Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

[FCB02062]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

.... anything but Frank from "Glostuh"

Steve from Fall River, Frank from Gloucester, Al from Everett, Angelo in Everett, John from Medford , Butch from the Cape, Allison in Cambridge...and I actually remember one of the first "celebrity callers" from way back in the days of the sports huddle with eddie andelman, mark whitkin, and jim mccarthy - guy by the name of "Paul from Woburn"...he'd call every weekend and b#tch about the Red Sox, Bruins, and Patriots...ah, those were the days!!!!!!! Yes, I'm dating myself. I bet 75% of the people on this board have no idea what the sports huddle was...

 

[mgteich]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

What was going on behind the scenes is that the team made clear that he was not going to be extended that year, and that the team might consider an extension in an uncapped year, or not. There were clearly lots of players to consider.

In any case, the situation was clearly not a good one. Seymour made it clear that he wanted no part of the situation. Seymour got his money and respect elsewhere.

Wilfork may or may not have been given more assurances. He certainly understood that he was a much lower cost deal for the team. Of course, once Seymour was gone, Wilfork had a relatively easy road to a matually-acceptable contract.

Mankins cooperated, agreed to wait. Looking back, I suspect that Mankins wished that he took the road Seymour did.
-------------------

But this is all long in the past. The team chose to be without Seymour in two years when his cost could have been easily incorporated in teh salary cap and the non-cap year. Our records in those years speak for themselves. We can continue to believe that Seymour was all washed up and would not have been a difference maker. Self-deception is a wonderful coping mechanism.

Some people seem to forget Seymour came into camp in horrible shape, was slower than mud and unmotivated. He missed like 15-20 practices that camp. Add what was going on behind the scene and I think the best case scenario played itself out. Seymour was in the last year of his 3.6 million a year deal. He did not want to play at that price he wanted a new deal then and not at the end of the year.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Why is sarcasm generally lost on this board? did you not see the "big grin" smiley???????

Sorry, but with some of the Chicken Littles, difficult to determ sarcasm with really loons. I guess thinking it wasn't sarcasm, I didn't get as far as the end but a frown face and smiley face negate one another.

 

[TealSox]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

To repeat:

Laughable!

Next up: "How the Patriots BLEW the Deion Branch deal"

Stay tuned!

 

[TealSox]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Win some, lose some. I don't know why folks can't accept that we lost this one. We could ahve extended Seymour for say $11M a year. We would had the four years of Seymour instead of the Raiders. Instead we will have a #17 draft pick.

I don't know why folks are so quick to say that the "deal" was an outright LOSS. Think that, in the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree... the "Patriots F'd" members won't change their position.

I just remember the same BS hitting the boards when Bledsoe was traded to Buffalo. Some thought the Patriots had sealed their fate.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Steve from Fall River, Frank from Gloucester, Al from Everett, Angelo in Everett, John from Medford , Butch from the Cape, Allison in Cambridge...and I actually remember one of the first "celebrity callers" from way back in the days of the sports huddle with eddie andelman, mark whitkin, and jim mccarthy - guy by the name of "Paul from Woburn"...he'd call every weekend and b#tch about the Red Sox, Bruins, and Patriots...ah, those were the days!!!!!!! Yes, I'm dating myself. I bet 75% of the people on this board have no idea what the sports huddle was...

790 WPRO ... Jersey 'JagOff' Red ... had to be the biggest d-bag ever in caller land.

BTW ... You are going back to bending the pins in the cable box days.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

We haven't adequately replaced Seymour, but it's not as if he's been lighting it up for the Raiders. I don't know why everyone is talking about him turning that team around. When looking at the 2008 Raiders D (before Seymour) and the years after he got there, there's not a huge difference.

The team's sack total did increase significantly this season, though it didn't necessarily lead to a huge increase in turnovers caused by that pressure.

The team's turnaround probably has way more to do with the offense's improvement, from 29th in 2008 and 31st in 2009 to 6th in 2010.

I'm not saying I don't miss him, because I do. But last year wasn't really worth the $13M he made, and it remains to be seen whether the next two are worth the $15M each.

 

[folamzz]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Laughable!

Next up: "How the Patriots BLEW the Deion Branch deal"

Stay tuned!

Did we win the Branch deal? Maybe we win the AFC championship if we have Branch instead of Troy Brown running the route on 3rd and 3. Maybe we don't get blown out by Baltimore if we had seymour. Maybe Sanchez doesn't throw 3 TDs if we had Seymour instead of Kyle Love. The Homers are delusional.

