Bob George's article on Seymour

[arrellbee]

I am a little surprised that one aspect of re-signing players isn't talked about.

All of these players (except Tedy Bruschi) have agents.

Is it accepted protocol for the team (Belichick, Pioli, whomever) to talk directly to the player during negotiations ?? ?? ?? ??

Even if it is permissible for teams to talk to players, perhaps with the agreement of the agent and/or player, have any of these players/agents agreed that the Pats can talk directly to the player ??

If permission is not required, is it possible that the agents have told the players: "Do not talk to them - let me do all of the negotiation" ??

Is it in the interest of the agent (in the slightest) to take any kind of chance at having his player client be sweet talked into taking LESS money but stay with the team ??

Do you think any of the players did or will tell their agents that they will take any kind of discount just to stay with the Pats ?? Pardon me if I get the distinct impression that none of the players have been willing to take less guarantees or total money just to stay with the Pats. In fact, there is an underlying theme that some of them may have even turned down an equal offer.

Do you think there may be any personality issues on the part of the players who want to paint the Pats in a bad light and make themselves look 'OK' for valuing a bigger money deal more than staying with the Pats ?? You think maybe ??

And, on the other side of the coin:

There is AMPLE media reporting that Bill Belichick frequently demonstrates personable and even affable and entertaining interactions with non-NFL gatherings and peers in the NFL AND maintains personable relationships with folks outside of football.

One thing that, pardon me, I think is also universally recognized is that Belichick will cover aspects of coaching and preparing and staffing a team down to the minutest detail.

Now given these last two things, HOW can anyone REALLY give any credence to the idea that Belichick would not do whatever was possible to establish a rapport with these free agents if it were allowed and it meant retaining the player at a value that fit the teams overall salary model ??

To me it just shouts self-interest on the part of players and their agents and it is approaching ludicrous to attribute 'personality' issues to Belichick. I could make that statement in a stronger form, but I'm sure you get my drift.

 

[shmessy]

#1: Anyone who owns a copy of "3 Games to Glory II" can see the "dislike" Seymour has for BB at the City Hall celebration (2.5 months after the Grandfather incident). C'mon Bob, that clip completely discounts your first premise.

#2 The other premises have more weight. However, for me to write that is pure conjecture since I don't have access to the team, stadium or personnel. My view (and most of everybody's) is from a living room couch. If Bob has a press pass or knows someone on the inside then he has incredibly good sources.

 

[Pats726]

Football is chess...if you play chess then apply all you know about chess to football...they are mirror images of each other. I mean, when have you ever traded a bishop for a pawn with no strategic advantage to the move? Bob is right on or very close to right. I wouldn't be surprised to Seymour traded for draft picks at some point...trading similar pieces can give a great strategic advantage.

I tend to think you may be correct..I wonder if that follows that the fans should now almost assume that all FAs will leave when they can?? That to keep this structure in place..all will of the better players will leave. Not being frivolous or light, but is it turning out that leaving be more the "norm:..expected?? And hometown discounts and players signing..lucky...or not always part of the plan. I guess wondering about FAs as "planned obsolesence"...in a vague sense...BB planning for that possibility always. I wonder if that is part of the model?? Not at all saying rightly/wrongly but if you think that is possible. (AND of course all depending on money available and value etc.) Thoughts??

 

[shmessy]

Instead of personal conjecture, what would be meaningful info to me would be if someone can track down the statistical percentage of FA's leaving their teams and whether the Patriots are average, below average or above average in that stat.

 

[fgssand]

Instead of personal conjecture, what would be meaningful info to me would be if someone can track down the statistical percentage of FA's leaving their teams and whether the Patriots are average, below average or above average in that stat.

Great thougt...my guess is we are ahead of the norm in players STAYING. Of course the study must be weighed based on players that stay that the patriots WANTED to keep, not easy to do at all.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

http://www.patsfans.com/bob/display_story.php?story_id=2952

Pretty interesting read.

There's so much speculation in the piece that it's tough to evaluate, but i agree that it is interesting. i recall the benching and also recall that not a whole lot was made of it at the time, so this retrospective view is curious. however, the author does make a very good point when he observes that the last thing Seymour would do is jeapordize a big free agent payday. this would play to the Patriots' advantage.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with several assumptions / opinions that Bob George seemed to be making and using as basis for fact in writing such a negative article.

