Seymour - Injury Prone?

[cstjohn17]

I remembered this thread from the fall. It was a terrible thread then and in re-reading it, it is just as bad now. But is does contain a topic of interest.

Can we count on Seymour being healthy in the future? The trend is not good.

What can we do to protect Seymour? taking on those double teams would wear anyone out. Would adding another DL help, to allow more of a rotation at DE?

Our DL is deep but when Seymour, Warren or Wilfork are out of the lineup there is a significant drop-off. Wright is a jack of all trades and does an ok job, Green is a pretty good pash rusher but is way too small to play full time in a 3-4.

Potential pickups
Adam Carriker DE 6'6 295 Nebraska rounds 1-2 and rising - http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007
/prospects/adam_carriker.html
Kareem Brown - rounds 3-4http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/dt/kareembrown.html
(sorry about that annoying buzz)

I think our good buddy Rodney Bailey is a FA - http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235017

 

[FirstAndGoal]

You know who isn't injury prone? Matt Cassel. Let's put him in there.

 

[Lamanai]

Seymour does not get "triple-teamed"...let's not stretch things here. Watch the film. I have seen games when he gets schooled single-handledly (e.g. Tarik Glenn last season). Other times he's a beast against double teams. It seems like feast or famine with him.

IMO, he was extremely average most of this season - and he was probably double-teamed less than in prior years. I think opponents knew he was not 100%. At best he was our third best DL. I honestly believe his subpar year was due to injuries. So I believe:

1. Seymour was extremely average this year, and I am not prepared to say otherwise. (Did he really have fewer solo tackles than Green and Wright ?)

2. Seymour will be healthy next season, and most likely will display that dominating talent he's shown in the past.

 

[pats1]

I remembered this thread from the fall. It was a terrible thread then and in re-reading it, it is just as bad now. But is does contain a topic of interest.

Can we count on Seymour being healthy in the future? The trend is not good.

What can we do to protect Seymour? taking on those double teams would wear anyone out. Would adding another DL help, to allow more of a rotation at DE?

Our DL is deep but when Seymour, Warren or Wilfork are out of the lineup there is a significant drop-off. Wright is a jack of all trades and does an ok job, Green is a pretty good pash rusher but is way too small to play full time in a 3-4.

Potential pickups
Adam Carriker DE 6'6 295 Nebraska rounds 1-2 and rising - http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007
/prospects/adam_carriker.html
Kareem Brown - rounds 3-4http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/scoutingreports/dt/kareembrown.html
(sorry about that annoying buzz)

I think our good buddy Rodney Bailey is a FA - http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235017

If you think the Marquise Hill situation is bad, drafting another DL would be worse.

 

[cstjohn17]

If you think the Marquise Hill situation is bad, drafting another DL would be worse.

How so? Hill and Smith produced 0 impact last year. If Hill gets cut and replaced with player who can spell Warren and Seymour that seems like an improvement, maybe I am missing something.

Precedence - The Pats finally got rid of Bethel last year (one year left on his contract). I expect the same thing with Hill, except no trade, just cut...

 

[Keegs]

Richard Seymour is injury prone....

Because he is always injured....

it's unfortunate b/c he is amazing and one of my favorite players.

 

[pats1]

How so? Hill and Smith produced 0 impact last year. If Hill gets cut and replaced with player who can spell Warren and Seymour that seems like an improvement, maybe I am missing something.

Precedence - The Pats finally got rid of Bethel last year (one year left on his contract). I expect the same thing with Hill, except no trade, just cut...

If you cut Hill, whoever replaces him will do the same exact thing - be inactive every week.

Simply put, until Warren or Seymour or Wilfork or Green show signs of slowing down, NO ONE will get playing time behind them.

The Pats took a gamble with Hill. They had just taken Wilfork a round before, and Warren had only started a few games, so it's understandable. He was an insurance policy, but they ended up not needing him.

 

[DaBruinz]

Okay, so he's not hurt, he's "injured". Is it safe to say then that Seymour is in fact injury prone? I like the guy, he's one of my favorites but that's exactly what I'm calling him. It seems the past few years it's always something. Chad Pennington gets injured like this on fluke things and everyone calls him injury prone including myself so I think it's fair to say Seymour is in fact injury prone.

Pennington is "INJURY PRONE", because he has missed the a LOT of time across 3 seasons.

How many games has Seymour lost?

Seymour got himself a brace that allowed him to return to playing.

Seymour's injuries have been of the catastrophic nature. Ones that you can't plan for. I wouldn't call it injury prone, but that's just me.

 

[Underoath]

Okay, I did find this, from this morning's Herald:

“As I went back and looked at the game, I definitely feel blessed and fortunate,” Seymour said. “It could have been worse than it was. I couldn’t even watch it on film. It was pretty gruesome. I feel blessed enough to come out of that situation and take it for what it is right now and continue to get better.”

