The Seymour trade one month later

[Gumby]

Sey has not been missed as much as I would have expected; and therefore the trade is looking better day by day.

there is no way sey stays in Oak - franchise tag or not (he'll holdout if they franchise him). so Oak in 2010 w/o Sey makes the 2011 pick that much more likely to be top 10. so that not so bad.

BUT I would have to say that there is one more criteria that has to happen this year to make the trade a "success" (no not win a SB - although that is the hope, that cant be a criteria you can measure a one player trade on) - What I am looking for is that they use the cap room created to re-sign Wilfork.

if that happens then is a success in my book; even if wilfork being hurt right now shows they "could live" w/o him - that doesnt mean you arent better with him.

 

[Synovia]

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.

The defense didn't cost us the Jets game. THe offense did. Seymour doesn't make a difference in that game.

 

[WhiZa]

I'm warming up to it, since we seem to rarely, if ever, line up in the 3-4. With the trouble that Ray Rice and Fred Jackson have given us, though, I'd be lying if I said that I don't miss Seymour's presence quite a bit. If we fall just short of the SB, it'll suck even more for knowing that he was why.

Exactly what I thought. The fact we are in a 4-3 makes the loss much easier to take. The run-D does take a hit though, but as long as we have the lead that won't matter :singing:

 

[Synovia]

if that happens then is a success in my book; even if wilfork being hurt right now shows they "could live" w/o him - that doesnt mean you arent better with him.

Right, but whether or not they're better with him doesn't matter. The question is, is the improvement over (brace/sands/wright/whoever) enough to offset 8-10M in cap space?

I think hes worth it, but for the money involved, there's certainly arguments either way.

 

[Zeus]

In another organization, this is the sort of trade that a general manager would make despite strong opposition from the coach, especially when the team is expected to compete for a title and especially coming at the very end of training camp.

If Belichick really thought that trading Richard Seymour was going to significantly impair his team's ability to compete in 2009, I doubt he would have made this deal. Can we infer from this that Belichick saw enough evidence of slippage in Seymour's play (and durability) that he came to regard Seymour as expendable?

Also, look at things from Oakland's perspective. Do you think they feel better or worse about the deal today? Given the bizarre legal situation with the head coach and the team's generally dismal prospects, why would Seymour sign an extension? Anybody with a pulse and minimal brain wave activity out in Oakland must realize that they have paid a dear price for a one-year rental of an aging veteran player and will have nothing to show for it come the end of the season. Any way you look at it, this was an inexplicably bad decision by the Raiders.

 

[Synovia]

If Belichick really thought that trading Richard Seymour was going to significantly impair his team's ability to compete in 2009, I doubt he would have made this deal. Can we infer from this that Belichick saw enough evidence of slippage in Seymour's play (and durability) that he came to regard Seymour as expendable?

No, and Yes (as to slippage and expendable).

I would argue that if the team is going to play 4-3 next year, then Wilfork is expendable. That doesn't mean he isn't terrific.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i did not like the seymour trade at first but now im starting to like it cause its makeing the D play a new style to make up for him

no more of just the 1200lbs 3 man front and big slow LB

we got to see them play more under 300lbs DL like green and wright and faster LB like guyton who looked relly good as a passrusher


maybe now they can draft some smaller faster LB

not just the marcus ware and shawn marriman type 6.5 265lbs LB that run a 4.50... 40 who are so hard to find

maybe now they can start drafting smaller guys like (Elvis Dumervil) 5.11 250lbs or (james harrison) 6.1 242lbs

and we can start to see the passrush and speed get beter over the next year or two

 

[BradyFTW!]

The defense didn't cost us the Jets game. THe offense did. Seymour doesn't make a difference in that game.

If we prevent the Jets from scoring one more TD, we win the game. It doesn't matter whose 'fault' it is: one more TD scored = win. One more TD prevented = win.

 

[vyrago]

Unless the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season, it was a bad trade. The time in between doesn't matter.

I don't get your logic. He played in the pats-giants sb and we lost that one.

I think Belichick has a pretty good idea of the present and future value of his players. Richard was about more to cost more than they were willing to pay for a player on the downside of his career.

 

[Synovia]

If we prevent the Jets from scoring one more TD, we win the game. It doesn't matter whose 'fault' it is: one more TD scored = win. One more TD prevented = win.

And where is the play where Seymour would have prevented a touchdown? The game was 16-9. The jets offense only scored one touchdown, and it was on a drive that was shortened because of a long kickoff return.


Can you point out the exact play where Seymour would have prevented that touchdown?

