Hey Al: Stop messin' with our draft pick

[Deus Irae]

It is only a bad trade if you think the Pats were going to definitely resign both Seymour and Wilfork and that is very debatable at the very least.

It's a bad trade because the team pissed away 2009 by trading its best defensive player just days before the start of the season. The impact in subsequent seasons just makes an already bad trade worse. Whether they would have kept Seymour or not, they still controlled his rights and could have gotten a return for him after the season, simply by signing Wilfork instead of screwing around with his deal, and then franchising Seymour for trade purposes (or keeping him), or simply by letting Seymour go and recouping a 3rd rounder in compensation.

If Seymour wanted top dollar in a new deal like he is reportedly asking for with the Raiders, the Pats made the right decision. He is still very good, but no longer elite.

He's still the best 3-4 DE in the NFL. How is that not 'elite'?

I still think long term this was a good trade for the Pats and bad short term trade. I know you said before that even if the Pats get the next Tom Brady or Lawrence Taylor with the Raiders' draft pick that you still think it was a bad trade, but I couldn't disagree more.

That breaks it down pretty neatly then.

Yes, the defense would have been better with Seymour, potentially significantly. But woul the 2009 team been a Super Bowl team? I seriously doubt it. I also don't think the Pats could have kept Seymour without grossly overpaying for him which could hurt the team in efforts in other areas. I also don't think there was a guarantee that the Pats could have kept both Wilfork and Seymour even if they wanted to if another team tampered with Seymour before the start of free agency.

There's not a question in my mind that the Patriots with Seymour, a healthy Welker and a legitimate WR3, would have been a Super Bowl contender. To me, saying "well, Welker got hurt so the trade was good" or "well, the offense didn't get it done because WR3 sucked ass and BB never bothered fixing it so that makes the trade better" doesn't excuse the trade in the first place, and is just a reach for justifications so that people don't have to admit that Belichick screwed the pooch before the season even started.

This was a weak year for top level teams. For all the holes this team had, it was 3 players away from being a true Super Bowl contender once the playoffs started, and 2 of those players were with the team: one until a week before the game and the other until the final week of the season (Seymour/Welker).

 

[ausbacker]

Seymour was pick 6. Anything around the first ten picks should be considered value. Anything inside the first 20 picks is still value. It all depends on what the Patriots do with the pick.

 

[Rob0729]

It's a bad trade because the team pissed away 2009 by trading its best defensive player just days before the start of the season. The impact in subsequent seasons just makes an already bad trade worse. Whether they would have kept Seymour or not, they still controlled his rights and could have gotten a return for him after the season, simply by signing Wilfork instead of screwing around with his deal, and then franchising Seymour for trade purposes (or keeping him), or simply by letting Seymour go and recouping a 3rd rounder in compensation.

So if the Pats draft a player with the Raiders pick that plays a key role in three Super Bowl wins in the teen decade, it is a bad trade because they pissed away the 2009 season? How does that make sense?

As for screwing up Wilfork's deal, how exactly did they do that? They did not have the cap room in 2009 to give Wilfork an extension. If they did, he would not have been franchised in the first place. The Pats didn't say to themselves that they were going to wait til the last minute to give an above market deal for Wilfork only to temporarily have some bad blood. The Pats did not have the room to sign him to a deal anywhere close to the one he got. I defy you, Miguel, or anyone with cap knowledge to tell me how they could have made him a top paid d-lineman and fit him under the cap.

He's still the best 3-4 DE in the NFL. How is that not 'elite'?

I don't know you could make a strong case that Luis Castillio, Shaun Ellis, and Aaron Smith (off the top of my head) have been better DEs in the 3-4 in recent years than Seymour. Seymour had a very good 2008 season, but has struggled in recent years especially because of injuries.

That breaks it down pretty neatly then.

And I think you are wrong. If the Pats get an elite HOFer for a 10-12 year period for Seymour, the trade will be a brilliant trade for the Pats.

