Richard Seymour on WEEI now

[emoney_33]

Enough already, when a NFL teams lines up in a power running formation and simply hands off to a RB over and over again it is called domination. It just doesn't happen. My god, if that was good run defense then you are right this team is perfect in every way, no adjustments are necessary.

They didn't do what you claim they did, that's the point. They had 6 drives that weren't end of half or inside the 25, and they ended in 4 punts, 1 TD and 1 INT.

Rice and McGahee combined for 3.4 YPC after that first play of the game. They were allowed to run 50 times as a team because they had a 24-0 lead and our offense couldn't produce anything close to a drive until the end of the 3rd quarter.

The run defense was absolutely good enough to win. The Ravens averaged 5 plays per drive (not including end of half and 1st play of game). FIVE plays per drive, with 3.4 YPC. That's not them lining up and running at will, that's them getting gifts from our anemic offense.

There is not a single defense in the NFL that would have done much better. The Ravens put together exactly ONE good long sustained drive, and that was starting with 1 minute to go in the 3rd quarter, after being put back on the field with 3 plays rest each offensive drive.

 

[emoney_33]

2009 Seymour gives another season of Seymour. The team could then have franchised him had it chosen to do so. Had it decided not to do so, the team could have chosen instead to let him walk for a compensatory pick in the same draft that will have that 1st round pick, and it would likely have been a 3rd round pick in compensation. The team could also have gotten Wilfork signed to a contract extension by now if it had chosen to. Instead, management has decided to lose one player and alienate the other.

So, yes, if you ignore the benefits of having the game's best 3-4 DE on your team for a year or more, and the benefits of getting a compensatory pick for that player should the team not re-sign or franchise him, AND if you ignore the simple reality that you use top picks in the hope of getting players as good as Seymour, yes, it's possible that the deal might end up being a positive for the Patriots.

If you ignore reality, the move was a great one.

But, cheer up everyone. The team finished in the top 10 in scoring defense and made the playoffs! And that's what it's all about, right?

They have not alienated Wilfork, keep trying. They wouldn't have franchised Seymour, keep trying. Oakland's #1 pick is worth a whole helluva lot more than a compensatory #3, keep trying. We didn't win from 2005-2008 with Seymour, but somehow someway it was guaranteed we would have won in 2009 because Deus says so?

 

[condon84]

They didn't do what you claim they did, that's the point. They had 6 drives that weren't end of half or inside the 25, and they ended in 4 punts, 1 TD and 1 INT.

Rice and McGahee combined for 3.4 YPC after that first play of the game. They were allowed to run 50 times as a team because they had a 24-0 lead and our offense couldn't produce anything close to a drive until the end of the 3rd quarter.

The run defense was absolutely good enough to win. The Ravens averaged 5 plays per drive (not including end of half and 1st play of game). FIVE plays per drive, with 3.4 YPC. That's not them lining up and running at will, that's them getting gifts from our anemic offense.

There is not a single defense in the NFL that would have done much better. The Ravens put together exactly ONE good long sustained drive, and that was starting with 1 minute to go in the 3rd quarter, after being put back on the field with 3 plays rest each offensive drive.

They ran on us when they wanted to and we couldn't stop them. It's not like they even pretended to pass that day.

When they needed to get 2 or 3 yards for first downs, they got them. From the first quarter on, after they got the 24 point lead, they were on "kill the clock" mode, became completely predictable and still got the necessary first downs when they had to. They said, "we're running the ball and you can't stop us." If that's not domination, then I don't know what is.

 

[emoney_33]

They ran on us when they wanted to and we couldn't stop them. It's not like they even pretended to pass that day.

When they needed to get 2 or 3 yards for first downs, they got them. From the first quarter on, after they got the 24 point lead, they were on "kill the clock" mode, became completely predictable and still got the necessary first downs when they had to. They said, "we're running the ball and you can't stop us." If that's not domination, then I don't know what is.

Once again on the drives that the offense didn't gift wrap it to them inside the 25, there were 3 3&out's, 1 6-play FG, 1 8-play Punt, and the long TD at the end of 3rd/start of 4th.

