Seymour to Report on Saturday...Ready for Monday's game????

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

53 man roster. I suggest you read James Lavin's or David Halberstam's books.

One man doesn't make a team's yearly destiny (except a QB). It was more than just missing Branch that year.

Sorry, but you're wrong. One man, even a non-QB, can be the difference between winning or losing a specific game and if that specific game happens to be in the playoffs, then that can make (or break) a team's season.

You think the 49ers win Super Bowl 23 without Jerry Rice? You think the Giants win Super Bowl 25 without Ottis Anderson? You think the Broncos win Super Bowl 32 without Terrell Davis? You think the Ravens win Super Bowl 35 without Ray Lewis? Gee, none of those guys are Quarterbacks so I guess none of them really matter, huh..?

I suggest you learn your football history.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Did I say or do something to deserve such a sarcastic, disdainful response? Can we disagree without being disagreeable?

I still believe they are the best team in the NFL but there's no doubt their margin of error and depth on defense just got a lot smaller. Everyone's talking about how great the replacements and rest of the line is... and if all those guys stay healthy, then that's great. But can you honestly say that this team's d-line is as deep today as it was 7 days ago?

My apologies, it was not meant to be so disdainful - - perhaps the extra exclamation points and question marks were over the top. I do stand by the question asked, which was based on what you had written. I don't think it matters whether they go 13-6 or 15-4 if they still get to the same destination. You wrote that you think they still will win the SB. That seemed like a disconnect in the argument against the trade that still gets them the SB, but also with a high 1st rounder in 2011 to boot.

Once agin, no disdain meant, the extra marks and points were my quick reaction error.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Sorry, but you're wrong. One man, even a non-QB, can be the difference between winning or losing a specific game and if that specific game happens to be in the playoffs, then that can make (or break) a team's season.

You think the 49ers win Super Bowl 23 without Jerry Rice? You think the Giants win Super Bowl 25 without Ottis Anderson? You think the Broncos win Super Bowl 32 without Terrell Davis? You think the Ravens win Super Bowl 35 without Ray Lewis? Gee, none of those guys are Quarterbacks so I guess none of them really matter, huh..?

I suggest you learn your football history.

On any given day one player can make all the difference. But that doesn't make that player larger than the team, or even mean that the player is worthy of being on the team.

You think the Giants win the 2007 SB without David Tyree making the catch of his life?

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

That's strange, wasn't it YOU who stated: "I still think the Patriots are the best team in the NFL and I still think they are going to win the Super Bowl this year."???

Does the trade weaken them in the immediate term? You bet. Seymour is an excellent player.

But whether they win the SB with a 13-6 record versus a 15-4 record matters not a lick, does it? You say you believe they still win it. What's your point, then?

My point, which I have already stated twice and will now do so for a third time, is that they are not as strong or as deep today as they were 7 days ago. The margin of error just got a lot smaller.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Sorry, but you're wrong. One man, even a non-QB, can be the difference between winning or losing a specific game and if that specific game happens to be in the playoffs, then that can make (or break) a team's season.

You think the 49ers win Super Bowl 23 without Jerry Rice? You think the Giants win Super Bowl 25 without Ottis Anderson? You think the Broncos win Super Bowl 32 without Terrell Davis? You think the Ravens win Super Bowl 35 without Ray Lewis? Gee, none of those guys are Quarterbacks so I guess none of them really matter, huh..?

I suggest you learn your football history.

Who would the Patriots have had to cut if they caved to Branch's salary cap busting demands? Would they have been able to GET to the AFCG that year without the personnel they were able to hold onto?

It's an impossible question to answer, because this is not Fantasy Football, this is real. If Picasso's parents hadn't met at a party years ago, what would have happened to art history?

 

[RayClay]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Sorry, but you're wrong. One man, even a non-QB, can be the difference between winning or losing a specific game and if that specific game happens to be in the playoffs, then that can make (or break) a team's season.

You think the 49ers win Super Bowl 23 without Jerry Rice? You think the Giants win Super Bowl 25 without Ottis Anderson? You think the Broncos win Super Bowl 32 without Terrell Davis? You think the Ravens win Super Bowl 35 without Ray Lewis? Gee, none of those guys are Quarterbacks so I guess none of them really matter, huh..?