There's not a question in my mind that the Patriots with Seymour, a healthy Welker and a legitimate WR3, would have been a Super Bowl contender. To me, saying "well, Welker got hurt so the trade was good" or "well, the offense didn't get it done because WR3 sucked ass and BB never bothered fixing it so that makes the trade better" doesn't excuse the trade in the first place, and is just a reach for justifications so that people don't have to admit that Belichick screwed the pooch before the season even started.

I don't think the Pats were Seymour and a third WR away from being a legitimate contender. There were a lot of things wrong with this team and with Seymour typically coming off the field on third downs, I don't know if he would have fixed the pass rush problem. Besides, if Seymour stayed, it is unlikely that the Pats would have made the effort to get depth at WR after the Gallowy experiment failed.

This was a weak year for top level teams. For all the holes this team had, it was 3 players away from being a true Super Bowl contender once the playoffs started, and 2 of those players were with the team: one until a week before the game and the other until the final week of the season (Seymour/Welker).

The Pats were more than three players away from the Super Bowl or at least being a contender. Even before Welker went down, there were few people who were arguing that the Pats had a great chance to win the Super Bowl. Seymour would not have been the difference maker there.

Sorry, no one player can affect a team this way. Even without Brady, the Pats had as much or more of a chance in 2008 of getting to the Super Bowl if it wasn't for a fluke season where 11 wins didn't get you into the playoffs. I think you are making far more of the loss than he really was. He was definitely a loss, but not the difference from making this team a Super Bowl contender.

 

[Deus Irae]

So if the Pats draft a player with the Raiders pick that plays a key role in three Super Bowl wins in the teen decade, it is a bad trade because they pissed away the 2009 season? How does that make sense?

I can only assume that this is humor.

As for screwing up Wilfork's deal, how exactly did they do that? They did not have the cap room in 2009 to give Wilfork an extension. If they did, he would not have been franchised in the first place. The Pats didn't say to themselves that they were going to wait til the last minute to give an above market deal for Wilfork only to temporarily have some bad blood. The Pats did not have the room to sign him to a deal anywhere close to the one he got. I defy you, Miguel, or anyone with cap knowledge to tell me how they could have made him a top paid d-lineman and fit him under the cap.

They had the room. They chose to extend other players.

I don't know you could make a strong case that Luis Castillio, Shaun Ellis, and Aaron Smith (off the top of my head) have been better DEs in the 3-4 in recent years than Seymour. Seymour had a very good 2008 season, but has struggled in recent years especially because of injuries.

No, you couldn't. You really couldn't. It's not even close.

And I think you are wrong. If the Pats get an elite HOFer for a 10-12 year period for Seymour, the trade will be a brilliant trade for the Pats.

What that player does is irrelevant. If he never plays a down, if he becomes the greatest player in NFL history, if he falls somewhere between. It's not "Richard v. Bob". It's "Richard v. unknown pick in 2011". Or, as the homers here have been screaming for years as a defense whenever the team makes a move that doesn't make any real sense, it's "value".

I don't think the Pats were Seymour and a third WR away from being a legitimate contender. There were a lot of things wrong with this team and with Seymour typically coming off the field on third downs, I don't know if he would have fixed the pass rush problem. Besides, if Seymour stayed, it is unlikely that the Pats would have made the effort to get depth at WR after the Gallowy experiment failed.

The notion that Seymour typically came off the field on third downs isn't even accurate, so there's really nothing to address here. As for WR3, that's just another failing of BB this past season.

The Pats were more than three players away from the Super Bowl or at least being a contender. Even before Welker went down, there were few people who were arguing that the Pats had a great chance to win the Super Bowl. Seymour would not have been the difference maker there.

I'm not sure what part of "legitimate WR3" you seem to be struggling with here. The reason the offense was struggling so much, other than Brady's inconsistencies, was that teams could ignore Aiken. Hence "Seymour/Welker/WR3".

Sorry, no one player can affect a team this way. Even without Brady, the Pats had as much or more of a chance in 2008 of getting to the Super Bowl if it wasn't for a fluke season where 11 wins didn't get you into the playoffs. I think you are making far more of the loss than he really was. He was definitely a loss, but not the difference from making this team a Super Bowl contender.

One player can affect teams this way, and they often do. Favre in Minnesota is an easy example from just this past season. In New England, in 2007, it was 2 players. This sort of thing goes on all the time in sports.

