Patriots trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders!!!

[DaBruinz]

Yes I understand those things, I simply don't agree with you but there is no way to prove it so there was no need to reply about it. In fact, debating about football is extremely hard because there are little stats to help with anything because so few players are on even playing grounds with others, and a lot of stats are team based.

There is no way to really prove Peppers would be a great in a 3-4, just like there is no way to disprove it. It was my opinion he'd be great, and it is your opinion he wouldn't.

If you understand those things, then you aren't showing it. In fact, you've shown, repeatedly, that you don't understand them..

Also, Peppers is 6'7 and 275 lbs or so. That is in the Willie McGinest range. Willie excelled as a 3-4 OLB, not a 3-4 DE. In fact, Willie was on record as saying that moving off the line saved his back and added to his career.

The Pats 3-4 DEs are in the 6'4-6'6 range and the 295-315 range with the exlusion of Jarvis Green who is 6'3 and 280 or so. Peppers game is getting around big OTs. Its NOT engaging them and 300 lbs guards at the same time and attempting to tie them both up.

You've got nothing to support the idea that Peppers would be a good 3-4 DE and there are reams of history that support the idea of him moving to 3-4 OLB. Including guys like Vrabel, McGinest, and Colvin.

BTW, nice attempt to back-track and just say "in the 3-4" when you'd said that Peppers would be a great DE in the 3-4.

 

[patchick]

With regard to 2010, Seymour could have been transitioned or franchised. If that were done, we would either have had Seymour's services for 2010 or a draft pick from another team that wanted his services. The 2010 team would have been better off in either case.

...unless franchising Seymour meant they had to give up Logan Mankins, which is pretty likely. Then you'd be saying that whatever draft pick they could get in trade for a franchised Seymour would be better for the 2010 season than Mankins.

Clearly, losing Seymour is a blow for this season. That's hard to stomach with a championship-caliber roster. But I don't see it as a loss beyond 2009.

 

[mgteich]

I don't expect to franchise Mankins. After all, he'll be an RFA.

But you are correct, the loss in 2010 is very specualtive. However, the alternative is to believe that if Seymour stayed, the team would not have franchised him or trnasitioned him, and would have little or no chance of getting value for him.

I would also note that the "great value" in 2011 is the equivalent of a 2010 #2 less the value of a 2010 #4. This is just moving back the 2011 values to 2010.

...unless franchising Seymour meant they had to give up Logan Mankins, which is pretty likely. Then you'd be saying that whatever draft pick they could get in trade for a franchised Seymour would be better for the 2010 season than Mankins.

Clearly, losing Seymour is a blow for this season. That's hard to stomach with a championship-caliber roster. But I don't see it as a loss beyond 2009.

 

[DaBruinz]

Look, we only deal is probabilities and likelihoods. If you believe that the 2009 patriots are better off without Seymour, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

MG - there are more than just 2 stances on this. Acting like there isn't is pretty silly.

The fact is that, neither of us know whether or not the Patriots will be better off without Seymour. Clearly, BB felt that the PROS of trading Seymour outweighed the CONS of trading him. That's the reality we have to accept.

With regard to 2010, Seymour could have been transitioned or franchised. If that were done, we would either have had Seymour's services for 2010 or a draft pick from another team that wanted his services. The 2010 team would have been better off in either case.

The likelihood of Seymour being franchised or transitioned, though there, is very slim and probably closer to none. For many reasons. Including the fact that both Mankins and Wilfork are both free agents as well. Also, we as fans, do not know whether or not Seymour had a clause in his contract stating whether or not he could be franchised.

One thing is clear is that you've forgotten the mess that Seymour created the last time he was in contract discussions with the Patriots. As fans, we only saw the tip of the iceberg, imho. And that was bad enough.

Franchising or Transitioning Seymour would have been a horrible move for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, Seymour made it clear what his contract demands were going to be. So, slapping the tag on him and having him disgruntled in the locker-room would not have made the team better. It would have made it worse. As for trading him, your assuming that the Patriots would be able to find a team that would be willing to part with a 2010 1st round pick for a 30 year old oft-hurt (not oft injured) 3-4 DE/4-3 DT who is seeking a 7 year deal in the 100 million range. How many players have been tagged and traded in the last few years?? Cassel? Who else?

