Richard Seymour on WEEI now

[SanAngeloState]

I still say he comes back here for a year. Not at vet min, but not at huge money either. Maybe a 2 year 12M deal.

:rocker:

Richard wants a ring! All is forgiven!

 

[emoney_33]

I still say he comes back here for a year. Not at vet min, but not at huge money either. Maybe a 2 year 12M deal.

:rocker:

Richard wants a ring! All is forgiven!

He has 3... He was spoiled with 3 in his first 4 years in the NFL.

 

[upstater1]

Always fun when you can just make up "criteria" out of whole cloth and pretend it's essential. Unfortunately, the franchise tag kills your argument, but that's irrelevant for precisely that reason, right?

Out of whole cloth? LOL, try using a phrase properly next time. The facts aren't fictitious at all. Seymour is inn the last year of his contract, the Patriots were offered a #1 for him. So two of these are facts and aren't fictitious at all. The third one requires you to simply believe the Patriots had no intention of paying Seymour a contract like Peppers'.

What's laughable is that you actually think it's plausible that the Patriots would pay Seymour $17 million. He would celebrate if they franchised him. The chances of him being franchised are next to nil.

 

[billdog3484]

says that he likes the challenge of being part of the Raiders re-building

in other words "MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY"

**not that theres anything wrong with that

 

[spacecrime]

We will never kniow whether Seymour or Hobbs and the signing/drafting of an additional LB would have made the difference.

EEI wants to drum up ratings and get the savages (I mean natives) in a lather about what could have been..

And what is it you think could have been? Seymour was not going to make the difference in the Ravens game. The offense was out of synch badly. even with Seymour the pats were going nowhere in the playoffs.

At least now we have a first round pick to ease the pain.

 

[spacecrime]

I understand that Seymour, Hobbs, Wood and Laurinitis (instead of Chung and Brace)wouldn't have guaranteed us a Super Bowl. However, if you think that these choice wouldn't have made us a better team, then I suggest that you do bit more analysis.

I suggest you do a little analysis yourself on your last sentence. I think we ARE a better team by trading Seymour.

I think what you meant was that we were not a better team for the year we would have had Seymour. That makes sense, but analylsis ought to show that trading a player that you would only have for one year anyway for a first round pick from a bad team makes your team stronger in the long run.
If you think about it, EVERY time you trade a player for a draft pick the team is not better at THAT time. You lost a veteran player and have a rookie or future rookie.

When we traded a draft pick for future draft picks that netted us Wilfork and Mayo, for the entire year before Mayo and Wilfork showed up, we were less talented, having only a second round pick to show for the first we gave up. The following years, of course, we had the benefit of first AND second round picks and were better off, but that first year, yep, we were NOT a better team

What you are saying is that Dan Snyder has the best plan in football. Trade all those draft picks for veteran players and be immediately better.

I really really don't understand the logic of people who think the Seymour team weakened the Pats.

What I can't understand is why we didn't also trade Wilfork. Surely, he didn't bring us a Super Bowl ring.

Please tell me this is one of those attempts at sarcasm where someone says something incredibly stupid but KNOWS it is stupid.

 

[ausbacker]

I think he comes back on a 1 year prove it type deal. He wants to win and now realizes what he gave up here.

BB moves to more of a 1 gap, which suits him fine, stocks up in the draft and we win big next year.

Seymour wants another ring!

The only way I could ever see Seymour coming back here is if BB apologizes to him for trading him on the eve of the season. The reality of the occurring would be incredibly slim.

I miss Seymour. He's a super player. The success of the 2011 first round Oakland pick is the only thing that can quell this for mine.

 

[Patjew]

Sign the beast.

