Revisiting The Richard Seymour Trade - Oakland Raiders Fans Not Happy

[ausbacker]

It's funny how when people make up their mind, they lose all objectivity. Seymour has been just fine for the Raiders.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Now look at all of the defensive players that they've lost in the interim.

And they also added 4 defensive starters (Shaughnessy, Houston, Burris, McClain) and 3 reserves (Mitchell, Goethel, Crawford) from the 2009-2012 drafts.

Oh, and the Oakland Raiders are currently 30th in scoring defense this year.
Imagine if they didn't have Seymour's "leadership", they'd probably be 31st.

 

[WhiZa]

You'd rather have Solder than JJ Watt? Seriously?

I would rather have Solder and Jones rather than Watt and Cannon. I never said Solder was the best pick in the 2011 draft, just overall impact to this team this year has been huge. Our OL is walking on glass right now.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

If we didn't have Solder last year, Brady would have had Thomas Welech as his RT.

 

[BradyFTW!]

And they also added 4 defensive starters (Shaughnessy, Houston, Burris, McClain) and 3 reserves (Mitchell, Goethel, Crawford) from the 2009-2012 drafts.

Oh, and the Oakland Raiders are currently 30th in scoring defense this year.
Imagine if they didn't have Seymour's "leadership", they'd probably be 31st.

Almost all of those guys suck. Shaughnessy is good, but he missed most of last season. McClain is physically talented, but is exactly the reason why you need a leader like Seymour around in the first place. The rest are nobodies.

The fact that you're citing guys with 7 career tackles as proof of the additions that the Raiders have made kinda makes my point for me. All of those guys combined don't even halfway make up for losing Asomugha.

 

[SONS_OF_BELICHICK]

Can someone tell me why we care about the whining Oakland fans .......

We have bigger birds to fry.....


:rocker:

 

[BradyFTW!]

And they also added 4 defensive starters (Shaughnessy, Houston, Burris, McClain) and 3 reserves (Mitchell, Goethel, Crawford) from the 2009-2012 drafts.

Oh, and the Oakland Raiders are currently 30th in scoring defense this year.
Imagine if they didn't have Seymour's "leadership", they'd probably be 31st.

Almost all of those guys suck. Shaughnessy is good, but he missed most of last season. McClain is physically talented, but is exactly the reason why you need a leader like Seymour around in the first place. The rest are nobodies.

The fact that you're citing guys with 7 career tackles kinda makes my point for me. Over that same time period, they lost Nnamdi Asomugha, Thomas Howard, Kirk Morrison, Trevor Scott, Stanford Routt, Chris Johnson, Kamerion Wimbley, and Greg Ellis.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

raiders fans are never happy..what's new

 

[Rob0729]

We're playing the "What-if" game so every transaction the team did that led to Seymour getting traded should be up for debate. Signing Adalius to that big contract certainly didn't help.

In regards to the idea that the Pats could only keep Wilfork or Seymour, who said this? It's a ridiculous idea. Unless you can find a quote directly from Bill, I call BS. We just signed both Gronk and Ahern who play the same position to big contracts. Wilfork and Seymour are arguably better players and more valuable to the team. Our defense hasn't been the same since Seymour left. Meanwhile, it seems like Brady can get any Tom, ****, and Harry to look great.

It was a stupid trade then and probably cost us some important wins.

Comparing the Hernandez and Gronk thing is silly. We are comparing 2012 and two TEs with multiple years left on their rookie deals signing 5 and 6 year extensions (both require them to finish the final two years of their rookie deals for some up front bonus money although he looks to be making close to $30 million for those two years or $15 million a year). Both Gronk and Herndanez's deals have outs before they make much of their real money. Back in 2008, the cap was much lower.

Both Seymour and Wilfork were in the last years of their deals and wanted top dollar for their position and would never sign a deal structure that either Gronk or Hernandez got. If Seymour would sign a deal structured like Gronk's, the Pats would have signed it in a second (Gronk doesn't get his real big bonus of $10 million until 2015 where the Pats can in theory cut him before they give it to him and only will get $8 million more than his original rookie deal until then). Also, the cap should be exploding with the new TV deals by the time either Gronk or Hernandez get their biggest payments. Totally different situations.