Please find below a few points he raised followed by what seems to me to be very possible based on what RS has actually said, what others have said about RS that I have read as well as my own thoughts.

For example:

1) RS wont be back because he does not want to? - How could you possibly know this?

2) RS is content with 3 rings and doesn't need/want anymore?? - I think he was misinterpreting Richard Seymour and totally downplaying the competitive fire within him. He did not even consider the rapport RS has with certain teammates and coaches and most important - how much a championship really does mean to him.

3) RS must be the highest DL in the game? He has never said that, he has actually said he does not understand what hometown discount means and that Foxboro is not his hometown, but he has also said he is not looking necessarily to break the bank or be the highest paid, he simply seeks respect and money commensurate with his talent.

4) RS resents BB handling of his time off and return from his grandfathers funeral. Bob George seemed to make this into a situation of RS holding this as a three year grudge. I think this was a misunderstanding and has been cleared up long ago. I actually think, later on, RS was shown a great deal of respect by the outpouring of support from the entire patriot organization over the incident with his Dad. I feel that he must have very much appreciated everything that his fellow players, coach's and ownership did to show how much they care for him as a person.

5) "Either Foxborough’s not Seymour’s kind of town, or Belichick’s not his kind of coach. Or both." The article ended with that sentence, yet I did not find one shred of evidence to substantiate.

Actually I did hear Richard with my very own ears say that if he is the best DL in the league he should be paid as the best. Now, that's a way of skirting the issue just a tad. He's not saying he is, but he's saying that if that is how he perceived inside OR outside of Foxboro, well then......

And again, reporters are often told things by players, or other players, or members of the organization in background or off the record that they are not to use with any kind of attribution. It's done to keep them in the situational loop by one side or another. They almost all long reported Richard was somewhat to very unhappy with his compensation, dating back to early 2003-2004. Richard held his own emotional locker room media session after the benching and made it clear just how hurt he was by BB's decision regardless of the rationale behind it. They were often slammed for even hinting at such herasy - and then oops, he held out of TC in 2005, a year when the team was dealing with the multiple blows of losing a DC, OC, and 2 starting LB. Some opined that perhaps RAC could have talked him down before it came to that, but RAC wasn't here any more.

Aside from Borges and Cafardo or a turd like Longo (who like the blind squirel occasionally still find nuts) most of these guys respect this team and the way it has operated and the success it has achieved. Some see it more from a player standpoint although most do amply acknowledge the coaching and management effect on the overall product. I don't think many of them are out to stir the pot since that usually causes them headaches down the road. But they are determined to be on potential or emerging stories like it or not. Felger may tend to be more confrontational in his presentation these days in an effort to build his talk show host persona. But he knows what he knows, and he ain't making it up. Sometimes their information may be a little off the mark because they too are being spun depending on whom they are talking to. If we expect them to just mail in the occasional all is well puff piece then perhaps what we really want is no Patriots coverage at all, unless it's positive.

 

[Pats726]

Great thougt...my guess is we are ahead of the norm in players STAYING. Of course the study must be weighed based on players that stay that the patriots WANTED to keep, not easy to do at all.

Not counting franchised players the last 5: 02---4 kept 5 departed,03---3 kept 8 departed,04---5 kept 11 departed,05---3 kept 6 departed.06---8 kept 9 departed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I am a little surprised that one aspect of re-signing players isn't talked about.

All of these players (except Tedy Bruschi) have agents.

Is it accepted protocol for the team (Belichick, Pioli, whomever) to talk directly to the player during negotiations ?? ?? ?? ??

Even if it is permissible for teams to talk to players, perhaps with the agreement of the agent and/or player, have any of these players/agents agreed that the Pats can talk directly to the player ??

If permission is not required, is it possible that the agents have told the players: "Do not talk to them - let me do all of the negotiation" ??

Is it in the interest of the agent (in the slightest) to take any kind of chance at having his player client be sweet talked into taking LESS money but stay with the team ??

Do you think any of the players did or will tell their agents that they will take any kind of discount just to stay with the Pats ?? Pardon me if I get the distinct impression that none of the players have been willing to take less guarantees or total money just to stay with the Pats. In fact, there is an underlying theme that some of them may have even turned down an equal offer.

Do you think there may be any personality issues on the part of the players who want to paint the Pats in a bad light and make themselves look 'OK' for valuing a bigger money deal more than staying with the Pats ?? You think maybe ??

