Pats vs. Raiders Preseason

[BradyFTW!]

Yes.

Was Richard Seymour the difference between the Patriots winning the Super Bowl and losing badly in the playoffs. I don't think so. There were far too many holes in the team.

Would Richard Seymour be the difference in the Patriots winning, or not making, the Super Bowl. I'm inclined to say no, even in the light of Warren's injury. Compare the 2001 -2004 defenses with the 2005 - 2008 defenses. The years the Patriots had dominant linebackers and defensive backs, they won Super Bowls. The years they had dominant defensive linemen but flawed back 7's, they came ooh so close but couldn't finish.

I think, as exciting as the luxury of the Warren/Wilfork/Seymour group was, it was maybe too much invested in one aspect of the defense. I did not see much dropoff in the defense's overall play in 2009 compared to 2008. We're ok with Wilfork and some JAGs if the linebackers and defensive backs perform. If the linebackers and defensive backs don't perform, it doesn't matter who is on that line.

And the value is undeniable. Even if Oakland picks around #15 (I don't see them that high, but #10-#12 sounds about right), that is sensational value for a player who's best years a 5 years behind him. He's still rock solid, but no difference maker.

I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dry as you say. The Ravens game got out of hand because Ray Rice was able to gash us running the ball. If Seymour's in there, does that early run go for a TD? Probably not. From there, who knows what happens.

It's easy to say "he wouldn't have been the difference", but the reality is that there's a real chance that he might have been. We'll never know, and that's fine, but the Pats' weaknesses weren't any more glaring than those of the '09 Colts, '08 Cardinals, or '07 Giants. Not to mention that losing Ty Warren would sting a lot less if we had Seymour under the franchise tag.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dry as you say. The Ravens game got out of hand because Ray Rice was able to gash us running the ball. If Seymour's in there, does that early run go for a TD? Probably not. From there, who knows what happens.

It's easy to say "he wouldn't have been the difference", but the reality is that there's a real chance that he might have been. We'll never know, and that's fine, but the Pats' weaknesses weren't any more glaring than those of the '09 Colts, '08 Cardinals, or '07 Giants. Not to mention that losing Ty Warren would sting a lot less if we had Seymour under the franchise tag.

If Seymour's in there on that early Ray Rice TD run - it's still a TD. Jarvis Green did his job, Ty Warren did his job, Gary Guyton did his job, Vince Wilfork in his first action back from injury showed his rust by getting blown out of the hole, and Jarod Mayo was slow to come to the LOS and was met by his blocker far enough back to leave Rice a lane after sailing though Vince's gap. It is what it is.

The deal is done folks, I'll be scouting draft eligible players for next April and hopefully enjoying the efforts of my team en route to the first Vince of the new decade - warm up the ducks.

 

[ausbacker]

Some of you really need to stop sulking over the Seymour trade. It's beyond pathetic now.

 

[patman52]

Co-sign this.

If the Raiders end up with the 15th pick in the draft, will the Seymour trade have been worth it?

I've been against the trade from the onset, but I would be even more perturbed by it if we fail to get a blue-chipper. The reasoning behind the trade was a) we would get a top prospect b) we would do so with a rookie wage-scale in place. I'm not sure either is going to happen. And even worse, there may not be football next year.

There is no doubt Seymour would - now more than ever - make a massive difference on this team. To me, I'd feel very confident about our SB chances if we had a 3-down DE of Pro Bowl caliber lined up next to Big Vince. I still think this Patriot team as a whole is vastly underrated going into the season and like its chances, but there is no doubt these past two seasons were made more difficult by Seymour's absence - the Ravens game being huge proof of that. To jeopardize your chances in two of Brady's remaining prime years (though I do think the window with him is still up until he's about 40), just seems too risky.

Without a doubt in my opinion, you get a first for a player or one year of service from that player. Besides Brady, there is not a player on this team that is worth that.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Co-sign this.

If the Raiders end up with the 15th pick in the draft, will the Seymour trade have been worth it?

I've been against the trade from the onset, but I would be even more perturbed by it if we fail to get a blue-chipper. The reasoning behind the trade was a) we would get a top prospect b) we would do so with a rookie wage-scale in place. I'm not sure either is going to happen. And even worse, there may not be football next year.

