Patriots trading Richard Seymour to the Raiders!!!

[DaBruinz]

Everyone loves the dynasty and all that Bill has built.

Are you really saying that the firing of one of the most respected players in the history of the patriots one week before the season was a positive? Did making it clear that Belichick didn't care what anyone thought was a positive? Do you remember Bruschi's comments?

Why don't you enlighten everyone as to what Bruschi's comments were..

Belichick could have done what he has done many times since. He could have cut Milloy a month or more before the season started.

No he couldn't have. This is the problem with revisionist history. And yes, you are making a poor attempt to revise what happened. What you so conveniently FAIL to remember is that the Patriots had a rash of injuries in camp and had to put several players on the IR coming out of camp. That put them OVER the Salary Cap by nearly 2 million. Because they had already re-worked the contracts of other veterans (Johnson, McGinest, etc), the only two remaining players whose contracts could free up enough money AND give the Patriots some breathing space for future injuries were Milloy and Law. Law had refused to re-negotiate. Milloy and the Pats had been negotiating but hit a stone wall. The Pats were out of options.

So to re-write it and claim that BB somehow did Milloy wrong is to be dishonest with EVERYONE.

Please believe that the Milloy firing is remembered by every patriot at the time and every patriot since. It is part of the character of Bill Belichick. There is the good, the bad and the ugly in the best coach in the history of the NFL.

While there may be good/bad/ugly with BB, the Milloy situation isn't nearly as bad as you'd have everyone believe. In fact, you have taken sensationalization and revisionist history to a new level with it. Which is not usually your style.

 

[Frezo]

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.

Don't you worry PJ. This defense will be just fine. Wilfy has been an absolute beast in the 4-3 during pre-season. He's the anchor. He will collapse the pocket from the center and now that there are speedy edge rushers, this D is going to rock. I'm super pumped to see this new look. Remember this. The Pats have an outstanding offense. It can cover the D while it gels. By mid season they will have it together and you're gonna love this stuff. The only place I question is pass coverage in the slot and TE. The loss of Sey won't effect this much either way. I'm really hoping BB addresses this with one more pickup.

The Pats did what they had to do. From a structural standpoint of the franchise, it makes sense. Now have a drink and relax. This will be fun.

 

[DaBruinz]

I wasn't going to justify your arrogant comments with a reply, but I think I realized where I remembered your name from. You were the incredibly annoying, know-it-all poster on the ESPN forums a while ago.

Not only are you completely wrong about my football knowledge, but you're twisting my words, and playing them up for drama, something a 14 year old girl would do.

Are you a 14 year old girl? I'll be absolutely surprised if you answer no to that... really.

My comments are arrogant because I call you out for your spewings and use FACT to show how clueless you are? That is the typical response of someone who basically got caught making claims they new weren't true. They always deflect away from the truth.

Listen, you've shown yourself to be nothing but completely ignorant. I've not twisted your words in any way, shape, or form. Not only that, others have said exactly the same thing about you as I have.

The only one creating "drama" here is you. With your utter nonsense and your claims about how much you supposedly know, yet your posts show how little you do.

The only one here with an issue is yourself. You are the one making the absurd claims about Peppers "being great as a 3-4DE" and then backtracking to say "he'd be great in the 3-4". BradyFTW took you to school on that one. You are the one who claimed that Seymour never met expectations but failed to state what those expectations would be.

People like you find me "annoying" because you hate being taken to task for your idiotic spoutings. Sorry that you don't like facts getting in the way of your ignorant ramblings.

BTW, I left ESPN because of the number of clueless people like yourself who came in on a daily basis spewing things and beating their chest like they had a clue. People like YOU ruined ESPN.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

wow, there's hostility in this thread too. lol.

Although this trade is good for the future, i admit, im worried about this years D. ILB depth? Secondary? I need more kool-aid

 

[SladeRider]

This trade has come as abit of a shock to myself. I didn't see it coming and don't lean either way to weather it's a good or bad trade.

The Good
Get a 1st round pick in 2011 but who knows, Oakland could surprise us all and make the playoffs that year and this good because bad.

Get something out of Seymour because many believe he won't be back next season anyway.

The Bad
Losing one of the best DE in the game, esspecially in the 3-4 defense.

Does put doubts in weather the Pats are going all out this year or not because with Seymour, they were undoubtedly going for it, now he's gone, some may have that doubt, esspecially sports writers.