And, on the other side of the coin:

There is AMPLE media reporting that Bill Belichick frequently demonstrates personable and even affable and entertaining interactions with non-NFL gatherings and peers in the NFL AND maintains personable relationships with folks outside of football.

One thing that, pardon me, I think is also universally recognized is that Belichick will cover aspects of coaching and preparing and staffing a team down to the minutest detail.

Now given these last two things, HOW can anyone REALLY give any credence to the idea that Belichick would not do whatever was possible to establish a rapport with these free agents if it were allowed and it meant retaining the player at a value that fit the teams overall salary model ??

To me it just shouts self-interest on the part of players and their agents and it is approaching ludicrous to attribute 'personality' issues to Belichick. I could make that statement in a stronger form, but I'm sure you get my drift.

I don't think we're talking about communication during negotiation. It's more communicating with them on a personal level all along. Setting the table so to speak. I don't think anything in the CBA precludes a HC or any other member of the management team from communicating with a player about where he stands or what they are thinking/feeling about him throughout the course of a season. I can see an agent advising his client to not listen or be swayed by the stroking that goes on on many teams at many levels, but they can't stop it from occurring in the natural course of events.

Brady and BB spend many hours together going over film and plans and there is no reason for them not to develop a deep personal relationship that buys the organization some consideration. I think in that case both have happened. Not so apparently in several other cases. There can be logical reasons for that on both sides, but if changing that helps the team in the long run it is likely up to management to be the ones to persue some personal relationship expansion. Again, I think RAC and Charlie mitigated that to some extent in the past, but they are not here any more.

BB can be very engaging and even gregarious when it suits him. But he is not a schmoozer or someone who seeks out interaction but rather someone who can be drawn out when he is in a mutual comfort zone. Tomase, who coming from Sox coverage knew little of BB beyond some of his peers perceptions, seemed somewhat taken aback on discovering that at the Owners Meeting. We've gradually seen a little more emotion from BB over the years in select settings. But if you notice players he embraces other than Tom often look as much stunned as pleased when it occurs. And of course they also know that his occasional outbursts of emotion and even affection don't necessarily translate. I recall him heartily embracing Wiggie on a couple of occasions as the first magical season played out. Then he just let him go.

And maybe that is why on some level he subconsciously limits that sort of personal connection.

 

[patsox23]

I keep hearing this statement from fans and the media that Seymour wants to become the highest paid at his position. Has anyone actually heard him say this? It seems like this is all gloom and doom speculation to me. Maybe he does or maybe he doesn't. I just wanna know where everyone is getting this from.

The reason you haven't actually heard him say it is that he HASN'T said it. In fact, he's SAID - on record - that he doesn't have to be the highest-paid, he just wants it to be fair, given the fact that he's among the best in the NFL. I, for one, don't think that's too much to ask, and I, for one, don't think it's too high a mountain to climb.

I think they can get this done. Will they? We'll see.

 

[tailgater]

The reason you haven't actually heard him say it is that he HASN'T said it. In fact, he's SAID - on record - that he doesn't have to be the highest-paid, he just wants it to be fair, given the fact that he's among the best in the NFL. I, for one, don't think that's too much to ask, and I, for one, don't think it's too high a mountain to climb.

I think they can get this done. Will they? We'll see.

Mo was correct. I heard Seymour say it too- he's the best Dlineman in the game.

Not best DE. Not best DT. Best DL, as in most versatile. He does want to break the bank and good for him if he can, here or elsewhere.

 

[Pats726]

Mo was correct. I heard Seymour say it too- he's the best Dlineman in the game.

Not best DE. Not best DT. Best DL, as in most versatile. He does want to break the bank and good for him if he can, here or elsewhere.

So you propose to trade him now?? For what?? To whom?? Or wait a year and franchise him?? or let him go??

 

[PatsAddict]

I'm new here, so I have no idea who Bob George is but that article was one of idle speculation. I think it's clear that Seymour wants to be highly paid and in fact should be considering how good he is. But, the reasons he points to for Seymour being gone after next year are nothing but hole-filled opinion, at least the way he couches it in his article.

I ask you this one simple question, why are the Pats still about 18 million under the cap? At this point there are very few to no free agents available that would make a significant dent in their cap figure. The circumstantial evidence, at least to me, is that they are working on deals for Seymor and probably Branch. History has shown that these negotiations with the Pats and their players are done pretty quietly and you haven't heard a peep from Seymour or Branch, leading me to believe that deals are in the works.

