You are correct of course. Perhaps the trade will make it more likely to win the Super Bowl after the 2012 or 2013 season.
The fact is that Belichick volunteered to play this year without Seymour, and with no replacement. He did the same thing with Hobbs at kick returner. After the 2012 season, when we are sitting, having won the division waiting for our wildcard opponent, we'll look back and say it sure is worth it being here. After all, by sacrificing in 2009, we are here now. The coaching staff and front office would have been incapable of winning the division without the player we got out of that trade. NOT!
If that kind of reasoning makes you feel better, then fine. The reality is that a 2011 first is worth a 2010 2nd. As we found out twice , a 2010 2nd was worth a 2009 3rd. That is what we got for Seymour. Perhaps folks will better understand this if we trade one of our 2nds (which were 2009 3rds) for another 2011 first or at least consider doing so.
================
The bottom line is that we traded Seymour for the equivalent of a high 2009 3rd and Hobbs for a mid-level 2009 fourth. We trade the 3rd forward two years (we had to go at least one since the trade was completed after the draft).
And just BTW, we really got even less for Seymour since we used a 2010 3rd and 5th to get Burgess who we didn't need. This also doesn't consider the 2011 comp 3rd we'd have gotten for Seymour. In the end, we didn't get much for Seymour at all.
I don't think that there is any question that the presence of Seymour would helped our defense. And I don't think that there is much question that Hobbs would have been a better kick returner than who had and have. That Hobbs was probably also good enough to be the #3 or #4 corner would have been gravy.
That formula for advance picks does not work like that if it is a high first round pick. The Raiders blow, and will likely continue to blow next year. A top 10 1st is equal to multiple firsts in trade, then you can apply your math. A low first might equate to what you are comparing it to now by simply adding a round to the pick. And the two picks traded may be low picks as well, so I am not equating those to anywhere near a high 1st, nor would the compensatory pick approximate that value. Maybe the Raiders will be a playoff team next year, but given the past 7 losing seasons averaging 4 wins a season and no major organizational changes, my money would be on not happening. The last time the Pats had a high pick Mayo joined the team, and that seems to have worked out well.
As for Hobbs, the guy played 9 games for the Eagles and was knocked out and lacked the size to be a great CB anywhere. I guess you can theorize he somehow would be healthy with the Pats had he stayed, but you would have to accept his claim he was injured last year as well. He would be a better kick returner than the current offerings, but somehow that is not a major failing with this offense functioning as it should. If the offense ain't functioning, the occasional TD or good return will not do much for records given the team's make-up. Special teams simply have not been a major liability this season.
As for Burgess, I'm not writing him off just yet. He is showing up on more plays, has more sacks than Seymour this year and almost as many tackles. If we "didn't need him," then the Pats don't have pressure problems. He missed most of the preseason and had to transition to a far more complex defense so would not be able to learn it all at once and likely would have to improve as the season progresses. I believe he has improved. The defense has not been lousy against the run with Wilfork on the line, and believe it or not Green was viewed by many as a better pass rusher than Seymour when assessed as a line in
2008. Teammates called him the "best pure pass rusher on the team," and as noted in the article he would start on many teams at DE.
And your assumption appears to be Seymour would make this defense a force this year. He was on the team last year as I recall, and I do not recall many claims that defense was a strength. I will concede Seymour is more talented in both run and pass defense combined than Green, but you must concede that the schedule last year was far weaker, thus any claims he would reproduce his sack number last year must be read in that context. Otherwise, Vrabel should have had more than 12.5 sacks going from a more difficult schedule in 2007 to a less difficult schedule in 2008. Not the case. He had 4.
I like Seymour now and I always did like him, he is a special DE, but anyone claiming he is the answer to defensive woes this year probably needs to reflect on 2005 when the Pats were trying to rebuild a defensive identity and ask how good the defense was with Seymour that year before embracing this notion that he is the Holy Grail for the defense's inability to get pressure now. I would agree that Belichick failed if Seymour could do all that, but if he could I suspect he would be doing it now, even on the Raiders, and he is not moving mountains there by himself.
And Deus's claim that this deal is only justified through a title assumes that Seymour would bring you a title himself. He was on this team every year since 2004, so that proposition is a patently absurd. What has he been doing, warming up for this year since the last title 5 years ago? If that is pure opinion, fine. But if offered as some objective measure of the value of the exchange, it is utterly unrealistic.
offense being unable to produce even basic 1st downs in the 4th quarter to keep ball possession and to put games away. This team is 10 - 6 because of the offense. Go back and look where the Texans were given field possession in the 4th quarter Sunday. This D ain't great and they ain't pretty but they've been hung out to dry repeatedly this season by an offense that goes impotent in the 2nd half on the road. 