Wilfork got an $18 million signing bonus which is $2 million less than Hernandez's and Gronk's signing bonuses combined. As I stated, Gronk's was $8 million and Hernandez's was $12 million. Seymour would have commanded at least a $15-20 million signing bonus (the Raiders gave him only $7 million bonus, but gave him a two year deal with $22 million guaranteeed). So without even looking at the year to year bases, the Pats would have shelled out a heck of a lot more money for Wilfork and Seymour vs. Gronk and Hernandez with a smaller cap. Plus, at least Seymour's deal would be much shorter and require a bigger amortized cap hit each year.

I see no correlation between the Seymour and Wilfork deal and the Gronk and Hernandez deal. Seymour and Wilfork would have eaten far more of the cap in the early years with a smaller cap number while the Pats have relatively low cap hits for both Gronk and Hernandez and have outs before either get big cap hit increases.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

**** always played his best when playing for a contract. Had no problem saying bye bye to Seymour. Where the Patriots made a mistake was in waiting too long to address their D line needs.

 

[Ring 6]

**** always played his best when playing for a contract. Had no problem saying bye bye to Seymour. Where the Patriots made a mistake was in waiting too long to address their D line needs.

Incredibly naive statement.
Any true Patriots fan who is paying attention would appreciate the first 5-6 years of Seymour's career as the best player in this era of the Patriots on defense.
Seymour hustled more than any DL I have ever seen play the game until wear and tear set in. No DL hustles the way Seymour did. His effort was A+. Seymour would rush the passer then assist on tackles 10 yards downfield on pass plays after a run and catch.
To imply that his effort was based on contract status is as ignorant a statement as I have seen around here in years.

 

[condon84]

Comparing the Hernandez and Gronk thing is silly. We are comparing 2012 and two TEs with multiple years left on their rookie deals signing 5 and 6 year extensions (both require them to finish the final two years of their rookie deals for some up front bonus money although he looks to be making close to $30 million for those two years or $15 million a year). Both Gronk and Herndanez's deals have outs before they make much of their real money. Back in 2008, the cap was much lower.

Both Seymour and Wilfork were in the last years of their deals and wanted top dollar for their position and would never sign a deal structure that either Gronk or Hernandez got. If Seymour would sign a deal structured like Gronk's, the Pats would have signed it in a second (Gronk doesn't get his real big bonus of $10 million until 2015 where the Pats can in theory cut him before they give it to him and only will get $8 million more than his original rookie deal until then). Also, the cap should be exploding with the new TV deals by the time either Gronk or Hernandez get their biggest payments. Totally different situations.

Wilfork got an $18 million signing bonus which is $2 million less than Hernandez's and Gronk's signing bonuses combined. As I stated, Gronk's was $8 million and Hernandez's was $12 million. Seymour would have commanded at least a $15-20 million signing bonus (the Raiders gave him only $7 million bonus, but gave him a two year deal with $22 million guaranteeed). So without even looking at the year to year bases, the Pats would have shelled out a heck of a lot more money for Wilfork and Seymour vs. Gronk and Hernandez with a smaller cap. Plus, at least Seymour's deal would be much shorter and require a bigger amortized cap hit each year.

I see no correlation between the Seymour and Wilfork deal and the Gronk and Hernandez deal. Seymour and Wilfork would have eaten far more of the cap in the early years with a smaller cap number while the Pats have relatively low cap hits for both Gronk and Hernandez and have outs before either get big cap hit increases.

Here's the point you don't seem to understand: the Pats front office made a decision that it was in the best interest of the team to lock up both Gronk and Hernandez to long term deals, even with a significant cap hit. Just like they decided it was in the best interest of the team to trade Seymour. I don't buy the crap you always bring up that it was either Wilfork or Seymour. If they wanted to keep both of them, they would have made it work.

In regards to your point about having a smaller cap number back then, in 2009, the year Seymour got traded, the maximum cap number was $123 million. 2010 was uncapped, 2011 was $120 million, and this year is $120.6 million.

 

[BTTA]

Forgotten in this is the fact that the Pats first offered Wilfork to the Raiders, when faced with the "either/or" of the two DL's. When they didn't bite, the Pats offered Seymour, and the Raiders bit.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Almost all of those guys suck. Shaughnessy is good, but he missed most of last season. McClain is physically talented, but is exactly the reason why you need a leader like Seymour around in the first place. The rest are nobodies.

The fact that you're citing guys with 7 career tackles kinda makes my point for me. Over that same time period, they lost Nnamdi Asomugha, Thomas Howard, Kirk Morrison, Trevor Scott, Stanford Routt, Chris Johnson, Kamerion Wimbley, and Greg Ellis.

Lamarr Houston had a very good 2010 but trailed off a little in 2011. Must be that Seymour leadership factor at work again.


