Richard Seymour on WEEI now

[emoney_33]

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

lol, How am I wrong? We know what we get in Seymour. Maybe I quoted the wrong post (he wouldn't have been 'average' here). But the upgrade from Green to Seymour is not as huge as some of you make it out to be. He was here from 05-08, so it's not like he was the single missing piece.

 

[mgteich]

We will have lost both Seymour AND Green. Who are the replacements? more reps to Wright and Pryor?

We have had a pretty good DL over the past few years, one of the best. Now we seem to think that we can lose two of key DE's and have no loss in production.

lol, How am I wrong? We know what we get in Seymour. Maybe I quoted the wrong post (he wouldn't have been 'average' here). But the upgrade from Green to Seymour is not as huge as some of you make it out to be. He was here from 05-08, so it's not like he was the single missing piece.

 

[emoney_33]

We will have lost both Seymour AND Green. Who are the replacements? more reps to Wright and Pryor?

Green isn't gone yet and there's an entire offseason of work to be done. But this much is sure, Seymour wouldn't be the 2010 RDE whether we traded him or not.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Green isn't gone yet and there's an entire offseason of work to be done. But this much is sure, Seymour wouldn't be the 2010 RDE whether we traded him or not.

I'd be surprised if Green comes back. If he does it'll be for small $$s.

 

[emoney_33]

We have had a pretty good DL over the past few years, one of the best. Now we seem to think that we can lose two of key DE's and have no loss in production.

No one expects to lose a Seymour and have no loss in production in the immediate present. Teams change, we had the Warren-Wilfork-Seymour DL together for a long time considering how good they all are (and thus how much $$ they command, now or in the future).

One thing I do not doubt is BB's ability to put together a good DL.

 

[tedy hagler]

You hit it Nikolai. No one can argue seriously that trading Seymour, whatever his shortcomings, meant subtracting talent from the 2009 defense. But it might be worth it in the long run.

no

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).

 

[mgteich]

We lost Seymour. We added Pryor and Burgess. Wright got more reps at DE. Were you satisfied with the prodcution from the DE position? Were you satisfied with the pressure on the backfield?

Is your answer that we trust Bill, so the production must be there?

You trust belichick to put together a good DL. Yes, indeed. Belichick has used a lot of resources on the DL. We have had THREE #1 and paid a fourth player starter money. I'm suggesting that we continue to spend these resources and draft another #1.

No one expects to lose a Seymour and have no loss in production in the immediate present. Teams change, we had the Warren-Wilfork-Seymour DL together for a long time considering how good they all are (and thus how much $$ they command, now or in the future).

One thing I do not doubt is BB's ability to put together a good DL.

 

[emoney_33]

We lost Seymour. We added Pryor and Burgess. Wright got more reps at DE. Were you satisfied with the prodcution from the DE position? Were you satisfied with the pressure on the backfield?

Is your answer that we trust Bill, so the production must be there?

You trust belichick to put together a good DL. Yes, indeed. Belichick has used a lot of resources on the DL. We have had THREE #1 and paid a fourth player starter money. I'm suggesting that we continue to spend these resources and draft another #1.

Are you once again going back to refer to 2009 as if we will skip the offseason and go into 2010 with what we have? Obviously there was a step down in 2009 and BB did not PLAN on trading Seymour. It's not like he had the entire offseason to replace Seymour.

 

[upstater1]

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.

You used it improperly. let me school you. Out of whole cloth means making up something totally fictitious. The criteria I laid out were FACTS and not fictitious. Seymour was in the last year of his contract; the Patriots were offered a #1 for him; he was not going to be franchised because of the extraordinary high salary that franchise DEs make-->see Julius Peppers.

You are the only person here who imagines the Patriotsw were going to pay Seymour $17 million.

Say it again so people can laugh at you: "I think Belichick was ready to pay Seymour more than Tom Brady."

