Lombardi on Seymour trade

[BradyFTW!]

would the loss of sey this year materially affect the DL play, materially impair the chance for a SB run? Some people prefer the conservative approach; Bill is a risk taker/gambler. If they end up winning a SB this year without Sey, I say brillant trade. If weak DL play costs them in playoff, I say terrible trade.

Well... yeah, that's kind of a given. In hindsight, it's always pretty easy to evaluate things.

Other than that, though, I do agree with what you're saying, although to be fair to the Pats I'm not sure that extending Sey would have been an option either way. I think it was pretty much a sure thing that he was gone after 2009, which makes this whole thing skew, long-term, in favor of the trade. I'm with you, though, on the cost to the 2009 team. IMO, when you have a Tom Brady, you do everything you can to surround him with the best talent possible during his prime, and this trade accomplishes the opposite of that. It trades premium talent during Brady's prime for more years of talent that may or may not be top-tier, but will be there after his prime.

 

[Deus Irae]

One last thing, since this is a Lombardi on Seymour thread and I've been getting assailed by people who apparently think that they can read Belichick's mind and see the future. Perhaps those people should be careful about their claims. Perhaps they could read the article in question first.....

For this move to work, Seymour has to play at a high level, and the Raiders must re-sign him. Giving up a one for a player for potentially only one year is not a good move, even in the eyes of diehard Raiders fans. At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.

Diner news: Acquiring Seymour risky move for Raiders - NFL - CBSSports.com Football

According to Lombardi, Belichick was so focused on getting that #1 in 2011 because of the CBA that it was the Raiders moving the pick out of next year's draft.

Well, I'm sure it was really what BB wanted all the time, and he pulled a "These aren't the droids you're looking for" maneuver on Davis & Co.

Keep on chugging! Accurate information is not important when we can just worship at the altar!

 

[BradyFTW!]

One last thing, since this is a Lombardi on Seymour thread and I've been getting assailed by people who apparently think that they can read Belichick's mind and see the future. Perhaps those people should be careful about their claims. Perhaps they could read the article in question first.....



Diner news: Acquiring Seymour risky move for Raiders - NFL - CBSSports.com Football

According to Lombardi, Belichick was so focused on getting that #1 in 2011 because of the CBA that it was the Raiders moving the pick out of next year's draft.

Well, I'm sure it was really what BB wanted all the time, and he pulled a "These aren't the droids you're looking for" maneuver on Davis & Co.

Keep on chugging! Accurate information is not important when we can just worship at the altar!

Last night, when the Raiders PA guy was saying that the Raiders wanted to trade a #1 in 2010, but the Pats preferred for it to be in 2011, the whole 'he must be planning for a rookie payscale' point got a lot of traction. The part that you bolded jumped out at me this morning for that reason- if true, it pretty much counters that entire premise.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last night, when the Raiders PA guy was saying that the Raiders wanted to trade a #1 in 2010, but the Pats preferred for it to be in 2011, the whole 'he must be planning for a rookie payscale' point got a lot of traction. The part that you bolded jumped out at me this morning for that reason- if true, it pretty much counters that entire premise.

Exactly.... and we don't know what's correct. That doesn't seem to matter here, for some reason.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I think it is important to question deals made by the organization, but it sure is hard to argue their tremendous track record, especially when it comes to letting go big names (Milloy, Bledsoe, Law, Graham, and now Vrabel and Seymour.) Looking at this coldly, I'd have to say that the best player we've let go is Asante Samuel (taking into account injuries and where they stand at this point in their careers.) But I just can't imagine why so many of us would doubt that the Pats have ripped off Oakland in a major way with this deal.

Speculation will always happen because we actually know so little about what BB is actually thinking. He may be extremely high on Pryor and Brace. We also know Sey took some heat for 2007 play. We also know that in 2001, Sey was looked at as a complete dog. Just ask Borges.

You could also argue that BB is throwing the next few years to restock. However, what's up with stocking picks next year? We also stocked up this year.

 

[patchick]

Exactly.... and we don't know what's correct. That doesn't seem to matter here, for some reason.

FWIW, I believe it was later clarified that the Raiders announcer was just speculating, not claiming to report inside info.

 

[Deus Irae]

FWIW, I believe it was later clarified that the Raiders announcer was just speculating, not claiming to report inside info.

I just get a kick out of a mod apparently ignoring the Lombardi tidbit saying that it was the Patriots wanting a #2 in 2010 and the Raiders who moved it out to 2011, and I'm supposed to be the one receiving "Best regards from the Planet Earth" according to him.

 

[shmessy]

I just get a kick out of a mod apparently ignoring the Lombardi tidbit saying that it was the Patriots wanting a #2 in 2010 and the Raiders who moved it out to 2011, and I'm supposed to be the one receiving "Best regards from the Planet Earth" according to him.

1)The Patriots already have THREE #2's in 2010.

+

2) A #1 in two years is widely seen as the equivalent of a #2 in the following year.

=

3) A good possibility that BB was having trouble stiffling a laugh when Al "The Genius" Davis made the decision to change the #2 2010 pick to a #1 in (what may be) a lower slotted cap rookie draft in 2011. Very possible that BB didn't think even Al Davis would do that. Tommy Kelly, Warren Sapp, Randy Moss, how many brilliant moves has that guy made in the past 5 years?

BTW, didn't you write "We're done here" a few minutes ago?

 

[Deus Irae]

BTW, didn't you write "We're done here" a few minutes ago?

Yes. Are you posting under the names BradyFTW! and Patchick now? If not, I wasn't posting to you. If so, you might want to re-think that strategy.

Now, you have yourself the very best of days.

 

[shmessy]

I just get a kick out of a mod apparently ignoring the Lombardi tidbit saying that it was the Patriots wanting a #2 in 2010 and the Raiders who moved it out to 2011, and I'm supposed to be the one receiving "Best regards from the Planet Earth" according to him.

How'd you ignore these two consecutive Lombardi PARAGRAPHS?:
____________________
"I know Raiders fans will try to put a positive spin on this move, but what can it be? Seymour doesn't have a contract after this season, so he has to be franchised. Why else pay a future one? Is Seymour's talent level worthy of a first-round pick? Yes and no. Yes, there are times he can be a dominating player, but more often than not, he's not active. This trade makes it clear that knowing when to move an older player early is something former 49ers coach Bill Walsh mastered and passed on to Bill Belichick.

I love this move for New England since it gets a pick that might be very high in 2011, and that rookie class might have some form of wage scale depending on upcoming collective bargaining talks. That pick, as one high-level NFL executive told me Sunday, might be the replacement for Tom Brady down the line. Now New England will focus its efforts on re-signing Vince Wilfork, who is an essential player in their defensive front. With sixth-round pick Myron Pyror playing well (even getting calls from other teams checking his availability) and second-round pick Ron Brace also playing well, the Patriots seem set on their defensive line. I'm sure they'll make a few more calls to Kevin Carter to see if he's finally willing to come out of retirement. "
___________________

Way to find a needle in a haystack with your "tidbit". The two paragraphs above are the haystack that you ignore.

But keep up the Contrarian schtick. It's actually very healthy for the forum.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

1)The Patriots already have THREE #2's in 2010.

+

2) A #1 in two years is widely seen as the equivalent of a #2 in the following year.

=

3) A good possibility that BB was having trouble stiffling a laugh when Al "The Genius" Davis made the decision to change the #2 2010 pick to a #1 in (what may be) a lower slotted cap rookie draft in 2011. Very possible that BB didn't think even Al Davis would do that. Tommy Kelly, Warren Sapp, Randy Moss, how many brilliant moves has that guy made in the past 5 years?

BTW, didn't you write "We're done here" a few minutes ago?

One point that's interesting about the Raiders pre-season is how they were getting ragged for their run defense. If Pryor was getting interest, perhaps Mensa Al called in desperation and never realized Sey would be considered expendable.

With 3 second rounders next year, you would think a genius would realize another second round pick means the player is expendable.

 

[shmessy]

One point that's interesting about the Raiders pre-season is how they were getting ragged for their run defense. If Pryor was getting interest, perhaps Mensa Al called in desperation and never realized Sey would be considered expendable.

With 3 second rounders next year, you would think a genius would realize another second round pick means the player is expendable.

Exactly.

I'm fearing the NFL will somehow step in and void this trade based on Al Davis being deemed senile.

 

[Rob0729]

Lombardi was just on 98.5 and he said the same thing about Pryor. He thinks he may end up being special. When Adam Jones asked him how big of a loss is Seymour. He replied, "Which Richard Seymour?" He said that Seymour when motivated was a force, but he had trouble being motivated a lot of a time.

He also thinks Kevin Carter will join this team in the next week and that he still has a lot in the tank as a situational player with about 20-25 plays a game.

 

[BradyFTW!]

How'd you ignore these two consecutive Lombardi PARAGRAPHS?:
____________________
"I know Raiders fans will try to put a positive spin on this move, but what can it be? Seymour doesn't have a contract after this season, so he has to be franchised. Why else pay a future one? Is Seymour's talent level worthy of a first-round pick? Yes and no. Yes, there are times he can be a dominating player, but more often than not, he's not active. This trade makes it clear that knowing when to move an older player early is something former 49ers coach Bill Walsh mastered and passed on to Bill Belichick.

I love this move for New England since it gets a pick that might be very high in 2011, and that rookie class might have some form of wage scale depending on upcoming collective bargaining talks. That pick, as one high-level NFL executive told me Sunday, might be the replacement for Tom Brady down the line. Now New England will focus its efforts on re-signing Vince Wilfork, who is an essential player in their defensive front. With sixth-round pick Myron Pyror playing well (even getting calls from other teams checking his availability) and second-round pick Ron Brace also playing well, the Patriots seem set on their defensive line. I'm sure they'll make a few more calls to Kevin Carter to see if he's finally willing to come out of retirement. "
___________________

Way to find a needle in a haystack with your "tidbit". The two paragraphs above are the haystack that you ignore.

But keep up the Contrarian schtick. It's actually very healthy for the forum.

the 'haystack' is Lombardi's personal opinion, which is worth something, but not a whole hell of a lot. What we're interested in is the actual way that the deal went down. So out of the haystack, the following points are of interest to me:

"With sixth-round pick Myron Pyror playing well (even getting calls from other teams checking his availability)" <very interesting to know that he's caught some teams' eyes. I would like to know what teams, but this is interesting nonetheless.

"That pick, as one high-level NFL executive told me Sunday, might be the replacement for Tom Brady down the line. " < Sort of interesting, but since it's just second-degree speculation, not really.

The rest is just one more guy's opinion; it's an interesting opinion, and one from someone who used to be a league insider, but I'm more interested in the facts. And FWIW, Lombardi used to work for the Raiders, which is why I'm slightly more inclined to believe that he might actually know how the trade unfolded.

The 'needle' that Deus pointed out is a very important point, because we've been discussing this in terms of "why did Belichick want a 2011 1st instead of a 2010 first" when in reality that is looking like it might be an in incorrect premise from the get-go. If so, that's worth mentioning.

 

[shmessy]

Lombardi was just on 98.5 and he said the same thing about Pryor. He thinks he may end up being special. When Adam Jones asked him how big of a loss is Seymour. He replied, "Which Richard Seymour?" He said that Seymour when motivated was a force, but he had trouble being motivated a lot of a time.

He also thinks Kevin Carter will join this team in the next week and that he still has a lot in the tank as a situational player with about 20-25 plays a game.

The other beauty of this deal is the 4-3 versus 3-4 issue.

In the early part of the decade, the Pats went 3-4 while most D's in the league were drifting towards 4-3. This freed up the market for the Patriots for a better choice of 2-gap DL's. Now the Pats are going against the grain again towards 4-3 while many others are drifting towards 3-4 - - thus being in good market position to pick up more 4-3 type linemen.

 

[shmessy]

the 'haystack' is Lombardi's personal opinion, which is worth something, but not a whole hell of a lot. What we're interested in is the actual way that the deal went down. So out of the haystack, the following points are of interest to me:

"With sixth-round pick Myron Pyror playing well (even getting calls from other teams checking his availability)" <very interesting to know that he's caught some teams' eyes. I would like to know what teams, but this is interesting nonetheless.

"That pick, as one high-level NFL executive told me Sunday, might be the replacement for Tom Brady down the line. " < Sort of interesting, but since it's just second-degree speculation, not really.

The rest is just one more guy's opinion; it's an interesting opinion, and one from someone who used to be a league insider, but I'm more interested in the facts. And FWIW, Lombardi used to work for the Raiders, which is why I'm slightly more inclined to believe that he might actually know how the trade unfolded.

The 'needle' that Deus pointed out is a very important point, because we've been discussing this in terms of "why did Belichick want a 2011 1st instead of a 2010 first" when in reality that is looking like it might be an in incorrect premise from the get-go. If so, that's worth mentioning.

Could you tell me where in Lombardi's article it is ever mentioned that the Raiders were offering a #1 in 2010??

 

[BradyFTW!]

The other beauty of this deal is the 4-3 versus 3-4 issue.

In the early part of the decade, the Pats went 3-4 while most D's in the league were drifting towards 4-3. This freed up the market for the Patriots for a better choice of 2-gap DL's. Now the Pats are going against the grain again towards 4-3 while many others are drifting towards 3-4 - - thus being in good market position to pick up more 4-3 type linemen.

If we're moving to a 4-3, this, IMO, is the main reason. Nowadays, it takes the #3 draft pick to get a Ty Jackson in the draft, and probably Albert Haynesworth money to keep a Richard Seymour. If that's the kind of resources that you have to tie up to get the talent that BB feels is necessary to run a 3-4, then the rest of your roster is going to suffer, and Belichick might feel that it's more efficient to go back to a 4-3 and use those resources elsewhere.

 

[Rob0729]

The other beauty of this deal is the 4-3 versus 3-4 issue.

In the early part of the decade, the Pats went 3-4 while most D's in the league were drifting towards 4-3. This freed up the market for the Patriots for a better choice of 2-gap DL's. Now the Pats are going against the grain again towards 4-3 while many others are drifting towards 3-4 - - thus being in good market position to pick up more 4-3 type linemen.

Lombardi did say that he doesn't think the Pats will move to a 4-3 per sea. He thinks the Pats are not going to be a 3-4 or 4-3 specific defense, but a "scheme specific" defense. He thinks more than ever they Pats are going to change their defense based on the opponent.

 

[groganbootleg]

You however, are far more consistent and dependable as a contrarian on this forum.
It doesn't even matter what the subject is.
I would respect this if you give us actual FACTS to back your arguments up.

truer words were never spoken

 

[italia44]

The other beauty of this deal is the 4-3 versus 3-4 issue.

In the early part of the decade, the Pats went 3-4 while most D's in the league were drifting towards 4-3. This freed up the market for the Patriots for a better choice of 2-gap DL's. Now the Pats are going against the grain again towards 4-3 while many others are drifting towards 3-4 - - thus being in good market position to pick up more 4-3 type linemen.

absolutely.I think there are now more than 10 teams running the 3-4.As you must have a top-tier NT to run the 3-4.The absolute for a 4-3 is a intelligent and mobile middle linebacker(Mayo).

Also,BB,to me,seems to model his defense system towards teams he has lost to.In this case,it's the Giants.Not Coughlin,but Spagnolo's defensive schemes.

Lastly,I always remembered a quote from Belichick:
"It's not sacks,sacks are overrated....it's QB pressure".
That's why,in a 4-3 set Jarvis Green has more value,than Seymour.