Seymour had been tripped on the play and had his left arm planted toward the line of scrimmage when Harrison hit him flush on the elbow, viciously hyperextending it.


HE HYPERXETNDED HIS ELBOW AND HE MIGHT MISS A GAME?!?!?!?!?

I hyperextended my elbow reaching for the remote for my TV last night and I'm at work today!

LOL!

(And I'm not wearing a GAHD-DAMM Yankee cap, either!)

ADPF

shut up with the Yankee hat thing. He likes the Yankees (I assume) and he doesn't give a **** what you think. shut the hell up

 

[everlong]

I like Seymour a lot but the fact is he was the third best DL player on our team this year and Marcus McNeil was able to handle him heads up in round two and he wasn't a factor against the Colts. I'd like to think the arm is still giving him trouble because I've never seen anybody handle him like McNeil did.

 

[cstjohn17]

If you cut Hill, whoever replaces him will do the same exact thing - be inactive every week.

Simply put, until Warren or Seymour or Wilfork or Green show signs of slowing down, NO ONE will get playing time behind them.

The Pats took a gamble with Hill. They had just taken Wilfork a round before, and Warren had only started a few games, so it's understandable. He was an insurance policy, but they ended up not needing him.

Injury prone is maybe the wrong term, maybe the question is "Do we need additional depth on the DL due to the nature of the position and history of players missing time?"

Hill doesn't play because he sucks. (period)

If a player was drafted / signed who can be seen as a viable #4 or #5 on the dpeth chart would this help setup a rotation that allows the big 3 to remain healthier and fresher towards the end of the season?

IMO it all starts in the trenches, no such thing as too much depth at OLine ot DLine. Not the most pressing need but also not a spot that can be totally ignored.

 

[pats1]

Injury prone is maybe the wrong term, maybe the question is "Do we need additional depth on the DL due to the nature of the position and history of players missing time?"

Hill doesn't play because he sucks. (period)

If a player was drafted / signed who can be seen as a viable #4 or #5 on the dpeth chart would this help setup a rotation that allows the big 3 to remain healthier and fresher towards the end of the season?

IMO it all starts in the trenches, no such thing as too much depth at OLine ot DLine. Not the most pressing need but also not a spot that can be totally ignored.

How do we know that Hill sucks? He never plays.

He doesn't not play because he sucks, necessarily. It's pretty obvious that he's not as good as Warren or Seymour (duh), so he's not going to see the field. He's also not a pass-rushing type like Green, or not as versatile as Wright. He'd make a nice run-stopping 3-4 DE for a lot of teams.

 

[cstjohn17]

How do we know that Hill sucks? He never plays.

He doesn't not play because he sucks, necessarily. It's pretty obvious that he's not as good as Warren or Seymour (duh), so he's not going to see the field. He's also not a pass-rushing type like Green, or not as versatile as Wright. He'd make a nice run-stopping 3-4 DE for a lot of teams.

Come on? Are you telling me you think Hill is a good player, or even an average player?

Why would they keep him off the field if he could play even a little?

Seymour was really banged up for a couple of games. He was a warrior to play through it, but if Hill even had backup skill level they could have rested Seymour a played Hill.

Maybe 07 is his breakout year but everything I have seen points to player who was drafted on potential and never got there.

 

[pats1]

Come on? Are you telling me you think Hill is a good player, or even an average player?

Why would they keep him off the field if he could play even a little?

Seymour was really banged up for a couple of games. He was a warrior to play through it, but if Hill even had backup skill level they could have rested Seymour a played Hill.

Maybe 07 is his breakout year but everything I have seen points to player who was drafted on potential and never got there.

Again, I told you.

He doesn't fill a role as an active player. The Pats need 5 active DLs:

Starting LE - Seymour
Starting NT - Wilfork
Starting RE - Warren

Pass Rusher - Green
Backup NT - Wright

That leaves Hill and Smith out of the mix not because they "suck," but because the depth chart is just so damn stacked ahead of them. You can put Michael Strahan in there, and unless he can beat out Green, the case is the same.

He was drafted on the potential of being an NFL starting 3-4 DE. Until Seymour or Warren leaves, he'll NEVER get that chance.

 

[mgteich]

We have been carrying seven DL's, with five getting almost all the reps. We might have a perceived need for another in short yardage situations; however, we'd rather have our #6 and #7 inactive than count on who we have in that (critical) role. BTW, the pats were effective in short yardage, and in the redzone this last season.

We have three top DL's and a top backup DE, who is primarily a pass-rusher. We also have solid utility backup who can play all positions. These five are all set for a couple of years. The last two are benchwarmers that are inactive, unless there are injuries, in which case they are active benchwarmers.

