Richard Seymour: ‘I could have helped"

[BradyFTW!]

It's already proven significant, and to think he wouldn't have been a factor in the team's win/loss record is to ignore the games. In the Jets and Colts games alone, he'd clearly have made a huge difference. The only loss that he likely wouldn't have made a significant difference in is the game against the Saints.

How about the Dolphins and Broncos games? I think he could *easily* have swung any of those games, and would likely have swung at least 2 of them. Can't for the life of me understand why people are so resistant to the concept of an all-pro caliber player being capable of swinging games that are decided by less than a TD.

 

[BradyFTW!]

LOL at Seymour would have been a 'slight' improvement over Jarvis Green and Derrick Burgess. Seymour was doubled on every single play, and he still produced. Next time either of those guys gets doubled will be the first, and they still do nothing.

 

[Deus Irae]

You simply don't know this. Nobody could. You need to do more to counter what I've presented to you than simply dismiss it as "silly" or "ridiculous." If nothing else, the numbers bear things out.

1.) The numbers don't bear it out, clearly.

2.) To say that he wouldn't have made a difference in that Colts game, for example, when the claim was that the D-line was gassed, is ridiculous.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL at Seymour would have been a 'slight' improvement over Jarvis Green and Derrick Burgess. Seymour was doubled on every single play, and he still produced. Next time either of those guys gets doubled will be the first, and they still do nothing.

It's amazing how much a player's talent level drops the very moment BB moves on from that player. It's as if BB is actually vampiric.

 

[Tunescribe]

1.) The numbers don't bear it out, clearly.

2.) To say that he wouldn't have made a difference in that Colts game, when the claim was that the D-line was gassed, for example, is ridiculous.

So, Seymour wouldn't have been gassed along with them? What else can you point to that bolsters your argument if you choose to ignore numbers -- however skewed they may be from the 3-4 scheme -- as a performance barometer? Nothing you've said carries any substance beyond the fact that you obviously have an opinion. So go ahead, have an opinion, but don't call others silly or ridiculous without something to back it up with. Otherwise, you just appear foolish.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

1.) The numbers don't bear it out, clearly.

2.) To say that he wouldn't have made a difference in that Colts game, for example, when the claim was that the D-line was gassed, is ridiculous.

I would agree except that a younger green, seymour, wilfork and warren were all gassed against the colts in the end back in the 2006 AFCC

 

[tanked_as_usual]

How about the Dolphins and Broncos games? I think he could *easily* have swung any of those games, and would likely have swung at least 2 of them. Can't for the life of me understand why people are so resistant to the concept of an all-pro caliber player being capable of swinging games that are decided by less than a TD.

dolphins game is the only game where you could actually say the outcome would have been different. the broncos game had more offensive problems than anything

 

[Kontradiction]

dolphins game is the only game where you could actually say the outcome would have been different. the broncos game had more offensive problems than anything

So you wouldn't count 2 90+ yard scoring drives as a defensive problem?

 

[BradyFTW!]

dolphins game is the only game where you could actually say the outcome would have been different. the broncos game had more offensive problems than anything

We lost the Colts game by one point, but I'm sure that swapping a worthless DE who can't beat a single team for an all-pro who routinely destroys double teams couldn't have made any difference at all.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

So you wouldn't count 2 90+ yard scoring drives as a defensive problem?

you telling me teams never had 2 90 yard scoring drives when seymour was here? :idontgetit:

 

[tanked_as_usual]

We lost the Colts game by one point, but I'm sure that swapping a worthless DE who can't beat a single team for an all-pro who routinely destroys double teams couldn't have made any difference at all.

we were in exactly the same spot in the 2006 AFCC against the colts. except seymour was there. ????????

