Seymour did nothing

[Bostonian1962]

I doubt there will be a game where Seymour is more fired up to produce. His final stats, 3 tackles, 0 assists, 0 sacks, 0 forced fumbles. He had 3 bad penalties in the game, one of which was declined.

 

[Shockt327]

I am not 'bashing' him I am discussing what he did.
He made almost no plays. To say 'he got penetration' is to try to put a positive spin that isnt quantifiable on a poor perfermance.

I think you have an idea and are trying to pretend reality fits it.

So now you are trying to claim that any mention of penetration is somehow useless?

If you think pointing to a DTs ability to penetrate is akin to some sort of consolation prize cause it didn't result in a highlight reel play -- then you simply don't get it. This isn't a black and white deal. Just because a play doesn't result in a sack doesn't mean that penetration wasn't there. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet doesn't mean it doesn't exist....or that the O-line just sort of let him through...or whatever it was you were previously trying to argue.

The only official way to "quantify" a DTs ability to penetrate is sacks. And at only, what, a dozen a year for even the best of the best - then it's hardly ever going to be quantifiable within a single game. Especially when playing against one of the least sacked QBs in the NFL: Brady. So to say that there is no way to quantify his ability to penetrate does not somehow prove he had a poor game.

You may as well be arguing that DB coverage can only be good unless there are INTs. In reality, that's crap. There is no statistic to "quantify" a DBs ability to cover his man, and make the QB look elsewhere. Same with penetration. It matters. It matters even more than sacks...cause those only happen less than once per game.

 

[condon84]

Yesterday's game completely justified that Seymour trade.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yesterday's game completely justified that Seymour trade.

It is utter folly to evaluate the trade of a very good player based on one game. Sure we all felt good seeing Big Sey self destruct and hand us 1/3rd of a scoring drive and do nothing significant for his team while Wilfork where we spent out cap $ had his 2nd pick. But it's his absence for years vs what we got for however long that makes or breaks the deal. Yesterday was a very nice day for the trade.

 

[Ring 6]

So now you are trying to claim that any mention of penetration is somehow useless?

If you think pointing to a DTs ability to penetrate is akin to some sort of consolation prize cause it didn't result in a highlight reel play -- then you simply don't get it. This isn't a black and white deal. Just because a play doesn't result in a sack doesn't mean that penetration wasn't there. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet doesn't mean it doesn't exist....or that the O-line just sort of let him through...or whatever it was you were previously trying to argue.

The only official way to "quantify" a DTs ability to penetrate is sacks. And at only, what, a dozen a year for even the best of the best - then it's hardly ever going to be quantifiable within a single game. Especially when playing against one of the least sacked QBs in the NFL: Brady. So to say that there is no way to quantify his ability to penetrate does not somehow prove he had a poor game.

You may as well be arguing that DB coverage can only be good unless there are INTs. In reality, that's crap. There is no statistic to "quantify" a DBs ability to cover his man, and make the QB look elsewhere. Same with penetration. It matters. It matters even more than sacks...cause those only happen less than once per game.

He made no plays, he exerted no pressure. If you want to say that he had penetration that resulted in not making plays, go ahead. My point is if the ball is going to the offensive right and the defensive RDT takes an outside path, his penetration is pointless because he is taking himself out of the play and there is no indication he would have gotten that penetration if the play was desgined to block to prevent it.
If you are talking about pass rushing (which penetration is not the correct terminology for) he waqs a non factor.
I don't know what you are looking for, the guy made no plays, are you trying to say he had an impact while doing nothing?

 

[WhiZa]

Yesterday's game completely justified that Seymour trade.

It was justified the second it happened, but for anyone who needed convincing, yea

 

[Dragda]

They ran all running plays away from him. As soon as he was out of the game, they ran at that spot and got a big run. He was back in the next play.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I am not 'bashing' him I am discussing what he did.
He made almost no plays. To say 'he got penetration' is to try to put a positive spin that isnt quantifiable on a poor perfermance.

He was barely blocked early on, he was constantly getting past the line. He just didn't do it for 4 quarters, not sure how he did nothing and had a poor game.

 

[Ring 6]

He was barely blocked early on, he was constantly getting past the line. He just didn't do it for 4 quarters, not sure how he did nothing and had a poor game.

He jumped offsides and almost slammed Brady to the ground. That was it. Wilcots kept talking about how Seymour was getting tremendous pressure, but that was the only play he got any. I can see the confusion if you are relying on the incorrect comments by Wilcots, but if you watched the plays you would see a lack of Seymour doing anything.
By all means go ahead and point out which plays he made if you disagree, I''ll go watch them and alter my opinion if it actually happened.

 

[Betterthanmost]

Is Sey giving the middle finger there? Look at the guy staring at him in the background. He looks pissed

 

[BradyFTW!]

So now you are trying to claim that any mention of penetration is somehow useless?

If you think pointing to a DTs ability to penetrate is akin to some sort of consolation prize cause it didn't result in a highlight reel play -- then you simply don't get it. This isn't a black and white deal. Just because a play doesn't result in a sack doesn't mean that penetration wasn't there. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet doesn't mean it doesn't exist....or that the O-line just sort of let him through...or whatever it was you were previously trying to argue.

The only official way to "quantify" a DTs ability to penetrate is sacks. And at only, what, a dozen a year for even the best of the best - then it's hardly ever going to be quantifiable within a single game. Especially when playing against one of the least sacked QBs in the NFL: Brady. So to say that there is no way to quantify his ability to penetrate does not somehow prove he had a poor game.

You may as well be arguing that DB coverage can only be good unless there are INTs. In reality, that's crap. There is no statistic to "quantify" a DBs ability to cover his man, and make the QB look elsewhere. Same with penetration. It matters. It matters even more than sacks...cause those only happen less than once per game.

The existence of this thread is an agenda at work. Don't expect to convince him, his mind was made up a long time ago, and any evidence, no matter how flimsy and irrational, is apparently going to have a whole thread dedicated to it.

 

[Ring 6]

The existence of this thread is an agenda at work. Don't expect to convince him, his mind was made up a long time ago, and any evidence, no matter how flimsy and irrational, is apparently going to have a whole thread dedicated to it.

How could my mind be made up a long time ago about how Seymour played on Sunday? No agenda here, just obsevation. Are you disagreeing and saying he played well?

 

[dhamz]

Seymour helped the Patriots more in the game, that at any time during his last 2 years with them.

His 8 sacks in his last year in NE clearly didn't help.

 

[The Scrizz]

Why can't we appreciate that Seymour was a great player for us and also that it was probably time for him to move on and getting Nate Solder for him looks like it will end up being a pretty good deal.

I wouldn't say Seymour did nothing during the game, but the simple fact is that his huge mistakes on that first drive did more damage to his team than any positives he may have come up with later. He was a net negative in the game because he played stupid. He would be getting killed on this board if he played that dumb in a game for us.

I'm sure he wanted to prove to BB that he made a mistake so was fired up, but you can play with emotion and still play smart. I think it was a combination of his emotion getting the better of him combined with good old-fashioned Raider lack of discipline football.

At Least Hue pulled him for a series after the off-sides I believe, which is more discipline than I'm used to from a Raiders team. He looks like one of the better coaches they've had in awhile.

 

[condon84]

It is utter folly to evaluate the trade of a very good player based on one game. Sure we all felt good seeing Big Sey self destruct and hand us 1/3rd of a scoring drive and do nothing significant for his team while Wilfork where we spent out cap $ had his 2nd pick. But it's his absence for years vs what we got for however long that makes or breaks the deal. Yesterday was a very nice day for the trade.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I was being sarcastic.

Got me
10 chars