If this does mean the Pats are switching to a 4-3, does this now mean Burgess is moving to DE instead of OLB? Because he's the only one on the team that could replace Seymour at DE in a 4-3.

 

[DocE]

I've given this trade a lot of thought over the course of the day, analyzed the positives and the negatives, and came to my own conclusion.

I don't like the trade.

I think Coach Belichick got very good value for Richard Seymour especially when you consider that Seymour is in his final year of his deal and 2011 rookie salaries may be more reasonable.

Even when you factor in the doubts "The Raiders COULD be good next year" "The pick could bust" "Picks a year away typically are worth one round lower in trading scales "(i.e. this pick theoretically could be viewed as having the same value as a 2010 2nd rounder), I still like the deal from a value standpoint.

What I don't like is giving up a player who appeared to be an important piece of a team expected to contend for the title. This team has a window to win titles NOW, and one of those years was already taken away from it by the Brady injury. If Seymour becomes the difference between winning the Super Bowl this year or not , 4 first round picks would not make up for that. I know that you could never quantify how much of an impact a player would have on a season with any certainty, but my point is that future picks are only worth so much. I see value in looking to the future, but you still will have only so many seasons where you are looked at as one of the 5 favorites for the title. This was one of those year. I think it still is, but we decreased our chances somewhat in order to acquire a 2011 first round pick.

Obviously, there is plenty of potential inside information that could make me change my opinion. Here are some other theories I had based on theoretical inside info:

- BB could have decided that Seymour didn't fit in to their 3rd down packages and knew that would really upset him in his contract year (best chance to rush the passer)

- BB could have decided that Seymour's value lies in being a 3-4 end and that he's miscast (at this point in his career) as a 4-3 end or 4-3 tackle.

- Maybe Seymour really wasn't with the "plan" and with Bruschi, Vrabel, and Harrison no longer on the team their was no defender who could "keep him in line"

- This is the one I really hope is not true, but I don't think it can entirely be dismissed. Maybe BB believes he simply does not have the horses on defense right now and its time to rebuild. He saw an opportunity to trade a player he was not going to re-sign, and who was not going to make this defense any better than last year (I know statistically they weren't that bad...except for 3rd down and in the red zone).

 

[ausbacker]

I've given this trade a lot of thought over the course of the day, analyzed the positives and the negatives, and came to my own conclusion.

I don't like the trade.

I think Coach Belichick got very good value for Richard Seymour especially when you consider that Seymour is in his final year of his deal and 2011 rookie salaries may be more reasonable.

Even when you factor in the doubts "The Raiders COULD be good next year" "The pick could bust" "Picks a year away typically are worth one round lower in trading scales "(i.e. this pick theoretically could be viewed as having the same value as a 2010 2nd rounder), I still like the deal from a value standpoint.

What I don't like is giving up a player who appeared to be an important piece of a team expected to contend for the title. This team has a window to win titles NOW, and one of those years was already taken away from it by the Brady injury. If Seymour becomes the difference between winning the Super Bowl this year or not , 4 first round picks would not make up for that. I know that you could never quantify how much of an impact a player would have on a season with any certainty, but my point is that future picks are only worth so much. I see value in looking to the future, but you still will have only so many seasons where you are looked at as one of the 5 favorites for the title. This was one of those year. I think it still is, but we decreased our chances somewhat in order to acquire a 2011 first round pick.

Obviously, there is plenty of potential inside information that could make me change my opinion. Here are some other theories I had based on theoretical inside info:

- BB could have decided that Seymour didn't fit in to their 3rd down packages and knew that would really upset him in his contract year (best chance to rush the passer)

- BB could have decided that Seymour's value lies in being a 3-4 end and that he's miscast (at this point in his career) as a 4-3 end or 4-3 tackle.

- Maybe Seymour really wasn't with the "plan" and with Bruschi, Vrabel, and Harrison no longer on the team their was no defender who could "keep him in line"

- This is the one I really hope is not true, but I don't think it can entirely be dismissed. Maybe BB believes he simply does not have the horses on defense right now and its time to rebuild. He saw an opportunity to trade a player he was not going to re-sign, and who was not going to make this defense any better than last year (I know statistically they weren't that bad...except for 3rd down and in the red zone).

You don't like the trade, yet you personally set out all the reasons as to why this trade could be a belter for the Patriots?

Interesting thought process.

