Anyone still miss Seymour? Final results are in

[Easywolf32]

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

 

[BPF]

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

Not as a pass rusher. Here it is from Seymour himself. He's a run player now.:

"You can't run on my side. That's just the bottom line," Seymour said when asked to analyze his season after Sunday's game.
....
Regardless, that can't-run-on-me quote seems arrogant and full of self-preservation. Seymour's arrival was seen as a boon to the league's second-worst run defense in 2008.

But the Raiders have allowed a league-high 21 rushing touchdowns this season. Hence, Seymour's presence isn't working wonders.
....
Seymour typically lines up at right defensive end. He hasn't had a sack since Oct. 18, when he had two in the upset of the Philadelphia Eagles. He hasn't had more than three tackles in a game since then, either.

Seymour's only other two sacks came in a season-opening loss to the San Diego Chargers, when his future in Raiders garb seemed so promising.

Read more: High-priced Richard Seymour lost in the Raiders' shuffle - Sports - Modbee.com

 

[dhamz]

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.

 

[Tunescribe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

I see nothing in the part you quoted, or in the entire article, that responds to BradyFTW!'s question. It didn't talk about double teams or the like.

 

[pheenix11]

Miss who? What's his name again?

 

[RobertWeathers]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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

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.

 

[aluminum seats]

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.

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

 

[BPF]

I see nothing in the part you quoted, or in the entire article, that responds to BradyFTW!'s question. It didn't talk about double teams or the like.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

The question asked was about double teams. The article didn't address it, and was focused mostly about questioning Seymour's point about running against him while not bringing in any specific data to counter the assertion (generalizing about the team's overall rush defense doesn't address the specifics of Seymour's comment), and you are now projecting things into the article that weren't there. Look, you're entitled to your opinion, but why play games with an article when the words are there for everyone to see?

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

He's always been a run player first and foremost. I don't see anything in that quote that suggests what you're saying he said.

 

[JackBauer]

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.

Pretty much spot on. Really nothing more to discuss in this thread.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

But AD didn't play a full 16 games last year. That's the point.

Also, to address some other posters re: Seymour's injury history: what injury history? He's had one significant injury in his career, which he sustained while playing FB and has since fully recovered from. Other than that, he's shown himself to be no more injury prone than Warren or Wilfork.

 

[BradyManny]

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.

All I can do is compare him to his replacement, Jarvis Green. And Jarvis Green is no Richard Seymour, against the run or the pass.

Let's put it this way, I'd feel better about the upcoming postseason with Seymour on this roster right now. I doubt many people would argue with that sentiment. I'm not saying it was a bad trade - but its hard to argue that he doesn't make the team better, stats or no stats.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Unless you know something about compensation for lost free agents in the uncapped year that I don't (I looked for a change in the CBA regarding this, but couldn't find one), Seymour could have yielded a compensatory pick (likely a 3rd), as well as the extra year of service, even if the team had let him walk after this season.

 

[RobertWeathers]

But AD didn't play a full 16 games last year. That's the point.

I hear ya. Not a huge difference. I would agree w/ you that overall, the rush off the edge is better this year, but it's not clear-cut.

Seems the impact of his loss is more felt along the line.

My .02$

 

[BradyFTW!]

I hear ya. Not a huge difference. I would agree w/ you that overall, the rush off the edge is better this year, but it's not clear-cut.

Seems the impact of his loss is more felt along the line.

My .02$

I agree that it's felt on the line too, which makes sense since Warren, in particular, is seeing more double teams now that Seymour is gone. Wilfork isn't on the field on passing downs anyways. I know that this gets a little subjective at this point, but I will say that Burgess and TBC are *much* better at pressuring the QB than Woods and Vrabel were in 2008. The reason why the 2008 OLB's sack #s are even comparable to the 2009 group's is because there's nobody on the defensive line collapsing the pocket in 2009. If Seymour were with us, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that TBC would be at 12+ sacks this year. He's the best pass-rusher we've had at OLB since Willie McGinest, and they would have been coming off the same side.

That's the problem in comparing OLBs between 2008 and 2009 based on sack numbers alone. There are a number of variables that haven't been controlled for- most relevantly, Seymour.

 

[BPF]

He's always been a run player first and foremost. I don't see anything in that quote that suggests what you're saying he said.

I guess what I'm trying to say, so I can be as clear as possible. Seymour hasn't been a dominant player since he was 27. He's been on a steady decline since that point and I can name you only about 5 dominant DL's in the history of the league that played well once over age 30. Now, I'm not saying he couldn't be servicable but not any longer dominant. You don't get 1st Rd picks in return for servicable DL's and he is headed there quickly if not already. Seymour was at his best from 2002-2006, if you recall he missed most of the undefeated season due to injuries -- played 9 games. His best season was 2003. 2008 was an ok season stat wise but he wasn't dominant, everyone could clearly see that. He wasn't relentless and as active knocking down passes in addition to creating pressures. He did have 8 sacks but those numbers were very deceiving, his overall pressures were down. Would I feel better about the playoffs if we had 2003 Seymour, hell yeah!! But 2007 -2009 Seymour wouldn't really make a big difference.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I agree that it's felt on the line too, which makes sense since Warren, in particular, is seeing more double teams now that Seymour is gone. Wilfork isn't on the field on passing downs anyways. I know that this gets a little subjective at this point, but I will say that Burgess and TBC are *much* better at pressuring the QB than Woods and Vrabel were in 2008. The reason why the 2008 OLB's sack #s are even comparable to the 2009 group's is because there's nobody on the defensive line collapsing the pocket in 2009. If Seymour were with us, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that TBC would be at 12+ sacks this year. He's the best pass-rusher we've had at OLB since Willie McGinest, and they would have been coming off the same side.

That's the problem in comparing OLBs between 2008 and 2009 based on sack numbers alone. There are a number of variables that haven't been controlled for- most relevantly, Seymour.

Yep- agreed on collapsing the pocket observations. Thats why you're seeing Wright line up in the interior/over the center on 3rd down.

Gotta wonder what their real position is on Wilfork. 2 down player w/ a very limited pass rush ability.