Let's see what they're saying about Nnamdi Asomugha:


Former Eagles linebacker Seth Joyner doesn’t like what he’s seeing out of Nnamdi Asomugha.
“I think he got put in a situation he wasn’t prepared for, on top of trying to learn a new defense, and his confidence is just gone, shot,” said Joyner. “He’s gone from a guy that was a shutdown corner to in my opinion, as I watch him play, he’s a below-average cornerback right now.”

Seth Joyner Critical Of Nnamdi Asomugha - Birds 24/7


Thomas Howard had a season ending ACL injury, so he's out.

Kirk Morrison had 7 tackles for the Bills last year...total. He has ZERO tackles this year (I'm not sure he has even played).

Trevor Scott had 7 tackles for the Raiders all of last year and has a whopping 3 tackles for us this year (with zero sacks).

Oakland released Stanford Routt because he wasn't worth his contract.

Chris Johnson was cut also because he was making starter money and wasn't a starter. In fact, I don't think he was even picked up by another team.

Greg Ellis was only with Oakland for the 2009 season and they still went 5-11.

Kamerion Wimbley has 9 tackles and 1 sack this year.

The funny thing is that if they didn't trade for Seymour and his ridiculous contract extension they could have kept Asomugha and maybe Wimbley plus have a 1st rounder.

Next year they'll have nothing and we'll have our starting Left Tackle for 10 years.

 

[Joey007]

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.

Oh man.... if we had J.J. Watt on this D line.... oh man.

 

[Rob0729]

Here's the point you don't seem to understand: the Pats front office made a decision that it was in the best interest of the team to lock up both Gronk and Hernandez to long term deals, even with a significant cap hit. Just like they decided it was in the best interest of the team to trade Seymour. I don't buy the crap you always bring up that it was either Wilfork or Seymour. If they wanted to keep both of them, they would have made it work.

In regards to your point about having a smaller cap number back then, in 2009, the year Seymour got traded, the maximum cap number was $123 million. 2010 was uncapped, 2011 was $120 million, and this year is $120.6 million.

Here's what you don't understand:

• The Pats decided with Gronk and Hernandez to tke a significant cap hit with them in 2015 and beyond after the new television contracts kick in 2014. Gronk's cap hits are $2.6 million in 2012, $2.7 million in 2013, and $5.6 million in 2014. Hernandez is more of hit with $3.3 million in 2012, $4.1 million in 2013, and $4.2million in 2014. There is no significant cap hit until 2015 and beyond assuming either guy is with the team in 2015 (likely, but not guaranteed)
• Both Gronk and Hernandez took deals that reward them long term and are very cap friendly for the Pats for the next few years because they are both in their early 20s and will be peaking when the real money kicks in. And they will likely use those larger cap hits and bonuses to renegotiate their deals before the real money hits.
• Wilfork's cap hit this year is $8.6 million and grows from there ($10.6 in 2013 and $11.6 in 2014). Hernandez's cap hit never goes over $8.5 million (his 2016 cap). Gronk goes to $8.6 million in 2015, but declines to $6.6 million in 2016 and $7 million in 2017.
• At Seymour's age, the Pats were never going to give him him a long term deal and he didn't want one. So his cap hit the last few years would have been over $10 million (it has been $15 million the last two for the Raiders).
• The Pats' adjusted cap this year was $128 million. In 2008, the Pats' adjusted cap was $121 million. With the new CBA, teams can roll over unused cap money from previous years (you could do it in the previous cap too, but with NLBTE bonuses, but it made it trickier). Also, teams can borrow cap dollars in the new CBA. And again, because the Pats locked up two young players long term who won't have significant cap hits until after the new TV deal, what the cap is this year is irrelevant. It is what it is in 2015 and beyond that matters.
• If Seymour took a deal that was structured like the Pats did with Gronk and Hernandez did, he wouldn't see most of his money in the contract until either this year or next. At age 33, the Pats would either cut him or make him take a pay cut to stay on the roster. Hence he would never take such a deal.

No offense, but you really don't understand the nature of Gronk's and Hernandez's deals and how they significantly differ from what Seymour and Wilfork were looking for. The two TEs took some money up front to cash in when they they hit their prime. Both Wilfork and Seymour were in their prime and wanted to get money right away. Completely different situations and contracts.

As for what the Pats were thinking, we will never know. Seymour had two down years his last few years there and they may just not wanted to pay him. But the evidence is pretty clear that it would be difficult to fit both under the cap since Seymour wanted top dollar and at his age was not going to look for or get a long term deal.

