Richard Seymour: ‘I could have helped"

[BionicPatriot]

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.

So you're saying with Seymour, we beat the Colts? Because I don't know what else you mean.

This guy was on the field during some meltdowns.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

Well, "supposition" should more than suffice when you're comparing the best 3-4 DE in the game to a rookie who's not even active for most games and talking about teammates being gassed. Are you seriously going to claim that Seymour getting snaps would not have helped keep that defense from getting as gassed as some claimed they were? Brace played a total of 2 snaps, for crying out loud.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4669450/new-england-patriots-relied-heavily-on-nickel-packages-against-the-colts

 

[Deus Irae]

So you're saying with Seymour, we beat the Colts? Because I don't know what else you mean.

This guy was on the field during some meltdowns.

I'm saying that Seymour could have been the difference in 4 of the 5 losses, with the Jets and Colts losses standing out as particularly likely examples.

 

[RichSeymour]

It was a terrible trade, doesn't take hindsight to see that. One of the best 3-4 DE's EVER, a future Hall of Famer, still in his prime. Pats would have a much better defense and a better record with Seymour, no question.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'm saying that Seymour could have been the difference in 4 of the 5 losses, with the Jets and Colts losses standing out as particularly likely examples.

More speculation coming from a guy who says he only posts based upon facts...

In the games that the Pats have lost this year I think besides the Saints and Colts games the offense has been the problem, not the defense.

 

[Tunescribe]

Well, "supposition" should more than suffice when you're comparing the best 3-4 DE in the game to a rookie who's not even active for most games and talking about teammates being gassed. Are you seriously going to claim that Seymour getting snaps would not have helped keep that defense from getting as gassed as some claimed they were? Brace played a total of 2 snaps, for crying out loud.

Defense relied on nickel front - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Now you're just reaching. I never compared Seymour to Brace. But for the sake of your argument, had Seymour been part of the DL rotation in that game (presumably holding the roster spot of a fellow defensive lineman), he would've played as many snaps as the group that apparently got "gassed." So, I'd conclude that Seymour would've been gassed as well.

Look, I offered evidence to support my argument back in post #96 of this thread and you have yet to counter it with anything more substantial than what you personally believe. So either come up with something worth arguing or give it a rest.

 

[Kontradiction]

So now we're arguing over whether or not letting Seymour go was a bad move because he would have been gassed in the Indy game? Grasp at straws much guys?

 

[Deus Irae]

Now you're just reaching. I never compared Seymour to Brace. But for the sake of your argument, had Seymour been part of the DL rotation in that game (presumably holding the roster spot of a fellow defensive lineman), he would've played as many snaps as the group that apparently got "gassed." So, I'd conclude that Seymour would've been gassed as well.

Except that this doesn't make any sense at all. The reality is that the team would have been able to share snaps with more players, thus decreasing the load on individual players. Because Brace only took 2 snaps, there was no real decrease with him being there.

Look, I offered evidence to support my argument back in post #96 of this thread and you have yet to counter it with anything more substantial than what you personally believe. So either come up with something worth arguing or give it a rest.

Actually, you didn't offer up any relevant evidence, because his numbers in the Raiders system are irrelevant to his numbers in the Patriots system. Well, that's not quite true, because you did have a relevant sentence, but it destroyed your own argument:

And yes, I know his primary job was to occupy blockers and steer traffic, but he wasn't the monster force some here make him out to be. In fact, you have to go back to 2003 to find a year where he put up similar numbers.

So his numbers were as good as they'd been in 5 years, and he was absolutely dominant in 2003, but he wasn't a "monster force"? Last year, AdT and Vrabel were injured, and the Patriots #2 CBs couldn't cover anyone, and the pass rush suffered as a result. However, even with that reality, Seymour was able to register 8 sacks, which was more than the 2 starting DEs of the Steelers combined, and the Patriots were ranked higher in sacks than they are this season. This season, if you add Seymour to the current mix in place of Green, you would expect to see more than 0 sacks and more pressures, which means that the pass rush would be better.

P.S. Which Patriots' defensive linemen have more sacks than Seymour this season, even with the changes?

 

[dhamz]

There really isn't any middle ground around this place anymore. Everything has to be extreme. Either Seymour would make the team much better or he wouldn't make the team any better and his attitude might even have made them worse.

How about he would have clearly helped this year because he is a terrific defensive lineman but he also isn't the silver bullet to solve all of the defense's issues which have been around and growing since 2006?

 

[Deus Irae]

More speculation coming from a guy who says he only posts based upon facts...

In the games that the Pats have lost this year I think besides the Saints and Colts games the offense has been the problem, not the defense.

Hmmm.......

