing for the grievance. was it filed or did someone just say it was filed?

and even if the letter was sent and the grievance was filed, is it possible that owners might have a procedure whereby they send that letter on a certain day after a trade even if they anticipate an amicable resolution? and is it possible that the union is just doing the same thing, i.e., taking the steps to protect the interests of its player even if it thinks there won't be a problem?

i just make these points not to be argumentative but because that's the way business is done, based on my personal experience. the more money that is at stake the more likely it is that procedures will be followed, whatever might be said or "thought"; everyone acts to protect their interests until the deal is actually done, in this case the Raiders and the Union.

just another day at the office in the NFL. "Fine, we're happy to hear that Richard is going to report, but tell your client that we have to send the letter anyway." "Yeah, well the Union will be filing its grievance too, just in case things don't work out like we think they will." everybody covering their butts all the way around.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

do we know for sure that the five day letter was sent or did someone just say it was sent? there have been so many rumors that I don't know what's fact and what's speculation any more. same thing for the grievance. was it filed or did someone just say it was filed?

and even if the letter was sent and the grievance was filed, is it possible that owners might have a procedure whereby they send that letter on a certain day after a trade even if they anticipate an amicable resolution? and is it possible that the union is just doing the same thing, i.e., taking the steps to protect the interests of its player even if it thinks there won't be a problem?

i just make these points not to be argumentative but because that's the way business is done, based on my personal experience. the more money that is at stake the more likely it is that procedures will be followed, whatever might be said or "thought"; everyone acts to protect their interests until the deal is actually done, in this case the Raiders and the Union.

just another day at the office in the NFL. "Fine, we're happy to hear that Richard is going to report, but tell your client that we have to send the letter anyway." "Yeah, well the Union will be filing its grievance too, just in case things don't work out like we think they will." everybody covering their butts all the way around.

Do you realize how silly you sound?

Yes, we know the letter was sent. Seymour received it. Only then did he agree to report. The NFLPA filed a grievance on his behalf over it. And then Seymour went public with "his version" to put a nice spin on it and make himself look good to get sympathy from the gullible public. Like you.

No different from Jay Cutler crying his way out of Denver because "sob" that mean nasty coach hurt his feelings by considering possibly trading for another QB. Who cared that he was under contract for a very nice sum of money and effectively held up the franchise?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

do we know for sure that the five day letter was sent or did someone just say it was sent? there have been so many rumors that I don't know what's fact and what's speculation any more. same thing for the grievance. was it filed or did someone just say it was filed?

and even if the letter was sent and the grievance was filed, is it possible that owners might have a procedure whereby they send that letter on a certain day after a trade even if they anticipate an amicable resolution? and is it possible that the union is just doing the same thing, i.e., taking the steps to protect the interests of its player even if it thinks there won't be a problem?

i just make these points not to be argumentative but because that's the way business is done, based on my personal experience. the more money that is at stake the more likely it is that procedures will be followed, whatever might be said or "thought"; everyone acts to protect their interests until the deal is actually done, in this case the Raiders and the Union.

just another day at the office in the NFL. "Fine, we're happy to hear that Richard is going to report, but tell your client that we have to send the letter anyway." "Yeah, well the Union will be filing its grievance too, just in case things don't work out like we think they will." everybody covering their butts all the way around.

I'm all for letting it go, but lets not veer right off into revisionist history. The letter was sent. It was sent for a reason. The grievance was filed and the union can't do that unless the player requests it. He wasn't talking to Oakland in terms of a plan to report. He was telling all his friends, some of whom we know and trust, that he was upset. He was also telling them from the end of last season until at least early in camp that he thought he might be traded. He wanted to remain here although this is not his hometown when it comes to contract parameters.

If you don't think his holding out for his last deal was a problem, and you don't get why his bizarre relationship with Borges was cause for concern (his last buddy before Richard was Drew...) then I'm not sure what to tell you. They said on WEEI Friday they heard there was quite the relationship altering exchange between he and Bill when he was informed of his trade. I predicted when he signed his 3 year extension that it was done as a short term extension as a compromise that would placate his need to be a top tier player and give them time to determine if they really wanted to retain him long term. It wasn't just about his health or level of performance, it was about being an all in team leader like Brady. When they stopped naming him a captain I figured they'd made their decision. This offer from Oakland just allowed them to acquire value by parting ways a year early.

I was wounded when he held out. Bet Bill and Bob were too. He's wounded now. It is what it is. The business of football.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

Do you realize how silly you sound?

Yes, we know the letter was sent. Seymour received it. Only then did he agree to report. The NFLPA filed a grievance on his behalf over it. And then Seymour went public with "his version" to put a nice spin on it and make himself look good to get sympathy from the gullible public. Like you.

No different from Jay Cutler crying his way out of Denver because "sob" that mean nasty coach hurt his feelings by considering possibly trading for another QB. Who cared that he was under contract for a very nice sum of money and effectively held up the franchise?

whatever, though i don't feel silly. as for the rest, you're entitled to your read of the situation. i might have a different one, but that's why we're here.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

I'm all for letting it go, but lets not veer right off into revisionist history. The letter was sent. It was sent for a reason. The grievance was filed and the union can't do that unless the player requests it. He wasn't talking to Oakland in terms of a plan to report. He was telling all his friends, some of whom we know and trust, that he was upset. He was also telling them from the end of last season until at least early in camp that he thought he might be traded. He wanted to remain here although this is not his hometown when it comes to contract parameters.

