Breer breaks down the Seymour trade

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

There is indeed luck in sports. There is also blaming every loss on the refs. Finally, there is taking responsibility for the risks that are taken.

In 2005, Bruschi had a stroke and was out. Arguably the best team in the history of the NFL (the 2003 and 2004 patriots) could not receover. The front office was incapable of securing linebacker help in early free agency or in the draft or in later free agency. Phifer, whose health was questionable and who couldn't pass a physical, shocked the unprepared team by retiring a week before camp. One can say we were unlucky, unprepared, or simply was not up to the job of making adjustments at ONE position over a period from january through August. But, as in 2006 and 2007, we entered the season with a roster issue, a roster risk. And in the end, we were not able to overcome the issue. Perhaps the defense could have been changed to match the 2005 personnel if addiitional personnel couldn't be secured. The answer as you might recall was to start STer Beisel and ancient OLB Chad Brown at ILB.

In 2006, the front office knowingly let Branch leave and did not sign muich to replace him. There were rumors then that we were looking to trade for Gabriel or Moss. The team took the risk at the WR position in order to benefit the long-term needs of the team. We would have been a better team with Branch. Perhaps we would have gone all the way; perhaps not.

In 2007, the front office knowingly did not add additional depth at linebacker. They took a risk. There were injuries at linebacker. Some had the flu. We would have been a better team with more depth at linebacker. And yes, we might still have lost.

The greatness of Belichick in 2001-2004 was that he made the key decisions that worked.

And here we are in 2009. If we don't win the Super Bowl, it will definitely not be said that we did so because we didn't keep Seymour or because we didn't acquire sufficient personnel at ILB. It would never be because we changed our defense all at once and perhaps didn't have quite enough personnel. No, if we don't win, it will because of a ref's call or a lucky catch or by something that happened in the 4th quarter. This is the way it has been since the last SB win. Or we will win, and the FO will have done everything right. Or just perhaps, the very risky decisions will have paid off.

If we had won in 06 or 07 we wouldn't be having these conversations right now. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of luck involved in sports. We were CLEARLY the better team in 07 but things just didn't work out. I just don't think it's fair to single out one thing and say "Ah, if only we had so and so or we didn't trade whom ever". Who is to say that having Branch would have made a difference OVERALL? I'm sure the season would have played out differently. We had a GREAT opportunity to win the SB in 06 and 07 and we blew it. That's life, you can't win them all every year, it's just a darned thing called Luck.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

He's now on the if Wilfork's smart he demands his new contract tomorrow or he goes home and tells them to call him after Buffalo runs for 500 yards. Says the we will find out soon if the genius still lives or is played out...

He's praying for vindication as he will be til the day he croaks...

Oddly he admits that Seymour may have dogged it a bit after landing his big deal, and he had lost a little something in part due to injuries (he had more knee work done this off season according to Borges), but... they have no one as talented in his never humble opinion. Says the relationship was never the same after the benching (over his returning late from his grandfathers funeral) and from then on he was all about looking out for Richard. I think they tried to mend fences, including by extending him after the holdout, but he was just never gonna let it go.

Similar situation to Milloy although that ended alright. I remember thinking at that time BB had lost his mind or was an arrogant SOB looking to kill my cinderella team. I learned otherwise.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

There is indeed luck in sports. There is also blaming every loss on the refs. Finally, there is taking responsibility for the risks that are taken.

In 2005, Bruschi had a stroke and was out. Arguably the best team in the history of the NFL (the 2003 and 2004 patriots) could not receover. The front office was incapable of securing linebacker help in early free agency or in the draft or in later free agency. Phifer, whose health was questionable and who couldn't pass a physical, shocked the unprepared team by retiring a week before camp. One can say we were unlucky, unprepared, or simply was not up to the job of making adjustments at ONE position over a period from january through August. But, as in 2006 and 2007, we entered the season with a roster issue, a roster risk. And in the end, we were not able to overcome the issue. Perhaps the defense could have been changed to match the 2005 personnel if addiitional personnel couldn't be secured. The answer as you might recall was to start STer Beisel and ancient OLB Chad Brown at ILB.