 

[shmessy]

i did not like the seymour trade at first but now im starting to like it cause its makeing the D play a new style to make up for him

no more of just the 1200lbs 3 man front and big slow LB

we got to see them play more under 300lbs DL like green and wright and faster LB like guyton who looked relly good as a passrusher


maybe now they can draft some smaller faster LB

not just the marcus ware and shawn marriman type 6.5 265lbs LB that run a 4.50... 40 who are so hard to find

maybe now they can start drafting smaller guys like (Elvis Dumervil) 5.11 250lbs or (james harrison) 6.1 242lbs

and we can start to see the passrush and speed get beter over the next year or two

Or we could settle for Plan B: Add Jerod Mayo in 2-4 weeks.

 

[shmessy]

If we prevent the Jets from scoring one more TD, we win the game. It doesn't matter whose 'fault' it is: one more TD scored = win. One more TD prevented = win.

Great, so you and Deus can argue that if the Pats go undefeated from now until the SB and then lose there by a 3-0 score, it will all be because of the Seymour trade.

That was a remarkable performance holding the Jets in their own house to their lowest point total of the season without Jerod Mayo (their captain and best defensive player) and using Gary Guyton (a 2nd year UDFA) as the D captain.

If you think the Pats lost that game because of the Defense or because of the Seymour trade, then I can't help you.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Great, so you and Deus can argue that if the Pats go undefeated from now until the SB and then lose there by a 3-0 score, it will all be because of the Seymour trade.

That was a remarkable performance holding the Jets in their own house to their lowest point total of the season without Jerod Mayo (their captain and best defensive player) and using Gary Guyton (a 2nd year UDFA) as the D captain.

If you think the Pats lost that game because of the Defense or because of the Seymour trade, then I can't help you.

So you're saying that a defense without Seymour is as good as a defense with Seymour? I agree that our defense played exceptionally well, and never claimed otherwise. But unless it was perfect (and no team is ever perfect), then it could have been better. And Seymour would have made it better. This isn't rocket science.

And yeah, if we lose in the playoffs in a close, hard-fought game, of course I'm going to wonder if having Seymour would have changed the outcome. You'd have to be stupid not to.

 

[bostonia3333]

Seymour was a GREAT run stopper. There aren't many great running teams left in the AFC. PIT has shifted their offensive philosophy a bit this year and are predominantly a passing team. The only teams that I see beating the Pats in the AFC are Indy and PIT which are now both passing teams. Why are we so worried about the run? I would be scared to death about pass rush and getting to Peyton Manning and Roethlisberger.

 

[shmessy]

So you're saying that a defense without Seymour is as good as a defense with Seymour? I agree that our defense played exceptionally well, and never claimed otherwise. But unless it was perfect (and no team is ever perfect), then it could have been better. And Seymour would have made it better. This isn't rocket science.

And yeah, if we lose in the playoffs in a close, hard-fought game, of course I'm going to wonder if having Seymour would have changed the outcome. You'd have to be stupid not to.

There are 53 moving parts to a football team.

You can point to any number of reasons for a win or loss.

It's remarkably convenient, and frankly infantile, of Deus to already state that no matter what, whenever the Patriots lose in the future it will be because of the Seymour trade.

"Unless the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season, it was a bad trade. The time in between doesn't matter."

And, yes, the Pats loss 16-9 to the Jets in the Meadowlands was not due to the Seymour trade 1/4th as much as it was due to not having Jerod Mayo.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There are 53 moving parts to a football team.

You can point to any number of reasons for a win or loss.

Agreed

It's remarkably convenient, and frankly infantile, of Deus to already state that no matter what, whenever the Patriots lose in the future it will be because of the Seymour trade.

Agreed. Your whole premise seems to be that Deus and I are interchangeable, but we're not. I didn't agree with that statement either.

And, yes, the Pats loss 16-9 to the Jets in the Meadowlands was not due to the Seymour trade 1/4th as much as it was due to not having Jerod Mayo.

Debatable, but I agree that either one probably would have swung the game in our favor. Still doesn't change the fact that we could have had Seymour for 2009, and instead we have nothing for 2009.

 

[klinefan]

Just thankful they got rid of him for what they got.

 

[shmessy]

Debatable, but I agree that either one probably would have swung the game in our favor. Still doesn't change the fact that we could have had Seymour for 2009, and instead we have nothing for 2009.

.....nothing for 2009 except the league's #7 ranked defense for the first 4 games (three of which have been played against winning, playoff contending teams using a UDFA as the D signal caller)........without Jerod Mayo.

Have they had a defense that highly rated in the last 4 years?

 

[BradyFTW!]

.....except for the #7 ranked defense for the first 4 games (three of which have been played against winning, playoff contending teams using a UDFA as the D signal caller)........without Jerod Mayo.

Have they had a defense that highly rated in the last 4 years?

And think of how much better they could be with Seymour. There's no such thing as too good.