Seymour: "There's 31 teams I'd consider going to"

[satz]

They did not want to pay him $25-30m in guarantees. Rather lose him and get a 3rd or a 4th round pick, they got a 1st.

No need to agree with it, but that was their logic.

Would put the same logic on brady
He is 33 and franchise him 1 more year and trade him at 35

We never knew what it would have taken to resign him. the problem is not value but throwing a season away because of some future pick. Let say they tender mankins and franchise vince and snapping it. What wil you say when they walk in 2011. Will you claim we are going to rebuild for 2 more yrs.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Would put the same logic on brady
He is 33 and franchise him 1 more year and trade him at 35

It does. Quite frankly I think the Pats are going to play reasonably tough with Brady. The did in 05 when he was younger, just won his 3rd SB and a CBA was in place. Now with him being 33 and no CBA in place and as we have seen with Wilfork, they are taking a tough stance on big deals.

We never knew what it would have taken to resign him. the problem is not value but throwing a season away because of some future pick.

You're right. It's all speculation regarding what Sey wanted and what the Pats were willing to offer. I do think that we can conclude that Sey wanted big money and the Pats, for whatever reason didn't want to give it to him- thus the trade.

I wouldn't call this past season a throw-away just because Sey wasn't here. The D would have been better for sure but this team's problems went beyond Sey no longer being in the lineup.

A first round pick from the Raiders is most likely a top 10 pick. That's not too shabby compensation as the team would have fetched a 3rd rounder or so as a compensatory pick with Sey leaving as a FA.

Let say they tender mankins and franchise vince and snapping it. What wil you say when they walk in 2011. Will you claim we are going to rebuild for 2 more yrs.

I won't be happy for sure. I think Mankins and Wilfork are keepers. But it also depends on what kind of cash they are looking for. Is Wilfork worth Haynesworth money? No. Should the Pats pay them whatever they want? No. Should they offer them fair market deals and make a genuine attempt to keep both of them? Yes.

I do find it odd how some teams like Dallas, San Diego and the Giants have offered up big extensions to their marquee players and the Pats have not. Do the Pats know something that those teams don't and that is why they have not extended anyone of substance? Are they being too conservative? Time will tell if they are right or wrong.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Seymour was great in 2008!

If Belichick believed that or believed he was going to be great going forward he'd probably still be here. It was the same deal with Milloy. If you ever notice his name is the last one mentioned even by players when they talk about lost leaders. He led by example, and his example was mixed to say the least as his career unfolded. The real leaders on this team always played at a discount and didn't let that fact bother them because at the end of the day winning mattered more than squeezing every last nickle out of their careers.

 

[shmessy]

Are you really so far into Belichick's pocket that you can't see why it's bush league to trade a top player across the country mere days before the start of the regular season, and either just before, or after, school has started for the kids? This was not some borderline prospect who knew he might get cut or moved and had planned his life accordingly.

Whoa, Deus, when did this become the Charitable Sister's of the Poor Church League?

......and industry moves peoples' jobs to India and Mexico.

It's a business. The corporation doesn't worry about the kids' school chums.

Wake up call- - it's 2010.

 

[BradyFTW!]

For anyone who's bagging on Seymour's 'injury history'- he's missed an average of less than two games per year over the course of his career. Wilfork has missed exactly 1 game per year. The only thing separating Seymour from Wilfork, in terms of games missed, is his 2007 PUP stint. Which was from an injury that Seymour sustained while playing fullback because Belichick told him to.

 

[PowerRunRevival]

For anyone who's bagging on Seymour's 'injury history'- he's missed an average of less than two games per year over the course of his career. Wilfork has missed exactly 1 game per year. The only thing separating Seymour from Wilfork, in terms of games missed, is his 2007 PUP stint. Which was from an injury that Seymour sustained while playing fullback because Belichick told him to.

Seymour is not in the same class as Wilfork at this point in their respective careers. The most valuable player in a 3-4 defense is a stout nose tackle. Losing Wilfork would hurt ten times more than losing Seymour.

Did it hurt the team this year that we didn't have Seymour? Absolutely. Is trading him for a top 10 pick when you think that he is going to leave the next year anyway a great idea? Absolutely.

 

[Patjew]

If Belichick believed that or believed he was going to be great going forward he'd probably still be here. It was the same deal with Milloy. If you ever notice his name is the last one mentioned even by players when they talk about lost leaders. He led by example, and his example was mixed to say the least as his career unfolded. The real leaders on this team always played at a discount and didn't let that fact bother them because at the end of the day winning mattered more than squeezing every last nickle out of their careers.

It's not necessarily that Belichick didn't think he would be great (or good). As usual it probably came down to value, and I guess BB didn't think he'd be worth what he'd have to pay to keep him. But that does not disccount the quality of his play. At this point I care about having guys on the field that can make plays. Whether he was a "real leader" or not, Seymour played like a beast for us and was a huge part of the SB wins.

Anyway, he's gone and I'm over it.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, it's a business. Belichick's decisions on Seyomur, Hobbs and the his insistance that we didn't need to add linebackers cost us. Belichick gave away 2009 to help the future.

And yes, those were bush league moves.

Whoa, Deus, when did this become the Charitable Sister's of the Poor Church League?

......and industry moves peoples' jobs to India and Mexico.

It's a business. The corporation doesn't worry about the kids' school chums.

Wake up call- - it's 2010.

 

[TriplecHamp]

yes, that was my point.

Okay so what sets us apart now?

 

[Imperator]

I can see both sides to this issue that's debated upon in every Richard Seymour thread.

On the personal level, Seymour did get a pretty crappy deal. having to uproot his family, move from the east to the west coast and on top of that play for a lousy team instead of for a contender. However he's still getting paid good money. Which leads into the other point of view; He's getting paid good money, to play a game of football once a week, for 16 or so weeks. He should know this as he made the claim of football being a business back when he was holding out - and it is indeed a business.

As for whether or not he would have been important to the team this year; absolutely. Anyone can see (and I hope has seen) what he brings to the table. Richard Seymour is a great talent who can tilt the scales of many-a-game. The way Belichick has utilized him has shown in the Patriots defensive success throughout most of the decade. But as has been pointed out in this thread already: It's all about the value. Was losing one year of Richard Seymour worth a potential top five 1st round pick? No one knows yet. It was a gamble and the results of it will not be fully known until a good 4-5 years from now. Though we will never know how much he would have contributed to the success of the 2009 Patriots season.

Personally I think he makes the difference in one or two games, but in the grand scheme doesn't bring us to the Superbowl. Many intangibles have to be taken into account other then his talent and what he offers the team. For instance how well prepared the team is from game to game and the play of his teammates. I do not think he would have been the difference-maker in the playoff game vs Baltimore either, that was a team effort that lost the game and the (potential) spirited play of one player wouldn't have gotten the Pats over that terrible hump IMO. I can sit and point out reasons why (young corps of defensive players, lack of coaching depth, etc) but I think the point stands that this team was not going the distance this year.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[mgteich]

This is a simple situation.
The patriots had no interst in keeping Seymou, so they traded him without notice or consideration.
Seymour has no interest in ever playing for the patriots. Why would he?