There is no doubt Seymour would - now more than ever - make a massive difference on this team. To me, I'd feel very confident about our SB chances if we had a 3-down DE of Pro Bowl caliber lined up next to Big Vince. I still think this Patriot team as a whole is vastly underrated going into the season and like its chances, but there is no doubt these past two seasons were made more difficult by Seymour's absence - the Ravens game being huge proof of that. To jeopardize your chances in two of Brady's remaining prime years (though I do think the window with him is still up until he's about 40), just seems too risky.

As I think others have pointed out, the Patriots determined that Seymour was only going to stay for the '09 season, then he was gone (shooting his way out if necessary). So it was 1 year of Seymour vs a 1st rounder in '11. It wasn't 2 years or n years of Seymour vs. a 1st rounder in '11. That was the key driver to making this deal.

As far as whether we could have advanced last year with him, there's always some question or chance that we could have. But with Welker down and Moss not playing well (many say injured), and the D as suspect as it was, I just don't see how we could have won it all. Somehere in our path would have been Baltimore, and they were just better than we were at that point. It wasn't just 1 long run, it was 34 points, offense, defense, and special teams.

 

[Bostonian1962]

As I think others have pointed out, the Patriots determined that Seymour was only going to stay for the '09 season, then he was gone (shooting his way out if necessary). So it was 1 year of Seymour vs a 1st rounder in '11. It wasn't 2 years or n years of Seymour vs. a 1st rounder in '11. That was the key driver to making this deal.

As far as whether we could have advanced last year with him, there's always some question or chance that we could have. But with Welker down and Moss not playing well (many say injured), and the D as suspect as it was, I just don't see how we could have won it all. Somehere in our path would have been Baltimore, and they were just better than we were at that point. It wasn't just 1 long run, it was 34 points, offense, defense, and special teams.

One other thing people don't realize, and must consider IMHO. That is, Seymour didn't play with that fire since his contract year. Seymour wasn't the old Seymour at all. He goes to the Raiders, and says "oh yeah, I'll show them I still have it", and picks it back up a notch or two. Yes, there was the contract year thing again, but there is no guarantee that he would have risen to the same level had he stayed. He is motivated to another level, at least it seems to me.

 

[sbpatfan]

Some of you really need to stop sulking over the Seymour trade. It's beyond pathetic now.

QFT, it's ridiculous.

 

[Deus Irae]

One other thing people don't realize, and must consider IMHO. That is, Seymour didn't play with that fire since his contract year. Seymour wasn't the old Seymour at all. He goes to the Raiders, and says "oh yeah, I'll show them I still have it", and picks it back up a notch or two. Yes, there was the contract year thing again, but there is no guarantee that he would have risen to the same level had he stayed. He is motivated to another level, at least it seems to me.

I've tried to stay out of the Seymour stuff in this thread, but this is just nonsensical. Seymour was the team's sack leader in 2008, despite BB pulling him on more packages than usual. He was the team's best defensive player.

Belichick made a bad trade, and the team's paid for it. The hope is that the moves made in the offseason will limit the ongoing damage, since it clearly won't repair it all.

 

[Coach42]

I've tried to stay out of the Seymour stuff in this thread, but this is just nonsensical. Seymour was the team's sack leader in 2008, despite BB pulling him on more packages than usual. He was the team's best defensive player.

Belichick made a bad trade, and the team's paid for it. The hope is that the moves made in the offseason will limit the ongoing damage, since it clearly won't repair it all.

How can you say its a bad trade when you have no idea what you are getting in return? Seymour was a great player but he wasn't going to be resigned so why not get an extra first rounder and cut him loose a year early? Even if he was the best defensive player we had he wasn't going to win us the title last year so at least we have something to show for him now.

 

[Deus Irae]

How can you say its a bad trade when you have no idea what you are getting in return? Seymour was a great player but he wasn't going to be resigned so why not get an extra first rounder and cut him loose a year early? Even if he was the best defensive player we had he wasn't going to win us the title last year so at least we have something to show for him now.

Because it pissed away last season and has them already behind the 8-ball on the D-line this season, all for a jump of 2 rounds in the draft 2 years down the road.

 

[Coach42]

Because it pissed away last season and has them already behind the 8-ball on the D-line this season, all for a jump of 2 rounds in the draft 2 years down the road.