 

[Pats726]

No he couldn't have. This is the problem with revisionist history. And yes, you are making a poor attempt to revise what happened. What you so conveniently FAIL to remember is that the Patriots had a rash of injuries in camp and had to put several players on the IR coming out of camp. That put them OVER the Salary Cap by nearly 2 million. Because they had already re-worked the contracts of other veterans (Johnson, McGinest, etc), the only two remaining players whose contracts could free up enough money AND give the Patriots some breathing space for future injuries were Milloy and Law. Law had refused to re-negotiate. Milloy and the Pats had been negotiating but hit a stone wall. The Pats were out of options.
So to re-write it and claim that BB somehow did Milloy wrong is to be dishonest with EVERYONE.

I read that and you are correct..that was quite a revisionist history..you got it right..or more right than anything else.
I don't think the back story has even been scratched on this..so everyone's talking about it and yet..I really believe that the tip of the iceberg is just so small that the rest of the story is not out in any way. I think it was quite clear that Seymour getting anything close to cap friendly wasn't happening..we don't know at all what real talks happened on this front...what Seymour wanted..what the team was willing to do..How the talks started with the Raiders about this..There is much speculated on that is just that possibilities.
And what it really biols down to is a choice between having Seymour play this year and getting the 3rd rounder OR a trade now and getting a first...franchise tags etc,..who knows what the impact of doing any of those were. How that might go impair the team from signing others..how it would hurt the team morale..those are all in question...other factors..BUT Bottom line..that was the choice...trade or get very little in the end.
Many complain now about the trade..but I wonder if these would be the same that would be railing at the team if Seymour walked?? "They didn't get anything".."They let him walk!"
Take your pick of which scenario is better??
Also add in a lot about how this D has changed..from a deep seated 3-4 to what seems like a 4-3 base...How well would he fit into that?? There's a plan..a scheme no doubt and I don't know whether even now all the pieces are in place.
I think it's pretty pathetic that so many are now slamming BB for making the move. Calling him a genius in one breath..and when it goes against what they think..they are yapping away again. It happened when Milloy was cut and it has happened a FEW other times. It all doesn't always go like it should..nothing is guaranteed ..but MORE times it is the right shrewd move..and yet people seem to forget. I call them as I see them...front runners..bandwagon jumpers..fair weather fans..
Some have claimed there is no plan..same people that didn't see a plan the day after Milloy was cut..There's NO plan!! Sorry..but it's pathetic...

 

[Miguel]

That put them OVER the Salary Cap by nearly 2 million.

This is simply not true.

After the Milloy release the Pats were so much under the cap that after all of the in-season injury replacements that they were able to do the phony LTBE move with Brandon Gorin for around $3 million. For the Pats to be over the cap by nearly 2 million Milloy's 2003 salary had to be close to $6 million and it was not.

 

[lapatsfan]

An excellent move for the Pats!! More importantly, it appears to signal that BB plans on being here past the 2011 season.

 

[Miguel]

Law had refused to re-negotiate.

Proof, please.

Why would Law refused to convert most of his salary into a signing bonus?? That type of restructure is a no-brainer for players.

 

[shakadave]

2. I never thought Sey would re-sign. His attitude to money was obvious and frequently reinforced. He also was more pointed in his criticism of BB than almost any other player we've had, specifically after the time Ratgini outcoached the Pats, and also about the experiment w/ him at FB. Still little things -- but he obviously didn't buy into the Patriot persona the way a lot of other players have.

1. I don't think Seymour would've re-signed either. I'm pretty sure the money he would want would've been more than he was worth and more than the Pats would give.
2. Seymour showed the world how to do an "admirable" holdout, with no venom in the media. But he did hold out. Wilfork didn't.
3. Seymour is so rarely healthy that he ensures that roster spot is undependable.
4. I can't explain why, but I've never felt an emotional bond to Seymour the way I have to Rodney, Vince, Milloy, etc. Seymour's holdout is definitely part of it.
5. OK, I admit it, I'm excited that my Wilfork jersey might not go obsolete so fast now.
6. Let me be the first to officially say on this forum: Thank you in advance, JeMarcus Russell!

 

[Miguel]

2003 Season

USATODAY.com

I am providing the above link to support my position.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Which means it's about the benjamins. Do you think this trade ever happens if BB thought he could resign RS to a cap friendly deal after his contract expires?

Or put it this way. Do you think BB takes a flyer (even a high one) over a proven impact player like Sey if he could make the money fit. I say no way. It's ALWAYS about the benjamins.