You can pretend that our defense was worse than it was, and I'm not saying they played great, but they did not get dominated like you claim. They even stopped 2 of the 4 redzone gifts.

 

[eagle eye]

Anybody got a recording or a link for this? I'd like to hear what he said.

 

[Disco Volante]

but I don't think he was the difference between this team getting to the SB and not.

Yup, this makes it a no-brainier.

 

[BradyFTW!]

With Seymour, we beat the Ravens. So I'm not sure that you can say that Seymour wasn't the difference. FWIW, I suspect that he likely was. Would it have been a slam dunk? No, but it was the difference between us being a SB contender and not being a SB contender, in my eyes.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Once again on the drives that the offense didn't gift wrap it to them inside the 25, there were 3 3&out's, 1 6-play FG, 1 8-play Punt, and the long TD at the end of 3rd/start of 4th.

You can pretend that our defense was worse than it was, and I'm not saying they played great, but they did not get dominated like you claim. They even stopped 2 of the 4 redzone gifts.

The first play from scrimmage was an 80+ yard TD run. If Seymour's presence stops that one play from happening, you could argue that he was worth it, since that was likely responsible for a 14 point swing to start the game.

 

[emoney_33]

With Seymour, we beat the Ravens. So I'm not sure that you can say that Seymour wasn't the difference. FWIW, I suspect that he likely was. Would it have been a slam dunk? No, but it was the difference between us being a SB contender and not being a SB contender, in my eyes.

The 83 yard TD was up the gut, Seymour isn't stopping it.

Richard Seymour is not stopping the offense from giving the Ravens the ball on the 17, 9, 25 and 22. The offense averaged under 4 plays per drive, with 3 turnovers in the first half.

Richard Seymour is NOT changing the outcome of the Ravens game. That game is 100% on the offense, and it just showed the fatal flaw of the 2009 Patriots. The fatal flaw was WR depth, either Moss or Welker go down and the offense instantly sputters.

 

[emoney_33]

The first play from scrimmage was an 80+ yard TD run. If Seymour's presence stops that one play from happening, you could argue that he was worth it, since that was likely responsible for a 14 point swing to start the game.

That was at most a 7 point swing, even if Seymour helps to stop that. Since it was up the gut I don't see Seymour stopping it. Even if that is stopped it's not going to effect the terrible offensive display, where the Ravens could double Moss and bring pressure without worrying about anyone else.

I'm not sure where the 14 point swing is coming from, unless you assume Seymour would have contributed to a pick-6 or something

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

In the end I think it was the right move to make. One year player vs potential top 5 pick.

But how you can say that you don't think Seymour was the difference in a SB when we got shredded on the ground in our playoff game, Watching SD lose, and if somehow the Jets beats the Colts I think you could say just that.

If we beat the Ravens Which Sey would have helped up to better contain Rice, then we would have headed to SD who stunk, after that it would be on the Road vs the colts or if the Jets beat em at home vs Jets. So if the Jets manage to win than I don't think it is too far fetched to think that this team was a Seymour and a Victory over the Jets away from the SB.

With the 2nd half woes on offense throughout the season and then the loss of Welker, we were going nowhere and the Baltimore game proved that. We could have the Jets defense and we still would have gone nowhere. Absolutely no way we beat 4 straight great teams with an inept offense.

 

[Miguel]

Anybody got a recording or a link for this? I'd like to hear what he said.

Richard Seymour, Raiders DL on WEEI

 

[BradyManny]

They came out in the 2nd half no better, starting off with drives of 3 plays then 4 (with an INT giving the ball to Ravens at the 22, which the defense held them to a FG). Then finally they get a couple of 10 play drives (TD and missed FG) towards the end of the 3rd/beginning 4th.

Just about every defense in the NFL would have struggled in those circumstances.

Probably so. There's no question, the offense blew it. Brady had probably his worst game as a pro (when accounting for the stakes of the game, ie playoffs), the offensive line was destroyed, the gameplanning overmatched, and the offensive weapons on the field were inadequate.

