Welcome to PatsFans.com

Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Tunescribe, Jan 5, 2010.

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

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    The Patriots finished the season with 31 sacks, one more than last year when Richard Seymour had one of his best seasons. I say BB's decision to ship him out has been vindicated. Looking forward to that extra No. 1 pick, or whomever/whatever it brings. :singing:

    Richard, by the way, finished the season with a whopping four sacks (including two in his first game as a Raider), tying him for 82nd in the league. Keep in mind that this was in a system designed to maximize his potential as a pass rusher.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  2. Patspsycho

    Patspsycho Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is a misleading stat. 31 sacks are fine, but 5 of those came in one game, and a game that was meaningless.

    We still have a big problem with pass-rushing. Seymour brought a lot to the table in that regard. He brought pressure, and he drew a lot of attention.

    We definitely miss Seymour for the short term. Hopefully it works out in the long term.
  3. Calciumee

    Calciumee PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    4,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Also have to look that this would have probably been his last year with the Patriots anyway, unless he wanted less money (doubtful)

    I am still pleased with the trade. And think a RAIDERS first round pick is greater than 1 year of Seymour.
  4. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Seymour's position on the Pats was never as a pass-rusher. Sure, he could do it, and he did get some sacks, but his job was to occupy two blockers and let the linebackers make the plays. You cannot evaluate what he meant to this team by sack numbers alone.

    The Patriots would have been a better team with Seymour this year no doubt. However, I am still a fan of the trade.
  5. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    a) clearly, the Raiders' system did not maximize Seymour's talents as a pass rusher. That said, anyone who watched the Raiders/Ravens game this past week saw him disrupt a number of plays by collapsing the pocket, something that nobody on the Pats' roster can do with any consistency.

    b) Our top two sackers, Banta-Cain and Burgess, weren't on the team last year. Banta-Cain, who everyone is falling over themselves to praise, got exactly one more sack as a pass-rushing specialist than Seymour did last year, when his pass rushing was secondary to say the least. Imagine how competent the pass rush should have been with both of them and Seymour...

    It's really amazing, the lengths some people here will go to to diminish Seymour's talent. If you think the positives of the trade outweigh the negatives, then that's fine, but to pretend that it didn't negatively impact the 2009 defense in a major way is just ridiculous.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  6. Patspsycho

    Patspsycho Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That is how he facilitated the pass-rushing.
  7. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I agree. That's why you can't measure his contributions by his sack numbers alone. He contributes in ways that stats will not tell.
  8. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    Yeah, that goofy Belichick fellow even so far as to TRADE the guy. Some folks just don't know a good thing. :rolleyes:

    Yet, Seymour's eight sacks in '08 are the first thing his staunchest toadies point to in criticizing the trade. Go figure.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  9. robertweathers

    robertweathers Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,628
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    With OAK this year, Seymour himself was pretty much right on his statistical average year. More tackles than normal this year and a little less than a full sack this year. Its logical to assume that he would have helped the pass rush, but with with what the team had to work with this year would the sack totals be higher? It's not like Vrabel, Willie Mac, AD and Colvin are here in their primes and screaming off the edges...
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  10. Sicilian

    Sicilian Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I won't say an ill word about Seymour. I think it was the right move to trade him for what we got, but I'll never claim he wouldn't have made a difference this year. He's a premier 3-4 D-Lineman.
  11. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    He got an offer that he felt was worthwhile. There's a very good chance that he was right. But when the trade happened, you may remember that I said that I saw our realistic ceiling as having dropped from about 14-2 to probably 12-4 or 11-5. Of our 6 losses this year, 5 of them were due in large part to late defensive collapses. If you want to pretend that having an All-Pro run-stopping, pass-rushing defensive lineman couldn't have made a difference, then go ahead. That's about par for the course in terms of the level of reason that I expect from you.

    Yes, because that's precisely *why* Seymour's 8.5 sacks were so amazing. Rushing the passer was not his primary job, and he still did it more consistently than anyone else on the team.
  12. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    We had a significantly better OLB pass rush this year than we did last year.

    That's what happens when you swap a washed-up Mike Vrabel and Pierre Woods (still on the team, but little meaningful time at OLB) for TBC and Derrick Burgess. ILB too, with Mayo and Guyton having some experience under their belts and Belichick taking the leash off enough that they were able to rush the passer from time to time. The fact of the matter is, in every area *except* Seymour's position, the 2009 Pats' pass rush got better. Warren got healthy, Mayo and Guyton got much-needed experience, and the OLBs got upgraded. The fact that we were barely able to beat last year's sack total doesn't say a whole lot, because of all the variables at work, but if people insist on directly comparing them, then if anything it just further highlights how important Seymour was.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  13. PATSYLICIOUS

    PATSYLICIOUS Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    10,961
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    You really can't measure the impact of his loss by #'s, and you certainly can't declare a clear victory at least until the playoffs are played out.

    If our season ends losing a game 38-34, people will wonder, and 5-7 years from now whatever that pick turns out to be will have to be well worth it for us to consider this a win. If we lose by scoring 0 points in the second half, his loss most likely didn't hurt us significantly and it would be great to have gotten a 1st rounder out of it. If we win the super bowl, it's a slam dunk.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  14. patriots pam

    patriots pam Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This. Nutshell. Ditto. Thanks! :)
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  15. BPF

    BPF Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    31 sacks is 31 sacks, other teams have had sacks come in bunches in games as well. It's not great but it is what it is. The Vikings finished w/48 sacks, among the league leaders, but 14 of those came vs Packers in 2 games should we not take those into account?

