Consensus SB Favorites A Few Days Ago

I'm not following this board completely. Last season everybody was screaming how we should trade seymour because he wasn't productive enough and injury prone.
Look at the facts:

1. Alot of guys need new contracts. You can't pay Sey those dollars, when you can use them on Wilfork and Mankins. No one is going to argue that those two players are better investments than Sey.

2. We get a potential top ten pick in return for a guy, who was injury-prone, played great in flashes and we only would've used for 1 year. Believe me, this would've been his last year.

3. Where's the trust in BB. Just because he made some mistakes with draft choices, throwing away two fifths for lewis and a. smith, he's suddenly not capable of doing the personnel department. He's drafted great on the D-line and they already have to adequate backups in Wright and Green.

Therefore i think in the long haul this is a great move and short term we'll lose a leader, a champion, but a replacable player. I'll take that top ten pick and draft another seymour at 6 in 2011.

Conclusion: I dont give a rats as what the media writes, cause Bill knows what he's doing. We as fans trust him to do the right thing, therefore IN BB WE TRUST

Deus Irae said:

4.) Made a bad decision and trade, and not for the first time in his career.

Click to expand...

How are you so sure it's a bad decision when a game hasn't even been played with the new roster

Nestapats said:

I'm not following this board completely. Last season everybody was screaming how we should trade seymour because he wasn't productive enough and injury prone.
Look at the facts:

1. Alot of guys need new contracts. You can't pay Sey those dollars, when you can use them on Wilfork and Mankins. No one is going to argue that those two players are better investments than Sey.

2. We get a potential top ten pick in return for a guy, who was injury-prone, played great in flashes and we only would've used for 1 year. Believe me, this would've been his last year.

3. Where's the trust in BB. Just because he made some mistakes with draft choices, throwing away two fifths for lewis and a. smith, he's suddenly not capable of doing the personnel department. He's drafted great on the D-line and they already have to adequate backups in Wright and Green.

Therefore i think in the long haul this is a great move and short term we'll lose a leader, a champion, but a replacable player. I'll take that top ten pick and draft another seymour at 6 in 2011.

Conclusion: I dont give a rats as what the media writes, cause Bill knows what he's doing. We as fans trust him to do the right thing, therefore IN BB WE TRUST

Click to expand...

No, i'd say you're following the board just fine

Belichick has more rings than any of those experts

nashvillepatsfan said:

No, i'd say you're following the board just fine

Click to expand...

Great I was still lost somewhere in the seward thread, maybe he's an option for our thin LB corps

Las Vegas odds went from 3.5 to 1 to 4 to 1 to win the Superbowl...

NFL Future Book Odds at VegasInsider.com, the leader in Sportsbook and Gaming information -

ctpatsfan77 said:

Consider this: while we can't be certain, it stands to reason that someone must have been offering more than a 2009 third-rounder for Asante Samuel back in 2007. But BB felt it was better to have Samuel at a cost of $7M+ than to have whatever pick he might have gotten.

So why, now, does he think that getting rid of Seymour for a 2011 first is, on the whole, in the best long-term interests of the club?

Click to expand...

Maybe he did not think he had anyone close to replacing Samuel in 07, but feels that he has the backups to do that with Seymour this year. Also, it does seem that Seymour would be in a 43 this year, so it might be he thinks the backups will be very close to what Seymour would be like in the 43. Different situations..different actions taken or not..

Deus Irae said:

Is it somehow my fault that BB has put the team in another situation where a component of a serious Super Bowl contending team (blocking v. D-line play) is going to suffer because of the loss of an important piece of the puzzle?

Click to expand...

It's not your fault. Personally, I blame Bob. If he wasnt so busy running his Mac N Cheese business, he'd be paying attention to how BB is running this team into the ground

nashvillepatsfan said:

It's not your fault. Personally, I blame Bob. If he wasnt so busy running his Mac N Cheese business, he'd be paying attention to how BB is running this team into the ground

Click to expand...

Plus, they hate their coach.

Clonamery said:

Plus, they hate their coach.

Click to expand...

ya mean,,,,,Tom Jackson was right?

Maybe they shouldve promoted Josh, and let BB leave.

Seriously, who cares who picks the Pats to go the Super Bowl or not. Preseason predictions are for entertainment purpose only and the real entertainment is going back to them in February and look how ridiculously wrong some of the picks are.

Nestapats said:

I'm not following this board completely. Last season everybody was screaming how we should trade seymour because he wasn't productive enough and injury prone.

Click to expand...

There's always a bunch of people who will whine no matter what is done, and are perfectly capable of playing both sides of the issue.

Nestapats said:

Look at the facts:

1. Alot of guys need new contracts. You can't pay Sey those dollars, when you can use them on Wilfork and Mankins. No one is going to argue that those two players are better investments than Sey.

Click to expand...

No argument from me. Some people have argued that Seymour was worth more than Mankins based on his position, but I personally agree with you. Seymour is approaching 30, has been injured a lot, is great when healthy and his motor is on but has been inconsistent, and clearly was not going to cut the Pats any slack in terms of a new contract.

Nestapats said:

2. We get a potential top ten pick in return for a guy, who was injury-prone, played great in flashes and we only would've used for 1 year. Believe me, this would've been his last year.

Click to expand...

Given the number of key FAs we have and the price of using the franchise tag on a DE, I agree with you. See above.

Nestapats said:

3. Where's the trust in BB. Just because he made some mistakes with draft choices, throwing away two fifths for lewis and a. smith, he's suddenly not capable of doing the personnel department. He's drafted great on the D-line and they already have to adequate backups in Wright and Green.