 

[14thDragon]

I think Bob has gotten a touch of the gloom an dooms.

Can they work out a deal with Seymour, sure they can. Give him Kerse type money and he will be plenty happy to stay in NE. You do not need to make him the highest paid, he would likely take second highest DE money. Which he deserves. And by giving him #2, they are in line with thier not paying #1 policy.

You will not see a new contract until August just because, they can't do a new deal with him until August.

But if you see Branch's deal come out, then you know Seymour's is done except for the inking.

With the cap space to take much of the hit in roster bonus instead of giant signing bonus that could lead to dead money later, I think they can work out a good deal favorable for both sides.

 

[Captain Cliche]

I am a little surprised that one aspect of re-signing players isn't talked about.

All of these players (except Tedy Bruschi) have agents.

Is it accepted protocol for the team (Belichick, Pioli, whomever) to talk directly to the player during negotiations ?? ?? ?? ??

Even if it is permissible for teams to talk to players, perhaps with the agreement of the agent and/or player, have any of these players/agents agreed that the Pats can talk directly to the player ??

If permission is not required, is it possible that the agents have told the players: "Do not talk to them - let me do all of the negotiation" ??

Is it in the interest of the agent (in the slightest) to take any kind of chance at having his player client be sweet talked into taking LESS money but stay with the team ??

Do you think any of the players did or will tell their agents that they will take any kind of discount just to stay with the Pats ?? Pardon me if I get the distinct impression that none of the players have been willing to take less guarantees or total money just to stay with the Pats. In fact, there is an underlying theme that some of them may have even turned down an equal offer.

Do you think there may be any personality issues on the part of the players who want to paint the Pats in a bad light and make themselves look 'OK' for valuing a bigger money deal more than staying with the Pats ?? You think maybe ??

And, on the other side of the coin:

There is AMPLE media reporting that Bill Belichick frequently demonstrates personable and even affable and entertaining interactions with non-NFL gatherings and peers in the NFL AND maintains personable relationships with folks outside of football.

One thing that, pardon me, I think is also universally recognized is that Belichick will cover aspects of coaching and preparing and staffing a team down to the minutest detail.

Now given these last two things, HOW can anyone REALLY give any credence to the idea that Belichick would not do whatever was possible to establish a rapport with these free agents if it were allowed and it meant retaining the player at a value that fit the teams overall salary model ??

To me it just shouts self-interest on the part of players and their agents and it is approaching ludicrous to attribute 'personality' issues to Belichick. I could make that statement in a stronger form, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Right on!!

All these players that were not released could have stayed. They all went for more $$$$$...Period.

Not one went elsewhere for less money....or even left money on the table...see Rosey Colvin.

They all ditched their fans...for more green. They have the nuts to say they were disrespected...not enough love...not enough group hugs....how about "sorry fans, I know you rooted for me and payed your hard earned cash to see me, but I'm selling you out for more money."

They toss the "no respect card" to mask the fact it was just money and they don't give a ***** about the area or fans.

I got hammered on the KFFL board for saying Willie sold out. Turns out he did get his love and a contract offer....he just sold the fans of New England out for more cash. I have no problem with that...but don't say you wanted to retire a Patriot when you already had your foot out the door. He could have retired a Patriot...he chose not to.

I personally feel I owe these players as much loyalty as they show us. When they switch uniforms, I cheer for their replacement.

I don't begrudge them optimizing their income...but I am insulted by the Pollyanna BS and blowing smoke up my ass that the wanted to stay.

Vinatierri was bailing at the first chance he got....2 franchise tags tell you they were never going to sign him.

For every 1 Tedy Bruschi's there are 10 Ty Law's.

It's not BB's job to pull weeds or call group gropes.

At least Givens and his agent had it right..."We went for max money."

 

[JoeSixPat]

A very minor nitpick - Adam was franchised twice, not 3 times.

I think a lot of reporters count the year he was franchised and then it was rescinded after the Pats gave him a fully guaranteed contract

I have no idea why they persist in mentioning this - but my guess it's because it makes the Pats look bad. I find it very disingenuous because Adam did not actually PLAY under the franchise tag that year and indeed, he actually played under a multi year contract that was FULLY GUARANTEED!!!!

Does anyone really think Adam was upset about that and is holding it against the Pats?



