Breer breaks down the Seymour trade

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

Bullschit.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

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.

Well, for one.......... it's the 2011 #1 pick (pretty big on it's own). But now we also have a lot more cap room to work with to get, if not Wilfork extended, some of the others that we would otherwise loss, before being faced with ALL of them at the same time. There's the tag of course, but I think that we have more room now to get some deals worked out to better set up for the future by going the some now, some later route. Wilfork should be the priority, but there are a lot of names on the list for next year.

Besides, I also think this is one of our deepest D fronts we've had in a long time, so I think BB can somewhat scheme to deal with his loss (which was coming next year anyway). To an extent anyway.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

In the end, the question is whether we are just a "little" weaker in 2009. That basically argues that Seymour is not an impact player.

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.


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.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

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.

Maybe so. Maybe that pick has the impact of a Mayo or a Wilfork or a Seymour. Than again maybe it has the impact of a Watson, or a Maroney.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Also remember guys, just because this comes as a shock to us doesn't mean that BB hasn't been planning this move for a while now. For all we know, he has had the intention of trading Seymour since last season. It's not like he just got sidelined for the rest of the year, BB planned for this and obviously thinks it won't set the team back enough to be a problem. These knee-jerk reactions are ridiculous.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

In the end, the question is whether we are just a "little" weaker in 2009. That basically argues that Seymour is not an impact player.

Or that we can't draft an impact player. The player we draft (assuming we don't trade down) will have 5-6 times the length of time to contribute on his first contract that Seymour would have had if you assume he'd leave as a FA. It's reasonable to assume the player won't be as good as player as Seymour was but also reasonable to assume the player will be as good as Seymour is now (as Seymour is still good but he isn't the 2003 Seymour, he has miles on him now). Just like Meriweather vs. Branch, maybe we win the SB in 2006 with Branch, maybe we don't, but if he was going to leave we have gotten far more lifetime contributions from Meriweather than the one year of Branch. Hopefully it won't mean we won't leave a trophy on the side of the road but with 3 years left on his contract we've gotten a lot out of that trade. One year of (Seymour minus his replacement) vs. 5-6 years of the draftee ? The odds favor the latter.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Maybe so. Maybe that pick has the impact of a Mayo or a Wilfork or a Seymour. Than again maybe it has the impact of a Watson, or a Maroney.

Look at where Mayo and Seymour were drafted. Look at where Watson and Maroney were drafted. Guess where the Raiders' pick likely will be.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

OK, I missed the article by Reiss. Where is printed that Belichick has decided to change his position of waiting until 2010 to make any major signings? I would be surprised if Brady, Wilfork or Mankins are extended until the everyone knows the CBA situation for 2010.

If Belichick uses the cap money to re-sign Wilfork in the next few weeks, then we will have a benefit to the trade that we didn't yet know about.

Well, for one.......... it's the 2011 #1 pick (pretty big on it's own). But now we also have a lot more cap room to work with to get, if not Wilfork extended, some of the others that we would otherwise loss, before being faced with ALL of them at the same time. There's the tag of course, but I think that we have more room now to get some deals worked out to better set up for the future by going the some now, some later route. Wilfork should be the priority, but there are a lot of names on the list for next year.

Besides, I also think this is one of our deepest D fronts we've had in a long time, so I think BB can somewhat scheme to deal with his loss (which was coming next year anyway). To an extent anyway.

 

[bigfandan]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

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?

Sure you disagree. Like Mid-century priests disagreed with the fact earth might revolve around the sun.

Sey playing hard in contract year + our best chance for a SB>> 1st rounder in 2011 w/. lockout potential. But Bill seems to be planning life after Brady; no one can know for sure though.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Also remember guys, just because this comes as a shock to us doesn't mean that BB hasn't been planning this move for a while now. For all we know, he has had the intention of trading Seymour since last season. It's not like he just got sidelined for the rest of the year, BB planned for this and obviously thinks it won't set the team back enough to be a problem. These knee-jerk reactions are ridiculous.

Looking at the defense as it is now, as compaired to last year........... I'd say that is about 100% certainty. Seymour's impact is a little less in 4-3 than 3-4 (at least with out current DL) so this move doesn't..................... if you take a step back........ isn't all that surprising. At least from OUR end. Oakland on the other hand, not sure what they were thinking :singing:

 

[SVN]

Also remember guys, just because this comes as a shock to us doesn't mean that BB hasn't been planning this move for a while now. For all we know, he has had the intention of trading Seymour since last season. It's not like he just got sidelined for the rest of the year, BB planned for this and obviously thinks it won't set the team back enough to be a problem. These knee-jerk reactions are ridiculous.

iam not sure he planned to trade seymour 2 weeks before the opening game. ithink every team knows players contracts on other teams and possibly the raiders looking at their crap run defense asked the pats for seymour or wilfork and then negotiations started...i would be surprised if this waslike matt cassel where pats were actively looking to deal and asking teams

 

[RayClay]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

In 2006, the front office knowingly let Branch leave and did not sign muich to replace him.

Yeah, too bad they couldn't put him under contract. Oh wait, he was!