All that said, if the Patriots D had stepped up and stopped that Ravens offense on that drive, I really do think the offense would've found a way to put up more points, and enough to win that game. It was all about momentum.

And the one thing worth mentioning in terms of the defense's ability to stop the Ravens - Flacco was pretty much useless that day, and as the Colts game showed, its a one-dimensional team with him banged up.

We knew they were running, and they still managed to do it. That is not something that would've happened to the Patriots if Richard Seymour were on this team, would you agree there?

 

[emoney_33]

All that said, if the Patriots D had stepped up and stopped that Ravens offense on that drive, I really do think the offense would've found a way to put up more points, and enough to win that game. It was all about momentum.

This is something that I disagree with. You always hear about "momentum" and "momentum shifts". I think that's just explaining away the course of events. I don't think there is a such thing as momentum that would effect a game, it's more that momentum is the explanation of a string of events.

We can agree that certainly stopping them on that long drive would have changed the course of the game and it's possible we win. But we can't look at that drive in a vacuum, we have to understand that the drive came after the defense continuously got thrown into the fire with minimal rest. A solid 44 minutes of 3-4 plays rest, and a team able to do nothing but pound the run, is going to tire out most defenses in the NFL, even a Seymour-led defense.

And the one thing worth mentioning in terms of the defense's ability to stop the Ravens - Flacco was pretty much useless that day, and as the Colts game showed, its a one-dimensional team with him banged up.

We knew they were running, and they still managed to do it. That is not something that would've happened to the Patriots if Richard Seymour were on this team, would you agree there?

Flacco ended up being useless true, but you can't just sell out on the run all game and expose yourself to one-on-one matchups. You have to at least have some early respect for the pass. 3.4 YPC isn't really "still manged to do it" in my book. I mean we weren't a top of the line premiere run defense but we weren't complete flops either. The run defense was good -enough-. The Ravens ran for over 5 yards per carry against the Colts, but the Colts offense put them in a position where they couldn't pound it 50 times like they did against us.

With Seymour I still don't think we are going to do much better than we did. I don't believe he stops the 83 yard TD run up the middle, and I don't believe his presence makes the Ravens do much worse than 2/4 on the 4 gifts from the offense inside the 25. So that's still around 30 points, even if he turns those redzone gifts into 1/4 that's 26 points.

If we had Welker, he would have been a reliable quick strike option preventing the Ravens from being so successful with their pressure attack. Brady wouldn't have been forcing balls to Aiken/Slater/Watson and he doesn't throw 3 INT. The defense has more field to cover, and we probably score more.

I think the real story is that this offense had far too many eggs in one (2) basket(s). Moss/Welker and then a huge dropoff. We have seen from years past that the key to success in the NFL is being better at the middle of your roster. Our middle-roster offensive options were nowhere close to even being serviceable. That sealed our fate on that tragic cut in Houston, with or without Seymour or even the 2003 defense.

 

[emoney_33]

And don't get me wrong, as a fan, I would have been perfectly happy to watch Seymour play in 2009 for the Patriots. As a fan, I missed having that talented player on our DL. However, I understand and am glad that there are people who are looking out for the future of this team as well as the present.

 

[BradyManny]

This is something that I disagree with. You always hear about "momentum" and "momentum shifts". I think that's just explaining away the course of events. I don't think there is a such thing as momentum that would effect a game, it's more that momentum is the explanation of a string of events.

I'd disagree - I do think there is something to momentum, confidence & rhythm in the game. I know its a chicken & egg kind of conversation as you mention. But even after the Ravens put up that TD, the Pats did drive back down for a FG attempt. If they had gotten off the field on that 3rd & 7 play (pass to Mason), it would've been a 24-17 game in the 4th quarter. I like our chances at that point.

I think the real story is that this offense had far too many eggs in one (2) basket(s). Moss/Welker and then a huge dropoff. We have seen from years past that the key to success in the NFL is being better at the middle of your roster. Our middle-roster offensive options were nowhere close to even being serviceable. That sealed our fate on that tragic cut in Houston, with or without Seymour or even the 2003 defense.