 

[patsfan-1982]

the only way that seymour, would come back is if the pats are willing to pay him with about 10 other teams are willing to pay him and we know thats not going to happen thats way ty lay, never came back. they got rings. and now the pats are not any better. then any other teams like denver or the fish who where 8-8 or 9-7 and looking to make that jump and get in the playoffs and would pay a lot more then the pats will

 

[Bacon]

i hated the trade and offseason moves. the pats should be in win now mode with a in prime Brady and Moss. not worrying about 3-4 years down the road when that draft pick is a solid player. Bill and co need to start focusing on the here and now, while we have the chance to win. The Jets and Phins are making moves and are going to challenge rather we want to except it or not, this division is no longer our cakewalk.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

........

I think what you meant was that we were not a better team for the year we would have had Seymour. That makes sense, but analylsis ought to show that trading a player that you would only have for one year anyway for a first round pick from a bad team makes your team stronger in the long run.
If you think about it, EVERY time you trade a player for a draft pick the team is not better at THAT time. You lost a veteran player and have a rookie or future rookie.

When we traded a draft pick for future draft picks that netted us Wilfork and Mayo, for the entire year before Mayo and Wilfork showed up, we were less talented, having only a second round pick to show for the first we gave up. The following years, of course, we had the benefit of first AND second round picks and were better off, but that first year, yep, we were NOT a better team
........

EXACTLY!! Well said.

Belichick is an economics major and time and time again he uses these concepts in the football world to maximize returns. That is what (some) people just don't get.

Bill has job security - so he doesn't have to go 'all in' and sacrifice the future for instant success. feks. he will trade a 3rd rounder this year for next years 2nd rounder. He does a round trade up just about every draft. And it is only the first year that you do it you are weaker - but if you keep doing it every year then in the long term you are stronger (getting 2nd round talent every year for a third round pick the year before). And each year Bill will find a sucker to make the deal as the other coach/ GM have to try to win it all NOW -. before they are fired.

It is also true for us in the 'real' world. Often times just by delaying 'instant gratification' you can come out ahead. Feks. Sure you can buy the new TV in time for the super bowl. Or you can wait a few weeks until Presidents weekend and then buy the same (or similar) TV on sale. You delayed the purchase and got a benefit. Just like Bill delays the draft pick and 'invests' it to another team and gets interest on it the next year when he cashes it in for one round higher. That is a pretty good rate of return in my book.

Another smart economics concept - diversify your portfolio. No one can be 100% sure of what investment will payoff and which will go bust. So you diversify (divide) your money into different invenstments. ie. don't have your eggs all in one basket. Last years draft. Bill trades twice in the first round (down and then out) to get multiple 2nd round picks. That is diversifying your portfolio. Sure the first round pick may give you a 70% chance of payoff (say being the winning horse in a horse race). And a 2nd round pick may only have a 50% chance of payoff (=50% chance of bust). But you are better off betting on TWO horses each with a 50% chance of success rather than betting on only ONE horse with a 70% chance of sucess. And it is not only due to the (drafted) player player himself. The 1st rounder (70%) could be a great guy and good talent but just be unlucky and get a severve injury. Some players bodies just can't handle the NFL punishment (Colts Bob Sanders among others).

So the chances of success on an investment (draft pick) is better with the trade down strategy. Not to mention that the price of the first round 'horse' is the same as BOTH of the 2nd round horses.

Now before some one replies here to write that - with that strategy one should keep trading down infinitum times and trade away your 1st round pick to (ultimately after many trade downs) say - 10-12 7th round horses. That wouldn't work too often as those horses don't payoff so often. Say only 5% of the time. You would have to do that strategy for many many years before that strategy would hit a 'winner' and you would be out of a job long before that. But in the first few rounds - the chance of sucesss (vs. bust) does not drop off as considerably as in the later rounds. So trading down from the first round (diversifying your portfolio) is a sound economic strategy. Same as trading this years pick for a one higher round pick the year afterwards.

 

[Nikolai]

The Pats could have used Seymour this year. That much is transparent. Was it the difference between getting a Super Bowl or not? I doubt it. That wasn't the only hole in the armor.

The Pats were worse off for it this year. We won't know if it was worth it until 2012 (given that 2011 probably won't happen).