But on the Seymour issue, it would help if Bob George could make clear whether he's speculating or has spoken with players (possibly including Seymour) about Seymour's suppposed grudge.

The real grudge that I can see is that Seymour resents the fact that he signed a bad contract as a rookie. The Patriots effectively admitted this by renegotiating with him last year.

I think the Pats would be willing to pay him fair market value - but if Seymour expects them to "make up" for what he feels he was worth in the years he was underpaid, he should be thankful the Patriots did not choose to fully hold him to that in the first place.

The Patriots are not going to overcompensate him for those years more than they already have with his renegotiated contract. If he feels he needs to find additional "value" for those lost wages his only alternative may be to refuse to resign and to go the FA route, where he most certainly WILL find someone who will pay more than the Patriots, paying him BEYOND his fair market value.

 

[fgssand]

Right on!!

All these players that were not released could have stayed. They all went for more $$$$$...Period.

Not one went elsewhere for less money....or even left money on the table...see Rosey Colvin.

They all ditched their fans...for more green. They have the nuts to say they were disrespected...not enough love...not enough group hugs....how about "sorry fans, I know you rooted for me and payed your hard earned cash to see me, but I'm selling you out for more money."

They toss the "no respect card" to mask the fact it was just money and they don't give a ***** about the area or fans.

I got hammered on the KFFL board for saying Willie sold out. Turns out he did get his love and a contract offer....he just sold the fans of New England out for more cash. I have no problem with that...but don't say you wanted to retire a Patriot when you already had your foot out the door. He could have retired a Patriot...he chose not to.

I personally feel I owe these players as much loyalty as they show us. When they switch uniforms, I cheer for their replacement.

I don't begrudge them optimizing their income...but I am insulted by the Pollyanna BS and blowing smoke up my ass that the wanted to stay.

Vinatierri was bailing at the first chance he got....2 franchise tags tell you they were never going to sign him.

For every 1 Tedy Bruschi's there are 10 Ty Law's.

It's not BB's job to pull weeds or call group gropes.

At least Givens and his agent had it right..."We went for max money."

Nice reply - stick around dude.
It is very tiring hearing the no respect card from these players that do indeed sell out the fan as soon as they get more cash.

There is no doubt in my mind that AV said screw you fans, I am taking the short term cash, what he was thinking makes no sense because he blew a career of residuals in New England in doing so. Where was his agent advising him of that, OH WAIT, I know his agent was signing his sell out last deal in Cleveland now wasn't he.

It WREAKS............

 

[arrellbee]

The real grudge that I can see is that Seymour resents the fact that he signed a bad contract as a rookie. The Patriots effectively admitted this by renegotiating with him last year.

I've heard this mentioned before (sorry I don't remember who to credit). But I've been puzzled about why it was a 'bad' contract.

Was his contract less than players who signed at 7th place or lower in the draft ?? (You probably have to drop out a couple contracts for 7th or lower because there are always some teams who get the 'stupids' when it comes to signing top of first round rookies - you can't count that against the Pats.)

I'd like to leave out the aspect of a 6 year contract if you will humor me. If you don't mind, that would be the topic of a separate discussion.

-------------------

Miguel - I apologize if you have covered this elsewhere and I missed it. But are we SURE (as opposed to almost certain) that Seymour's contract redo last year had new money ? I would not count conversion of LTBE or NLTBE incentives to guarantees as exactly new money, altho that would be a significant advantage to Seymour and possibly more money in his pocket than he would actually have received otherwise.

 

[Miguel]

I think a lot of reporters count the year he was franchised and then it was rescinded after the Pats gave him a fully guaranteed contract

I have no idea why they persist in mentioning this - but my guess it's because it makes the Pats look bad. I find it very disingenuous because Adam did not actually PLAY under the franchise tag that year and indeed, he actually played under a multi year contract that was FULLY GUARANTEED!!!!

When I said twice, I was including 2002.

IIRC, Adam was franchised in 2002 and in 2005.

 

[Ian]

When I said twice, I was including 2002.

IIRC, Adam was franchised in 2002 and in 2005.

Miguel if I'm not mistaken wasn't he franchised in 2004 and 2005, with the understanding that they wouldn't do it to him a third time after last season?

And as you said he did have the tag placed on him after they won Superbowl XXXVI in 2002 (which I can tell you he was extremely upset with and wasn't completely sure at the time that a deal would eventually get done), which was later taken back when he signed his first extension.

Ian