If you don't think his holding out for his last deal was a problem, and you don't get why his bizarre relationship with Borges was cause for concern (his last buddy before Richard was Drew...) then I'm not sure what to tell you. They said on WEEI Friday they heard there was quite the relationship altering exchange between he and Bill when he was informed of his trade. I predicted when he signed his 3 year extension that it was done as a short term extension as a compromise that would placate his need to be a top tier player and give them time to determine if they really wanted to retain him long term. It wasn't just about his health or level of performance, it was about being an all in team leader like Brady. When they stopped naming him a captain I figured they'd made their decision. This offer from Oakland just allowed them to acquire value by parting ways a year early.

I was wounded when he held out. Bet Bill and Bob were too. He's wounded now. It is what it is. The business of football.

i agree with you on the "business of football." however this went down behind closed doors, it's done now.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

Do you realize how silly you sound?

Yes, we know the letter was sent. Seymour received it. Only then did he agree to report. The NFLPA filed a grievance on his behalf over it. And then Seymour went public with "his version" to put a nice spin on it and make himself look good to get sympathy from the gullible public. Like you.

No different from Jay Cutler crying his way out of Denver because "sob" that mean nasty coach hurt his feelings by considering possibly trading for another QB. Who cared that he was under contract for a very nice sum of money and effectively held up the franchise?

Well, one difference is that Seymour was smart enough to keep his mouth shut, unlike Cutler. But both were afflicted with mean, nasty coaches who had the audacity to open trade talks without the player's permission.

I've been reading the comments on Currans piece on PFT and the Pats haters are out there as well as here. Fine.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

Do you realize how silly you sound?

Yes, we know the letter was sent. Seymour received it. Only then did he agree to report. The NFLPA filed a grievance on his behalf over it. And then Seymour went public with "his version" to put a nice spin on it and make himself look good to get sympathy from the gullible public. Like you.

No different from Jay Cutler crying his way out of Denver because "sob" that mean nasty coach hurt his feelings by considering possibly trading for another QB. Who cared that he was under contract for a very nice sum of money and effectively held up the franchise?

tee hee!

 

[GullyFoyle]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

Sometimes its painful to remove a piece of your team that is thought to be important but it is always for the best in the long run.(look at the Nomah situation with the Sox)

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

It's all speculation, but I don't think you get a 5-day warning letter if you've established a clear and amicable understanding that you just need a couple of days to sort out your family's move. Not to mention asking your union to file a grievance.

This makes the most sense.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

Yeah Im not buying the "routine Procedure" lie.

 

[MVPatsfan13]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

I dont know if this has been brought up, but isnt what Seymour is saying publicly the complete opposite of what he told Warren in private months ago?
Im sure that it still hit him hard, but he knew it might happen.

I agree with Seymour not showing up immediately, hes going to be good for them, doesnt need the extra practice, and it didnt cost him anything.
It will be interesting to see how Cable uses him.

 

[BSR]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

I'm all for letting it go, but lets not veer right off into revisionist history. The letter was sent. It was sent for a reason. The grievance was filed and the union can't do that unless the player requests it. He wasn't talking to Oakland in terms of a plan to report. He was telling all his friends, some of whom we know and trust, that he was upset. He was also telling them from the end of last season until at least early in camp that he thought he might be traded. He wanted to remain here although this is not his hometown when it comes to contract parameters.

If you don't think his holding out for his last deal was a problem, and you don't get why his bizarre relationship with Borges was cause for concern (his last buddy before Richard was Drew...) then I'm not sure what to tell you. They said on WEEI Friday they heard there was quite the relationship altering exchange between he and Bill when he was informed of his trade. I predicted when he signed his 3 year extension that it was done as a short term extension as a compromise that would placate his need to be a top tier player and give them time to determine if they really wanted to retain him long term. It wasn't just about his health or level of performance, it was about being an all in team leader like Brady. When they stopped naming him a captain I figured they'd made their decision. This offer from Oakland just allowed them to acquire value by parting ways a year early.

I was wounded when he held out. Bet Bill and Bob were too. He's wounded now. It is what it is. The business of football.

What did they say on EEI? I hadn't heard that there was rumors going about about their conversation. That would be very disappointing that Seymore would take the news that badly.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

What did they say on EEI? I hadn't heard that there was rumors going about about their conversation. That would be very disappointing that Seymore would take the news that badly.

They just briefly elluded to it having reportedly devolved into a heated exchange where some things were likely said that could not easily be taken back. It came up in the context of Burton babbling about the what if scenario where he bounced back here...

 

[SVN]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

do we know for sure that the five day letter was sent or did someone just say it was sent? there have been so many rumors that I don't know what's fact and what's speculation any more. same thing for the grievance. was it filed or did someone just say it was filed?

and even if the letter was sent and the grievance was filed, is it possible that owners might have a procedure whereby they send that letter on a certain day after a trade even if they anticipate an amicable resolution? and is it possible that the union is just doing the same thing, i.e., taking the steps to protect the interests of its player even if it thinks there won't be a problem?

i just make these points not to be argumentative but because that's the way business is done, based on my personal experience. the more money that is at stake the more likely it is that procedures will be followed, whatever might be said or "thought"; everyone acts to protect their interests until the deal is actually done, in this case the Raiders and the Union.

just another day at the office in the NFL. "Fine, we're happy to hear that Richard is going to report, but tell your client that we have to send the letter anyway." "Yeah, well the Union will be filing its grievance too, just in case things don't work out like we think they will." everybody covering their butts all the way around.

even rodney confirmed that seymour the letter and he talked tohim

 

[SVN]

Re: Seymour 'I was blindsided'

It's all speculation, but I don't think you get a 5-day warning letter if you've established a clear and amicable understanding that you just need a couple of days to sort out your family's move. Not to mention asking your union to file a grievance.

thats exactly what i feel. i understand family/personal isssues but for 5 days he was 'blindsided' to not even say if he is going or not ?