 

[Deus Irae]

You used it improperly. let me school you. Out of whole cloth means making up something totally fictitious. The criteria I laid out were FACTS and not fictitious. Seymour was in the last year of his contract; the Patriots were offered a #1 for him; he was not going to be franchised because of the extraordinary high salary that franchise DEs make-->see Julius Peppers.

You are the only person here who imagines the Patriotsw were going to pay Seymour $17 million.

Say it again so people can laugh at you: "I think Belichick was ready to pay Seymour more than Tom Brady."

The notion of that being the required criteria was fictitious (out of whole cloth), slick:

So there have to be three criteria

But you keep on ignoring reality and living in the land of Unicorns pooping rainbows.

 

[mgteich]

Of course Belichick planned to dump Seymour! But it matters not. Now he needs to replace Seymour AND Green.

Are you once again going back to refer to 2009 as if we will skip the offseason and go into 2010 with what we have? Obviously there was a step down in 2009 and BB did not PLAN on trading Seymour. It's not like he had the entire offseason to replace Seymour.

 

[RobertWeathers]

BB did not PLAN on trading Seymour.

Plan? No. Think about during the 08 offseason? Absolutely.

BB doesn't do anything on a wim. He looked at Seys"sign-a-bility and what the Raiders were talking about when the inquiring about Wilfork and later jumped on it.

 

[emoney_33]

Of course Belichick planned to dump Seymour! But it matters not. Now he needs to replace Seymour AND Green.

Plan? No. Think about during the 08 offseason? Absolutely.

BB doesn't do anything on a wim. He looked at Seys"sign-a-bility and what the Raiders were talking about when the inquiring about Wilfork and later jumped on it.

You two act like BB planned this deal the whole offseason and then waited a long time to pull the trigger.

He did NOT go through the entire offseason with the intent to trade Seymour. It wasn't on a "whim" I know, it was a calculated risk/reward decision made at the time. But that doesn't mean he should have looked to replace Seymour in the offseason any better than with Jarvis Green.

I'm simply saying that he didn't ignore DE in the offseason knowing he was trying to ship away Seymour. And I was fine with Green playing DE. I am confident that he will address RDE this offseason, if they can find anything of good value. Just like he's not going to overpay Seymour, he's not going to make a dumb trade or signing just to get a DE.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that Belichick was comfortable with Green at DE.

You two act like BB planned this deal the whole offseason and then waited a long time to pull the trigger.

He did NOT go through the entire offseason with the intent to trade Seymour. It wasn't on a "whim" I know, it was a calculated risk/reward decision made at the time. But that doesn't mean he should have looked to replace Seymour in the offseason any better than with Jarvis Green.

I'm simply saying that he didn't ignore DE in the offseason knowing he was trying to ship away Seymour. And I was fine with Green playing DE. I am confident that he will address RDE this offseason, if they can find anything of good value. Just like he's not going to overpay Seymour, he's not going to make a dumb trade or signing just to get a DE.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You two act like BB planned this deal the whole offseason and then waited a long time to pull the trigger.

Exactly. Thats the first step. They look at cap, budget, player performance, anticipated salary demands in future years, team's scheme and plans etc. and draw a conclusion with one, perhaps two years out. I'm sure that they are looking at Sey's performance and contract situation, the roster and the team's chances and made a decision that they could live or live without him. Clearly, they came to conclusion with Sey. In the offseason after the 2007 season, did they have a deal in the works a full league offseason before Sept of 2009? Of course not. But it would not suprise me in the least that BB came to the conclusion in Feb or March of 09 that moving Sey for value was something he would do IF he was able to add depth to the D-line.

He did NOT go through the entire offseason with the intent to trade Seymour. It wasn't on a "whim" I know, it was a calculated risk/reward decision made at the time. But that doesn't mean he should have looked to replace Seymour in the offseason any better than with Jarvis Green.