I suggest you learn your football history.

We were up 21-6 at the half, giving us a tremendous advantage.

The average NFL team scored less than 22 points in 2006. we scored 34. Please tell me how a receiver cost us that game?

Try to use logic, if possible.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

My point, which I have already stated twice and will now do so for a third time, is that they are not as strong or as deep today as they were 7 days ago. The margin of error just got a lot smaller.

The margin of error was miniscule in 2001.

The SB win was just as (if not more) sweet. And the very unpopular and "disloyal" immediate term personnel decision by BB that year helped create a long-term dynasty.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

My apologies, it was not meant to be so disdainful - - perhaps the extra exclamation points and question marks were over the top. I do stand by the question asked, which was based on what you had written. I don't think it matters whether they go 13-6 or 15-4 if they still get to the same destination. You wrote that you think they still will win the SB. That seemed like a disconnect in the argument against the trade that still gets them the SB, but also with a high 1st rounder in 2011 to boot.

Once agin, no disdain meant, the extra marks and points were my quick reaction error.

I don't mean to be sarcastic or snide either and I apologize if that seems to be the case. I promise to behave.

So let's look at your own numbers. I agree 100% that it doesn't matter if they go 13-6 or 15-4, as long as they end up in Miami on the podium at the end of the game. But, using your own example here, you're projecting a 10-6 regular season versus a 12-4 regular season. That could be the difference between an AFCCG in Gillette instead of one in Indy or in Baltimore. Heck, last year the difference between 12-4 and 10-6 is the difference between a first round bye versus missing the playoffs entirely.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Sorry, but you're wrong. One man, even a non-QB, can be the difference between winning or losing a specific game and if that specific game happens to be in the playoffs, then that can make (or break) a team's season.

You think the 49ers win Super Bowl 23 without Jerry Rice? You think the Giants win Super Bowl 25 without Ottis Anderson? You think the Broncos win Super Bowl 32 without Terrell Davis? You think the Ravens win Super Bowl 35 without Ray Lewis? Gee, none of those guys are Quarterbacks so I guess none of them really matter, huh..?

I suggest you learn your football history.

Any ONE of those great players you listed would tell you in a heartbeat that without the other 10 players on the field working in concert to the utmost, they don't get a ring in those years.

For Terrell Davis to star in SB 32, he had one of the greatest (and dirtiest) offensive lines opening holes (btw, Denver under Shanny would plug in my grandmother and she would get 1,000 yards).

Jerry Rice couldn't do what he did in a vacuum. Ray Lewis couldn't either. They'd all tell you that.

Football ain't baseball or basketball.

One great player doesn't tip a season without the roster - - ask Gale Sayers or Leroy Selmon or John Hannah.

On the other side, sometimes MEDIOCRE players like a Max McGee or Timmy Smith could go nuts in any one SB game.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

We were up 21-6 at the half, giving us a tremendous advantage.

The average NFL team scored less than 22 points in 2006. we scored 34. Please tell me how a receiver cost us that game?

Try to use logic, if possible.

Gladly.

The final score of that game was 38-34. Logically speaking if an upgrade in receiver generated one additional touchdown, all other factors being equal, then they would have won the game. Sometimes all it takes is one good catch to extend a drive and you're looking at 1st and 10 instead of 4th and 8. Also, if an upgrade in receiver generated (for example) a change such that one of their FG's was a TD instead, then at worst there would have been overtime.

There's absolutely no way anyone will ever know "what if?" But considering the drops we saw that day, I don't think either of those scenarios is a stretch.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Gladly.

The final score of that game was 38-34. Logically speaking if an upgrade in receiver generated one additional touchdown, all other factors being equal, then they would have won the game. Sometimes all it takes is one good catch to extend a drive and you're looking at 1st and 10 instead of 4th and 8. Also, if an upgrade in receiver generated (for example) a change such that one of their FG's was a TD instead, then at worst there would have been overtime.

