Oakland pundit assess "the trade"

[Box_O_Rocks]

In general, however, we can surmise the Raiders would have been better off with the 17th pick in this draft than Seymour's contributions over the past two years — subject to revision should a) the Raiders mount a playoff run this season on the strength of stout defense, or b) Seymour mentor and leave behind a championship legacy in the likes of Tommy Kelly, Lamarr Houston, Trevor Scott and Matt Shaughnessy.

Not likely, it says here. Quote-unquote.

 

[patfanken]

It was a no brainer for the Pats. Seymour was, at best only going to play the 2008 season for the Pats before walking. I don't see the Bradyless Pats doing better than 11 wins WITH Seymour that year, and while the draft pick will be 7-10 picks lower than we hoped and expected; it STILL will likely add a player who will spend at least a half a decade playing for us, or be used as capital to get even a better player .

People who constant want to comment on how having Seymour the last two seasons might have made a difference, especially in the playoffs are forgetting that HE WAS NEVER going to be a Patriot past the 2008 season REGARDLESS.

As to his impact on the Raiders. He had a very UNFORGETTABLE season in 2009, followed by an EXCELLENT 2010. He is now paid a TON of money at the end of his effective playing date. He could still have a few year where he can be an effective player, but his time as an elite players is probably close to the end.

 

[Sciz]

After making him the highest paid defender in the NFL, that trade looks pretty bad for Oakland. Had they waited a year and Seymour reached free agency, there's a good chance they're the only team offering anywhere near $15M a year.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I'll reserve judgment until we see what next weekend brings.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I'll reserve judgment until we see what next weekend brings.

I agree but I might even wait two more years after that.

 

[ZoisKing]

I think it was a bad trade for Oakland. That team has been forever in flux, and the only way to recreate their team is through the draft. They've been picking some decent guys recently, but they don't have the need to trade away a top pick for a guy who won't have a long lasting effect on the franchise.

And to pay him that silly contract is shocking, when picking up pieces elsewhere at better rates would have made for a better team.

Oakland is a disaster of a franchise, and the worst part is that it seeped out and hit the Pats a little with such a low pick. It's the Raiders! It should have been top ten

 

[Belichick's Midget Army]

We robbed them. But they have built a very good defensive line themselves and their defense improved a lot.

 

[reflexblue]

Up until this point neither team has made out. We could have used Seymour on defense, but his presance in Oaklnad hasn't helped them much. Next week will probably change that.

 

[sbpatfan]

We robbed them. But they have built a very good defensive line themselves and their defense improved a lot.

Really? They were a terrible run defense last year and that's pretty much the first priority of the defensive line.

 

[stinkypete]

People who constant want to comment on how having Seymour the last two seasons might have made a difference, especially in the playoffs are forgetting that HE WAS NEVER going to be a Patriot past the 2008 season REGARDLESS.

Seymour was part of the Brady-less 2008 team. He was going to walk after 2009.

Still, point taken.

 

[NewFeep]

I'm reserving judgement for now.... If the Pats take a Quinn, Watt, fill in your favorite DE beatoid on roids, I'll like the trade a whole lot more....

 

[patchick]

It's pretty clear that signing Seymour + Brady + Wilfork wasn't a possibility, so ending up with Brady + Wilfork + #17 - one year of Seymour was probably the best case scenario.

That said, the fact that it was a bad move for Oakland doesn't automatically make it a good move for New England. It's perfectly possible for a trade to be "lose-lose."

 

[Ochmed Jones]

It's pretty clear that signing Seymour + Brady + Wilfork wasn't a possibility, so ending up with Brady + Wilfork + #17 - one year of Seymour was probably the best case scenario.

That said, the fact that it was a bad move for Oakland doesn't automatically make it a good move for New England. It's perfectly possible for a trade to be "lose-lose."

Seen lots of lose lose trades, like when we traded the #1 pick to Dallas for a bunch of bad picks and horrible players. Fortunately Dallas took DT Maryland and spared us from further humiliation.

However let's see how the draft unfolds before passing judgement on the Seymour trade.

 

[patfanken]

Seymour was part of the Brady-less 2008 team. He was going to walk after 2009.

Still, point taken.

You are right, SP, he wouldve been part of the 2009 team had he not been traded, and although he had a sup par year for Oakland that season, I think a lot of that had to do with being suddenly uprooted just prior to the start of the season. He definitely would have helped us that season, but the 09 Pats were even more flawed than last year's squad.

He REALLY would have helped us LAST season, but that was never going to happen instead we get the 17th pick in the draft. A player that SHOULD be an effective player for the next 5 years...at least, over a player who would have be one and done

 

[Off The Grid]

Good Trades sometimes Lose, and Bad Trades sometimes Win.

But that doesn't change the fact of their being either good or bad.

Even if Stan Papi had hit 500 Homers for us and won 12 Gold Gloves at ShortStop, trading Bill Lee for him would still have been horribly stupid.

Likewise, whether Richard Seymour leads the Raiders to the Super Bowl while #17 goes Ryan Leaf on us, or goes belly up with his new fat contract, while #17 goes to 10 Pro Bowls and helps us win 5 more Super Bowls ~ whether a Trade proves to be a Win or a Loss ~ can never possibly change whether or not it was a good trade in the first place.

 

[Off The Grid]

For my money, it was a Bad Trade.

1 ~ It ripped a gaping hole in our Defense that remains to this very day...An hole that I believe cost us a Super Bowl Championship, last year.

2 ~ It was unnecessary. Had we traded Randy Moss a mere 13 months earlier, there would've been plenty of Cap room for Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, and Vince Wilfork.

 

[patfanken]

For my money, it was a Bad Trade.

1 ~ It ripped a gaping hole in our Defense that remains to this very day...An hole that I believe cost us a Super Bowl Championship, last year.

2 ~ It was unnecessary. Had we traded Randy Moss a mere 13 months earlier, there would've been plenty of Cap room for Richard Seymour, Logan Mankins, and Vince Wilfork.

Earth to OTG -

1. HE WASN'T going to sign a contract with the Pats for 2010. He had made it very clear that he DIDN'T want to stay in NE beyond 2009 There was NO way that would have been here to play on last year's team. So your first comment has no validity.

2. IIRC Randy's was for around 10MM last season. Please explain how THAT 10MM was going to cover both the increases in Wilfolk's AND Mankins demands. Oh, BiTW, how does Brady's deal get done if we met the demands of Wilfolk, Mankins, AND Seymour. That's 4 players and roughly $50+MM in salary Yeah, that makes good cap sense.