As proof of this, remember that the Patriots were willing to give Asante the franchise salary for 2007, and just take the third-rounder in 2009 rather than trade him away for a presumably higher pick in 2008. [It's also possible that there weren't any takers, of course. . . .]

 

[shmessy]

Actually, Bledsoe to Buffalo made that team much better, and the Bills went from 3 wins to 8 wins. It was the follow up that killed that team. Bad coaching and bad drafting are a terrible combination.

From Tom Donohoe's Wiki:

"He was also known for a general failure to address offensive line concerns during his tenure (although this can partially be attributed to his quarterback choices-- the aforementioned Johnson, the immobile Drew Bledsoe, and rookie J.P. Losman).

Prior to the 2006 NFL season, Donahoe was fired."

"Bad drafting" happens more frequently when you have no first rounder to draft.

At least Bledsoe gave them an 8-8 year - - they'll always have that to lean on on.

 

[Miguel]

What you so conveniently FAIL to remember is that the Patriots had a rash of injuries in camp and had to put several players on the IR coming out of camp.

Names, please.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Everyone loves the dynasty and all that Bill has built.

Are you really saying that the firing of one of the most respected players in the history of the patriots one week before the season was a positive? Did making it clear that Belichick didn't care what anyone thought was a positive? Do you remember Bruschi's comments?

Belichick could have done what he has done many times since. He could have cut Milloy a month or more before the season started.

Please believe that the Milloy firing is remembered by every patriot at the time and every patriot since. It is part of the character of Bill Belichick. There is the good, the bad and the ugly in the best coach in the history of the NFL.

BB was giving Milloy every opportunity to become accountable again because he couldn't believe his football soul-mate had lost his heart. Milloy later admitted that he was immature at the time. He rested on his single ring laurels and expected to collect the same paycheck they reserve for achievers in this meritocracy. On top of that he was becoming a club house lawyer admonishing the youngsters (including the second year player Seymour) to get your props and your money. In hindsight, two rings later, the players on this team who get it got it. Including Brady who on many occasions since has lauded this FO for their financial discipline. And Bruschi, who didn't look like a guy who harbored any ill will towards his HC last week, did he.

Interestingly Dimitroff cut him in Atlanta this season for many of the same reasons.

BB will give consideration to the guy who maxes out in effort even as his skills erode. Those guys get cut or traded early. Not the guy who has let Bill and his entire team down because he was selfish and immature. That guy goes last. Unfortunately the damage is often already done. Lawyer's legacy of selfishness lives on through Seymour, Branch, and Samuel.

 

[DaBruinz]

Proof, please.

Why would Law refused to convert most of his salary into a signing bonus?? That type of restructure is a no-brainer for players.

Miguel, there were at least 3 news articles that came out at the time that said that Law had refused to negotiate because he didn't want to take a "pay cut."

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Proof, please.

Why would Law refused to convert most of his salary into a signing bonus?? That type of restructure is a no-brainer for players.

Not for nothing but it also can tend to make the end of your contract unreachable, which Ty's already was approaching. We know he did turn down an extension and restructure after after the 2003 season. Then he got hurt early in 2004. But because of ego he actually asked for his early release at the end of the season, and Bill granted it because until the day he was hurt he had always delivered on the field and pretty much minded his own business off it. Oddly the deal BB offered turned out to be for what was ultimately his market value... And Bill's door remained open for Law to return for three years, although ultimately that ego again would not ever allow for a full reunion to happen.

 

[shmessy]

Originally Posted by mgteich
Everyone loves the dynasty and all that Bill has built.

Are you really saying that the firing of one of the most respected players in the history of the patriots one week before the season was a positive? Did making it clear that Belichick didn't care what anyone thought was a positive? Do you remember Bruschi's comments?........Please believe that the Milloy firing is remembered by every patriot at the time and every patriot since. It is part of the character of Bill Belichick. There is the good, the bad and the ugly in the best coach in the history of the NFL."
______________________________________

17-2.

Ended the season with 15 consecutive wins.

Super Bowl 38 Championship

Please, gimme more 'non-positive' moves like that.

Umm.....who cares how he players reacted in the immediate aftermath? Sure, i remember Bruschi's comments back then. I also remember a very emotional Brady radio interview from his Charletown apartment that day (Ty Law was in the background on a couch).

All those guys did was cry and moan for the next two years, winning 21 straight games and two SB's.

They'll survive the heartache.