As for what I'm thinking, of course you feel that way. You spent all year defending BB's moves. Even with the season flushing down the toilet the way it did, you're not going to admit to his screw ups. My initial post was nothing more than pointing out the lack of accuracy with the "can't keep both" notion. I wasn't the one who started pointing to the quality of the trade and to belittling Seymour in an effort to buttress Belichick rather than just admitting that he screwed up royally for pretty much all of 2009, including the Seymour and Burgess trades. That's been the standard playbook of all the 'defenders'.

...... transition to generalized soapbox-style comment aimed at a general group and not an individual.....

What I don't get is why so many fans have just chucked all sense of reason and objectivity for the sake of a coach/GM who never claims to be perfect in the first place. It's not as if Jonathan Kraft didn't make it pretty clear that the Patriots knew there were issues with the team this past season, after all.

 

[supafly]

Rob0729:

When asked if we could keep both Wilfork and Seymour 1 year ago, you had a great plan for not only keeping both, but also adding Peppers. Now 1 yr later, you claim that we'd never have been able to afford 2 of the 3? You are basically flip-flopping to the fullest degree. Keep in mind, this was also under last yr's cap. It would've been a lot easier to frontload a big bonus this year, and still have a 20-10-5-5 plan for when the cap comes back. In other words, if you claimed it could be done last year, why couldn't it have been done this year?

Here is your argument from 3-17-09 on keeping both Wilfork, and Seymour--also adding Julius Peppers:

"Thomas' deal was for $7 million a year. So expecting Peppers' deal to be only $1-1.5 million more of a cap hit in 2009 isn't out of the question.

By converting parts of Brady's and Light's salaries into bonuses the Pats could probably free up about $4-5 million in cap space. Just about enough to fit in Peppers. The Pats still have about $8 million in cap according to Miguel (not sure if he has updated it from yesterday though). They will need about $4 million of it for draft picks. They will probably need to keep about $3 million free for emergencies and bonuses made during the season. They could free up millions by cutting or extending Jarvis Green, extending Faulk, cutting Bruschi (not likely to happen, but not impossible), extending Seymour, converting part of Welker's base salary into a bonus, and/or extending Neal. It isn't impossible or even straining to free up the money if they wanted to.

The story stating that they wanting to get the deal in between next week and the draft tells me if it is true, the Pats are holding off so they can make some cap moves. Again I am saying if the story is true.

Miguel says that if a teams needs to get cap money, they usually can."

 

[patsfan-1982]

Interesting that there are people on this board who see the Raiders as a .500 team and also view the Patriots in the same light.

i think the pats will be much better then 500. but if you look at oaklands roster right now other then WR and QB they have more talent then the pats at every spot.

 

[supafly]

So if the Pats draft a player with the Raiders pick that plays a key role in three Super Bowl wins in the teen decade, it is a bad trade because they pissed away the 2009 season? How does that make sense?

As for screwing up Wilfork's deal, how exactly did they do that? They did not have the cap room in 2009 to give Wilfork an extension. If they did, he would not have been franchised in the first place. The Pats didn't say to themselves that they were going to wait til the last minute to give an above market deal for Wilfork only to temporarily have some bad blood. The Pats did not have the room to sign him to a deal anywhere close to the one he got. I defy you, Miguel, or anyone with cap knowledge to tell me how they could have made him a top paid d-lineman and fit him under the cap.





I don't know you could make a strong case that Luis Castillio, Shaun Ellis, and Aaron Smith (off the top of my head) have been better DEs in the 3-4 in recent years than Seymour. Seymour had a very good 2008 season, but has struggled in recent years especially because of injuries.




And I think you are wrong. If the Pats get an elite HOFer for a 10-12 year period for Seymour, the trade will be a brilliant trade for the Pats.




I don't think the Pats were Seymour and a third WR away from being a legitimate contender. There were a lot of things wrong with this team and with Seymour typically coming off the field on third downs, I don't know if he would have fixed the pass rush problem. Besides, if Seymour stayed, it is unlikely that the Pats would have made the effort to get depth at WR after the Gallowy experiment failed.