There's absolutely no way anyone will ever know "what if?" But considering the drops we saw that day, I don't think either of those scenarios is a stretch.

Nobody said that BB is perfect.

But perhaps the mistake was not regarding letting go of Branch, but regarding picking Beisel and Chad Smith???

Sure makes sense if you look at the game you're referencing.

There are more moving pieces to the equation than I think your focus is on.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

The margin of error was miniscule in 2001.

True, but they were healthy and won it all that year (well, I remember their starting QB got injured early in the season, but we won't talk about that ). Meanwhile, the margin of error in 2004 was huge, which was why they could take the loss of Ty Law and even Seymour (late in the season and the AFC playoffs) and still win the Super Bowl.

Do you think this 2009 team could lose 2 comparable players like they did in 2004 and still be good enough to win the Super Bowl?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Football is a game of attrition, over the course of the season. Everyone suffers injuries, and it takes luck to even remain in contention, since every team has at least a couple players that it flat-out can't afford to lose. Why didn't the Pats win in 2007? Because Colvin and Neal were hurt, simple as that. If Polamalu's significantly slowed down for the remainder of this year, then the Steelers go from SB favorites to underdog contenders, at best.

So to pretend that margin of error doesn't matter is, at best, incredibly shortsighted. The team that wins the SB is one of two things (and usually both): 1- incredibly lucky, and 2- strong on depth. Every team is going to finish the season much weaker than it started it, and the team that wins will win because it was able to manage its injuries. When your margin of error goes down, this becomes harder to do. Talk about the 2001 team all you want, but if the only way to win the SB is to have near-miraculous luck as far as injuries go (like that team did), then your team is going to almost always come up short.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

True, but they were healthy and won it all that year (well, I remember their starting QB got injured early in the season, but we won't talk about that ). Meanwhile, the margin of error in 2004 was huge, which was why they could take the loss of Ty Law and even Seymour (late in the season and the AFC playoffs) and still win the Super Bowl.

Do you think this 2009 team could lose 2 comparable players like they did in 2004 and still be good enough to win the Super Bowl?

Yeah, last week I would say they could lose Seymour and Maroney and still possibly win the SB.

Now, there I picked the two positions of greatest depth.

What happened in 2004 - - regarding that amazing story in the secondary - - shows that teamwork, chemistry and coaching can sometimes make up for lack of personnel talent.

this year looking forward I can guarantee you that they will lose much more than two starters to injury for at least 5-8 games. It's going to happen. It doesn't mean they are off the rails regarding a possible SB. Whether by injury or by trade, starters are going to be missing for large chunks of the season.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Yeah, last week I would say they could lose Seymour and Maroney and still possibly win the SB.

Now, there I picked the two positions of greatest depth.

What happened in 2004 - - regarding that amazing story in the secondary - - shows that teamwork, chemistry and coaching can sometimes make up for lack of personnel talent.

this year looking forward I can guarantee you that they will lose much more than two starters to injury for at least 5-8 games. It's going to happen. It doesn't mean they are off the rails regarding a possible SB. Whether by injury or by trade, starters are going to be missing for large chunks of the season.

Pittsburgh just lose Troy Polamalu for 4-6 weeks, possibly longer. I hope no one's counting them out of the SB race just yet.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Football is a game of attrition, over the course of the season. Everyone suffers injuries, and it takes luck to even remain in contention, since every team has at least a couple players that it flat-out can't afford to lose. Why didn't the Pats win in 2007? Because Colvin and Neal were hurt, simple as that. If Polamalu's significantly slowed down for the remainder of this year, then the Steelers go from SB favorites to underdog contenders, at best.

So to pretend that margin of error doesn't matter is, at best, incredibly shortsighted. The team that wins the SB is one of two things (and usually both): 1- incredibly lucky, and 2- strong on depth. Every team is going to finish the season much weaker than it started it, and the team that wins will win because it was able to manage its injuries. When your margin of error goes down, this becomes harder to do. Talk about the 2001 team all you want, but if the only way to win the SB is to have near-miraculous luck as far as injuries go (like that team did), then your team is going to almost always come up short.

