A New Fact: Seymour Is ON Raiders Roster

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by psychoPat, Sep 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. psychoPat

    psychoPat Role Player PatsFans.com Supporter

    As of 2:30 pm Wednesday,
    the roster displayed on Oakland's website, linked by NFL.com,
    carries Richard Seymour
    (with no jersey number assigned yet.)

    Yesterday it didn't.
     
  2. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    That's just a webmaster function. Doesn't mean any more than the depth charts the PR and IT people post.
     
  3. thewaylifeshouldbe

    thewaylifeshouldbe Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    He has been listed on the Raiders website roster for a couple days now.
     
  4. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    No, he has been on there since the day of the trade. And online team rosters mean nothing, they are entirely unofficial. Just whatever the webmaster or PR department choses.
     
  5. jacenlukesolo

    jacenlukesolo Rookie

    Yeah he'll probably end up on their roster under a list that says did not report.
     
  6. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    He has been officially listed as a Raider on the Players Association website. I can't believe this is still a discussion.

    The man is a raider, unless he fails a physical. End of story. If he retires, then he officially retires as a Raider.
     
  7. Ice_Ice_Brady

    Ice_Ice_Brady In the Starting Line-Up

    Adam Schefter disagrees that his roster presence is irrelevant:

    Money for nothing - Richard Seymour remains on Oakland's 53-man roster, which means he's on course to collect weekly check of $216,764.71.

    Adam Schefter (Adam_Schefter) on Twitter
     
  8. BPF

    BPF In the Starting Line-Up

    I saw that as well, interesting.
     
  9. BPF

    BPF In the Starting Line-Up

  10. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Pro Bowl Player

    Is this "drama" over yet?

    I'm not sure refusing to show up for a physical is the same as failing a physical, is it?

    Seems like the League would want to take a stand on that one. Richard Seymour wasn't traded - his contract was. And his contract is currently owned by the Raiders. If he legitimately fails his physical that's one thing but I don't think the League is going to allow a defacto "no trade clause" in every contract because a player might not want to play somewhere

    Seymours only option then would be not to play - but I can't see the league handcuffing teams by giving in to this tactic
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page