The Pats were more than three players away from the Super Bowl or at least being a contender. Even before Welker went down, there were few people who were arguing that the Pats had a great chance to win the Super Bowl. Seymour would not have been the difference maker there.

Sorry, no one player can affect a team this way. Even without Brady, the Pats had as much or more of a chance in 2008 of getting to the Super Bowl if it wasn't for a fluke season where 11 wins didn't get you into the playoffs. I think you are making far more of the loss than he really was. He was definitely a loss, but not the difference from making this team a Super Bowl contender.

Huh???

Richard Seymour wasn't an every down player? That's news to me. I would think the team wanted to have no one else but Seymour in explosive, rush the passer, 3rd down situations. Maybe you meant Wilfork?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

What we all have to think upon is this.....

Was Richard Seymour on last year's roster going to make the difference between a Super Bowl championship and ousted in the first round?

I would emphatically say NO ,Seymour has been a crucial part of this defense for some time but no way one man,even of Seymour's status makes a difference in a championship unless maybe a QB like Brady.

So in that regards we got a free #1 pick in 2011....

 

[Rob0729]

I can only assume that this is humor.

Of course it is. Because as you already pointed out, even if the Pats get a Lawrence Taylor or Tom Brady with the pick (you know one of those once in a generation players) and has him around for 10-12 years, it can never make up for the loss of Seymour for the 2009 season.

You can argue all you want that Seymour would definitely be here right now if it wasn't for the trade, but you do not know that. Most of the indications were that the Pats were going to only keep EITHER Wilfork OR Seymour and not both.

They had the room. They chose to extend other players.

Really?!? Who? You backed up Miguel when you were beating up the Pats for not giving Wilfork a contract when he said the Pats haven't given a big contract to anyone since Moss in 2008.

No, you couldn't. You really couldn't. It's not even close.

Actually, if you are looking at 2006-2008, you right it isn't close. I would take Ellis and Castillio. Seymour rebounded in 2008, but was average in 2006 and 2007. Even when he rebounded last year, he wasn't the 2003-2005 Seymour.

What that player does is irrelevant. If he never plays a down, if he becomes the greatest player in NFL history, if he falls somewhere between. It's not "Richard v. Bob". It's "Richard v. unknown pick in 2011". Or, as the homers here have been screaming for years as a defense whenever the team makes a move that doesn't make any real sense, it's "value".

That is B.S. Of course it is Seymour vs. the player taken with the pick. If you look at it the way you want to look at it, the Vikings got the better of the Cowboys when they traded all those draft picks for Hershall Walker. The Cowboys traded Walker who was their best player at the time for a bunch of unknown draft picks and scrub players.

The fact of the matter is the Pats traded Seymour on the gamble that they will get as good or possibly better player in 2011 that will be the cornerstone of their offense or defense for a decade. If you want to look at 2009, then you gotta look at that player.

If you want to look purely on value. The Pats traded a very good player who has declined in recent years in the last year of his deal who is pushing 30 for what could be a top five pick. Based on pure value alone, the Pats stole on the deal. You want to cheat and mix value with production on the Seymour end. What the Pats did in 2009 is irrelevant in a pure value deal.

The notion that Seymour typically came off the field on third downs isn't even accurate, so there's really nothing to address here. As for WR3, that's just another failing of BB this past season.

Seymour does come off the field a lot on third downs. Typically is an overstatement and I apologize.

From SMY in Last year's column after he was traded to the Raiders:

In the years since, as he was one of the highest-paid players in the league when the $24 million in bonus money in his 2006 contract extension is factored in, there have been implications within Gillette Stadium that Seymour wasn’t willing to play hurt, and last season he was held out of certain packages, particularly third down, a move that didn’t sit well with Seymour.

Pats trade Seymour to Raiders for a 1st round pick in 2011 | New England Patriots | projo.com | The Providence Journal

Here is a story after the Steelers game that year where he was pulled out of all the third down plays.

Richard Seymour down with staying on field - BostonHerald.com

I'm not sure what part of "legitimate WR3" you seem to be struggling with here. The reason the offense was struggling so much, other than Brady's inconsistencies, was that teams could ignore Aiken. Hence "Seymour/Welker/WR3".