 

[Froob]

Forgotten in this is the fact that the Pats first offered Wilfork to the Raiders, when faced with the "either/or" of the two DL's. When they didn't bite, the Pats offered Seymour, and the Raiders bit.

Is this true? Never heard this.

 

[BSR]

A franchise LT is worth more than any of these guys even Watt, especially what e now know about Matt Light's Crone's disease issue.

A franchise LT is probably worth about the same a franchise DE on most teams. However, I would argue that we don't necessarily need a top 10 LT talent for Scar to turn into a franchise LT. Meanwhile, that combination of size, speed and skill that those top D picks had is a rarity. That is what made Seymour so special.

 

[51Hits]

The year before he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders went 5-11. His first year with the Raiders they improved to....5-11.
He has been with them for 4 seasons with this being his 5th and they haven't had one winning season...not one.

The year he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders had the 27th ranked defense. His first year with thr Raiders they improved to.....26th....wow.
Last year, Oakland's defense was ranked 29th. This year they're all the way up to 25th.

After this year, Seymour will be gone from the Raiders and we will have our starting Left tackle for the next 10 years.

Slam dunk.

This. People are making Seymour out to be like he's a one man wrecking crew on defense. (he must be if he was gonna help us beat Balt in 09) That one man wrecking crew didn't enough to help an awful defense in 08 either.

The man was a ghost 05-07. One good contract year doesn't get you a raise in New England, not after you declined for 3. for the people saying crazy stuff like Seymour is a once in a generation talent, just stop. Reggie White was a one in a generation talent. Richard Seymour is not.

Tell me Pats fans, how many games can you remember where Seymour just completely dominated?

 

[condon84]

Here's what you don't understand:

• The Pats decided with Gronk and Hernandez to tke a significant cap hit with them in 2015 and beyond after the new television contracts kick in 2014. Gronk's cap hits are $2.6 million in 2012, $2.7 million in 2013, and $5.6 million in 2014. Hernandez is more of hit with $3.3 million in 2012, $4.1 million in 2013, and $4.2million in 2014. There is no significant cap hit until 2015 and beyond assuming either guy is with the team in 2015 (likely, but not guaranteed)
• Both Gronk and Hernandez took deals that reward them long term and are very cap friendly for the Pats for the next few years because they are both in their early 20s and will be peaking when the real money kicks in. And they will likely use those larger cap hits and bonuses to renegotiate their deals before the real money hits.
• Wilfork's cap hit this year is $8.6 million and grows from there ($10.6 in 2013 and $11.6 in 2014). Hernandez's cap hit never goes over $8.5 million (his 2016 cap). Gronk goes to $8.6 million in 2015, but declines to $6.6 million in 2016 and $7 million in 2017.
• At Seymour's age, the Pats were never going to give him him a long term deal and he didn't want one. So his cap hit the last few years would have been over $10 million (it has been $15 million the last two for the Raiders).
• The Pats' adjusted cap this year was $128 million. In 2008, the Pats' adjusted cap was $121 million. With the new CBA, teams can roll over unused cap money from previous years (you could do it in the previous cap too, but with NLBTE bonuses, but it made it trickier). Also, teams can borrow cap dollars in the new CBA. And again, because the Pats locked up two young players long term who won't have significant cap hits until after the new TV deal, what the cap is this year is irrelevant. It is what it is in 2015 and beyond that matters.
• If Seymour took a deal that was structured like the Pats did with Gronk and Hernandez did, he wouldn't see most of his money in the contract until either this year or next. At age 33, the Pats would either cut him or make him take a pay cut to stay on the roster. Hence he would never take such a deal.

No offense, but you really don't understand the nature of Gronk's and Hernandez's deals and how they significantly differ from what Seymour and Wilfork were looking for. The two TEs took some money up front to cash in when they they hit their prime. Both Wilfork and Seymour were in their prime and wanted to get money right away. Completely different situations and contracts.

As for what the Pats were thinking, we will never know. Seymour had two down years his last few years there and they may just not wanted to pay him. But the evidence is pretty clear that it would be difficult to fit both under the cap since Seymour wanted top dollar and at his age was not going to look for or get a long term deal.

I'll take your word for it in regards to how the money is being distributed in regards to the cap. Frankly, that's pretty impressive that you went into that kind of detail

I still didn't like the trade because it took us several years to recover (we still haven't fully recovered IMO). We spent the money somewhere, and it didn't all go to Brady and Wilfrok.