Revisiting The Richard Seymour Trade - Oakland Raiders Fans Not Happy

[NG Pats Fan]

Oakland Fans are NOT happy with the way things have played out. It appears they overpaid for a far past his prime former great who cannot get it done anymore

Richard Seymour


What do you guys think of the man we got in this trade, Nate Solder. Has he lived up to your expectations?

 

[Big-T]

New franchise LT + keeping Vince Wilfork beats keeping Richard Seymour every single time for me.

 

[RayClay]

Yeah, let's judge the man's career by disgruntled message board posters.

I was fine with the trade because he would have required a long term contract, Wilfork and others needed to be taken care of for the future, the pick projected to be very high (it wasn't) and Seymour had some wear and tear and it looked like a fair gamble based on risk reward.

It isn't necessary to look back and call him a bum, because he's not and never was. He's one of the great linemen of this era and should be respected as such.

He certainly wasn't washed up in an era where we were competitive yet failed to win the Super Bowl.

Hindsight is 20-20 and messageboard posts aren't worth the cyberspace they're printed on as far as consistent analysis goes.

We traded a great player and got a mid 1st round draft pick. It gave us the ability to sign other good/great players.

Since we don't know how the future would have changed otherwise, nothing else can be implied from that IMO.

 

[Rob0729]

Part of the reason why Raiders fans are upset was not the trade itself, but for the fact that they were forced to overpay him because they gave up a first rounder for him and couldn't cut ties when he showed to be a very good player and not an elite player.

I would have loved to keep Seymour. But if it truly was an either/or between Wilfork and Seymour, the Pats made the correct choice.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

To me it's more about do we regret not planning to resign him. The trade is only an issue for hte 2009 season where even with Seymour the team would have gone nowhere.
Truth is we'll never know if he'd have helped this team to a ring, or if he's worth the cash he was going to count against the cap. I do know these 2 things: Oakland fans are clearly not happy with him so signs point towards us making the correct move. Also in 2008 when he had one of his best most productive seasons, our pass rush was still crap and defensively as a whole we couln't get it done in the biggest games which ultimately decided our fate in that playoff race. I stand by BB's decision and if Solder turns out to be our franchise LT, that was really a heck of a trade.

 

[PatsFan2]

But have we won any SB's since Big-Sey left? Like BB said time and time again guys like Richard Seymour don't grow on trees. I still think we have won at least one of our last two SB's if we had him.

 

[DefenseRules]

But have we won any SB's since Big-Sey left? Like BB said time and time again guys like Richard Seymour don't grow on trees. I still think we have won at least one of our last two SB's if we had him.

Wasn't he still on the team in 2007 when they went to the super bowl?

 

[PatsDeb]

I was okay with the trade then and I am more than okay with it now. I thought back then (and I still think now) that Seymour needed a change of scenery to be effective. It seems to have worked out okay for both sides notwithstanding the Oakland fans' 20/20 hindsight.

 

[jbb9s]

We traded a great player and got a mid 1st round draft pick. It gave us the ability to sign other good/great players.

*compensation was deferred 1 season, ala the Branch trade of 2005/06 season. we all know what the 'chart of values' says about that.

 

[condon84]

If we're gonna go revise history, why not say "what if we never signed Adalius and instead used some of that money to keep Wilfork AND Seymour"? Instead of drafting Chad Jackson, we draft Jennings. Hell, we could have traded the Maroney pick to move back and get Jones-Drew later on, add a pick and also pick Dumervil.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Pats got Solder and the Raiders got a very good defensive player. Looks like he's not a 'franchise' defensive player anymore but you have to expect that with age. Seymour's arrival in Oakland did help turn around that defense a little bit, but you can't expect a miracle from just one player. I mean look at the Bills, they shelled out 100m for Mario Williams and what has that gotten them? Same thing with Washington and 100m for Haynesworth. If Raiders fans are not happy with the trade too bad. Who would they have picked in 2011 at pick #17 that would help their team now? Heck that pick wouldn't be that late in the round if they didn't have Seymour helping their team. The grass is always greener it seems.

 

[BSR]

The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:

#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt

Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.

 

[PatsFan2]

If we're gonna go revise history, why not say "what if we never signed Adalius and instead used some of that money to keep Wilfork AND Seymour"? Instead of drafting Chad Jackson, we draft Jennings. Hell, we could have traded the Maroney pick to move back and get Jones-Drew later on, add a pick and also pick Dumervil.

I get ya woulda...coulda...shoulda.

 

[PatsFan2]

The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:

#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt

Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.

I know the year we wanted them to lose is the year they actually won.

 

[Rob0729]

If we're gonna go revise history, why not say "what if we never signed Adalius and instead used some of that money to keep Wilfork AND Seymour"? Instead of drafting Chad Jackson, we draft Jennings. Hell, we could have traded the Maroney pick to move back and get Jones-Drew later on, add a pick and also pick Dumervil.

Because there are no direct correlation between the examples you gave. It is the general understanding that the Pats felt they could only keep either Seymour or Wilfork and not both. They chose Wilfork.

Also, who says it is revising history? We never know for sure what the Pats are thinking and what their real organizational system can and can't handle, but the general consensus of people in the know was that the Pats could only keep one of Wilfork and Seymour.

To point out other bad moves they made are a bit of a red herring to divert from the original premise. Personally, I am more than happy to move on. Seymour has been gone for years and the Pats have been one drive away from winning a Super Bowl since. The Pats have moved on too.

 

[Rob0729]

The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:

#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt

Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.

Yeah, the one year the Raiders are not a horrible team is the year that decided the pick the Pats would get from them them for the Seymour trade.

 

[Danger Zone]

And on top of everthing mentioned above, it was my impression that Seymour was becoming disgruntled and acting out to the coaches in a way that can divide a locker-room.

I thought the Patriots nipped a problem in the bud when they made the trade.

If Im wrong I owe an apology to Seymour.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

But have we won any SB's since Big-Sey left? Like BB said time and time again guys like Richard Seymour don't grow on trees. I still think we have won at least one of our last two SB's if we had him.

We haven't won any SB's since 2004, Sey was here for 4 of those 7 seasons since. And there's zero proof to this claim I continue seeing that we'd have one+ more rings with Seymour:
-You don't know that he would have been as effective post 2009 as he was before. BB has been watching him closer than any of us and probably has a far better idea how effective he would have been. Judging by the Raiders fans reactions, there's a decent chance he's NOT the Seymour we used to know.
-You don't know if his play, even if it were up to par, would have actually made the difference with the secondary as horrible as it's been the past 2 seasons. The only time we've really been close to a title since he left is last year and who knows if he'd be able to mask that secondary.

 

[patsfaninpa]

It wasn't as bad as the Ingram trade. We got Vereen and it put us in position to move up and get Chandler Jones.

 

[WhiZa]

Seymour went to two pro-bowls and has been a steady locker room presence amidst the chaos his entire time in Oakland. Fans seem to forget how laughable that team was the several years leading up to when Seymour got there.