I think we are in agreement that the reason why Brady had inconsistencies and the Pats didn't have a WR3 was clearly the loss of Seymour. You look at many of the Patriots' losses (the first Jets game, the Denver game, etc.) and the offense is probably more to blame for the losses than the defense (sometimes a lot more).

One player can affect teams this way, and they often do. Favre in Minnesota is an easy example from just this past season. In New England, in 2007, it was 2 players. This sort of thing goes on all the time in sports.

The Vikings were a complete team without a QB. They had a great defense, good o-line, and great RB. Favre was the missing piece. And let's not forget he was a QB, not a DE.

Let's get real here. This is a bogus comparison. The QB position is the most important position

As for what I'm thinking, of course you feel that way. You spent all year defending BB's moves. Even with the season flushing down the toilet the way it did, you're not going to admit to his screw ups. My initial post was nothing more than pointing out the lack of accuracy with the "can't keep both" notion. I wasn't the one who started pointing to the quality of the trade and to belittling Seymour in an effort to buttress Belichick rather than just admitting that he screwed up royally for pretty much all of 2009, including the Seymour and Burgess trades. That's been the standard playbook of all the 'defenders'.

I have said repeatedly that the Burgess trade ended up being a bad trade. I have said the Pats screwed up by not signing Samuel before his value got out of proportion. I said Belichick screwed up letting Branch shop his wears since he did not take into effect that a team like the Jets would screw with the Pats and force a trade. I was against both the Moss and Dillon trades at the time they made them. I felt the Pats were stupid to resign Dillon. Sorry, you confuse me with someone else. Belichick has made plenty of mistakes over his career here. He has been far more successful than not though.

I don't believe that Seymour was going to be back this year. So I like the trade. I knew at the time it could hurt in 2009 and still liked the trade.

...... transition to generalized soapbox-style comment aimed at a general group and not an individual.....

What I don't get is why so many fans have just chucked all sense of reason and objectivity for the sake of a coach/GM who never claims to be perfect in the first place. It's not as if Jonathan Kraft didn't make it pretty clear that the Patriots knew there were issues with the team this past season, after all.

Well, at least you admit you have a problem.

 

[Rob0729]

Huh???

Richard Seymour wasn't an every down player? That's news to me. I would think the team wanted to have no one else but Seymour in explosive, rush the passer, 3rd down situations. Maybe you meant Wilfork?

I posted this in response to Deus, but it is just as appropriate to you.

From SMY in Last year's column after he was traded to the Raiders:

In the years since, as he was one of the highest-paid players in the league when the $24 million in bonus money in his 2006 contract extension is factored in, there have been implications within Gillette Stadium that Seymour wasn’t willing to play hurt, and last season he was held out of certain packages, particularly third down, a move that didn’t sit well with Seymour.

http://www.projo.com/patriots/content/sp_fbn_patriots_07_09-07-09_K6FKVGC_v1.3615f53.html

Here is a story after the Steelers game that year where he was pulled out of all the third down plays.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1136707&srvc=rss

 

[supafly]

What we all have to think upon is this.....

Was Richard Seymour on last year's roster going to make the difference between a Super Bowl championship and ousted in the first round?

I would emphatically say NO ,Seymour has been a crucial part of this defense for some time but no way one man,even of Seymour's status makes a difference in a championship unless maybe a QB like Brady.

So in that regards we got a free #1 pick in 2011....

Overall, I tend to agree--but I don't think it's necessarily a 'free' pick. It came with a cost of course, the cost of losing the best 3-4 DE in the game. And no, I don't believe Luis Castillo or Aaron Smith are better.

It's another matter of personal opinion, and also what the team thought was best. They did not want to keep both Sey and VW--but it's also interesting that they tried to move Wilfork first.