Also, while Seymour has been the best, 30 is when D-linemen start to break down. And how long before Seymour goes from Oft-hurt to Oft injured?

BTW, why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that there was much more of a chance of Seymour walking than of Seymour re-signing with the Patriots. And if he walked, AT BEST, the Pats would get a 3rd round comp pick for him

Also, you are ignoring the potential of Seymour's skills waning and the progression of the youngsters that the Pats have to replace him..

Its only your guessing that says that the Pats are worse off now. Me? I don't know whether they are worse or not. What I do know is that they went from having, at worst, a 3rd round comp pick in 2011 to having a 1st round, potentially top 15 pick. Which, in the long run, is better for them.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

I woke up to the news and was thinking who was next?

Seymour will be missed for sure, but, Belichick did what was best for the team IMO.

4-3 will be more seen I would have to assume.

 

[DaBruinz]

franchise and play or franchise and trade
Either way, we would have had value in 2010.

No. I have to disagree here. If the Pats franchised Seymour, he'd be looking at a guaranteed 11-11.5 million salary for 1 year. Seymour is looking to cash in by getting a deal similar to Haynesworth, a deal closer to 14.25 a year. Could the Pats pay it? Sure, but is he worth it? Only BB knows.

Also, what's the likelihood the Pats would have gotten anything in 2010 other than 2011 draft picks?? My guess is that they wouldn't have gotten better than a pick that is potentially a top 15 or a top 10 pick.. How does that help them in 2010??? It doesn't. In fact, it hurts them in 2010.

Not to mention the stink that Seymour would create if he got franchised. Seymour is about the money. He's made that clear. And I don't think the Pats wanted to deal with the ramifications from a lengthy and potentially bitter battle between them and Seymour.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Also, while Seymour has been the best, 30 is when D-linemen start to break down. And how long before Seymour goes from Oft-hurt to Oft injured?

That is a good point. While people who call Seymour oft-injured are wrong, he is oft-hurt. So are Wilfork and Warren, so I'd venture a guess and say that that's just the nature of playing on the 3-4, 2 gap line, where you absorb a ton of contact. For the last several years, Wilfork, Warren, and Seymour have all played through a gauntlet of pretty significant injuries, which have clearly slowed them at times. At some point, does that all add up and turn them into significantly diminished players?

It's certainly not unreasonable to speculate that it might. It'll be interesting to see these guys age, because it's entirely possible that the kind of demands that Belichick's defense places on their bodies age them pretty quickly.

 

[BradyFTW!]

BTW, why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that there was much more of a chance of Seymour walking than of Seymour re-signing with the Patriots. And if he walked, AT BEST, the Pats would get a 3rd round comp pick for him

I think it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that this would have been Seymour's last season with the Patriots. after his "it takes two to tango" comments, it seemed pretty evident that the sides were far apart and not likely to come much closer.

So basically, the Pats sacrificed Seymour's services in 2009 to move the pick that they received for him from end of 3rd round (let's not kid ourselves, it would have been a third) to, in all likelihood, the higher end of the first round.

In the long term view, it's probably worth it, but it has a very real chance at costing us a SB in 2009. If we fall just a little short, because we couldn't stop the run quite well enough, or because our pass rush wasn't quite good enough, then we'll have to wonder if, like Branch in 2006, the 'right' move cost us a SB. And even in Branch's case the team's hands were basically tied, since he pretty much forced them to trade him.

 

[slash83]

What if Seymour decides not to sign an extension with oakland? He will be a free agent next year unless oak franchises him and we still get the 2011 pick how funny would that be...

 

[Ochmed Jones]

If we don't franchise Mankins and we can no longer franchise Seymour, does that mean we franchise Wilfork?

With 20 impending free agents, and an unsettled labor situation with a potential lockout,BB has set us up for flexibility, but did he do it at the expense of a 2010 lombardi trophy?

