Pats vs. Raiders Preseason

[Off The Grid]

Sorry about the STREAK, gents: I tend to post in LUMPS.

***

It amazes me that so many are taking it for granted that the Raiders will finish with a better record, this year.

• The Chiefs should be better, this year.
  
• The Browns should be MUCH better.
  
• The RedSkins should be better.
  
• The Lions should be MUCH better.
  
• The Bucs should be better.
  
• The Rams and Hawks should be better.

***

Those are all the teams that finished below or with the Raiders.

They all have game plans, and they all have leaders who know what they're doing.

The Raiders have Al Davis. :bricks:

***

And this BIG IMPROVEMENT that so many are expecting, because they imported Jason Campbell???

Seems to me that it's going to take a LONG time for Campbell to learn yet ANOTHER system.

And THAT...its seems to me...is a process that entails a LOT of losses, before things start clicking.

***

Rich Gannon and Kerry Collins were MUCH stronger QB's than Campbell is...and THEY went 4-12, 5-11, and 4-12, quite recently.

This is a BAD TEAM, gentlemen.

I think they come in about #5...and I believe that #1 is IN PLAY. :rocker:

 

[Off The Grid]

It is also foolish to say that Seymour would have made a difference last year.

What, are you KIDDING??

• To proclaim that Seymour would've absolutely been the difference that got us a Super Bowl would've been foolish, yes, indeed.
  
• But to say ~ as I did ~ that, going into the season, it was evident that he COULD have...is perfectly reasonable.

Can anyone argue that if he's on the field against the Colts, that that game isn't even CLOSE??

And what of the close losses to the Broncos, Jets, and Fish??

VERY likely: We're 2nd seed.

And if we had Welker ~ there was no foretelling his loss, obviously ~ we would've been SERIOUS Super Bowl contenders, considering that it was only a worn out ~ Seymourless ~ Defense that prevented us from not only BEATING the Colts, but DESTROYING them, as so many seem to've forgotten.

 

[Patsrock]

What, are you KIDDING??

• To proclaim that Seymour would've absolutely been the difference that got us a Super Bowl would've been foolish, yes, indeed.
  
• But to say ~ as I did ~ that, going into the season, it was evident that he COULD have...is perfectly reasonable.

Can anyone argue that if he's on the field against the Colts, that that game isn't even CLOSE??

And what of the close losses to the Broncos, Jets, and Fish??

VERY likely: We're 2nd seed.

And if we had Welker ~ there was no foretelling his loss, obviously ~ we would've been SERIOUS Super Bowl contenders, considering that it was only a worn out ~ Seymourless ~ Defense that prevented us from not only BEATING the Colts, but DESTROYING them, as so many seem to've forgotten.

In the Jets the offense SUCKED, against the Broncos the offense went away in the 2nd half. Against the Fish Tom Brady screwed up. If the offense could have scored TD instead of FG's the Pats would have been a 2 seed. Too many people blame last year on the defense and not the offense. The Colts game yeah the defense played bad, but once again it was the offense that could not finish off the game. The offense just did not get the job done when it needed to. You do know that the Pats only gave up 11 more points than in 07

 

[alvinnf]

We were soft up the middle last year. Seymour or no Seymour. Injuries or a lack of talent or both, last year's team was going nowhere. Moving right along..... Unfortunately the Raiders will be better.. Recently the Raiders have done things well that ussually translate to wins in the NFL. Run the ball and play solid D. Quarterback play has nearly crippled that club. Now I am not a big fan of Cambell, he's not a great or even good QB. However, he seems to be a fitting custodian, which should get them at least 8-8.....

 

[Coach42]

I would consider a top 5 pick a disaster unless there is a rookie wage scale in place by 2011. How could a team like the Pats with many proven players justify paying top 5 money to an unproven player? Trading back is nearly impossible when you pick that high in the draft. I would be happy if the Raiders finished 8-8.

 

[Off The Grid]

In the Jets the offense SUCKED, against the Broncos the offense went away in the 2nd half. Against the Fish Tom Brady screwed up. If the offense could have scored TD instead of FG's the Pats would have been a 2 seed. Too many people blame last year on the defense and not the offense. The Colts game yeah the defense played bad, but once again it was the offense that could not finish off the game. The offense just did not get the job done when it needed to. You do know that the Pats only gave up 11 more points than in 07

This would go an whole lot better if you actually responded to what I WROTE, rather than the workings of your fevered imagination.