In the middle of the decade they offered what was the equivelant of big money at the time to both Branch and Law, while both Brady and Seymour were also there. It's a matter of everything being relative. There was a cap then, they were prepared to figure out a way of paying Branch and Law about 6 mill/per, while giving Seymour and TB big contracts too. Last year, there were rampant rumors of obtaining Peppers, who they would've added to either VW or Seymour. They 'could've' managed to find a way to pay both, but that would've meant losing one or more of Mankins, Bodden, etc. They chose to go the best way possible, and I'm fine with that. There's no doubt there would've been a cost involved, but especially with a frontloaded bonus with the uncapped year etc--they technically 'could've' kept both. They just chose not to.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob0729:

When asked if we could keep both Wilfork and Seymour 1 year ago, you had a great plan for not only keeping both, but also adding Peppers. Now 1 yr later, you claim that we'd never have been able to afford 2 of the 3? You are basically flip-flopping to the fullest degree. Keep in mind, this was also under last yr's cap. It would've been a lot easier to frontload a big bonus this year, and still have a 20-10-5-5 plan for when the cap comes back. In other words, if you claimed it could be done last year, why couldn't it have been done this year?

Here is your argument from 3-17-09 on keeping both Wilfork, and Seymour--also adding Julius Peppers:

"Thomas' deal was for $7 million a year. So expecting Peppers' deal to be only $1-1.5 million more of a cap hit in 2009 isn't out of the question.

By converting parts of Brady's and Light's salaries into bonuses the Pats could probably free up about $4-5 million in cap space. Just about enough to fit in Peppers. The Pats still have about $8 million in cap according to Miguel (not sure if he has updated it from yesterday though). They will need about $4 million of it for draft picks. They will probably need to keep about $3 million free for emergencies and bonuses made during the season. They could free up millions by cutting or extending Jarvis Green, extending Faulk, cutting Bruschi (not likely to happen, but not impossible), extending Seymour, converting part of Welker's base salary into a bonus, and/or extending Neal. It isn't impossible or even straining to free up the money if they wanted to.

The story stating that they wanting to get the deal in between next week and the draft tells me if it is true, the Pats are holding off so they can make some cap moves. Again I am saying if the story is true.

Miguel says that if a teams needs to get cap money, they usually can."

A few things:

-Extending Seymour was one option of about five I threw out there as hypotheticals of getting cap space. It would mean he would want to extend. I was always thought it wasn't likely though.
- I made it pretty clear that I thought Peppers could be signed for about half of what he signed for with the Bears. I was wrong about Peppers' value.
- On March 17th of 2009, I didn't know what the value of d-linemen really are and Haynesworth's deal was not nearly the abnormality that everyone thought it was.
- I said people usually can find cap room. Finding cap room with $25 million of guarantees for a player is a different animal.

 

[WesWelker83]

Lets just all hope that Mcnabb ends up elsewhere. I really dont want him in Oakland. Give Russell One More Chance! HAHA! I would love if we could somehow get the number 1 pick. Next yr should be different and we probably wont have to give guys as much money with a rookie salary slot.

 

[supafly]

A few things:

-Extending Seymour was one option of about five I threw out there as hypotheticals of getting cap space. It would mean he would want to extend. I was always thought it wasn't likely though.
- I made it pretty clear that I thought Peppers could be signed for about half of what he signed for with the Bears. I was wrong about Peppers' value.
- On March 17th of 2009, I didn't know what the value of d-linemen really are and Haynesworth's deal was not nearly the abnormality that everyone thought it was.
- I said people usually can find cap room. Finding cap room with $25 million of guarantees for a player is a different animal.

That's where they could've taken advantage of this year, IMO. Yes, I realize there are rules governing the scale etc, but a good chunk could've been paid this year, with 50% less next year, etc. It could've been done, but obviously at a cost. The team thought the cost was too great, and that's why it wasn't done. I trust the team over anything, but the whole discussion was about whether or not it could've been possible. If they were prepared to operate within the perameters of the cap in 05,06 etc with TB, Seymour, Branch's proposal, and Law's proposal (both approx. 6 mill/per) then it's quite relative to the cap of last yr, and the future etc.