I prefer to base my points on facts, not hunches and coincidences, when possible.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/301266-smy-moss-burgess-guyton-thomas-sent-home-wed-after-late-8am-meeting-page5.html#post1632791

We don't have any facts as to how Seymour would play for the Patriots this year, because he's not playing for the Patriots this year. Therefore, we have to look to other things (last season, in NE, this season for Seymour in Oak and the Patriots without Seymour) and make suppositions, and draw conclusions, from that. It's the best that can be done.

Seriously, you're so hard up to stalk me that you don't even bother to think before you post.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i can't beleve that ever week there is a new thread on how much better the pats would be if Jabar Gaffney was still here

how he would have freed up moss and welker who are all redy #1 and #2 in yerds in the nfl but if Jabar Gaffney was here the pats would be 16 and 0 and moss and welker would set every record

but seymour a all pro DE would not help one bit on a D full of jags

 

[patsfan-1982]

There really isn't any middle ground around this place anymore. Everything has to be extreme. Either Seymour would make the team much better or he wouldn't make the team any better and his attitude might even have made them worse.

How about he would have clearly helped this year because he is a terrific defensive lineman but he also isn't the silver bullet to solve all of the defense's issues which have been around and growing since 2006?

we have a winer

 

[The Dynasty]

Hmmm.......

We don't have any facts as to how Seymour would play for the Patriots this year, because he's not playing for the Patriots this year. Therefore, we have to look to other things (last season, in NE, this season for Seymour in Oak and the Patriots without Seymour) and make suppositions, and draw conclusions, from that. It's the best that can be done.

Seriously, you're so hard up to stalk me that you don't even bother to think before you post.

You still havent addressed this whole "stalking" thing, how can you stalk someone on a message board? I am here to talk football just like you are and I can respond to anyone whenever I want, just like you and anyone else here.

Here are two of your quotes that you speculated about Seymour, so you are contradicting yourself when you said you only post based upon fact. You said whenever possible, but what is that supposed to mean? Its basically saying you can speculate whenever you feel like it.

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.

I'm saying that Seymour could have been the difference in 4 of the 5 losses, with the Jets and Colts losses standing out as particularly likely examples.

You speculated that Seymour would have made a difference in the Colts game and in 4 out of the 5 losses. You have posted no facts to back up your statement. You are just posting your own personal opinion.

 

[Deus Irae]

You speculated that Seymour would have made a difference in the Colts game and in 4 out of the 5 losses. You have posted no facts to back up your statement. You are just posting your own personal opinion.

Ok, so you can't grasp the English language. At least we've gotten that established here. Now I can put you on ignore with reason.

 

[The Dynasty]

Ok, so you can't grasp the English language. At least we've gotten that established here. Now I can put you on ignore with reason.

Whenever you know your wrong, you obviously refuse to admit it and then throw the whole stalking thing at me, how old are you, 12?

 

[SyN65]

I don't think there's any arguement that he wouldn't help. Of course he would have helped...the trade was for the future, not the present...

 

[RhodyPatriot]

There really isn't any middle ground around this place anymore. Everything has to be extreme. Either Seymour would make the team much better or he wouldn't make the team any better and his attitude might even have made them worse.

How about he would have clearly helped this year because he is a terrific defensive lineman but he also isn't the silver bullet to solve all of the defense's issues which have been around and growing since 2006?

I was critical of the Big Overrated's game when he was here.
Is he better than what we have playing at that position right now? Yes!
Would his game be changing any of the outcomes for this years team? No!
**** Seymour has not been a game changer for years.
This team is 7 - 5 because the highly talented and veteran OFFENSE has underperformed which has directly led to 4 of the 5 losses.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I don't think there's any arguement that he wouldn't help. Of course he would have helped...the trade was for the future, not the present...

Yup ... when a player is traded for future draft picks the argument that it's not a loss is inane. However - would Seymour have made us that much better in the 4-3 is the way I see it. Obviously in the 3-4 he had a huge impact. We have been decent against the run this year ... not so much with the pass. Seymour had decent spped when he was younger but he's clearly lost a step.

If I'm Belichick I make this trade again
... the future was not sacrificed for the present and that has worked well for us.

 

[dhamz]

This team is 7 - 5 because the highly talented and veteran OFFENSE has underperformed which has directly led to 4 of the 5 losses.

Expectations for the defense are really low when they give up 35 to Indy and 38 to New Orleans and somehow they weren't at fault in one of those losses.

 

[Scouse Patriot]

How long would he have helped though, next season too? Life without Seymour was going to begin sooner rather than later and BB got value while it was on the table. Sure his talent and experience in the locker room could help but he would hardly be the saviour.