I quite clearly did not BLAME anything on the Defense, sport.

I simply implied that it would've been even BETTER with Seymour on it, which is akin to saying that water is wet ~ enough better to turn at least 2 or 3 defeats into victories ~ But which is a concept that continues to elude you.

 

[Off The Grid]

We were soft up the middle last year. Seymour or no Seymour. Injuries or a lack of talent or both, last year's team was going nowhere. Moving right along..... Unfortunately the Raiders will be better.. Recently the Raiders have done things well that ussually translate to wins in the NFL. Run the ball and play solid D. Quarterback play has nearly crippled that club. Now I am not a big fan of Cambell, he's not a great or even good QB. However, he seems to be a fitting custodian, which should get them at least 8-8.....

Wrong on BOTH pronouncements, my friend.


1: We lost 4 games by INCHES, ALL of which we might very well have won, had Seymour's HUGE presence been felt. Even if we merely split the difference and say we only would have won 2 of those, guess what? That then means that we start the starters, Week 17, and win THAT one, as well: At LEAST 13-3, and that makes us 2nd seed. So much for your "going nowhere".

2: Oakland finished 20th in Rushing YPC, 21st in Rushing Yards, and their D, though showing some promise, finished 23rd in Points, and 26th in Yards...And as I already spelled out: Gannon and Collins recently went 4-12, 5-11, and 4-12 with these clowns. And Campbell is no Collins, much less Gannon. Most importantly, you've failed to make any allowance at all for a young QuarterBack of dubious pedigree attempting to win while learning a new system, behind an AWFUL O Line, with sparse talent around him, and in an atmosphere of chaos and fear.

 

[Patsrock]

This would go an whole lot better if you actually responded to what I WROTE, rather than the workings of your fevered imagination.

I quite clearly did not BLAME anything on the Defense, sport.

I simply implied that it would've been even BETTER with Seymour on it, which is akin to saying that water is wet ~ enough better to turn at least 2 or 3 defeats into victories ~ But which is a concept that continues to elude you.

I just do not think Seymour wins you 2 or 3 games more. Those Broncos, Jets,and Dolphins are squarely on the offense do nothing in the 2nd half. The Colts loss I will give. The Saints loss was going to happen weather they had Seymour or not. So given you the Colts game Pats are at 11 wins and still no chance at a bye week going into the Texans game(SD had 12 wins and less conference losses and the Colts take the Jets/Bills games much ,more serious)

This is just my opinion. Seymour to me is not what the player people make him out to be. I think the Pats made the right move by getting something for him when they could. I would have been pissed off myself if the let him walk for nothing, just like they did with Asante. I am a firm believer that if you do not believe you can sign him to a new deal you trade him for something. I hate when the teams I follow allow big guys to get away for nothing.

 

[BradyManny]

I would consider a top 5 pick a disaster unless there is a rookie wage scale in place by 2011. How could a team like the Pats with many proven players justify paying top 5 money to an unproven player? Trading back is nearly impossible when you pick that high in the draft. I would be happy if the Raiders finished 8-8.

Agree. We are in an interesting situation. If there is a pay scale, I'd love a top 5 pick. If not, then 10-15 is ideal.

 

[Patsrock]

Wrong on BOTH pronouncements, my friend.


1: We lost 4 games by INCHES, ALL of which we might very well have won, had Seymour's HUGE presence been felt. Even if we merely split the difference and say we only would have won 2 of those, guess what? That then means that we start the starters, Week 17, and win THAT one, as well: At LEAST 13-3, and that makes us 2nd seed. So much for your "going nowhere".

2: Oakland finished 20th in Rushing YPC, 21st in Rushing Yards, and their D, though showing some promise, finished 23rd in Points, and 26th in Yards...And as I already spelled out: Gannon and Collins recently went 4-12, 5-11, and 4-12 with these clowns. And Campbell is no Collins, much less Gannon. Most importantly, you've failed to make any allowance at all for a young QuarterBack of dubious pedigree attempting to win while learning a new system, behind an AWFUL O Line, with sparse talent around him, and in an atmosphere of chaos and fear.

That is his opinion so why is he wrong. Oh yeah because he is going against what you think. Since it is all speculation how do we know Seymour even gets through healthy?

