Richard Seymour: ‘I could have helped"

[Kontradiction]

why didnt borges go and ask this question before the colts game or the saints game...?

The guy that he plagiarized hadn't written the article yet.

 

[Tunescribe]

I love the lengths you go to in order to convince yourself (and try to convince others) that losing Seymour in the short term was actually a good move.

I generally agree with Mo's assessment, but will add this: Seymour's contributions this season likely would have been a slight upgrade over what the position has shown, but not enough of a difference maker to outweigh the deal we got from Oakland. That, plus his questionable attitude/locker room influence and the fact he'd be gone after this season, seems sufficient cause for shipping him out.

 

[Kontradiction]

I generally agree with Mo's assessment, but will add this: Seymour's contributions this season likely would have been a slight upgrade over what the position has shown, but not enough of a difference maker to outweigh the deal we got from Oakland. That, plus his questionable attitude/locker room influence and the fact he'd be gone after this season, seems sufficient cause for shipping him out.

I think it would have been a huge improvement over what we're seeing. Teams have seen success running to that side of the ball where they didn't before. We are not getting any push from that side, especially against good offensive lines like the ones the Dolphins and the Jets have. Seymour regularly took up two blockers as well. Please name one replacement of his that has done that this season. Also, TBC has been our best pass rusher and he has been coming in behind a guy that isn't taking up two blockers meaning he regularly has to fight off a blocker. Imagine what he could do if he didn't have to constantly do that. So no, I don't agree. Not only would a guy like Seymour be a tremendous help in the run game, but he would also be a tremendous help in the pass rush... something we've been sorely lacking in as of late.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Exactly. I love this silly argument that since the offense has underperformed, it doesn't matter that we didn't keep our best defensive player, even though the defense has also underperformed.

It's not like, you know, having a better defense might have mitigated some of the offense's shortcomings and kept us more competitive (or allowed us to win) some of those games.

While he may have been the most talented defensive player Belichick drafted here, which given the drafting position he placed us in is apparently indefensible these days, he was not our best defensive player over the last 4 seasons by his own admission.

This was an article Jackie McMullen wrote as the undefeated 2007 season he felt not a part of wound down. Ron probably would have written it if he had a newspaper job at the time.

If any other player gave this interview he'd be eviscerated for whining and screwing up his own damn career because he didn't want to get surgery in a holdout season and miss out on the extension he ultimately signed in 2006. Note she got a supportive reaction from Asante too.

Jackie could always turn a phrase. This one to end the article would appear to hint she was also omniscient.

The whispers that No. 93's best days are behind him persist, yet the gentle lineman who wears the jersey does not hear them.

It may be quiet now, but, Richard Seymour promises, he isn't done making noise.

The imperfect season of Richard Seymour - The Boston Globe

 

[JackBauer]

While he may have been the most talented defensive player Belichick drafted here, which given the drafting position he placed us in is apparently indefensible these days, he was not our best defensive player over the last 4 seasons by his own admission.

This was an article Jackie McMullen wrote as the undefeated 2007 season he felt not a part of wound down. Ron probably would have written it if he had a newspaper job at the time.

If any other player gave this interview he'd be eviscerated for whining and screwing up his own damn career because he didn't want to get surgery in a holdout season and miss out on the extension he ultimately signed in 2006. Note she got a supportive reaction from Asante too.

Jackie could always turn a phrase. This one to end the article would appear to hint she was also omniscient.





The imperfect season of Richard Seymour - The Boston Globe

That's great and all, but Seymour was our best defensive player last season. Period.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

There's no doubt he could have helped. But he did help last year, had a great year, and we still had just as bad if not an even worse defense. The problems on defense extend far beyond whether we have Sey or not. Who can blame him it's probably his best chance to take a jab at BB for trading him.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

he would have certainly helped this year just like deion branch would have helped in 2006. just like lawyer milloy would have helped in 2003.

fact is that seymour set the precedence during his last contract hissy fit. if a potential top 10 pick comes rolling along, you have to take the deal in order to be able to continue bringing in top young talent. out of the 5 losses, he would not have made a difference versus the broncos, jets, or saints. he may have made a few plays, but it would not have turned defeat into victory. you can argue that the dolphins game he would have made a difference, but against the colts, the pats have blown the same kind of lead in the 2nd half in the 2006 AFCC.

much like the deion branch deal and the following issues for the offense, I believe what you are seeing now is a precursor to huge improvements you will see in the coming offseason. it does now put the pats in a great position to pursue someone like julius peppers.

what kind of contract would it have taken to keep an over 30 3-4 DE? especially when at the end of the day, your NT is due for a deal and arguably much more important.

you can't just look at a deal like this in terms of the here and now unless you want to use the 20 years of celtics misery as what happens in the end.