QUESTION 1
------------
Is there a major letdown when one of the top three is out? Or is Wright a sufficient backup? Do we need an insurance policy? Do we need an upgrade to Wright?

QUESTION 2
------------
We have a project backup NT in Smith. Has he progressed enough to expect him to make the team for another year? Is he the insurance polciy at backup NT?

QUESTION 3
------------
We have a project backup DE in Hill. Has he progressed enough to expect him to make the team for another year? Is he the insurance policy at DE?

QUESTION 4
------------
If we decide that we want an additional DL, how high should we draft this player. Obviously we could bring in jag free agents, and probably should. We might even bring in a mid-level free agent.

================================================
Q1/Q2
Personally I think that there is a letdown, but that it is acceptable. The remaining four get more reps and Smith is activated as the backup/relief NT. I defintely think that Smith is progressing well enough to count on in a backup role next year.

Q3
OK, who believes in Hill? Who believes that he should sail through camp with no competition for his roster spot? Who drinks even more koolaid than aj and I do? I suspect that fa competition or replacement is sufficient. We've certainly brought in grizzled veterans for the insurance role in the past. This approach still makes a good deal of sense.

Q4
The issue is whether we want to DRAFT an insurance policy. Obviously, we are not talking about Day Two picks. There, if see value at DL, we will draft a DL. However, if we see a Day One pure DL for the right value, would we draft him?

My personal answer is a firm "yes". The simple reality is that I would rather rotate five than six on the DL, with roles for all. Do I think it likely that a first round draft pick could beat out Smith or Hill, and perhaps move up in the depth chart in the future? Of course, the answer is affirmative. Do I think we need an insurance policy so that everyone can move up in the depth chart with little loss, if there is an injury? Again the answer is certainly yes.

BOTTOM LINE
I would put NT and DE on my Day One needs list, along with ILB, OLB, CB, WR, FB, and S. We will pick for need and value, as we always do. A free agent signing or two could of course move one of these needs off the patriots Day One draft board.

If you don't put FB on your list, you just haven't watched Rutgers play this year.

 

[RayClay]

Santonio is itching to get in there and there's always the great LeKevin.

Bottom line, if we had the talent and depth at other positions we have at DL, we'd be invincible. These guys are made from bones and ligaments and they take a pounding every game.

 

[DarrylS]

Rereading these threads always brings a smile, people criticize Richard without knowing his assignment on Defense... over and over again have heard and read that as a fan it is difficult to know what he is supposed to be doing, we are all enamored with the glitz of a sack or a tackle in the backfield. The reality of this D is that these guys on the front are supposed to collapse the pocket or contain the run.. the sexy stuff belongs to the LB's. So for those who feel he is the third best d lineman, lost a step or is oft injured and not effective you need to look and somehow try to understand what he is actually supposed to be doing.

Consider what he has had to do this year on one good leg and one good arm, IMO he is one of the best in the league and this is verified by the vote of the NFL coaches and peers.

 

[cstjohn17]

QUESTION 3
------------
We have a project backup DE in Hill. Has he progressed enough to expect him to make the team for another year? Is he the insurance policy at DE?

QUESTION 4
------------
If we decide that we want an additional DL, how high should we draft this player. Obviously we could bring in jag free agents, and probably should. We might even bring in a mid-level free agent.

Q3
OK, who believes in Hill? Who believes that he should sail through camp with no competition for his roster spot? Who drinks even more koolaid than aj and I do? I suspect that fa competition or replacement is sufficient. We've certainly brought in grizzled veterans for the insurance role in the past. This approach still makes a good deal of sense.

Q4
The issue is whether we want to DRAFT an insurance policy. Obviously, we are not talking about Day Two picks. There, if see value at DL, we will draft a DL. However, if we see a Day One pure DL for the right value, would we draft him?

My personal answer is a firm "yes". The simple reality is that I would rather rotate five than six on the DL, with roles for all. Do I think it likely that a first round draft pick could beat out Smith or Hill, and perhaps move up in the depth chart in the future? Of course, the answer is affirmative. Do I think we need an insurance policy so that everyone can move up in the depth chart with little loss, if there is an injury? Again the answer is certainly yes.

BOTTOM LINE
I would put NT and DE on my Day One needs list, along with ILB, OLB, CB, WR, FB, and S. We will pick for need and value, as we always do. A free agent signing or two could of course move one of these needs off the patriots Day One draft board.

If you don't put FB on your list, you just haven't watched Rutgers play this year.

"My personal answer is a firm "yes". The simple reality is that I would rather rotate five than six on the DL"

Well put, much more on target than the babble I tried to present. I also agree as boring and frustrating as it is to predict, BPA especially on day 1 is the only way to go.