The Seymour trade one month later

[cmasspatsfan]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae
Given that I wasn't the one posting the thread, perhaps you should take it with that person. And you're right, I've never liked the trade. That hasn't changed, and it won't unless the team wins the Super Bowl. Anything else and this is a bad trade.

It usually takes 2-3 years to judge whether a trade was good or bad, in this case, since the pick is in two years, it may take 4-5 years to judge.
To say its bad if we dont win the super bowl this year is just silly. What if the pick we get helps us win 2-3 super bowls down the line?
Theres just no way of knowing right now or even at years end whether we win a super bowl or not.

 

[Wolfpack]

They play the NFC East this year (Giants and Eagles on deck). The current opponent rotation expires this year so who knows what may happen. Unless something weird happens like realignment or expanding the schedule, it is likely the current rotation will continue. AFC South and NFC West are kind of a mixed bag...usually 50% good and 50% suckish. Give the Raiders a schedule with the Bills and Browns as well and a surprise .500 season would be at least viable.

I think I remember reading somewhere that they official decided the current rotation will be continuing for the foreseeable future. Obviously if they go to 17 or 18 games they will need to shake things up a bit, but that certainly won't be happening next year.

 

[amazinPats]

this is so incredibly dumb, and reminds me why I'm so happy we have smart, non results oriented, long term thinking people like BB and Theo running the local teams. thats why these people have jobs running pro teams and you are at home talking about nonsense absolutes

Excellent!

 

[RayClay]

Seymour's great, but they obviously weren't looking to sign him up long term for what he wanted. Given that, getting a first rounder from an awful team is a great move.

Did it weaken us? Short term, sure. However, we still have a base of two all pros (IMO, Warren has gotten screwed, I'll vote him in) at a position where BB has found excellent talent cheap also.

With the change in LB emphasis, he's experimenting anyway and seems to have new talented players like Pryor and Terdell, and underused players like Wright (who's looked great) and Green making some impact.

Could be a more versatile, fresh rotating line might be more effective. At least we're not complacent. I'm still confused about the linebacking plan, but if they get by with what they have now, then add mayo and seau, with the great looking secondary, this should be the best overall D in years.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

What I love is how some posters have forgotten that the Super Bowl winning teams were won with young aggressive defense.

Seymour was no longer young or aggressive.

I think this defense should have begun the trimming process a couple years ago and went above and beyond the call and showed loyalty to their older veterans. What we're seeing now is a younger leaner and hopefully quicker to the ball defense that melds youth with veteran savvy like the last time the Pats were in 'dynasty mode'.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What I love is how some posters have forgotten that the Super Bowl winning teams were won with young aggressive defense.

Seymour was no longer young or aggressive.

I think this defense should have begun the trimming process a couple years ago and went above and beyond the call and showed loyalty to their older veterans. What we're seeing now is a younger leaner and hopefully quicker to the ball defense that melds youth with veteran savvy like the last time the Pats were in 'dynasty mode'.

Ty Law, Willie McGinest, Ted Washington, Rodney Harrison, Tedy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Roman Phifer, Ted Johnson, Lawyer Milloy, Tyrone Poole, and Otis Smith were young? That's just off the top of my head- there's probably more, and Seymour's younger than those guys were when they were starting on SB-winning teams for the Pats. You could call the Pats championship defenses a lot of things, but young definitely wasn't one of them.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

That's right. But there were also young guys like Seymour himself playing in there as well.

Asante, too. Ty Warren. Jarvis Green. A bunch of young guys were around and lately, there's not been a lot of young developing first round talent on defense.

Now there is, with an equal blending of younger hungrier guys like those older teams.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's right. But there were also young guys like Seymour himself playing in there as well.

Asante, too. Ty Warren. Jarvis Green. A bunch of young guys were around and lately, there's not been a lot of young developing first round talent on defense.

Now there is, with an equal blending of younger hungrier guys like those older teams.

There have always been young players mixed in like that, every year since 2001. Last year, Wilfork, Meriweather, Mayo, Guyton, Wilhite, Hobbs and Sanders were all starters on their rookie contracts. That means that, by the end of the season, 7 out of 11 Patriots starters were on rookie contracts. Plus Mike Wright and LeKevin Smith. The Pats didn't have an absence of young guys: it was just that some of the veteran core (Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison) went from tail-end-of-the-prime vets to flat-out old. Seymour, however, isn't even close to old. He's not even 30 yet.

 

[DarrylS]

There has been no noticeable difference with Seymours absence, and have always been one of his biggest supporters... this AM we are the 7th rated defense in the NFL...

 

[BennyBledsoe]

He certainly wasn't young and well, do you think he'll make it through this season without missing time?

He's getting older, not younger. I agree he's not ancient but old is a relative term as far as football players go and I know you're smart enough to know that.

Just saying back in the Super Bowl days there was a good blend of smart savvy vets with young developing HIGH-LEVEL talent like Seymour was and the rest of those guys...like Meriweather and Mayo are now.

I hope the fact I'm not hugely disagreeing with you is coming across here. I think we're almost on the same wavelength here.

 

[BradyFTW!]

He certainly wasn't young and well, do you think he'll make it through this season without missing time?

He's getting older, not younger. I agree he's not ancient but old is a relative term as far as football players go and I know you're smart enough to know that.

Just saying back in the Super Bowl days there was a good blend of smart savvy vets with young developing HIGH-LEVEL talent like Seymour was and the rest of those guys...like Meriweather and Mayo are now.

I hope the fact I'm not hugely disagreeing with you is coming across here. I think we're almost on the same wavelength here.