Hard to argue with any of the above. We just didn't have the personnel on offense once Welker went down. Sadly, we might have discovered it in Edelman once he became healthy at the end of the year, but Welker's injury just changed the depth chart too much. The only thing I would disagree with is that I do think Seymour would make a difference on the 83 yard run to Rice simply b/c I think he changes our defense so much. Seymour took a lot of double teams, which when he's next to Vince changes the way teams play us. Warren's a solid player, but he's not Seymour, and Green is just an average starting DL, IMO.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Yeah, Seymour was definantly the missing link. I mean, we were downright dominant the last 4 years with him!...Oh wait, no we weren't.

If Bill didn't trade him, seymour would have "helped" the defense, not made it.He would also not be a Patriot today, because you know the Pats weren't going to pay him. So we'd have nothing, instead we have a first rounder. People give the Jets credit. Our D is to theirs as Sanchez is to Tom Brady right now, it's that simple. That D is playing on a stoooopid level and they down right made Philip Rivers run for his life all day. Seymour did not make this an explosive front 7, and he does not make us close to their level, did he in 08? Tell me folks,what would you rather have. A better, but still not good enough defense with Seymour, or a weaker DL for a year with a high first rounder next year?

If you tell me you'd rather have Seymour, get your brain checked. That's saying Seymour was the missing piece to the pass rush this season when he was here while the pass rush was weak last season as well when he was here .. I understand getting on Bill for his actual screw ups, but this whole Seymour thing is the ultimate short sighted piling on.

 

[BionicPatriot]

And don't get me wrong, as a fan, I would have been perfectly happy to watch Seymour play in 2009 for the Patriots. As a fan, I missed having that talented player on our DL. However, I understand and am glad that there are people who are looking out for the future of this team as well as the present.

Exactly. I wish we still had Seymour, it's down right painful watching Green hold down a starting job. However, he would be gone today still had they not traded him. I have no doubt Bill can replace him, he has had far better luck with DL than anything else. I don't hate Seymour, I just see people saying he was the REASON we didn't win the super bowl. No, this team was far more flawed than a missing Seymour.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Once again on the drives that the offense didn't gift wrap it to them inside the 25, there were 3 3&out's, 1 6-play FG, 1 8-play Punt, and the long TD at the end of 3rd/start of 4th.

You can pretend that our defense was worse than it was, and I'm not saying they played great, but they did not get dominated like you claim. They even stopped 2 of the 4 redzone gifts.

They ran on 13 out of 16 first downs, converted 10 out of 16 third downs, carried for 234 yards on 52 rushes, and had almost as many points (33) as they did passing yards (34). If that's not domination, I'm not sure what is.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That was at most a 7 point swing, even if Seymour helps to stop that. Since it was up the gut I don't see Seymour stopping it. Even if that is stopped it's not going to effect the terrible offensive display, where the Ravens could double Moss and bring pressure without worrying about anyone else.

I'm not sure where the 14 point swing is coming from, unless you assume Seymour would have contributed to a pick-6 or something

Seymour himself wouldn't have had to have stopped it. When you don't have a liability on your line, and instead you have Seymour, that's one less blocker that the Ravens have at their disposal since you have to double Seymour and Wilfork. Put Seymour on that line, and Wilfork is likely in better position to make that tackle, and if not him, then Mayo or Thomas. Saying that Seymour wouldn't have made a difference on that play because it wasn't run directly at where he would have been is a pretty simplistic interpretation of how the Pats' (or any) defense works. Line play dictates everyone else's positioning and assignments.

If that play gets stuffed (as it probably would have been), there's a very good chance that you're looking at a short possession and the Pats getting the ball back with decent field position. That lessens the need to answer with a quick strike, makes the threat of the Pats establishing the run more viable, and, even if Brady does get strip-sacked again, it makes the following touchdown less probable and less deflating if it does happen.