In 2006, the front office knowingly let Branch leave and did not sign muich to replace him. There were rumors then that we were looking to trade for Gabriel or Moss. The team took the risk at the WR position in order to benefit the long-term needs of the team. We would have been a better team with Branch. Perhaps we would have gone all the way; perhaps not.

In 2007, the front office knowingly did not add additional depth at linebacker. They took a risk. There were injuries at linebacker. Some had the flu. We would have been a better team with more depth at linebacker. And yes, we might still have lost.

The greatness of Belichick in 2001-2004 was that he made the key decisions that worked.

And here we are in 2009. If we don't win the Super Bowl, it will definitely not be said that we did so because we didn't keep Seymour or because we didn't acquire sufficient personnel at ILB. It would never be because we changed our defense all at once and perhaps didn't have quite enough personnel. No, if we don't win, it will because of a ref's call or a lucky catch or by something that happened in the 4th quarter. This is the way it has been since the last SB win. Or we will win, and the FO will have done everything right. Or just perhaps, the very risky decisions will have paid off.

Lol. Do you not realize that luck played a HUGE part in the 3 SB victories from 01-04? All 3 of those games could have gone either way. It's no different than it was from 06-08. When things go right and you have luck on your side, you made the right moves. When things don't go as planed and you don't get the best of luck, your moves are questioned and you didn't do enough. It's ridiculous.

Your confusing the concepts of what a good move is. Results ultimately matter, but are not the best criteria for criticism. Making the right moves means do the best with what you have, getting the most value, and fielding the best team you can, present AND future. Some of those moves work out, some don't. That doesn't change them from being the CORRECT move. It's like shoving with pocket Aces preflop in Texas Holdem, but losing the hand. Just because you didn't get the desired result doesn't mean it wasn't the correct move. Immediate results have to be taken with a grain of salt, it's the long term that is important.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Yup.

In 2006, Belichick did the "right" thing. Had we won the Super Bowl with the deficiency at WR that he left, then there would have been no second guessing. Belichick rolled the dice and lost. Perhaps we would have lost anyway, but looking back and forward from the day Branch left, it seemed a great risk.

And here we are again. In 2009, Belichick is doing the best thing for the future of the patriots. But, make no question, Belichick is again rolling the dice with the 2009 season.

if i'm not mistaken we lost Deion branch because of that fat slob mangini when he was still HC of the jets.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

I don't know how ANYONE could blame Asante for SB 07. He helped shut down his half of the field and it was HOBBS that gave up the winning touchdown. Hell, Asante wasn't even to blame for the miracle reception. The Giants need all the luck in the world to score on that drive, lets be realistic here. The freaken golden boy is more responsible for losing that game than Asante.

Asante gave up the first TD as well as the INT... Hobbs had an INT in that game that the offense pissed away on a 3 and out. About the only play he missed all day was the last Giants play on offense. And 10 other guys who were supposed to be handling Eli all missed too.

My point was we'd be better off with a draft pick for Asante than we were paying him almost $8M since he wasn't a difference maker in 2007, Moss and Welker were. Having Branch on the field in 2005 didn't help but maybe it would have in 2006. Just at what price - certainly one Seattle wishes it never paid in hindsight...

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

I agree with your comments. There was a lot of good luck in the years we won and a lot of bad luck in the years we didn't.

All teams are imperfect.

The Front Office is judged by the decisions they make in the situations that they face.

The coaches and judged by what they do with the situations under their control.

This year's Front Office has done some amazing things. But in the end, at the very end of the preseason, critical decisions are being made that will change the 2009 team and its chances. We don't know the roster yet. There may be several changes yet before we settle down for Game Two and the rest of the season. But for today, we are to believe that we are better off without Seymour.

Lol. Do you not realize that luck played a HUGE part in the 3 SB victories from 01-04? All 3 of those games could have gone either way. It's no different than it was from 06-08. When things go right and you have luck on your side, you made the right moves. When things don't go as planed and you don't get the best of luck, your moves are questioned and you didn't do enough. It's ridiculous.

I'll say it again, there is no such thing as a perfect football team. You are always trying to balance the present with the future.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Honestly, some of you behave as if we have to win it all every year or the FO is flirting with failure and screwing up your destiny... What planet are you all from. Not the one the Patsies inhabited for decades, I guess...