We may have blown chances to win more Superbowls because we won't pay our players in their primes. Samuels, Branch and Seymour were under 30 when we let them go.

 

[folamzz]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Seems to me Seymour and Samuel were the missing ingredients in the 2007 Super Bowl.


The Raiders giving 15 mil a year to an average at best **** Seymour is further proof of Al Davis' alzheimers. The Raiders are a laughingstock.

Do you know that we have not won a playoff game since Samuels and Seymour left? Maybe if we kept them (two of our best players), maybe we win a playoff game in the last three years

 

[mgteich]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

So soon? First we get criticized if we don't spek wquickly enough, otherwise we are just looking back with 100% hindsight. We said that it was a abd deal at the time. We have said so regularly every since. We can judge again after next eyar if you wish.

The team decided that Seymour wasn't worth keeping. Arguably, we have had the best team in the nfl over the last two years. Could we have been one player away from winning a playoff game or two or three? Could one of the 3-4 DE's in the league have helped us a bit? Ya think?

If Mankins had another year left, and could be franchised after that, do you think that we would trade him for a 1st rounder TWO YEARS in the future? Do you think that a top DE is worth more than a top guard.

yes, we can agree to disagree.

I don't know why folks are so quick to say that the "deal" was an outright LOSS. Think that, in the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree... the "Patriots F'd" members won't change their position.

I just remember the same BS hitting the boards when Bledsoe was traded to Buffalo. Some thought the Patriots had sealed their fate.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Big Sey IS the best 34 DE in the league RIGHT NOW for the Pats defense... Anyone who disagrees is out of there ******* mind or blinded off the Kool Aide.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

It's nice to see Al Davis reward Seymour with a crap ton of money for all the hard work / Super Bowl winning he did in NE.

OK, I actually DID LOL at that one!!

 

[TealSox]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Did we win the Branch deal? Maybe we win the AFC championship if we have Branch instead of Troy Brown running the route on 3rd and 3. Maybe we don't get blown out by Baltimore if we had seymour. Maybe Sanchez doesn't throw 3 TDs if we had Seymour instead of Kyle Love. The Homers are delusional.

We may have blown chances to win more Superbowls because we won't pay our players in their primes. Samuels, Branch and Seymour were under 30 when we let them go.

And maybe... and maybe... and maybe...

We can all play that game, but where will that get us. MAYBE the Patriots keep Branch and still lose in the AFCC. With Branch, MAYBE the organization doesn't feel that WR is an off season priority, so they FAIL to trade for Wes Welker and Randy Moss. MAYBE Brady never breaks the single season record for TD passes and MAYBE they never go undefeated in the regular season.

SEA G 51 GS 40 Rec. 190 Yds 2347 TDs 15

Patriots got Brandon Merriweather, whose been to 2 more Pro Bowls than Branch. Having the Seahawks first round pick allowed the Patriots to trade their second pick in the first round to the 49ers for their 2008 first round pick [Jerod Mayo].

 

[TealSox]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Do you know that we have not won a playoff game since Samuels and Seymour left? Maybe if we kept them (two of our best players), maybe we win a playoff game in the last three years

And maybe Seymour is hurt and unable to play in the playoff match up against the Ravens and the Patriots lose anyways...

 

[Ring 6]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

And maybe Seymour is hurt and unable to play in the playoff match up against the Ravens and the Patriots lose anyways...

This is an unresolvable debate.
Of course the Patriots would have been better if they kept Seymour.
However, it seems blatantly obvious that they couldnt have afforded to keep him beyond 09 unless they kept him instead of Wilfork. Which one to keep could be a debate that would go on forever.
That we couldnt keep both Seymour and Wilfork seems clear, unless you are trying to fudge the facts to support an opinion.
Whether we should have kept Seymour or Wilfork is debatable, but the fact that Wilfork sign a long term deal and we do not know if Seymour would have is a factor.
Whether we should have traded Seymour or let him walk is the real debate. For my money, we would not have won it all in 2009 with him (but everyone can have their own view of that) and what we got in return was an awful lot more than what we would have gotten in a comp pick if he walked after 2009.

To float the opinion that we should have kept Seymour and Wilfork would allow you to say BB screwed up, but I don't see any real way that could have happened, unless the team used the uncapped year to load up on contracts that would put them in cap hell subsequently.