I don't think Seymour was the deciding factor in last year's breakdown, it certainly didn't help but I don't think we are that much better with him. Also, he wouldn't be here this season anyway so how does it effect this year's D line?

 

[40yrpatsfan]

I've tried to stay out of the Seymour stuff in this thread, but this is just nonsensical. Seymour was the team's sack leader in 2008, despite BB pulling him on more packages than usual. He was the team's best defensive player.

Belichick made a bad trade, and the team's paid for it. The hope is that the moves made in the offseason will limit the ongoing damage, since it clearly won't repair it all.

But even if you're right that he was the best defensive player, they only had him for one year - 2009. That was the issue that caused him to be traded. If they had him for 2 years or had a reasonable prospect of extending him, then that deal doesn't happen.

The decision was 1 year of Seymour at age 30 vs. probably 5 years of a mid to high first rounder. And now that we have 20-20 hindsight on the year we sacrificed without him, we know that his presence alone wouldn't have been enough to get us to the SB last year.

There's no way to call that a bad deal, it was a very smart deal that cut against popular opinion but was clearly the right move.

 

[Deus Irae]

But even if you're right that he was the best defensive player, they only had him for one year - 2009. That was the issue that caused him to be traded. If they had him for 2 years or had a reasonable prospect of extending him, then that deal doesn't happen.

The decision was 1 year of Seymour at age 30 vs. probably 5 years of a mid to high first rounder. And now that we have 20-20 hindsight on the year we sacrificed without him, we know that his presence alone wouldn't have been enough to get us to the SB last year.

There's no way to call that a bad deal, it was a very smart deal that cut against popular opinion but was clearly the right move.

It is incorrect to claim that they only had Seymour for 1 year. And it was a terrible deal that most of this board bought into. However, I don't want to re-hash the entire thing. I just had to point out the mistaken nature of the statement

Seymour wasn't the old Seymour at all.

when the man was the team leader with 8 sacks, tying a personal best, and had 34 tackles, two shy of his personal best.

 

[Coach42]

It is incorrect to claim that they only had Seymour for 1 year.

Why is that incorrect? They couldn't have franchised him, and if they used the transition tag it just would have pissed him off. I mean the FO certainly would have an idea of how signable he was.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Belichick made a bad trade, and the team's paid for it. The hope is that the moves made in the offseason will limit the ongoing damage, since it clearly won't repair it all.

I bet you'll change your mind next season.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why is that incorrect? They couldn't have franchised him, and if they used the transition tag it just would have pissed him off. I mean the FO certainly would have an idea of how signable he was.

Of course they could have franchised him. Unless you know something about Seymour's contract with the Patriots that was never reported by anyone, that's not even disputable.

 

[Coach42]

Of course they could have franchised him. Unless you know something about Seymour's contract with the Patriots that was never reported by anyone, that's not even disputable.

Well they had used it on Wilfork so one or the other was going to be exposed to free agency. That's what I had meant.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well they had used it on Wilfork so one or the other was going to be exposed to free agency. That's what I had meant.

They hadn't used it on Wilfork. Wilfork wasn't franchised until after the season was over (in February). Had the Patriots wanted to, they could have gotten Wilfork under contract during the year and franchised Seymour. Instead, they traded Seymour, signed smaller contracts, and made Wilfork wait.

 

[Coach42]

They hadn't used it on Wilfork. Wilfork wasn't franchised until after the season was over (in February). Had the Patriots wanted to, they could have gotten Wilfork under contract during the year and franchised Seymour. Instead, they traded Seymour, signed smaller contracts, and made Wilfork wait.

That was a possibility, but I think you have to assume that they felt for leverage purposes or whatever else they needed to franchise Wilfork, and they weren't going to be able to get something done with Seymour as well. Under the best of circumstances I think you have to admit getting both deals done would have been difficult. I'm not saying impossible but difficult.

 

[Deus Irae]

That was a possibility, but I think you have to assume that they felt for leverage purposes or whatever else they needed to franchise Wilfork, and they weren't going to be able to get something done with Seymour as well. Under the best of circumstances I think you have to admit getting both deals done would have been difficult. I'm not saying impossible but difficult.

It's one deal. Get Wilfork signed and franchise Seymour. Instead, the team spent its time and capital all during that year getting smaller deals done with players like Kaczur, Connolly, et al. They made a choice. There was nothing impossible or difficult about it.