We've been to 4 Superbowls and missed the playoffs twice in the last eight seasons (including one with a backup QB most thought was a better fit for Walmart). This is what Kraft signed on for when he hired BB. Consistent competitiveness and a disciplined committment to maintain it long range. You do that by balancing the present with the future and not caving to the pressure to just win now. Because as soon as you do the bastards who are ripping you for remaining disciplined will tear into you for caving in.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

YOU BE THE GM
If in April, if Oakland offered you a 3rd round 2009 draft choice for Seymour, would you have taken it? Why or why not?

Is a 2011 first less the 2011 3rd round comp choice we won't get worth any more? I suspect not. The 2009 Oakland third could have been traded forward twice to end up with a 2011 first. But we didn't even get that much.

If you wouldn't take the deal then, why is similar value reasonable now?

Honestly, some of you behave as if we have to win it all every year or the FO is flirting with failure and screwing up your destiny... What planet are you all from. Not the one the Patsies inhabited for decades, I guess...

We've been to 4 Superbowls and missed the playoffs twice in the last eight seasons (including one with a backup QB most thought was a better fit for Walmart). This is what Kraft signed on for when he hired BB. Consistent competitiveness and a disciplined committment to maintain it long range. You do that by balancing the present with the future and not caving to the pressure to just win now. Because as soon as you do the bastards who are ripping you for remaining disciplined will tear into you for caving in.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Ehhhh, marginal comparison from 2006. The loss of Sey hurts.... sure. But it doesn't exactly "leave a hole" in the line up. Green has ALWAYS stepped in nicely for Sey when Sey has been out injured, or even just spelled. We're not talking a Branch to Caldwell drop-off in talent from Sey to Green. To say nothing that our front is pretty friggen deep and still has the potential to be pretty dominant up front, which of course should bode well for our revamped back end as well.

Is there a drop off, sure. We're obviously better with Seymour then without him, but it ain't the canyon that was left when Branch left.

Also, left out of the equation is the prospect of being able to potentially extend Wilfork who is the engine that drives that front. We do that and this trade is beyond worth it.

 

[SVN]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Well, we went the other way with Asante and that didn't tip the balance either. Who's to say Branch would have had any impact in that game or even active for it. And the price to keep him proved to be far too steep. He's hanging by his fingernails in Seattle, don't think they don't wish they had a do over.

The defense collapsed. It's been a recurring theme since 2005. He's turning it over.

Best new yet: Borges is due on NECN and he believes this is a big mistake...

i want to see if felger keeps his thinking the same. he always *****ed about seymour not being himself all this time. lets see if he rips this trade now to boost his radio ratings

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

But for today, we are to believe that we are better off without Seymour.

I think there is more chance the 2011 #1, or whatever picks we turn it into, will help us win a SB over the 5-6 year contract than there is that Seymour would be the difference this one year.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I also think that we have to realize that this was completely in BB control. He thinks that he got the best value possible for Seymour and he has the pieces to fill in for his absence with a minimal loss for this season. If BB likes this deal, so do I.

As for the 06 trade with Branch, BB really did the best he could. It was obviously that we weren't going to be able to keep him (at least for any reasonable price) and we likely got the best value possible. Sure it would have been nice to add another quality WR to fill the hole he left, but I'm sure that if there was a reasonable replacement, BB would have gotten it. Don't go grasping for straws that might not even exist.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

OK, I'll bite. Why do you think that having Seymour play out his contract this year, knowing that he will go to another team next year (as will green) make it more likely that we will sign Wilfork.

I am presuming that we are making the choice of sending Seymour packing now or at the end of his contract.

Ehhhh, marginal comparison from 2006. The loss of Sey hurts.... sure. But it doesn't exactly "leave a hole" in the line up. Green has ALWAYS stepped in nicely for Sey when Sey has been out injured, or even just spelled. We're not talking a Branch to Caldwell drop-off in talent from Sey to Green. To say nothing that our front is pretty friggen deep and still has the potential to be pretty dominant up front, which of course should bode well for our revamped back end as well.

Is there a drop off, sure. We're obviously better with Seymour then without him, but it ain't the canyon that was left when Branch left.