The bottom line is that they did not want to possibly sacrifice other players, and the mystery of the un-capped year came into play somewhat. They didn't want to be screwed down the line no matter what. But at some point the talk of adding JP to the mix came about, and that would've been coupled with either VW or Seymour--in other words, they certainly gave it consideration. Whether it was VW and Seymour, or VW and a free agent such as Peppers, they certainly gave it consideration.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Overall, I tend to agree--but I don't think it's necessarily a 'free' pick. It came with a cost of course, the cost of losing the best 3-4 DE in the game. And no, I don't believe Luis Castillo or Aaron Smith are better.

It's another matter of personal opinion, and also what the team thought was best. They did not want to keep both Sey and VW--but it's also interesting that they tried to move Wilfork first.

In the middle of the decade they offered what was the equivelant of big money at the time to both Branch and Law, while both Brady and Seymour were also there. It's a matter of everything being relative. There was a cap then, they were prepared to figure out a way of paying Branch and Law about 6 mill/per, while giving Seymour and TB big contracts too. Last year, there were rampant rumors of obtaining Peppers, who they would've added to either VW or Seymour. They 'could've' managed to find a way to pay both, but that would've meant losing one or more of Mankins, Bodden, etc. They chose to go the best way possible, and I'm fine with that. There's no doubt there would've been a cost involved, but especially with a frontloaded bonus with the uncapped year etc--they technically 'could've' kept both. They just chose not to.

The reason I say it was a FREE pick was the reason that there was no way on earth this team would have signed both Seymour AND Wilfork to long term contracts in the same year and have Brady to do as well by the opening game which I assume will be done....It was NEVER going to happen and BB knew it.

Not to mention that it would be difficult to re-sign Mankins and Gostkowski in 2011 if all that money was paid this year.

 

[supafly]

The reason I say it was a FREE pick was the reason that there was no way on earth this team would have signed both Seymour AND Wilfork to long term contracts in the same year and have Brady to do as well by the opening game which I assume will be done....It was NEVER going to happen and BB knew it.

Not to mention that it would be difficult to re-sign Mankins and Gostkowski in 2011 if all that money was paid this year.

Yeah, what you're saying certainly makes a lot of sense, especially by bringing in the future deals etc. He decided that the cost of keeping both was too great for the team, and decided that the potential cost of losing one or more of Mankins, Bodden, any other variable player was too great.

I expect Brady to be extended by opening day too. I still think the mystery of the CBA had something to do with it. Remember, he didn't contact Al Davis, he wasn't exactly shopping the players around. Al Davis offered him a deal he couldn't refuse.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As for screwing up Wilfork's deal, how exactly did they do that? They did not have the cap room in 2009 to give Wilfork an extension. If they did, he would not have been franchised in the first place. The Pats didn't say to themselves that they were going to wait til the last minute to give an above market deal for Wilfork only to temporarily have some bad blood. The Pats did not have the room to sign him to a deal anywhere close to the one he got. I defy you, Miguel, or anyone with cap knowledge to tell me how they could have made him a top paid d-lineman and fit him under the cap.

In addition, there were additional limits on contracts signed in 2009 specifically to prevent teams from taking unfair advantage of the uncapped year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't know you could make a strong case that Luis Castillio, Shaun Ellis, and Aaron Smith (off the top of my head) have been better DEs in the 3-4 in recent years than Seymour. Seymour had a very good 2008 season, but has struggled in recent years especially because of injuries.

For the most part, I'm done with this whole debate, since it's pretty clear that everyone's entrenched with what they believe. I do have to speak up on this point though, because that's just absurd. None of the three guys that you mentioned are even in Seymour's ballpark. Frankly, you shouldn't bother looking for a comparable, because there isn't one. Nobody else in the league does what Seymour does; he's a unique 3-4 talent, which is why I hated seeing him go.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course it is. Because as you already pointed out, even if the Pats get a Lawrence Taylor or Tom Brady with the pick (you know one of those once in a generation players) and has him around for 10-12 years, it can never make up for the loss of Seymour for the 2009 season.

You can argue all you want that Seymour would definitely be here right now if it wasn't for the trade, but you do not know that. Most of the indications were that the Pats were going to only keep EITHER Wilfork OR Seymour and not both.

Given that I haven't made that argument, why would I start making it now?