 

[Deus Irae]

Out of whole cloth? LOL, try using a phrase properly next time. The facts aren't fictitious at all. Seymour is inn the last year of his contract, the Patriots were offered a #1 for him. So two of these are facts and aren't fictitious at all. The third one requires you to simply believe the Patriots had no intention of paying Seymour a contract like Peppers'.

What's laughable is that you actually think it's plausible that the Patriots would pay Seymour $17 million. He would celebrate if they franchised him. The chances of him being franchised are next to nil.

I used the phrase properly. Your "criteria" argument was precisely as I described it.

What's laughable is that you are in Belichick's pocket, yet you remain so clueless that you actually think using his general spending pattern is some proof of future behavior when he's broken that very pattern with the same player in the past.

In other words, the Patriots made Seymour the league's richest DE in the past. They've also franchise tagged players for huge dollars in the past. Your assertions, as usual, have no merit.

 

[WhiZa]

The Pats could have used Seymour this year. That much is transparent. Was it the difference between getting a Super Bowl or not? I doubt it. That wasn't the only hole in the armor.

The Pats were worse off for it this year. We won't know if it was worth it until 2012 (given that 2011 probably won't happen).

If Seymour had a career year and got 15 sacks it may have been different. But in Oakland he had an average year, which is probably what he would have done here.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Now before some one replies here to write that - with that strategy one should keep trading down infinitum times and trade away your 1st round pick to (ultimately after many trade downs) say - 10-12 7th round horses. That wouldn't work too often as those horses don't payoff so often. Say only 5% of the time. You would have to do that strategy for many many years before that strategy would hit a 'winner' and you would be out of a job long before that. But in the first few rounds - the chance of sucesss (vs. bust) does not drop off as considerably as in the later rounds. So trading down from the first round (diversifying your portfolio) is a sound economic strategy. Same as trading this years pick for a one higher round pick the year afterwards.

To be a little more precise, the major issue is one of expectations and utility.

Utility is the benefit you get from having a player, draft pick, etc. In the case of a first-round draft pick in the NFL, the benefit (the player's skill and production) has to be weighed against (A) the cost of the player, and (B) the lost contribution from the player already on the roster who gets displaced.

I think that this, more than anything else, explains why BB would rather take the "safe" pick in the first round (in other words, he'll take a high-floor player with less upside over a low-floor player with more upside), especially high up in the draft, but is much more willing to "swing for the fences" late in the draft.

 

[mgteich]

Why would anyone believe that Seymour's effecitiveness would probably be the same in Oakland as with the patriots?

If Seymour had a career year and got 15 sacks it may have been different. But in Oakland he had an average year, which is probably what he would have done here.

 

[emoney_33]

In other words, the Patriots made Seymour the league's richest DE in the past. They've also franchise tagged players for huge dollars in the past. Your assertions, as usual, have no merit.

And they also traded Seymour... What bizarro world do you live in that what the team has done in the past is proof of what they would have done in the future. Even when the future is here and they have proven they did not do what you suggest they may have!

 

[emoney_33]

Why would anyone believe that Seymour's effecitiveness would probably be the same in Oakland as with the patriots?

Because it was the same with the Patriots when he was here.

 

[mgteich]

Thank you. I just wanted you to make this ignorant statement for the record.

Because it was the same with the Patriots when he was here.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

And they also traded Seymour... What bizarro world do you live in that what the team has done in the past is proof of what they would have done in the future. Even when the future is here and they have proven they did not do what you suggest they may have!

If we had 2002-2007 Brady, the Pats would have gone 15-1 or 14-2. This site ragged on the defense way too much this year with New Orleans the only bad game.

The other losses in Denver, Miami, and Indy were more of a reflection on the offense and coaching. The yards surrendered crap doesn't hold either. Give an opponent enough chances and they will score.

2011 will actually be the critical year for TB. It's universally recognized that ACL injuries are a two year process. This off season he will be able to fully work with Edelman, Tate, and whoever.

Also, with an offense HEAVILY reliant on Welker (understandable) it's rather difficult to just expect one week of practice being able to perform what takes years of practice.