Easywolf32
On the Game Day Roster
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 237
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.You're saying that Seymour isn't double-teamed on virtually every down anymore?
"You can't run on my side. That's just the bottom line," Seymour said when asked to analyze his season after Sunday's game.
....
Regardless, that can't-run-on-me quote seems arrogant and full of self-preservation. Seymour's arrival was seen as a boon to the league's second-worst run defense in 2008.
But the Raiders have allowed a league-high 21 rushing touchdowns this season. Hence, Seymour's presence isn't working wonders.
....
Seymour typically lines up at right defensive end. He hasn't had a sack since Oct. 18, when he had two in the upset of the Philadelphia Eagles. He hasn't had more than three tackles in a game since then, either.
Seymour's only other two sacks came in a season-opening loss to the San Diego Chargers, when his future in Raiders garb seemed so promising.
He got an offer that he felt was worthwhile. There's a very good chance that he was right. But when the trade happened, you may remember that I said that I saw our realistic ceiling as having dropped from about 14-2 to probably 12-4 or 11-5. Of our 6 losses this year, 5 of them were due in large part to late defensive collapses. If you want to pretend that having an All-Pro run-stopping, pass-rushing defensive lineman couldn't have made a difference, then go ahead. That's about par for the course in terms of the level of reason that I expect from you.
Yes, because that's precisely *why* Seymour's 8.5 sacks were so amazing. Rushing the passer was not his primary job, and he still did it more consistently than anyone else on the team.
Not as a pass rusher. Here it is from Seymour himself. He's a run player now.:
Read more: High-priced Richard Seymour lost in the Raiders' shuffle - Sports - Modbee.com
We had a significantly better OLB pass rush this year than we did last year..
That's what happens when you swap a washed-up Mike Vrabel and Pierre Woods (still on the team, but little meaningful time at OLB) for TBC and Derrick Burgess. ILB too, with Mayo and Guyton having some experience under their belts and Belichick taking the leash off enough that they were able to rush the passer from time to time. The fact of the matter is, in every area *except* Seymour's position, the 2009 Pats' pass rush got better. Warren got healthy, Mayo and Guyton got much-needed experience, and the OLBs got upgraded. The fact that we were barely able to beat last year's sack total doesn't say a whole lot, because of all the variables at work, but if people insist on directly comparing them, then if anything it just further highlights how important Seymour was.
It was a bad trade that won't be overcome unless the team wins the Super Bowl.
The 2009-2010 Patriots defense misses Seymour. They aren't as good without him as they would have been with him. I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that.
He was going to leave after the 2009-2010 season for no compensation because the Pats were not going to pay him the big $ and big years at his age with his injury history that someone else will. Again, I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that based on what we know about both parties.
Bill B thought the long term benefit of that future first round pick was worth the short term pain the team was absorbing by not having Seymour this year. He was willing to put a lessor team on the field this year in order to try to gain some long term advantages. Time will tell on whether it was a good move or not.
I see nothing in the part you quoted, or in the entire article, that responds to BradyFTW!'s question. It didn't talk about double teams or the like.
He said no one can run on my side, nothing said about his ferocious pass rushing abilities even though when he initially was traded he said that defense would free him up to make plays on the QB. That didn't happen so now he's going to market himself as a great run stuffer. I didn't think it needed to be spelled out.
Not as a pass rusher. Here it is from Seymour himself. He's a run player now.:
Read more: High-priced Richard Seymour lost in the Raiders' shuffle - Sports - Modbee.com
The 2009-2010 Patriots defense misses Seymour. They aren't as good without him as they would have been with him. I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that.
He was going to leave after the 2009-2010 season for no compensation because the Pats were not going to pay him the big $ and big years at his age with his injury history that someone else will. Again, I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that based on what we know about both parties.
Bill B thought the long term benefit of that future first round pick was worth the short term pain the team was absorbing by not having Seymour this year. He was willing to put a lessor team on the field this year in order to try to gain some long term advantages. Time will tell on whether it was a good move or not.
Not as much as you think at OLB. AD plays a full 16 games last year and that projects out to 9 sacks- close to TBC's 9.5. Vrabes had 4. Burgess has 5. Thats a wash.
The Patriots finished the season with 31 sacks, one more than last year when Richard Seymour had one of his best seasons. I say BB's decision to ship him out has been vindicated. Looking forward to that extra No. 1 pick, or whomever/whatever it brings. :singing:
Richard, by the way, finished the season with a whopping four sacks (including two in his first game as a Raider), tying him for 82nd in the league. Keep in mind that this was in a system designed to maximize his potential as a pass rusher.
The 2009-2010 Patriots defense misses Seymour. They aren't as good without him as they would have been with him. I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that.
He was going to leave after the 2009-2010 season for no compensation because the Pats were not going to pay him the big $ and big years at his age with his injury history that someone else will. Again, I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that based on what we know about both parties.
Bill B thought the long term benefit of that future first round pick was worth the short term pain the team was absorbing by not having Seymour this year. He was willing to put a lessor team on the field this year in order to try to gain some long term advantages. Time will tell on whether it was a good move or not.
But AD didn't play a full 16 games last year. That's the point.
I hear ya. Not a huge difference. I would agree w/ you that overall, the rush off the edge is better this year, but it's not clear-cut.
Seems the impact of his loss is more felt along the line.
My .02$
He's always been a run player first and foremost. I don't see anything in that quote that suggests what you're saying he said.
I agree that it's felt on the line too, which makes sense since Warren, in particular, is seeing more double teams now that Seymour is gone. Wilfork isn't on the field on passing downs anyways. I know that this gets a little subjective at this point, but I will say that Burgess and TBC are *much* better at pressuring the QB than Woods and Vrabel were in 2008. The reason why the 2008 OLB's sack #s are even comparable to the 2009 group's is because there's nobody on the defensive line collapsing the pocket in 2009. If Seymour were with us, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that TBC would be at 12+ sacks this year. He's the best pass-rusher we've had at OLB since Willie McGinest, and they would have been coming off the same side.
That's the problem in comparing OLBs between 2008 and 2009 based on sack numbers alone. There are a number of variables that haven't been controlled for- most relevantly, Seymour.