- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29,794
- Reaction score
- 20,459
Yes.
Was Richard Seymour the difference between the Patriots winning the Super Bowl and losing badly in the playoffs. I don't think so. There were far too many holes in the team.
Would Richard Seymour be the difference in the Patriots winning, or not making, the Super Bowl. I'm inclined to say no, even in the light of Warren's injury. Compare the 2001 -2004 defenses with the 2005 - 2008 defenses. The years the Patriots had dominant linebackers and defensive backs, they won Super Bowls. The years they had dominant defensive linemen but flawed back 7's, they came ooh so close but couldn't finish.
I think, as exciting as the luxury of the Warren/Wilfork/Seymour group was, it was maybe too much invested in one aspect of the defense. I did not see much dropoff in the defense's overall play in 2009 compared to 2008. We're ok with Wilfork and some JAGs if the linebackers and defensive backs perform. If the linebackers and defensive backs don't perform, it doesn't matter who is on that line.
And the value is undeniable. Even if Oakland picks around #15 (I don't see them that high, but #10-#12 sounds about right), that is sensational value for a player who's best years a 5 years behind him. He's still rock solid, but no difference maker.
I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dry as you say. The Ravens game got out of hand because Ray Rice was able to gash us running the ball. If Seymour's in there, does that early run go for a TD? Probably not. From there, who knows what happens.
It's easy to say "he wouldn't have been the difference", but the reality is that there's a real chance that he might have been. We'll never know, and that's fine, but the Pats' weaknesses weren't any more glaring than those of the '09 Colts, '08 Cardinals, or '07 Giants. Not to mention that losing Ty Warren would sting a lot less if we had Seymour under the franchise tag.
Last edited: