Lombardi: Seymour's not looking for a contract, he's just pissed.

[DaBruinz]

How do you know that BB didn't have a chance to compete for his job when he returned from injury? The competition would have been done in practices under the watchful eyes of BB and Weis.

Not according to Drew. Drew said Bill lied and never gave him the chance that he was promised.

I know what Drew "SAID". But that doesn't mean it was reality. When Jeremy Mincey said he was surprised he was cut and that he'd have given more if he'd known he wasn't going to have a full year to learn the system, I immediately thought of Drew. Drew thought BB owed him something. Owed him special treatment. I

BTW, what loyalty was Bledsoe showing when he was still feeding Ron Borges information on the team? What loyalty was Bledsoe showing when he continued to true and backstab BB by going directly to Kraft with complaints?????

I never mentioned anything about loyalty. You must have me confused with Deus.

Nope.. Didn't have you confused.. But wanted it out there. I figured you could answer it as well as Deus..

The move was a salary cap move because the Patriots were over the salary cap due to the 4 players they had to put on the IR and the players on the PUP. There were only 2 players whose contracts were large enough to be reworked and free up the cap space they needed. Law and Milloy. And they'd been in negotiations with Milloy for months trying to get a deal done. Not only that, there was rumors of tampering by the Bills and Jets in terms of letting Milloy know what sort of contract he'd get on the open market.

Regardless of the reason for the move the fact remains that the lockerroom was very uncomfortable with the way it was handled.

The reasons put the entire thing in context. If the players refuse to acknowledge it, that is their own problem.. And maybe that is part of the problem.. They get complacent. Take things for granted. And then are stunned when something unexpected happens.

Are you friggin serious? God, you don't even know what rule was broken. The rule that was broken was NOT taping defensive signals. It was taping IN GENERAL from the sidelines. And it was proven that the Jets were doing the exact same thing in the game that the Patriots were "CAUGHT" in by the people on this board. Hell, it came out that the Jets had been caught the previous year taping from the sidelines and the league did NOTHING about it.

Yes the rule was taping from the sidelines. I believe that's what I posted. If not I'm sorry for not being thorough enough in the original post. Whatever the rule broken doesn;t change the fact that the motive for breaking it was arrogance on Belichicks part. He thoguht he was above reproach because he interpreted the rule as having some wiggle room in the way it was worded. The fact that the Rat was arrogant enough to do it too (and then turn BB in for doing the same thing) doesn't surprise me. After all, he learned at the feet of the master.

No, the rule was taping from a non-NFL approved area. Also, how the hell do you know that the reason for the rule being broken was arrogance? I think you don't know what you are talking about. The league was saying one thing and doing another. It was saying DON'T do something, but allowing it to continue anyways. So, why would anyone thing that it would change? And please don't get me started on the memo. Because it was proven that ESPN got the date of the memo wrong by a full year.

As to the idea that there was "irreparable harm to the organization's image," that's bogus also.

Then why do I still hear about my team being cheaters and needing asterisks applied to all of their accomplishments?

Because you're dealing with fans who lack comprehension and understanding of the situation. Because there are haters who think that their teams haven't cheated on anything, yet we're hearing more on the Roids, HGH and other illegal substances come out pretty regularly.

I still hear idiot Oakland Fans complain about the Snow Bowl. It shows how much they don't understand the game and how they don't realize about Karma..

So what. I shrug it off. The league already said the video tapes did not provide any additional help in the games they were taped in. And that would have been the only rule, other than taping from an non-NFL assigned booth that the Pats would have broken.

The fact is that Goodell over-reacted and did not make the punishment fit the crime.

BTW, how was this a loyalty issue?

Never said it was.

Yet you were replying about loyalty items???

This was a salary cap move to ensure that Vrabel got his roster bonus and got paid his entire salary for this year. Vrabel had a very bad year last year and he was going to be in stiff competition to make this team. Plus, I am fairly certain that BB and Pees were looking at using the 4-3 more even back then.

This way, BB ensured that Vrabel would get his roster bonus and get his full salary for this year.

Ah so BB was doing Vrabes a favor? I see. Too bad Vrabel didn't see it that way. I wonder why?

Most players, after spending x amount of time in a place, don't look at the reasonings behind a move. They just react emotionally. BTW, all the stuff I read said that the reports about Vrabel being unhappy were just rumors. I'll bet that Vrabel understood it more than people gave him credit for.

Sorry, but Seymour was already running his mouth saying how he was gone next year. Both Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork have mentioned it that Seymour was talking about it at the team facilities. That's a disruption to the team that they don't like to have. Steve Martin, back in 2002, didn't even last a full season because of the way he was running his mouth in the lockerroom. So why should it be a surprise to Seymour that, when he was running his mouth and becoming distraction, that he was traded. BTW, You do know that the Raiders approached the Patriots, not the other way around, right?

Well if Sey was expecting it and telling everyone it was imminent why such shock and chagrin when it actually goes down. You'd have think he'd have his bags packed and be living in a hotel instead of settling in and buying a new house and thinking he was close to an extension with the Pats that would have let him retire here.

So, its the Pats fault that Seymour's agent misled Seymour??? Clearly the Pats thought otherwise...

I'm sure that BB has earned some of the criticism, but, realistically, the Patriots and BB have shown a lot more loyalty than they are being given credit for.

Yes he has earned it. That's all I was saying. And realistically, if this string is any indication, BB gets more than his share of credit not to mention benefit of doubt.My reply in bold italic above.

That's just it.. You're saying he's earned all the IRE he draws and I'm saying that isn't the case. In fact, I'd be willing to be that BB shows a lot more loyalty to players than we ever hear about. We don't hear about it because BB doesn't feel that its our business. And its not.

 

[Deus Irae]

You said, and I quote:


So, how is it NOT the claim you made? Those are YOUR words.

I am not ASSERTING that you said anything other than what YOU posted. You are the person who is now backpedaling and trying to CYA because myself and several others proved that your statement was bogus. And we used multiple examples to show how your statement was bogus.

What I also find funny is that I reeled off no fewer than 6 or 7 right off the top of my head. Other people have reeled off more examples. Yet you keep claiming that there are more examples of the Patriots "showing most players no loyalty at all." Nor do you provide more than a smattering to support you.


All you have shown in this thread is that you have an extremely interesting idea of what the word loyalty means and it goes far beyond the definition and most of the synonyms of the word.

I'm sorry that reading comprehension seems to be a struggle for you in this thread. I'm sorry you don't understand that you can bench a player for just the start of a game and not the whole game.

My points still stand. Have yourself a lovely evening.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No matter how many great examples of loyalty Da Bruinz, or Robert Weathers, or others point out, you just keep saying "I disagree", with zero explanation. When you show us some examples of Patriots' disloyalty, let us know. Sometimes it's better to say "oh wow, I didn't think of that, great points, I was wrong", and move on.

What? And not show any loyalty to the point he was making?

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm sorry that reading comprehension seems to be a struggle for you in this thread. I'm sorry you don't understand that you can bench a player for just the start of a game and not the whole game.

My points still stand. Have yourself a lovely evening.

Deus - My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. You just have issues actually typing what you mean. As has been shown in this thread. And I'm not the only one who has called you out on it.

You're point doesn't stand. It fell flat on its face. And, having played sports, if you're benched, you don't play. Period.

Benching a player is a disciplinary action. If you get benched during a game, you typically sit down at the end with your mouth shut. If you get benched before or after a game, you typically don't dress and don't come out to the bench area.

Seymour wasn't benched. And nothing about what happened was a loyalty issue. Contrary to your myopic believe.

 

[slash83]

If Seymour just flat out does not show up to the Raiders does that mean he's back with the Patriots, how does this exactly work?

 

[lurker1965]

Never mind only being pissed about being traded to the Raiders. He just moved into a new mcmansion and his kids started school yesterday. I'd be pissed too.

He and his wife need to make some pretty big decisions very quickly. I'd assume he'll have to leave the family behind and is just using every one of the five days to take care of business at home.

Excuse me while I get Verklempt* for the millionaire.

I know he could never afford a hotel in Oakland for 4 whole months. Unlike, say, a service man transferred to Greenland who get paid millions and it is only a weekend not years.

Besides, Oakland is far worse than Greenland.

*Did I spell "Verklempt" right?

 

[Mountain_Commando]

Hey Deus,

Lurker here . I've read a lot your posts in the past, and found you to be intelligent and knowledgable most of the time. In this case however, I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but you're really coming accross as a jerk.

Please note, not trying to call you names, just saying that you seem to be coming accross like that since you are skirting around the main issue. Your claim was that the Patriots show "most players absolutely no loyalty at all.". In response, many members have presented multiple examples of how the Patriots HAVE and still DO show plenty of loyalty. You have not only NOT refuted any of those examples, but have failed to provide any examples to back your claim that Patriots are disloyal (please note, your Seymore benching and trade to Oakland examples have been shown to be flawed). Even worse, you reply with one-liner copouts that do not clarify your position at all.

Just thought I'd let you know in case you didn't realize how you're posts here are appearing.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You're confusing paying money, often below what would be earned on the open market, with loyalty. They are not the same thing.

I have no problem with the team offering less money than other teams. I do have a problem with people bashing the players when they go elsewhere as a result, especially when you're talking about a team that's as famous for jettisoning its players as any team in the league.

Really? Bill Belichick is bashing his former players? Please, refresh my memory. Then again, perhaps you meant Robert Kraft or Scott Pioli.

Actually, Bill Belichick seems to be about the last person in the world to say anything (publicly) against a player.

Then again, maybe you weren't talking about the loyalty of the Patriots in the above comment; perhaps you meant the loyalty of the fans.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I know what Drew "SAID". But that doesn't mean it was reality. When Jeremy Mincey said he was surprised he was cut and that he'd have given more if he'd known he wasn't going to have a full year to learn the system, I immediately thought of Drew. Drew thought BB owed him something. Owed him special treatment. I




Most players, after spending x amount of time in a place, don't look at the reasonings behind a move. They just react emotionally. BTW, all the stuff I read said that the reports about Vrabel being unhappy were just rumors. I'll bet that Vrabel understood it more than people gave him credit for.



That's just it.. You're saying he's earned all the IRE he draws and I'm saying that isn't the case. In fact, I'd be willing to be that BB shows a lot more loyalty to players than we ever hear about. We don't hear about it because BB doesn't feel that its our business. And its not.

DB I would love to continue this debate with you. In fact, I even started writing a reply. Then I realized I had spent almost an hour and a half posting today and I just don't have it in me to carry on right now. So I am going to concede all of the above to you at this time. I'm sure one thing we both can agree on is that with BB at the helm it won't be long before we will be able to resume this discussion in earnest with some other player soon enough.

btw... I think you probably win a lot of debates through sheer attrition. LOL!

 

[italia44]

If Seymour just flat out does not show up to the Raiders does that mean he's back with the Patriots, how does this exactly work?

No,he cannot return to the patriots.He can report or retire.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus - My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. You just have issues actually typing what you mean. As has been shown in this thread. And I'm not the only one who has called you out on it.

You're point doesn't stand. It fell flat on its face. And, having played sports, if you're benched, you don't play. Period.

Benching a player is a disciplinary action. If you get benched during a game, you typically sit down at the end with your mouth shut. If you get benched before or after a game, you typically don't dress and don't come out to the bench area.

Seymour wasn't benched. And nothing about what happened was a loyalty issue. Contrary to your myopic believe.

When Seymour didn't return in time for a Friday practice, Belichick benched the Pro Bowl defensive lineman for the start of the next Sunday's game.

Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new - NFL - ESPN

that led Belichick to bench him for much of the first quarter Sunday.

THIS CALL DESERVES REVIEW BELICHICK-SEYMOUR: WHY THE HARD LINE? F - The Boston Globe | Encyclopedia.com

When defensive lineman Richard Seymour lost his grandfather to cancer in 2003 and missed a practice to attend the funeral and mourn with family, Belichick benched him during the next game.

Cassel trade reveals Belichick's soft side? Um, he doesn't have one - CBSSports.com

Belichick benched Seymour for the first quarter of that game, which according to reports greatly angered him. Seymour did eventually get a new contract in 2005, putting any thoughts of misgivings towards Belichick to rest.

Oakland Raids Patriots For Seymour

etc.....

17. Sports. to remove from a game or keep from participating in a game: to be benched because of poor hitting.

# Sports To keep out of or remove from a game: benched the goalie for fighting.

Bench Definition | Definition of Bench at Dictionary.com

bench - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Belichick benched Seymour. Again, have a nice evening. Take up any issues with those authors and the creators of the English language.

 

[lurker1965]

The Patriots demand absolute loyalty and return the favor by showing most players absolutely no loyalty at all.

Why wouldn't players look to get the money at some point?

Bruschi got a Verklempt Belichick - or was last week too long ago for you memory?

Troy Brown was brought back when it was clear he lost a step. (I won't claim the Bank North thing was set up by the team, but a regular team sponsor possibly went to their contacts at the Patriots first.)

Did Bruschi or Brown ever hold out? Maybe they got loyalty back for being loyal.

Maybe if Seymour was loyal he'd get loyalty back. "Esteemed" people like you seem to think all players are loyal by default.

Here's news for you. They get paid to play.

But why let facts get in your way, Mr. Borges.

 

[DaBruinz]

Belichick's brand of coaching is nothing new - NFL - ESPN

THIS CALL DESERVES REVIEW BELICHICK-SEYMOUR: WHY THE HARD LINE? F - The Boston Globe | Encyclopedia.com

Cassel trade reveals Belichick's soft side? Um, he doesn't have one - CBSSports.com

Oakland Raids Patriots For Seymour

etc.....

So, you're point is that because a bunch of mediots mis-use a word that it some how makes their definition, and yours, correct?

Bench Definition | Definition of Bench at Dictionary.com

bench - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Belichick benched Seymour. Again, have a nice evening. Take up any issues with those authors and the creators of the English language.

I have no issues with them. The issue is with you not understanding and claiming that its always the other person.

As I said, when a player gets benched, he's done for the game. You don't sit down and then go back in. Its a disciplinary action.

You don't start off benched, and get put in. It doesn't work like that.

All you've shown is that Seymour felt he should be treated differently. That has nothing to do with loyalty.

So, anytime you want to actually correct your assumptions, let us all know. I'm sure we'll be waiting with baited breath.. NOT.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have no issues with them. The issue is with you not understanding and claiming that its always the other person.

As I said, when a player gets benched, he's done for the game. You don't sit down and then go back in. Its a disciplinary action.

You don't start off benched, and get put in. It doesn't work like that.

All you've shown is that Seymour felt he should be treated differently. That has nothing to do with loyalty.

So, anytime you want to actually correct your assumptions, let us all know. I'm sure we'll be waiting with baited breath.. NOT.

I understand the term full well. You're just wrong.

 

[BSR]

Seymour is benched every game, especially when the offense is on the field.

 

[Bostonian1962]

No, now you're confusing the my point out the Patriots with my point about the fans.

O.K., cool. I thought that might be what you were saying. I agree with you. The players have to look out for themselves. That kind of emphasizes my pointed question DI, whe I ask: Why do you support the players when they look out for themselves over the team, but call the Patriots disloyal for looking out for the team, over an individual?

It's a legit question, because if you sit back and think about it, that is exactly what is going on here.

Appreciate your points of view, by the way, even though we don't agree. Also appreciate you keeping it civil. Thanks.