 

[Satchboogie3]

I think everyone here should just remember that if an Owner/GM/Coach really had the "all or nothing, must with the SB this year" type of mentality, it would be a train wreck in a matter of years. NOTHING guarantees a championship, no matter how good you think you're team is on paper. If you get the chance to make your team significantly better in the long run at the cost of making the team a little weaker at the present, you have to take it. You have to be thinking long term, there is just too much luck involved in each individual season.

 

[mgteich]

I expect that we will franchise Wilfork or Gostkowki (whichever can't be signed).

If we don't franchise Mankins and we can no longer franchise Seymour, does that mean we franchise Wilfork?

With 20 impending free agents, and an unsettled labor situation with a potential lockout,BB has set us up for flexibility, but did he do it at the expense of a 2010 lombardi trophy?

 

[Ochmed Jones]

BB said there is a freeze on mega huge deals.

Would 2 or 3 million a year for a kicker be considered a mega huge deal?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If we don't franchise Mankins and we can no longer franchise Seymour, does that mean we franchise Wilfork?

With 20 impending free agents, and an unsettled labor situation with a potential lockout,BB has set us up for flexibility, but did he do it at the expense of a 2010 lombardi trophy?

If I understand things correctly, the Pats are banking (in a literal sense) on 2010 being uncapped, in which case Mankins isn't a UFA but an RFA. Ditto for Gostkowski.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Interesting take on Gots!

So does everybody agree BB has set himself up to franchise Wilfork?

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm not sure why anybody would think that we would go ahead and pick up Peppers. We dumped Seymour to the Raiders in an effort to free up his cap hit so we can sign guys like Brady, Wilfork, and Mankins to longer term deals (especially Wilfork and Brady). Why would we dump Seymour's salary just to add Peppers' equally humungous salary?

 

[Patjew]

I'm depressed. I'm not saying the Pats can't win it in 2009 now, but this lessens their chances by quite a bit IMO.

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm depressed. I'm not saying the Pats can't win it in 2009 now, but this lessens their chances by quite a bit IMO.

FWIW, I'm right there with you. However, after mulling over the Seymour trade all day, I remembered that I felt the same way about our defense prior to the 2003 season when we dumped Lawyer Milloy. Look how that turned out.

If we transition to more of a full time 4-3 (which appears to be the case), his loss is lessened.

 

[Patjew]

FWIW, I'm right there with you. However, after mulling over the Seymour trade all day, I remembered that I felt the same way about our defense prior to the 2003 season when we dumped Lawyer Milloy. Look how that turned out.

If we transition to more of a full time 4-3 (which appears to be the case), his loss is lessened.

I guess I'd feel better if Lawyer was half the player that Seymour is. I think Milloy was a team leader (sometimes positive, sometimes negative), and that his being cut did affect the team emotionally. But the guy didn't do squat in 2002 and after the shock wore off I don't think there was much impact on the field, especially with Rodney stepping in.

Seymour, on the other hand, is a HOF'er who had an awesome season last year and should have several more in front of him, AND there is no heir-apparent DE to step in for this season.

I was pissed at the WR situation in 2006 because we have only a finite number of years with Brady. I feel the same now, except 3 more of those years have passed so actually I feel alot worse.

Sorry for the negativity. This is certainly the most negative thing I've ever posted, but I just feel like crap today.

 

[mgteich]

The situations are not really similar. We had Harrison to replace Milloy. And just BTW, cutting Milloy in the week before the beginning of the season was probably the riskiest thing that Belichick has done. He could ahve cut him weeks earlier. We lost the first game 41-0. Key players were vocal and furious (including Bruschi). The T-E-A-M was never the same. The relationship between the players and the staff has never been the same. The franchise, the business, was successful and won the Super Bowl. I submit that this was one of the worst days in the history of the franchise. However, the franchise did recover and never looked back.

This time, there seems to be no real plan, just a cold calculated judgement that the equivalent of a 2009 3rd round draft choice is worth less than the services of Seymour. This is similar to the choice to start the preseason that we'd rather have someone like Ninkovich on the team than Vrabel.

FWIW, I'm right there with you. However, after mulling over the Seymour trade all day, I remembered that I felt the same way about our defense prior to the 2003 season when we dumped Lawyer Milloy. Look how that turned out.

If we transition to more of a full time 4-3 (which appears to be the case), his loss is lessened.