I agree. At the end of FA period and the draft he looked at his roster and made an assessment. With Warren, Wright, Green and Wilfork, he saw decent depth. Then they get Brace and Pryor and Richards. During the draft they talk to the Raiders. They talk about Wilfork and Seymour and Burgess. There is the groundwork that I am referring to which got BB thinking that moving Sey was a realistic possibility.

I'm simply saying that he didn't ignore DE in the offseason knowing he was trying to ship away Seymour.

On the contrary, they picked up 2 actually 3 D-linemen inc. Richards in the draft and also looked at Kevin Carter. If anything, BB was focused on the D-line because he thought that there was an opportunity to move Sey if they got good value in return and if he felt that the D-line depth was of good quality.

And I was fine with Green playing DE. I am confident that he will address RDE this offseason, if they can find anything of good value. Just like he's not going to overpay Seymour, he's not going to make a dumb trade or signing just to get a DE.

No question he will.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree that Belichick was comfortable with Green at DE.

If true, that speaks volumes about the team's problems/issues during the past year.

 

[mgteich]

I apologize. I didn't realize that we were counting on Pryor and Richard as our future at DE, replacing Seymour and Green. Surely they will help us be the #1 3-4 DL again.

Exactly. Thats the first step. They look at cap, budget, player performance, anticipated salary demands in future years, team's scheme and plans etc. and draw a conclusion with one, perhaps two years out. I'm sure that they are looking at Sey's performance and contract situation, the roster and the team's chances and made a decision that they could live or live without him. Clearly, they came to conclusion with Sey. In the offseason after the 2007 season, did they have a deal in the works a full league offseason before Sept of 2009? Of course not. But it would not suprise me in the least that BB came to the conclusion in Feb or March of 09 that moving Sey for value was something he would do IF he was able to add depth to the D-line.



I agree. At the end of FA period and the draft he looked at his roster and made an assessment. With Warren, Wright, Green and Wilfork, he saw decent depth. Then they get Brace and Pryor and Richards. During the draft they talk to the Raiders. They talk about Wilfork and Seymour and Burgess. There is the groundwork that I am referring to which got BB thinking that moving Sey was a realistic possibility.



On the contrary, they picked up 2 actually 3 D-linemen inc. Richards in the draft and also looked at Kevin Carter. If anything, BB was focused on the D-line because he thought that there was an opportunity to move Sey if they got good value in return and if he felt that the D-line depth was of good quality.





No question he will.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I apologize. I didn't realize that we were counting on Pryor and Richard as our future at DE, replacing Seymour and Green. Surely they will help us be the #1 3-4 DL again.

Confusing me with emoney. I maintain that they were keeping Green all along. I never said such a thing about Pryor and Richards. They were depth guys that BB felt had a chance to contribute somehow. IMO Pryor exceeded BBs expectations.

BB thought he had adequate 1st team d-line talent with Warren, Wilfork and Green/Wright and thought that Brace could fill in. The liked what he saw from Pryor in the offseason. Thus the decision was made to move Sey.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Hobbs would have been our nickel (over Butler) and our kick returner.

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

I think the point is:

The trade was something now for something in the future.

Those who think it was bad think there was more value in Seymour this year than what we will get out of the career of the pick.
I think that IF Seymour were the difference between winning a SB and not, then I would agree with that logic.
If Seymour were the difference between 10-6 and a 1st round out and say 12-4 and a second round out, I would disagree with that logic.

 

[Ring 6]

With Seymour, we beat the Ravens. So I'm not sure that you can say that Seymour wasn't the difference. FWIW, I suspect that he likely was. Would it have been a slam dunk? No, but it was the difference between us being a SB contender and not being a SB contender, in my eyes.

HOW? Does Seymour stop us from turning it over 3 times?
Aside from the 83 yard run we allowed something like 3 yard a rush.
You are saying he would have made that tackle, and done what else? We got beaten because we turned the ball over and couldnt score.