:agree::yeahthat:

 

[shmessy]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Football is a game of attrition, over the course of the season. Everyone suffers injuries, and it takes luck to even remain in contention, since every team has at least a couple players that it flat-out can't afford to lose. Why didn't the Pats win in 2007? Because Colvin and Neal were hurt, simple as that. If Polamalu's significantly slowed down for the remainder of this year, then the Steelers go from SB favorites to underdog contenders, at best.

So to pretend that margin of error doesn't matter is, at best, incredibly shortsighted. The team that wins the SB is one of two things (and usually both): 1- incredibly lucky, and 2- strong on depth. Every team is going to finish the season much weaker than it started it, and the team that wins will win because it was able to manage its injuries. When your margin of error goes down, this becomes harder to do. Talk about the 2001 team all you want, but if the only way to win the SB is to have near-miraculous luck as far as injuries go (like that team did), then your team is going to almost always come up short.

"The team that wins the SB is one of two things (and usually both): 1- incredibly lucky, and 2- strong on depth."

Amen. Strong on depth. Not necessarily the superstar (although, I like having superstars as much as the next fan). But SACRIFICING depth in order to pay above what you value that player for your team is not what Belichick/Kraft have done.

Bledsoe, Milloy, Law, Woody, Branch, Givens, McGinest, etc. The Patriots continued to win after they left - - how did the teams that paid them higher rates (sacrificing depth) do? I'd compare the Patriots won-loss record to any of those teams' won-loss records after each of those departures anyday. The only possible exception I can think of immediately would be Vinatieri.

Just as often, the SB Champ is NOT the team with the best player - - but the team with the best bottom 13 players on their roster.

I admire that system. Do they shun superstars and FA's? Nope. They get them, but they are not going to pay a ransom for them either. Meanwhile, superstar FA's don't seem to be shunning the Patriots any.

 

[IcyPatriot]

There were several plays this preseason where the play went towards the sideline and Seymour simply stood there and watched. I remarked to one of them in the game thread. I couldn't believe what I saw ... Seymour not pursuing to the sideline???

Also ... he looked slow ... real slow. Perhaps he was behind the other guys shapewise but even if not in shape a player can show intensity ... I saw neither.

Several members here were claiming Seymour was a beast in camp ... I don't doubt them for a minute but what I read here in the camp threads was not what I saw this preseason. Just saying it didn't look good even to this casual fan who is far from an expert on these matters.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

"The team that wins the SB is one of two things (and usually both): 1- incredibly lucky, and 2- strong on depth."

Amen. Strong on depth. Not necessarily the superstar (although, I like having superstars as much as the next fan). But SACRIFICING depth in order to pay above what you value that player for your team is not what Belichick/Kraft have done.

[BJust as often, the SB Champ is NOT the team with the best player - - but the team with the best bottom 13 players on their roster.[/B]

I admire that system. Do they shun superstars and FA's? Nope. They get them, but they are not going to pay a ransom for them either. Meanwhile, superstar FA's don't seem to be shunning the Patriots any.

The 2003-2004 Pats stood out in terms of their resiliency to injuries and their depth. I'll take quality depth over a single superstar most times, though I too like having superstars.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Seymour to Report on Saturday.. Ready for Monday's game????

Yeah, last week I would say they could lose Seymour and Maroney and still possibly win the SB.

Well, they've already lost Seymour and Maroney is a backup runner coming off an injury who didn't even gain 100 yards last year, so he is not really comparable to Seymour or Law circa 2004.

I hope no one gets injured all season long, but let's say they lose Wilfork and Meriweather. A little depth wouldn't hurt.

this year looking forward I can guarantee you that they will lose much more than two starters to injury for at least 5-8 games. It's going to happen. It doesn't mean they are off the rails regarding a possible SB. Whether by injury or by trade, starters are going to be missing for large chunks of the season.

I agree totally that they will lose 2 starters for 5-8 games (or more). Which is precisely why I don't like losing Seymour before the season even starts.

I reserve the right to change my mind if Belichick has a replacement in the pipeline. I certainly hope that is the case. But right now, September 12, 2009, 4:33 P.M. in the east, I don't like the trade.