Also Gannon never 4-12 with the Raiders, he only played 10 games over his final 2 seasons.

 

[Off The Grid]

I just do not think Seymour wins you 2 or 3 games more. Those Broncos, Jets,and Dolphins are squarely on the offense do nothing in the 2nd half. The Colts loss I will give. The Saints loss was going to happen weather they had Seymour or not. So given you the Colts game Pats are at 11 wins and still no chance at a bye week going into the Texans game(SD had 12 wins and less conference losses and the Colts take the Jets/Bills games much ,more serious)

This is just my opinion. Seymour to me is not what the player people make him out to be. I think the Pats made the right move by getting something for him when they could. I would have been pissed off myself if the let him walk for nothing, just like they did with Asante. I am a firm believer that if you do not believe you can sign him to a new deal you trade him for something. I hate when the teams I follow allow big guys to get away for nothing.

Respectfully: I HAVE to disagree with you. You focus on whose fault the losses were ~ the Offense's ~ and ignore the ADDITIONAL impact on the game that the D might've had, with Seymour's FirePower on hand, which is where I think your Argument falls apart. To dismiss Seymour as "not the player people make him out to be" is VERY naive, in my opinion. Certainly, you and I can agree that he is NOT the 2004 Richard Seymour...but he kicked ass, last year, for 16 full games, and, considering that was a Contract Year, it can safely be assumed he would done that and maybe MORE, had he stayed HERE.

I think that's it's clearly obvious that, with Seymour's CONSIDERABLE Impact, we would've won BOTH games that we lost by one point ~ and quite possibly BOTH of the other 2 close games ~ which means that the Week 17 game would've meant something, in which case we certainly would've played all our starters and WON it, thus giving us at least the 13-3 that I cited.

***

For what it's worth, we are 100% in Accord on the principle of trading players BEFORE they go for little or nothing, and I particularly agree with your example, as Samuel's handling, above all, infuriated me, in terms of Belichick's unaccountable indolence: We should've gotten a #1 for him, a year before we eventually cut him loose...Where we disagree is in that I would cut my SCHWANTZ off before trading a D LineMan ~ or an O LineMan ~ of Seymour's Caliber, unless we had an equal or better Ascending Star Locked + Loaded.

 

[Off The Grid]

That is his opinion so why is he wrong. Oh yeah because he is going against what you think. Since it is all speculation how do we know Seymour even gets through healthy?

WRONG: It was ALVIN who decreed from on high that his word was law, and did so limply, lamely, and with NO substantiation. I merely CALLED him on that pompous nonsense:

"Injuries or a lack of talent or both, last year's team was going nowhere. Moving right along..."

That was just flat-out GOOFY, and I am being GENEROUS, my friend: The #2 Seed was almost certainly OURS, if we retained Seymour. If Welker doesn't get hurt, we're in the Final Four, against an Indy team we nearly ANNIHILATED...and probably WOULD have, if the loss of Seymour didn't weaken our ENTIRE Defense. How can you or he possibly dispute this??

 

[Don Kipines]

WRONG: It was ALVIN who decreed from on high that his word was law, and did so limply, lamely, and with NO substantiation. I merely CALLED him on that pompous nonsense:

"Injuries or a lack of talent or both, last year's team was going nowhere. Moving right along..."

That was just flat-out GOOFY, and I am being GENEROUS, my friend: The #2 Seed was almost certainly OURS, if we retained Seymour. If Welker doesn't get hurt, we're in the Final Four, against an Indy team we nearly ANNIHILATED...and probably WOULD have, if the loss of Seymour didn't weaken our ENTIRE Defense. How can you or he possibly dispute this??

You're missing the point. Obviously the team would have been better with Seymour. They may even have won one or two more games with him. But the trade was about the future. They were looking at one year of Seymour versus 5-6 years of a first-round pick.

Seymour was not coming back under any circumstances. There was no way they were going to have three big deals along the defensive line, and they weren't about to part with Wilfork, who is younger and had outperformed Seymour in a number of ways (especially in the durability area) in recent years.

So given that Sey was leaving, and given that they had made a number of contending runs with him on the sideline or injured, they had a choice: let him get away for a low third-rounder, or get something truly valuable for him. I can absolutely see the logic of keeping the best players around for Brady's prime, but it's not like it's a no-brainer. They're going to be getting a very significant player back for the next 4-5 years of Brady's career. Add that fact to the other fact of the massive talent infusion the team has seen via the draft in the last two years, and what we're really talking about is loading up in 2011-2014 versus going for it in 2009, which is what keeping Seymour would have meant.