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

When a player is important enough, he has a hissy fit and the team re-writes his contract. They didn't do it for Branch. They did it for Seymour.

Yeah, too bad they couldn't put him under contract. Oh wait, he was!

 

[Ring 6]

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.

So we are now setting the bar at the level of 'we are supposed to win the SB, and if we dont bad decisions were made'?
I think that is unreasonable

 

[RayClay]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

When a player is important enough, he has a hissy fit and the team re-writes his contract. They didn't do it for Branch. They did it for Seymour.

They gave up thirty two points in the second half. Rewarding an ******* who held the team hostage when he was under contract, with a huge long term contract not only would not have prevented us giving up 32 point in a half, it would have been a terrible contract based on his performance since, and it would have set an awful precedent.

Comparing a short receiver who's had a pretty mediocre career overall to a devastating defensive player is a joke too.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

I agree.

My point is that before the season starts the Front Office makes decisions, takes risks, and makes tradeoffs. These can be analyzed before the season starts and do not represent second guessing a looking back for excuses.

I simply noted some of the tradeoffs we discussed on this board before the season in each of those seasons. We have made choices this year with the present roster which is subject to change.

1)5th RB instead of a 4th OT. That is a conscious choice with risks and rewards.

2) No real game day OG/C. Simmons may be that player if he is healthy. This is an expensive choice causing us to use an extra active OL player each week.

3) No backup ILB's other than Alexander (one injury at this position would greatly hurt the team). This is a conscious choice of the use of resources.

4) Trading Seymour and dealing with having Green or Wright or Pryor take up the slack.

5) No backup QB

==========================
BTW, I think that it is premature to analyze the final roster, since it won't be set for a couple of weeks. We may add a veteran or even two after the first game to avoid guaranteeing their salaries for the season.

So we are now setting the bar at the level of 'we are supposed to win the SB, and if we dont bad decisions were made'?
I think that is unreasonable

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

Yes, but which one do think takes the majority of the blame for that game? An offense that gathered an 18-point lead by halftime and scored 35 points (lets not forget, their "failure" in the second half still managed to score 14 more points) or a defense that gave up 35 points in the 2nd half... Can that even really be argued? Again, that game was either a sign of a terrible defense or was simply a tough-luck game that happened to come at a bad time.

Same with the SB in 07.

We are also not just talking about 1 season here. Let's say they get to the SB this season and the offense has a terrible game and we are looking at having to come up with a couple of defensive stops in a tight 10-7 game. If we went on to lose that game, would you go back and blame it on the Seymour trade? How about if the Pats were to draft and absolute beast for the defense, someone who gives us a good 5+ Pro-bowl seasons. Would we still complain about the trade? Logic guys, use it.

Nobody'y blaming anyone. Simply observing that a small boost in *any* facet of the game probably would have tipped the scales in our favor, including having the MVP of the Super Bowl from 2 years prior. I think the Pats made the right call in 2006, because Branch didn't leave them with a choice. He wasn't going to play that season either way, since they weren't giving him a new contract, so they dealt him.

It's still a compelling example, though, of how one personnel decision in September can have huge ramifications in January. This trade makes the Pats worse in 2009. Hopefully it makes us better in 2011 and onward to such an extent that it's worth what we're giving up now, but if we come as close as we did in 2006 and 2007, only to fall short, we'll have to sit back and realize that Seymour could have put us over the top.

Now, trying to stay perpetually competitive is an admirable goal, and if anyone can pull it off it's Belichick. But there's something to be said for winning while the opportunity is in front of you, and this trade puts us a step back in that regard. When the 2011 draft rolls around, Brady, Moss and Adalius will all be 34, Kevin Faulk will be 36, Neal will be 35. In short, either a) we'll be fielding an entirely new team of leaders, or b) we'll be old. Figure that the 2011 pick will take a year or two to be contributing at an extremely high level, and he'll be coming into his own right around when Brady, Moss, Thomas, Faulk, Neal, etc. are hitting retirement age.

Making this deal, rather than maximizing our SB chances in '09, is a bold move. And it's a hell of a gamble, and whether it succeeds or fails, it's going to be talked about for a long time. I admire Belichick for having the balls to make the move, because I don't think there are many people in the league that would pull the trigger. The Pats could redefine excellence in the salary cap era, or we could watch the window of opportunity close itself before the pick that we traded Sey for is ready to contribute. Personally, I'm worried. In BB I trust, but I'm more worried right now than I've been at any other point since 2001...

 

[Fencer]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

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.

Even a broken clock is sometimes right (or was in the long-ago pre-digital era, which is where we should place Borges anyway).

I think he's right about that one.

 

[Fencer]

Re: Breer breaksdown the seymour trade

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

Few would argue that.

The question is the magnitude of the loss.

I hate major player losses this close to the opener, as its not realistic to reshuffle resources and get comparable talent (even if at another position) in place for the current season.

The main redeeming feature is that, unlike some of the other examples you've cited, this loss is in a position group that remains strong even after the loss.

 

[SVN]

iam quite sure BB didnt plan it ,this late. it has to effect his gameplan for opening week too i would think.