Therefore i think in the long haul this is a great move and short term we'll lose a leader, a champion, but a replacable player. I'll take that top ten pick and draft another seymour at 6 in 2011.

Conclusion: I dont give a rats as what the media writes, cause Bill knows what he's doing. We as fans trust him to do the right thing, therefore IN BB WE TRUST

Click to expand...

Thank you. Of course there is short-term risk anytime you trade away a player of Seymour's ability. There's no guarantee with or without Seymour that we will win the SB. If, as some believe, there is a "closing window" on the Pats being a contending team, then it would be stupid to trade away Seymour's services with no return for 2 years. If, on the other hand, you are rebuilding a dynasty to be a SB contending juggernaut for the next 5-6 years, then it makes a lot of sense. Even his greatest detractors have not called BB stupid. If he's willing to voluntarily trade Seymour when we were the hands down SB favorite, then I'm willing to assume he has made an assessment that the DL has enough talent and depth without Seymour, and/or is planning on running schemes in which Seymour's talents would not necessarily be maximized.

Yes there's a risk. Yes it could cost us the SB this year. I'll still trust BB's judgment, and applaud the move for the long term.

mgteich said:

People were shocked when Clayton all of a sudden picked the patriots to go 10-6 and for the steelers to win the Super Bowl. Personally, I expect to see a lot more of this from other writers.

The patriots were almost consensus Super Bowl favorites with Seymour. Now patriots have removed one of their best players from the team to be replaced by some backup (Wright or Green). We shouldn't be shocked if analysts actually think that Seymour would have been impact player for the patriots in 2009 and that we will feel his loss by losing more games than we would have with him here.

It is not unreasonable to believe that Seymour might have made the difference in a playoff game or in the Super Bowl.

We believe! We drink the kool-aid! We understand that even if Seymour is gone and a couple of key plays go down to injury, that we will still win the Super Bowl!

However, you should be prepared for the writers and analysts who made the patriots favorites just weeks ago might just change their minds.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, in a couple of weeks we'll be superbowl favorites again

Im not seeing the slippage without Seymour. And dont get me wrong, he's always been one of my all-timers. But what did he give us exactly in '07? 1.5 sacks. We were playing better at the beginning of the year with Green starting at right end. Here's the glaring stat that stands out to me. Seymour had ONE forced fumble in the last 4 years. For a D desperately in need of plays, that illustrates to me one of the spots where we werent getting many. People keep saying he had a career high in sacks. Sure did. Tied with his 2003 total. But in 2003, he also had EIGHT passes defended. Last year? ONE. Last year he gave us no forced fumbles, one pass defended, and no fumble recoveries. This D needs plays. And unfortunately, 8 sacks alone isnt worth $10mil a season. I think we'll be good.

nashvillepatsfan said:

ya mean,,,,,Tom Jackson was right?

Maybe they shouldve promoted Josh, and let BB leave.

Click to expand...

yeah, wake me in December.

RussFrancis said:

Im not seeing the slippage without Seymour. And dont get me wrong, he's always been one of my all-timers. But what did he give us exactly in '07? 1.5 sacks. We were playing better at the beginning of the year with Green starting at right end. Here's the glaring stat that stands out to me. Seymour had ONE forced fumble in the last 4 years. For a D desperately in need of plays, that illustrates to me one of the spots where we werent getting many. People keep saying he had a career high in sacks. Sure did. Tied with his 2003 total. But in 2003, he also had EIGHT passes defended. Last year? ONE. Last year he gave us no forced fumbles, no passes defended, and no fumble recoveries. This D needs plays. And unfortunately, 8 sacks alone isnt worth $10mil a season. I think we'll be good.

Click to expand...

Hard to argue with your post. Im sure someone will, but not me

RussFrancis said:

Im not seeing the slippage without Seymour. And dont get me wrong, he's always been one of my all-timers. But what did he give us exactly in '07? 1.5 sacks. We were playing better at the beginning of the year with Green starting at right end. Here's the glaring stat that stands out to me. Seymour had ONE forced fumble in the last 4 years. For a D desperately in need of plays, that illustrates to me one of the spots where we werent getting many. People keep saying he had a career high in sacks. Sure did. Tied with his 2003 total. But in 2003, he also had EIGHT passes defended. Last year? ONE. Last year he gave us no forced fumbles, one pass defended, and no fumble recoveries. This D needs plays. And unfortunately, 8 sacks alone isnt worth $10mil a season. I think we'll be good.

Click to expand...

I agree. Everyone seems to forget that Seymour wasn't playing on 3rd down anymore. Although we can only speculate on the reason for this, BB would keep in the player he thought was best for the situation. Yet at the same time, it would definately be a detriment to stats like passes defened, qb pressures etc...

mayoclinic said:

There's always a bunch of people who will whine no matter what is done, and are perfectly capable of playing both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

They are Internegators, and they dominate this site.

It is especially funny when they use ESPN analysts to prove their point.

"See, I told you the Pats have no chance without Seymour. John Clayton says the exact same thing!"

If they were Giants fans in 2007, they would have said the Giants were doomed because Shockey went down, and if they were Pats fans in 2001, they would give up on the season because the Pats weren't playing their best offensive player. No point in mentioning how doomed the Pats were after cutting Milloy. There were predictions of 0-16 on this board after game 1.

PATSYLICIOUS said:

How are you so sure it's a bad decision when a game hasn't even been played with the new roster

Click to expand...

I was merely adding a missing option to the 'possibilities' the poster had laid out.

lamafist said:

I'm struggling with the part where you paint a skewed, reductive history of the Pats' offseason that year.

Click to expand...

My 'history' was neither skewed nor reductive.