 

[Deus Irae]

I generally agree with Mo's assessment, but will add this: Seymour's contributions this season likely would have been a slight upgrade over what the position has shown, but not enough of a difference maker to outweigh the deal we got from Oakland. That, plus his questionable attitude/locker room influence and the fact he'd be gone after this season, seems sufficient cause for shipping him out.

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Seymour was this team's best player last season, and he was able to get 8 sacks from the 3-4 DE spot in a 2-gap system. Saying he'd have been a slight upgrade over what's been out there this season is like saying that the world's most expensive Lamborghini costs slightly more than a stripped down Tata Nano.

 

[Kontradiction]

Interesting how nobody mentions how we could have used Seymour this year, franchised him, then traded him off. I know it isn't a guaruntee that Crazy Al would have sent over a first for him, but he is Al Davis after all. On top of that, there are a few 3-4 teams that could use Seymour's services (us not included) that would have given up a little bit to get him as well.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Seymour was this team's best player last season, and he was able to get 8 sacks from the 3-4 DE spot in a 2-gap system. Saying he'd have been a slight upgrade over what's been out there this season is like saying that the world's most expensive Lamborghini costs slightly more than a stripped down Tata Nano.

The Big Overrated had a grand total of 1.5 sacks in their 5 losses last season against the Colts, Steelers, Chargers, Jets and Dolphins.
The "best player on the team" should be performing against the best teams they face.
Typical BO season last year.
This '09 Patriot team is 7 - 5 because their OFFENSE has underperformed.
The Big Overrated would have changed NONE of the outcomes this season.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Big Overrated had a grand total of 1.5 sacks in their 5 losses last season against the Colts, Steelers, Chargers, Jets and Dolphins.
The "best player on the team" should be performing against the best teams they face. Typical BO year last season.
This team is 7 - 5 this year because their OFFENSE has underperformed.
The Big Overrated would have changed NONE of the outcomes this season.

1.) By repeatedly calling him "The Big Overrated", you make your 'analysis' irrelevant, because you expose a clear personal bias against the player.

2.) Seymour draws a double team, which frees up other players.

3.) Seymour led the team in sacks. *****ing because it didn't happen in particular games is asinine.

4.) Jared Allen has 0 sacks against the Cardinals, Steelers, Seahawks, Lions, Rams and Browns. The Vikings probably should cut his ass.

 

[SVN]

isnt it funny that borges actually ripped BB for picking seymour in the draft and now is all up and cozy to him ? Someone should ask him that.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Interesting how nobody mentions how we could have used Seymour this year, franchised him, then traded him off. I know it isn't a guaruntee that Crazy Al would have sent over a first for him, but he is Al Davis after all. On top of that, there are a few 3-4 teams that could use Seymour's services (us not included) that would have given up a little bit to get him as well.

That's probably because most people realize we wouldn't have since we will possible need the tag for Wilfork who is a lot more likely to report and play under it if that indeed is the case. And the tag price for Seymour would have been significantly greater than for arguably the best NT in a league where they are presently in great demand.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's probably because most people realize we wouldn't have since we will possible need the tag for Wilfork who is a lot more likely to report and play under it if that indeed is the case. And the tag price for Seymour would have been significantly greater than for arguably the best NT in a league where they are presently in great demand.

Actually, the price tag argument is a great argument for keeping Seymour and franchising him instead of Wilfork. They could have afforded to pay Wilfork a larger slice of the NT pie without it being as big a financial hit or it being a reason for Wilfork walking away.

 

[JackBauer]

The Big Overrated had a grand total of 1.5 sacks in their 5 losses last season against the Colts, Steelers, Chargers, Jets and Dolphins.
The "best player on the team" should be performing against the best teams they face.
Typical BO season last year.
This '09 Patriot team is 7 - 5 because their OFFENSE has underperformed.
The Big Overrated would have changed NONE of the outcomes this season.