Both approaches have merit, but it seems to me we shouldn't even argue about this until we see what player we get in 2011. What if it's the Terrell Davis character who carries the last few years of Brady's career? Then I doubt we're worrying about the end of last year's Colts game.

 

[Off The Grid]

You're missing the point.

No, my friend, YOU are missing the point, as would have been clear to you, if you hadn't been too lazy to perform the basic courtesy of reading the entire discussion...which would have shown you that I clearly ADDRESSED the point that you claim I've "missed."

Get your facts straight, before telling me I've missed a point that I've repeatedly addressed.

That really shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

[upstater1]

Time to take this thread in a new direction: It appears Jason Campbell may have a serious wrist injury.

 

[sbpatfan]

Respectfully: I HAVE to disagree with you. You focus on whose fault the losses were ~ the Offense's ~ and ignore the ADDITIONAL impact on the game that the D might've had, with Seymour's FirePower on hand, which is where I think your Argument falls apart. To dismiss Seymour as "not the player people make him out to be" is VERY naive, in my opinion. Certainly, you and I can agree that he is NOT the 2004 Richard Seymour...but he kicked ass, last year, for 16 full games, and, considering that was a Contract Year, it can safely be assumed he would done that and maybe MORE, had he stayed HERE.

I think that's it's clearly obvious that, with Seymour's CONSIDERABLE Impact, we would've won BOTH games that we lost by one point ~ and quite possibly BOTH of the other 2 close games ~ which means that the Week 17 game would've meant something, in which case we certainly would've played all our starters and WON it, thus giving us at least the 13-3 that I cited.

***

For what it's worth, we are 100% in Accord on the principle of trading players BEFORE they go for little or nothing, and I particularly agree with your example, as Samuel's handling, above all, infuriated me, in terms of Belichick's unaccountable indolence: We should've gotten a #1 for him, a year before we eventually cut him loose...Where we disagree is in that I would cut my SCHWANTZ off before trading a D LineMan ~ or an O LineMan ~ of Seymour's Caliber, unless we had an equal or better Ascending Star Locked + Loaded.

I don't think it's obvious at all, because it's speculation. What if Seymour was injured the first game for us or caused a penalty that lost us another? It's not safe to assume anything. Seymour has been known to speak out, what if he joined in with Adalius and made that whole situation 10 times worse? Anyone can speculate man, it's the most pointless thing ever. I'm sure someone could speculate how the 2008 0-16 Lions should have been 16-0.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Respectfully: I HAVE to disagree with you. You focus on whose fault the losses were ~ the Offense's ~ and ignore the ADDITIONAL impact on the game that the D might've had, with Seymour's FirePower on hand, which is where I think your Argument falls apart. To dismiss Seymour as "not the player people make him out to be" is VERY naive, in my opinion. Certainly, you and I can agree that he is NOT the 2004 Richard Seymour...but he kicked ass, last year, for 16 full games, and, considering that was a Contract Year, it can safely be assumed he would done that and maybe MORE, had he stayed HERE.

I think that's it's clearly obvious that, with Seymour's CONSIDERABLE Impact, we would've won BOTH games that we lost by one point ~ and quite possibly BOTH of the other 2 close games ~ which means that the Week 17 game would've meant something, in which case we certainly would've played all our starters and WON it, thus giving us at least the 13-3 that I cited.

***

For what it's worth, we are 100% in Accord on the principle of trading players BEFORE they go for little or nothing, and I particularly agree with your example, as Samuel's handling, above all, infuriated me, in terms of Belichick's unaccountable indolence: We should've gotten a #1 for him, a year before we eventually cut him loose...Where we disagree is in that I would cut my SCHWANTZ off before trading a D LineMan ~ or an O LineMan ~ of Seymour's Caliber, unless we had an equal or better Ascending Star Locked + Loaded.

For what it's worth, I don't think the man kicked ass or anything close to it last year. He produced less than 3 tackles per game, and had a TOTAL of 4 sacks all year, to go along with a grand total of 1 forced fumble. I only got to watch a few Raider's games, and in all by one of them he was very pedestrian at best. I'm not taking sides, but it was a contract year, and he sure didn't produce much.