What do you mean Seymour wasn't young and well? He got PUPed in 2007 for a fluke injury that he sustained playing fullback. Other than that, he played 16 games in 2006 and 15 in 2008. Warren missed 3 games last year vs. one for Seymour, and was playing with serious injuries all season. I'm pumped to see that he's recovered well, but going into the season he was more of an injury liability than Seymour was (he started on PUP, remember), so that can't be why Seymour got traded.

I definitely agree with the premisethat you need to mix young, cheap talent with experienced vets. That's the point: Seymour is an experienced vet, and in your initial post you said that there wasn't a place for a guy like that because he wasn't young/aggressive. To draw the 2003 defense analogy (the best of the BB era, IMO) you need the Seymour/Warren/Wilfork/Asantes, and you need the Rodney/Vrabel/Tedy/McGinest/Laws. At 29, though, and playing elite, all-pro football, Seymour clearly fits into the second group.

If you want to argue that the trade was good because we lose one year of service and gain a draft pick, then fine, but that's a totally different argument than what you're trying to make. All 3 SB defenses were built around cores of players that were over 30, and Seymour isn't even that yet. The defense needed to get younger from 2008, sure, but it already had- Vrabel, Bruschi and Harrison were already gone.

FWIW, while I think that the trade has cost us 1 game so far, I'm higher on it now than I was when it happened. I get why Belichick did what he did, and I understand the thought process behind it, but I just ideologically don't like it. That said, the trade happened, and if we can consistently bring the blitz like we did against the Ravens, then it could end up being a huge win all around.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Seymour's 2 sacks in the Nationally televised, first game of the season...............are his only sacks this year, as we head into game five. He's averaging 2.75 solo tackles per game.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The Raiders are an absolute train wreck. I wished that the Pats had their 2010 pick, because I can't see them letting this go on much longer. I can only hope that Jamarcus is still the Raiders QB next year, but I doubt it.

Oh BTW now McFadden is out for 3-5 weeks, so they are REALLY gonnna suck.

You really can't judge anything Seymour does this year, he was blindsided by this, and he will lose more games this year, than he has between pop warner, college, and the Pros. Seymour was a great player for the Pats, the BB system did not allow for him to standout, but hhe mandated double teams which freed up others to make plays. He is still one of the best D-lineman in the game, but the chance to rob Oakland of a high 1st rd draft pick (in a year where their will most likely be a rookie salary cap) was just too much for BB to pass on.

 

[mesoslo]

The great play the patriots young defense is what makes the seymour trade a great idea. The draft pick if it turns out to be a top 5 pick will be awesome.

 

[tomek79]

Nothing good for Seymour out there in Oakland. Good thing that it's his last year of contract. I would be really surprised if he stays there unless they franchise tag him.

I am really sorry for him but this is business and Pats wouldn't be able to keep him anyway so if you take this into account it's a great deal for Pats.

 

[Tunescribe]

Seymour's 2 sacks in the Nationally televised, first game of the season...............are his only sacks this year, as we head into game five. He's averaging 2.75 solo tackles per game.

Isn't that the type of defense where he's allowed to be more aggressive as a pass rusher? Looks like Richard already has become "Raiderized" -- another lazy malcontent.

 

[Kontradiction]

I gotta say that the Seymour trade hasn't hurt us nearly as much as I thought it would. The pass rush has improved drastically over the past two weeks and our run defense is good. I too agree that the notion of judging the trade based on Super Bowl results is pretty ridiculous.

 

[olschool]

You can't really evaluate the trade until the pick happens, and the player actually plays.

He could be a first round bust, or he could be an instant pro bowler.
Who knows ?

Seymour could have been injured in the first game and out for the season, or he could have made the pro bowl. Who knows ?

Could Myron Pryor, or Jarvis Green, or Mike Wright,or Ty Warren, be the MVP of the Superbowl with four sacks and fifteen tackles ? Who knows ?

The only certainty is, that as long as Al Davis runs the Raiders, the draft pick will be a top ten.

 

[Kontradiction]

You can't really evaluate the trade until the pick happens, and the player actually plays.

He could be a first round bust, or he could be an instant pro bowler.
Who knows ?

Seymour could have been injured in the first game and out for the season, or he could have made the pro bowl. Who knows ?

Could Myron Pryor, or Jarvis Green, or Mike Wright,or Ty Warren, be the MVP of the Superbowl with four sacks and fifteen tackles ? Who knows ?

The only certainty is, that as long as Al Davis runs the Raiders, the draft pick will be a top ten.

Not sure if you've heard or not, but this team doesn't have first round busts. Only third and fourth round busts.

 

[lostjumper]

Well, it's pretty much impossible to evaluate the trade 1 month into the season, but thats what we do here. Since our defense is already better this year than last year in my opinion, and they are still learning, the trade seems to work. By the end of the year, once they get mayo back and butler, whilhite, mcgowan, guyton, mayo, pryor, and sands are all starting to play within as a team and really get to know each others tendencies. Thats alot of new or young players who need time to gel.

Seymour played a great first game out in Oakland, and since then has played at about the level he did last year. I feel he is already on the far side of the hill as far as ability goes, and to get a 1st round pick for a guy past his prime is very well done. Our Defense was old and slow last year, and this year we seem pretty young and very fast, especially the defensive backfield.

Oh, and if you think not having seymour cost us the jets game you really need to go back and watch the tape. That was Guytons first game starting for an injured mayo, and it showed. Also, we didn't have Welker and the offense couldn't score touchdowns. I thought the D played well that game, and Seymour wouldn't have changed that score 1 bit unless he was playing fullback all game...