Also, left out of the equation is the prospect of being able to potentially extend Wilfork who is the engine that drives that front. We do that and this trade is beyond worth it.

 

[SVN]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Well, we went the other way with Asante and that didn't tip the balance either. Who's to say Branch would have had any impact in that game or even active for it. And the price to keep him proved to be far too steep. He's hanging by his fingernails in Seattle, don't think they don't wish they had a do over.

The defense collapsed. It's been a recurring theme since 2005. He's turning it over.

Best new yet: Borges is due on NECN and he believes this is a big mistake...

anyone remember what borges said when he was picked by BB ?? and then seymour actually is friends with the same guy..this is quite funny.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

So, trade Green and Mankins also.

The reality is that the 2009 value is less than a 2009 3rd round draft choice, which could have been rtraded forward twice for this same first.

In April, would you have traded Seymour for a 2009 3rd?

Seymour is taking a bet that Oakland will not re-sign Seymour (probably wrong) and will be so horrible in 2010 that this pick will be a great pick. He saw Pioli do this before and get Mayo. Of course, pioli didn't give up Seymour.

I think there is more chance the 2011 #1, or whatever picks we turn it into, will help us win a SB over the 5-6 year contract than there is that Seymour would be the difference this one year.

 

[bigfandan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Yup.

In 2006, Belichick did the "right" thing. Had we won the Super Bowl with the deficiency at WR that he left, then there would have been no second guessing. Belichick rolled the dice and lost. Perhaps we would have lost anyway, but looking back and forward from the day Branch left, it seemed a great risk.

And here we are again. In 2009, Belichick is doing the best thing for the future of the patriots. But, make no question, Belichick is again rolling the dice with the 2009 season.

The one player lost out potentially is Brady. He probably won the 4th SB with Branch in 06 (by far his best receiver at that time).

This time around, I don't think Pats's D is so strong that they can give away a true impact player like Sey. The the chance for another SB just too a big hit.

Brady's prime window is closing. This dynasty is almost over. Bill is giving away something from present to build his next Dynasty. So he can say I am winner without Brady. Yes, I think he is more than motivated to prove that point. Too bad for Brady.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

So, trade Green and Mankins also.

Balance my friend, balance. BB realizes that he can't keep ALL of his top players with expiring contracts. The smart thing to do is to trade the guy who would leave the smallest hole while getting great value for the future. He did that.

Quit simply, that's a stupid statement. I feel like I should make this a signature or something: Logic, use it.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

The one player lost out potentially is Brady. He probably won the 4th SB with Branch in 06 (by far his best receiver at that time).

This time around, I don't think Pats's D is so strong that they can give away a true impact player like Sey. The the chance for another SB just too a big hit.

Brady's prime window is closing. This dynasty is almost over. Bill is giving away something from present to build his next Dynasty. So he can say I am winner without Brady. Yes, I think he is more than motivated to prove that point. Too bad for Brady.

If you think BB's end game is to "prove" that he can win without Brady you should just give up. How does such a stupid thought enter one's head?

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Sorry, it is bad day for the patriots. We have traded one of our very best players because he won't re-sign next year. And for what, the equivalent of a 2009 3rd round draft choice.

Balance my friend, balance. BB realizes that he can't keep ALL of his top players with expiring contracts. The smart thing to do is to trade the guy who would leave the smallest hole while getting great value for the future. He did that.

Quit simply, that's a stupid statement. I feel like I should make this a signature or something: Logic, use it.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

So, trade Green and Mankins also.

Green would have gotten next to nothing. Mankins, we don't know what he's looking for to re-sign. We know Seymour is all about the $$$. Mankins may be, we don't know. Of course, I also say the OL is more important to the team this year than the defense.

The reality is that the 2009 value is less than a 2009 3rd round draft choice, which could have been rtraded forward twice for this same first.

In April, would you have traded Seymour for a 2009 3rd?

You can't guarantee those trades. Sometimes you can make them, sometimes you can't. In April would I have been happy with a #3 if we simultaneously turned it into the Raiders' 2011 #1, also knowing we'd draft 3 DL and trade for Derrick Burgess ? I'd feel like I do now - that we are a little weaker in 2009 but should be a little stronger in 2012-2017. But things have changed since April.