 

[sbpatfan]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

It's the song that never ends...

 

[mgteich]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Somehow you seem to think that we could have kept Wilfork and Mankins, but not Wilfork and Seymour. I disagree. We can agree to disagree and go forward.

Let's move ahead. Now, we may or may not be able to sign Mankins long term. It is clear that the team could ahve afforded $10M last year and $10M this year. Last year was uncapped. This year, the team had franchised him for $10M.

If we sign a long-term contract with Mankins, then all is well with the world. Belichick chose Wilfork and Mankins, and executed. While I might have preferred Seymour instead of Mankins, I can understand the choice. If we don't rextend Mankins, we can look at the top impact player that was signed for $10M instead. Maybe we still are fine.

But, BOTTOM LINE, ww disagree. I believe that we could have had Wilfork AND Seymour on the team for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. In addition, we could have acted as we did with Mankins last year and this. Of course, in my scenario, this year's fracnhise would just be to protect our rights.

This is an unresolvable debate.
Of course the Patriots would have been better if they kept Seymour.
However, it seems blatantly obvious that they couldnt have afforded to keep him beyond 09 unless they kept him instead of Wilfork. Which one to keep could be a debate that would go on forever.
That we couldnt keep both Seymour and Wilfork seems clear, unless you are trying to fudge the facts to support an opinion.
Whether we should have kept Seymour or Wilfork is debatable, but the fact that Wilfork sign a long term deal and we do not know if Seymour would have is a factor.
Whether we should have traded Seymour or let him walk is the real debate. For my money, we would not have won it all in 2009 with him (but everyone can have their own view of that) and what we got in return was an awful lot more than what we would have gotten in a comp pick if he walked after 2009.

To float the opinion that we should have kept Seymour and Wilfork would allow you to say BB screwed up, but I don't see any real way that could have happened, unless the team used the uncapped year to load up on contracts that would put them in cap hell subsequently.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Somehow you seem to think that we could have kept Wilfork and Mankins, but not Wilfork and Seymour. I disagree. We can agree to disagree and go forward.

Let's move ahead. Now, we may or may not be able to sign Mankins long term. It is clear that the team could ahve afforded $10M last year and $10M this year. Last year was uncapped. This year, the team had franchised him for $10M.

If we sign a long-term contract with Mankins, then all is well with the world. Belichick chose Wilfork and Mankins, and executed. While I might have preferred Seymour instead of Mankins, I can understand the choice. If we don't rextend Mankins, we can look at the top impact player that was signed for $10M instead. Maybe we still are fine.

But, BOTTOM LINE, ww disagree. I believe that we could have had Wilfork AND Seymour on the team for 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. In addition, we could have acted as we did with Mankins last year and this. Of course, in my scenario, this year's fracnhise would just be to protect our rights.

Mankins is not relevant to the discussion.
Seymour and Wilforks contracts were both up after the 2009 season. Mankins was an RFA after the 2009 season.

Last season we were forced to franchise Wilfork to keep him. How would we keep both he and Seymour with only 1 tag?
Sure, its possible that agreements that never happened could have been done, but that is at the risk of losing one or the other without compensation.

As it turned out, the Raiders needed to tag Seymour, and apparently he likes being there, and we needed to tag Wilfork who apparently likes being here. How do you propose we would have kept both of them? At the very least its a tremendous gamble that we lose him, or Wilfork, without compensation.

Sure, you can argue that we could keep anyone, but you have to be realistic.

 

[Froob]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

I don't think pats win the super bowl in 09 with seymour, maybe if they had gotten wilfork's contract done w/o the franchise tag and then tagged seymour. MAYBE with seymour they win last year. I personally would make the trade again. Seymour is too expensive.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

MAYBE with seymour they win last year. I personally would make the trade again. Seymour is too expensive.

Too expensive based on what? Relative players who play 3-4 DE? His performance? The cost of winning? The team will never know what the outcome would have been in 2010 w/ Sey. Lets say in the uncapped year they break the bank on Sey and Wilfork and find a way to keep both. If there is one thing the 2010 team needed more then anything was a stronger defense- particularly the short-yardage run defense and the pass rush. Those happen to be two areas in which Sey could provide great value.

The smart, solid financial decision was to trade Sey.

The decision to put to best team on the field and win was to keep Sey.