 

[Deus Irae]

O.K., cool. I thought that might be what you were saying. I agree with you. The players have to look out for themselves. That kind of emphasizes my pointed question DI, whe I ask: Why do you support the players when they look out for themselves over the team, but call the Patriots disloyal for looking out for the team, over an individual?

It's a legit question, because if you sit back and think about it, that is exactly what is going on here.

Appreciate your points of view, by the way, even though we don't agree. Also appreciate you keeping it civil. Thanks.

Ok, but first let me point to earlier posts....

As I noted in post #103:

I have no problem with the team offering less money than other teams. I do have a problem with people bashing the players when they go elsewhere as a result, especially when you're talking about a team that's as famous for jettisoning its players as any team in the league.

And in post #68:

I didn't even say that the Patriots were wrong to do what they do

Post #42:

I understand that loyalty is in limited supply when it comes to professional sports. "It's a business" has become the only mantra that seems to matter.

I understand that teams and players are approaching things from different points on the compass. I understand that only some of the goals each group has will be identical. I don't begrudge either side, as a general rule. It's just a fact of life at that level of sports, and sports is not the only part of life that's become that way. I look at each case separately. Seymour reportedly wants big money. The team reportedly doesn't want to pay him that money. I have no issue with either party on those points. I simply thought that blaming the situation on Seymour's desire for the money was a ridiculous way to assign 'blame', and defended Seymour's looking to get the money.

 

[Zeus]

I have no idea whether the Patriots are "loyal" or not. But unless loyalty wins football games, it's irrelevant.

The NFL is a cutthroat business. Players ger hired and fired every day. The salary cap leaves no room for sentimentality.

If you want loyalty, get a dog.

I also think the "Belchick is arrogant" argument is idiotic. Milloy was cut because he underperformed relative to his contract. Brady was a better player than Bledsoe. Both were unpopular decisions. Both were absolutely correct. How is that "arrogant?"

Trading a 30 year old player with one year on his contract and one of the worst agents in the business for a future #1 pick is not arrogant, it's a no brainer.

Belichick tries to not let emotions get in the way. His decision making process is disciplined and objective. He is not afraid to make the tough call. This does not mean that he doesn't make mistakes; clearly he does.

No question that the hard nosed approach can be tough on people, but it comes with the territory. Belichick does whatever he thinks will make his team better. You can decide for yourself whether that makes him arrogant or a good football coach.

 

[bagwell368]

I don't get this. Why did he purchase the big home? He knew he and his family were out of here THIS school year no matter what. There is no basis for him to be pissed about having to move his family. That was going to happen one way or another.

Because he is passive-agressive. Ever notice then when he gets his way he is quiet and does his job, but when he thinks he's been screwed (franchise tag, salary negotiations, insults, and moody behavior) is what you get.

Clearly was a great player, can still be at times. At this point I can't say how glad I am he is gone - if he is gone.

 

[mayoclinic]

I have no idea whether the Patriots are "loyal" or not. But unless loyalty wins football games, it's irrelevant.

The NFL is a cutthroat business. Players ger hired and fired every day. The salary cap leaves no room for sentimentality.

If you want loyalty, get a dog.

I also think the "Belchick is arrogant" argument is idiotic. Milloy was cut because he underperformed relative to his contract. Brady was a better player than Bledsoe. Both were unpopular decisions. Both were absolutely correct. How is that "arrogant?"

Trading a 30 year old player with one year on his contract and one of the worst agents in the business for a future #1 pick is not arrogant, it's a no brainer.

Belichick tries to not let emotions get in the way. His decision making process is disciplined and objective. He is not afraid to make the tough call. This does not mean that he doesn't make mistakes; clearly he does.

No question that the hard nosed approach can be tough on people, but it comes with the territory. Belichick does whatever he thinks will make his team better. You can decide for yourself whether that makes him arrogant or a good football coach.

:youtheman::youtheman: Thank you for bringing some sanity to the discussion.