    Seymour at one time was a very good 3 down player who had strength, power and quickness. If you remember he was rotated a lot late in his career w/Pats because he wore down otherwise. He was explosive off the ball and could push the pocket -- inside and outside and he used to be able to easily beat one-on-one match ups so he had to consistently be double teamed. Not anymore, now he is still has good hands and controls blocks with his upper body strength so he is still effective vs run but he no longer has the legs to create pressure. The 1st rounder was a steal for Seymour at this point in his career.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  16. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,774
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +89 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

    It was a bad trade that won't be overcome unless the team wins the Super Bowl.
  17. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    16,254
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    You're saying that Seymour isn't double-teamed on virtually every down anymore?
  18. JohnVM

    JohnVM Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    maybe we can sign him this offseason for cheaper now :)
  19. MassPats38

    MassPats38 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,973
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    I don't think anyone can claim the current talent meets or exceeds Seymour's abilities at his position. The Faders could take Polamalu and make him look average with the organizational ineptness, so his statistics there mean little. The statistics of the Pats' defense with huge changes from last season in addition to Seymour also reflects at best an improvement in overall defense from the the prior season, and even that may not be true as statistics oftentimes reflect the way games play out and not equivalent situations.

    In the end, Seymour would have made this defense better. How much is subject to debate, and we will never know the answer to that question. He is still highly regarded as a top 3-4 end, which means unless the current guard suddenly improved dramatically in his absence to meet his level of play, Seymour would have helped. So do I miss him? Of course I do. Was it the wrong move to trade him? Impossible to judge in his absence, but I personally think it was the correct move personnel-wise. Even the personnel transaction depends on what the Pats get and what they do with it, and that isn't known until we see how that draft pick helps the team.
  20. aluminum seats

    aluminum seats Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,419
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I essentially agree. Seymour would have helped the team this year for sure, so on balance I haven't liked the trade--I feel like the Pats were close enough not to give him up for this year. It's hard to argue with a #1 pick from the Raiders, though.

    But if we're closing the books on Seymour (for now, at least) I think we'd be remiss not to remember again his 3rd & 1 stuff against the Raiders in the snow bowl. That play was a huge part of one of the most amazing sports run anyone of us will ever see. So you'll never see me disparage the guy.
  21. Easywolf32

    Easywolf32 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I couldnt believe we got a first round pick from him, thx Rayders lol.
  22. BPF

    BPF Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Not as a pass rusher. Here it is from Seymour himself. He's a run player now.:
    Read more: High-priced Richard Seymour lost in the Raiders' shuffle - Sports - Modbee.com
  23. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    The 2009-2010 Patriots defense misses Seymour. They aren't as good without him as they would have been with him. I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that.

    He was going to leave after the 2009-2010 season for no compensation because the Pats were not going to pay him the big $ and big years at his age with his injury history that someone else will. Again, I don't see how anyone logically would dispute that based on what we know about both parties.

    Bill B thought the long term benefit of that future first round pick was worth the short term pain the team was absorbing by not having Seymour this year. He was willing to put a lessor team on the field this year in order to try to gain some long term advantages. Time will tell on whether it was a good move or not.
  24. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    15,910
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +54 / 0 / -0

    #61 Jersey

    Come on now, no need to get personal. It's been hashed and re-hashed that BB sacrificed some degree of defensive success this year by trading Richard. That might be true, but I highly doubt it would've been to the great degree that many folks here have exaggerated. Suggesting it would've been reflected in the won-loss column is pure conjecture.

    Well, stats are one of the few ways we have of evaluating performance, however skewed they are by the 3-4 system. But that doesn't alter the fact that he was in a much more pass-rush friendly system at Oakland, and had a mediocre year.
  25. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,774
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +89 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

  26. pheenix11

    pheenix11 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Miss who? What's his name again?
  27. robertweathers

    robertweathers Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,628
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Not as much as you think at OLB. AD plays a full 16 games last year and that projects out to 9 sacks- close to TBC's 9.5. Vrabes had 4. Burgess has 5. Thats a wash. AD and his 3 this year are of course more than Woods' 1.0 last year. Woods had no sacks this year.

    Green, Wilfork and Warren had 6.0 last year. This year they had 2.0 COMBINED.

    Guyton and Mayo had 3.5...Thats 3.5 more than last year.

    Sacks from the secondary are pretty much the same.

    Wright's increased playing time netted him 5 more sacks this year than last year's output.

    I guess that I'd argue that Seymour's impact was slightly more felt along the D-line than the OLB position. I don't think it's totally cut-n-dry though as Green may be cooked anyway and Wilfork and Warren aren't exactly pass-rush specialists to begin. Wright has always shown a good pass rush in the past and his production this year bears that out.
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  28. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,787
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Despite our optimism (and the optimism of many others out there) that the Patriots were going to win the Super Bowl this year, it just doesn't seem to be in the cards. Seymour would have made a difference, but I don't think nearly enough of a difference to get us a Super Bowl win.

    My take on it is that it's a bad trade if we would have won a Super Bowl with him, not if we will win one with out him. Either way, I don't see this is a Super Bowl team and continue to believe that it was a reasonable (even good) trade.
  29. aluminum seats

    aluminum seats Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,419
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Stop it, this is way too balanced! Pick a side and call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot.
  30. BPF

    BPF Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    He said no one can run on my side, nothing said about his ferocious pass rushing abilities even though when he initially was traded he said that defense would free him up to make plays on the QB. That didn't happen so now he's going to market himself as a great run stuffer. I didn't think it needed to be spelled out.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page