Dumb post.

You simply cannot say the team is 7-5 because of the offense elusively. How difficult is it to comprehend the concept that if the defense were better, it would mitigate the struggles of the offense to some degree?

Calling Seymour "The Big Overrated" reminds me of when Armen used to call him "Big Poo$ey" when he was convinced Seymour was faking his injuries or whatever. Just childish and inane.

Speaking of inane, judging Seymour by his sack totals...??

 

[Tunescribe]

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Seymour was this team's best player last season, and he was able to get 8 sacks from the 3-4 DE spot in a 2-gap system. Saying he'd have been a slight upgrade over what's been out there this season is like saying that the world's most expensive Lamborghini costs slightly more than a stripped down Tata Nano.

No, it's not "ridiculous." It's my assessment from having attended every Patriots home game (except two) for the length of Seymour's Patriots tenure, in addition to numerous road games. The man would simply disappear for long stretches; he was not a constant force his last few years here. I'm not alone in having wondered aloud, "Where the hell is Seymour? Why doesn't he step up?" Sure, he battled injuries and sure, he had a good 2008 (in terms of sacks), and of course, he would have been better than what we have now as things have turned out. BUT, I don't for a moment believe he would have been a factor in our current won-loss record, and that's where we disagree. BB made a shrewd and calculated move trading short-term loss for long-term gain, and I support it.

The team had 30 total sacks last year, and 20 so far this year with four games to go. My guess is that by season's end you won't see a huge dropoff due to 93's absence. In 15 games last year Seymour was credited with 34 tackles, eighth on the team. 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. In Oakland, which runs a system you'd assume would maximize his potential, Seymour has four sacks over 11 games, which includes two in his first game as a Raider. Let's wait until the end of this season before we make the final determination on Seymour's absence. I'm willing to bet now it won't prove that significant.

 

[grooverider]

And to top it off we don't get the pick until 2011, FAIL. I mean it's pretty obvious trading Seymour was stupid. When you allow a QB to stand back there all day long you make the Chad Henne's of the world look like all stars.

Man I long for the days when we punched the QB in the mouth all game long and made him **** his pants and throw the ball early because we brought the heat.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, it's not "ridiculous." It's my assessment from having attended every Patriots home game (except two) for the length of Seymour's Patriots tenure, in addition to numerous road games. The man would simply disappear for long stretches; he was not a constant force his last few years here. I'm not alone in having wondered aloud, "Where the hell is Seymour? Why doesn't he step up?" Sure, he battled injuries and sure, he had a good 2008 (in terms of sacks), and of course, he would have been better than what we have now as things have turned out. BUT, I don't for a moment believe he would have been a factor in our current won-loss record, and that's where we disagree. BB made a shrewd and calculated move trading short-term loss for long-term gain, and I support it.

The team had 30 total sacks last year, and 20 so far this year with four games to go. My guess is that by season's end you won't see a huge dropoff due to 93's absence. In 15 games last year Seymour was credited with 34 tackles, eighth on the team. 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. In Oakland, which runs a system you'd assume would maximize his potential, Seymour has four sacks over 11 games, which includes two in his first game as a Raider. Let's wait until the end of this season before we make the final determination on Seymour's absence. I'm willing to bet now it won't prove that significant.

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.

 

[Tunescribe]

It's already proven significant, and to think he wouldn't have been a factor in the team's win/loss record is just silly. In the Jets and Colts games alone, he'd clearly have made a huge difference.

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.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Other than the odd play at FB, I don't remember Richard Seymour playing offense. Or was he just so awesome that his very presence would revitalize the sputtering second half offense that has directly led to 4 losses?

He would have provided much stronger defense against both the run and pass, leading to superior field position on most drives. With the pass rush that he provides, we'd create some more turnovers too. So no, he wouldn't fix our OL, but if our defense was better, our offense would have less on its plate.

Back when we were winning championships, we won a lot of games where our offense was worse than it was against Miami. In 2007, we won a lot of games where our defense was worse than it was in Indy. The fact is, if you can get better on either side of the ball, it doesn't matter if it's not that side's "fault" that you aren't winning every game. An addition on either side is a net addition that benefits everyone.