 

[Kontradiction]

you telling me teams never had 2 90 yard scoring drives when seymour was here? :idontgetit:

That isn't what I'm saying at all, actually. Nice strawman though. Here's what you said...

dolphins game is the only game where you could actually say the outcome would have been different. the broncos game had more offensive problems than anything

You essentially blamed the loss on the offense without acknowledging that there were defensive problems as well. I simply responded by asking you how allowing two 90+ yard drives while not even so much as breathing on Kyle Orton (and allowing him to have a career day) was on the offense. If you can explain that to me, I'll PayPal you $100.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

That isn't what I'm saying at all, actually. Nice strawman though. Here's what you said...

dolphins game is the only game where you could actually say the outcome would have been different. the broncos game had more offensive problems than anything

You essentially blamed the loss on the offense without acknowledging that there were defensive problems as well. I simply responded by asking you how allowing two 90+ yard drives while not even so much as breathing on Kyle Orton (and allowing him to have a career day) was on the offense. If you can explain that to me, I'll PayPal you $100.

you know what? with brady at helm and welker and moss out there, there is no reason for this team to lose when it gives up 20 points.....bottom line

not sure if you watched the game, but the denver passing game was all short/quick stuff and the pats still got to him a couple of times.

it is much more logical to blame stuff like 8 completions on 15 targets to welker...that's a very bad day for that pair.

 

[Kontradiction]

you know what? with brady at helm and welker and moss out there, there is no reason for this team to lose when it gives up 20 points.....bottom line

not sure if you watched the game, but the denver passing game was all short/quick stuff and the pats still got to him a couple of times.

it is much more logical to blame stuff like 8 completions on 15 targets to welker...that's a very bad day for that pair.

Oh cool. So we can call the NFL now and tell them that there was no excuse to lose to the Giants in the Super Bowl. I see what you're saying now.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Oh cool. So we can call the NFL now and tell them that there was no excuse to lose to the Giants in the Super Bowl. I see what you're saying now.

you're really weak when it comes to logic.

there was no excuse to lose to the giants. the offense coughed up a hairball

 

[Kontradiction]

you're really weak when it comes to logic.

there was no excuse to lose to the giants. the offense coughed up a hairball

I never said that there weren't problems on the offensive side of the ball in any game. That's what you're failing to understand. In fact, if you go back into this thread, you can see that I laid some of the blame directly at the feet of the offense. But to say that the defense had nothing to do with the Denver loss and put it all on the offense is ridiculous, especially given that Denver drove 90+ yards for a score TWICE in that game and then drove... again, for the game-winning field goal on the DEFENSE.

Now, since you're such a logic powerhouse, please tell me the last time a BB-led Patriots defense surrendered two 90+ yard scoring drives in the same game.

 

[BradyFTW!]

you know what? with brady at helm and welker and moss out there, there is no reason for this team to lose when it gives up 20 points.....bottom line

not sure if you watched the game, but the denver passing game was all short/quick stuff and the pats still got to him a couple of times.

it is much more logical to blame stuff like 8 completions on 15 targets to welker...that's a very bad day for that pair.

Yes, because the SB-winning Pats teams never had to win games where the offense scored less than 20 points. If your defense can't take control and win games like that, then you're not winning the SB.

Top-tier teams have to be able to win in all sorts of ways. High-scoring, low-scoring, ball control, come from behind...

 

[Deus Irae]

So, Seymour wouldn't have been gassed along with them? What else can you point to that bolsters your argument if you choose to ignore numbers -- however skewed they may be from the 3-4 scheme -- as a performance barometer? Nothing you've said carries any substance beyond the fact that you obviously have an opinion. So go ahead, have an opinion, but don't call others silly or ridiculous without something to back it up with. Otherwise, you just appear foolish.

I you don't think that having Seymour on the active roster instead of Brace would have made a difference in the Colts game, I don't know what to tell you, because you're clearly grinding an axe at that point.

 

[The Dynasty]

I you don't think that having Seymour on the active roster instead of Brace would have made a difference in the Colts game, I don't know what to tell you, because you're clearly grinding an axe at that point.

Difference on what?, the outcome of the game? You cant say that if Seymour played in that game the Patriots would have won because that is speculation and you said that you only post based upon facts...

 

[Tunescribe]

I you don't think that having Seymour on the active roster instead of Brace would have made a difference in the Colts game, I don't know what to tell you, because you're clearly grinding an axe at that point.

No axe to grind here, Deus. Just waiting for you to offer supporting evidence beyond supposition.