Tom Cable: "Seymour was well worth the 2011 1st rounder"

[MoLewisrocks]

Please tell me that you weren't trying to call Seymour a "mediocre talent".

Of course not. But at 31 when this season starts he's past his prime, much of which was spent battling injury, and paying that player top tier money on a long term deal is a huge risk and more than likely a mistake. I think that's primarily why he's in Oakland now and Bill is sitting on a 2011 first round pick.

 

[Fencer]

Sometimes when the guys who were locker room leaders and now are gone are listed, Seymour is one of the ones mentioned.

And sometimes he's not.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, Cable does have a point. Seymour is worth a heck of a lot more than Darrious Heyward-Bey, JaMarcus Russell, Darren McFadden, Michael Huff, Fabien Washington, Robert Gallery, Derrick Gibson, and Phillip Buchanon. Seriously, the only first round pick that the Raider made over the last decade that wasn't at least a minor bust was Nnamdi Asomugha. Ok, Sebastian Janokowski wasn;t a bust, but he was a kicker taken in the first round.

Odds were that Al Davis was going to blow the first round pick in 2011 anyway. So yes, Seymour is worth more than the punter or the sixth best WR in the draft with no WRs taken at that point that Al Davis would have picked. For any other team, taking a DE who gave you 47 tackles and 4 sacks and is now 30 for a future first rounder (even two years out) was a bad pick.

The only way them trading for Seymour was a good pick for them was if Seymour was the final piece in their Super Bowl puzzle and he made them a legitimate contender. Right now, there is no guarantee that Seymour will even be a Raider when the Pats use that first round pick.

You know, the Raiders might have been able to get Seymour this offseason without any compensation if they didn't make the trade. The Pats probably still would have franchised Wilfork and alowed Seymour to go to free agency where the Raiders could have offered him the best deal to come to them. Granted doubtful he would have willingly gone to the Raiders.

 

[Kontradiction]

Of course not. But at 31 when this season starts he's past his prime, much of which was spent battling injury, and paying that player top tier money on a long term deal is a huge risk and more than likely a mistake. I think that's primarily why he's in Oakland now and Bill is sitting on a 2011 first round pick.

Giving him a three year contract (what I would give him in this case) isn't a huge risk, IMO. He's 31, but it isn't like he's crippled. He's still dominant and played well last season despite being in a position which he isn't as suited for as the 3-4 DE.

As for the first round pick, it had better be an impact player.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Giving him a three year contract (what I would give him in this case) isn't a huge risk, IMO. He's 31, but it isn't like he's crippled. He's still dominant and played well last season despite being in a position which he isn't as suited for as the 3-4 DE.

As for the first round pick, it had better be an impact player.

At that level Bill's first round picks have been. They gave Richard a 3 year extension in 2006 for a reason, they weren't sold on his value long term. That they traded him in the final year of that deal is proof positive of that. Otherwise they'd have extended him again... He wasn't the waste of space his mindless loudmouth detractors tried to paint him as, but he also wasn't the underappreciated stud his defenders persist in painting him as even now. If he had been, Bill would have kept him. Then there was the matter of just what kind of leadership he truly offered, and I think what transpired closes the book on that debate as well.

 

[Kontradiction]

At that level Bill's first round picks have been. They gave Richard a 3 year extension in 2006 for a reason, they weren't sold on his value long term. That they traded him in the final year of that deal is proof positive of that. Otherwise they'd have extended him again... He wasn't the waste of space his mindless loudmouth detractors tried to paint him as, but he also wasn't the underappreciated stud his defenders persist in painting him as even now. If he had been, Bill would have kept him. Then there was the matter of just what kind of leadership he truly offered, and I think what transpired closes the book on that debate as well.

See, I have a different view on this. I think that, considering Wilfork's contract, Seymour had become expendable in one sense of the word. It had come down to which player they would have rather kept and I think BB went with Wilfork on that one. I just wish that they actually had a guy that was capable of coming in and picking up Seymour's slack, if only a little, against the run and the pass.

 

[Sicilian]

See, I have a different view on this. I think that, considering Wilfork's contract, Seymour had become expendable in one sense of the word. It had come down to which player they would have rather kept and I think BB went with Wilfork on that one. I just wish that they actually had a guy that was capable of coming in and picking up Seymour's slack, if only a little, against the run and the pass.

I think they were expecting Green to fill in at a higher level than he did. His injury contributed, but I think they also overestimated what he could be as a full time DE instead of a situational guy. Not saying they were expecting him to be their starting RE for years to come, but I'll bet they didn't think the drop off from Seymour to Green would be quite as dramatic in the short term as it turned out to be.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think they were expecting Green to fill in at a higher level than he did. His injury contributed, but I think they also overestimated what he could be as a full time DE instead of a situational guy. Not saying they were expecting him to be their starting RE for years to come, but I'll bet they didn't think the drop off from Seymour to Green would be quite as dramatic in the short term as it turned out to be.

I agree with this but not just w/ Green. Keep in mind the Pats played 50% of their downs out of a nickel and dime D. With that said, a Green, Wright, Bugress, Pryor/Brace, DE du-jour combo, BB felt he had at least (guesstimate) 75% of what Sey could give him in run/pass downs.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

See, I have a different view on this. I think that, considering Wilfork's contract, Seymour had become expendable in one sense of the word. It had come down to which player they would have rather kept and I think BB went with Wilfork on that one. I just wish that they actually had a guy that was capable of coming in and picking up Seymour's slack, if only a little, against the run and the pass.

We'll have to agree to disagree then because if they felt he was still the player they envisioned when they drafted him he would still be here. He would have gotten a 6 year extension in 2006 just like Brady did in 2005, but for lots of reasons he proved to them he was not that player. Now they are playing a similar guessing game with wilfork, hence the short term extension offered. Of course the CBA plays into that too. And wilfork hasn't really tested them to the extent Richard did, or posed similar durability concerns to date and he has played well through some injuries. But his weight and the position likely give them sufficient pause to go short in his case too. He might have been given a longer deal had he shown a willingness to play ball in 2008-09 as Warren and others before him had to extend early at a discount. When you pass on that here it's one strike against you as a potential negative leader. they reserve their best deals for the guys who represent the whole package, on and off the field including in the locker room. Seems we're down to Brady...

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with this but not just w/ Green. Keep in mind the Pats played 50% of their downs out of a nickel and dime D. With that said, a Green, Wright, Bugress, Pryor/Brace, DE du-jour combo, BB felt he had at least (guesstimate) 75% of what Sey could give him in run/pass downs.

The biggest area we missed Seymour in was his inside pass rush in sub situations. I don't think his impact vs the run was severe, unless you are in the group that want to blame the 83 yard TD run, and thereby the season on him not being in there. I find that kind of ridiculous myself.

 

[Bostonian1962]

On the surface, Franchising a 47 tackle, 4 sack player may not make sense, but given that they gave up a Number 1 for him, they kinda had to do that.