Really?!? Who? You backed up Miguel when you were beating up the Pats for not giving Wilfork a contract when he said the Pats haven't given a big contract to anyone since Moss in 2008.

If you're going to try telling me that you don't know who the Patriots gave contracts and extensions to from the end of 2008 through the beginning of this year's free agency, I'm simply going to refer you to Google, Patriots.com, the local papers and the like. You've got to be kidding me with this.

Actually, if you are looking at 2006-2008, you right it isn't close. I would take Ellis and Castillio. Seymour rebounded in 2008, but was average in 2006 and 2007. Even when he rebounded last year, he wasn't the 2003-2005 Seymour.

Wow.


Just, wow.

That is B.S. Of course it is Seymour vs. the player taken with the pick. If you look at it the way you want to look at it, the Vikings got the better of the Cowboys when they traded all those draft picks for Hershall Walker. The Cowboys traded Walker who was their best player at the time for a bunch of unknown draft picks and scrub players.

The fact of the matter is the Pats traded Seymour on the gamble that they will get as good or possibly better player in 2011 that will be the cornerstone of their offense or defense for a decade. If you want to look at 2009, then you gotta look at that player.

Seymour was traded for a draft pick. He was not traded for a player, cash, or frequent flier miles. The return on the trade is a pick, somewhere from #1-#32, in 2011. It's not in a player. The player gotten is irrelevant. The deal doesn't get better or worse depending upon who's gotten with the pick. The deal will be the same whether they draft the next tom Brady or the next Ryan Leaf.

If you want to look purely on value. The Pats traded a very good player who has declined in recent years in the last year of his deal who is pushing 30 for what could be a top five pick. Based on pure value alone, the Pats stole on the deal. You want to cheat and mix value with production on the Seymour end. What the Pats did in 2009 is irrelevant in a pure value deal.

The irony of you calling my post cheating is very amusing, so thank you for that. However, given the players you assert to be better than Seymour, you'll have to forgive me for not buying into this complete load of crap. It was a lousy deal for the Patriots.

Seymour does come off the field a lot on third downs. Typically is an overstatement and I apologize.

Not a problem.

I think we are in agreement that the reason why Brady had inconsistencies and the Pats didn't have a WR3 was clearly the loss of Seymour. You look at many of the Patriots' losses (the first Jets game, the Denver game, etc.) and the offense is probably more to blame for the losses than the defense (sometimes a lot more).

The Vikings were a complete team without a QB. They had a great defense, good o-line, and great RB. Favre was the missing piece. And let's not forget he was a QB, not a DE.

Let's get real here. This is a bogus comparison. The QB position is the most important position

And the Patriots defense was missing a run stuffing DE and inside pass rushing. Hey, what was it that Seymour provided to the team? Oh, yeah.... run stuffing from the DE position and an inside pass rush.

I have said repeatedly that the Burgess trade ended up being a bad trade. I have said the Pats screwed up by not signing Samuel before his value got out of proportion. I said Belichick screwed up letting Branch shop his wears since he did not take into effect that a team like the Jets would screw with the Pats and force a trade. I was against both the Moss and Dillon trades at the time they made them. I felt the Pats were stupid to resign Dillon. Sorry, you confuse me with someone else. Belichick has made plenty of mistakes over his career here. He has been far more successful than not though.

By no means am I confusing you with someone else. Prior to this past year, you were generally a level headed, objective poster. This season, you decided to go the way of MoLewisRocks and far too many others, who suddenly couldn't handle even the most obvious criticisms of Belichick. You may not have gone down the path as far as some others have, but you've traveled it quite a ways. We've gotten into this before, though, and I'm not going to revisit it.

I don't believe that Seymour was going to be back this year. So I like the trade. I knew at the time it could hurt in 2009 and still liked the trade.

Yeah, you've been reliably wrong on the issue. Congratulations.

 

[troybrown80]

There is a rumor that a team has offered Oakland a second round pick this year and a first round pick next year for Oakland's first round pick this year (8th overall). I wonder who that team might be? Let see the Patriots own Oakland's pick next year and have a couple extra 2's available.

Look it up in the San Francisco Chronicle (3/30/2010)