Revisiting The Richard Seymour Trade - Oakland Raiders Fans Not Happy

[BradyBranch39]

You can't judge the trade based on the stupid contract they gave him way after the trade.

 

[WhiZa]

The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:

#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt

Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.

Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.

 

[Patsrock]

But have we won any SB's since Big-Sey left? Like BB said time and time again guys like Richard Seymour don't grow on trees. I still think we have won at least one of our last two SB's if we had him.

Well he was on the 2007 teams FYI

 

[patsfaninpa]

Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.

Laughable. JJ Watt and Von Miller might have helped us win it all last year. Matt Light gets more money thrown his way and returns. We could have gotten our T this spring.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Laughable. JJ Watt and Von Miller might have helped us win it all last year. Matt Light gets more money thrown his way and returns. We could have gotten our T this spring.

Matt Light reveals decade-long battle with Crohn's - ESPN Boston I highly doubt they could've gotten Light to come back for reasonable money if at all.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.

Can't change history but JJ Watt is the best defensive end in football right now. I think he would have made a big impact on our defense and he could have possibly made an impact on us winning it all in 2011. I mean if Watt batts down a Manning pass or forces him to get rid of the ball a split second too early in that game could have easily spelled the difference in the match.

I don't regret ending up with Solder but I feel that Watt is far and away more of an impact playmaker if we are going to revise history.

 

[PatsDeb]

Seymour went to two pro-bowls and has been a steady locker room presence amidst the chaos his entire time in Oakland. Fans seem to forget how laughable that team was the several years leading up to when Seymour got there.

AGreed. From what I have seen of Oakland it's their atrocious offense that has been the problem, not Seymour or their defense.

 

[BSR]

Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.

With Scar doing his thing, I think we could have found a viable replacement if it meant picking up one of those guys. You can't coach the level of talent in those defensive players.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Oakland Fans are NOT happy with the way things have played out. It appears they overpaid for a far past his prime former great who cannot get it done anymore

Richard Seymour


What do you guys think of the man we got in this trade, Nate Solder. Has he lived up to your expectations?

I hated the trade at the time, because I thought that, with Seymour, we could have won another title in '09 (and/or in '10 if we'd found a way to tag/keep Seymour). People seem to have already forgotten how good he was, but he was pretty much impossible to run on and also generated a credible pass rush at the same time. Once-in-a-generation type talent at his best, and he was still pretty close to his prime.

Over time, I've softened my stance. I still think that there's a >25% chance that this trade cost the Pats a fourth Lombardi, especially when the Ravens knocked us out at home in '09 by attacking where Seymour should have been (and remember, this was a year that a fairly unimposing Jets team went to the AFCCG). That said, if the economic reality was that it was literally impossible to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, then letting Seymour go was the right call. Wilfork's brought his game to a whole new level over the last couple of seasons, and Seymour isn't quite so valuable in the defense that the Pats run these days.

On the Oakland side, I don't see what they're complaining about. Seymour has been a leader and an impact player for them, and they would have whiffed on the pick anyway.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.

You'd rather have Solder than JJ Watt? Seriously?

 

[PatsFan2]

You'd rather have Solder than JJ Watt? Seriously?

Say Watt???

 

[Bhelmet]

Of course they are upset, what do the Raiders' fans have to be happy about anyway?

 

[patfanken]

Why are you guys even talking as if JJ Watt was an option. He was NOT! Watt was picked 6 full picks before we had a chance to choose.

Listen, Richard Seymour was a great player for the Pats for several years. But the lessons of overpaying aging vets is just too clear. Its hard enough to make that kind of commitment jump in their 2nd contracts let alone their 3rd. And while he has been a good player for the Raiders, between injury and age, he has never risen to the elite level he was in his prime, and certainly has NOT been a good value for Raiders

I would guarantee you that neither the Raiders, Seehawks, OR Eagles would over pay for the likes of Seymour, Branch, or Samuel if they had a do over. In fact how happy can the Eagles be with their latest CB mega-investment. Some teams never learn. The times when that kind of investment works out are very rare indeed.

 

[BSR]

Why are you guys even talking as if JJ Watt was an option. He was NOT! Watt was picked 6 full picks before we had a chance to choose.

We aren't talking about him as if he was an option. I was talking about how the trade would have been viewed if Oakland was supposed to suck the year before the draft as they were supposed to so we would have had a top ten pick. You're losing it old man.

 

[condon84]

Because there are no direct correlation between the examples you gave. It is the general understanding that the Pats felt they could only keep either Seymour or Wilfork and not both. They chose Wilfork.

Also, who says it is revising history? We never know for sure what the Pats are thinking and what their real organizational system can and can't handle, but the general consensus of people in the know was that the Pats could only keep one of Wilfork and Seymour.

To point out other bad moves they made are a bit of a red herring to divert from the original premise. Personally, I am more than happy to move on. Seymour has been gone for years and the Pats have been one drive away from winning a Super Bowl since. The Pats have moved on too.

We're playing the "What-if" game so every transaction the team did that led to Seymour getting traded should be up for debate. Signing Adalius to that big contract certainly didn't help.

In regards to the idea that the Pats could only keep Wilfork or Seymour, who said this? It's a ridiculous idea. Unless you can find a quote directly from Bill, I call BS. We just signed both Gronk and Ahern who play the same position to big contracts. Wilfork and Seymour are arguably better players and more valuable to the team. Our defense hasn't been the same since Seymour left. Meanwhile, it seems like Brady can get any Tom, ****, and Harry to look great.

It was a stupid trade then and probably cost us some important wins.

 

[jnug]

I do remember the scuttlebutt around the Pats at the time was that Seymour was going to make a more vocal play for a big contract than BB likes seeing.

I don't wonder if Seymour's next Pats contract was coming along right at a time when the prototypical DE-DT started coming into the league carrying a bit more weight over a 6'6" frame than Seymour carries while still being very athletic. I think this is particularly true for DT. I don't mean to imply that Seymour fell off a cliff after leaving the Pats, far from it. However I don't wonder if that had an impact on the Pats willingness to accommodate a guy that looked like he was really going to make a play for the big money...something the Pats are pretty stingy about in the first place. BB loves to cut these things off at the pass and it might have been as much that as anything else. Plus as others have already pointed out if Oakland had just played to form that year, we would have been picking higher in that draft. Stupid Raiders...can't do anything right.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I hated the trade at the time, because I thought that, with Seymour, we could have won another title in '09 (and/or in '10 if we'd found a way to tag/keep Seymour). People seem to have already forgotten how good he was, but he was pretty much impossible to run on and also generated a credible pass rush at the same time. Once-in-a-generation type talent at his best, and he was still pretty close to his prime.

Over time, I've softened my stance. I still think that there's a >25% chance that this trade cost the Pats a fourth Lombardi, especially when the Ravens knocked us out at home in '09 by attacking where Seymour should have been (and remember, this was a year that a fairly unimposing Jets team went to the AFCCG). That said, if the economic reality was that it was literally impossible to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, then letting Seymour go was the right call. Wilfork's brought his game to a whole new level over the last couple of seasons, and Seymour isn't quite so valuable in the defense that the Pats run these days.

On the Oakland side, I don't see what they're complaining about. Seymour has been a leader and an impact player for them, and they would have whiffed on the pick anyway.

The year before he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders went 5-11. His first year with the Raiders they improved to....5-11.
He has been with them for 4 seasons with this being his 5th and they haven't had one winning season...not one.

The year he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders had the 27th ranked defense. His first year with thr Raiders they improved to.....26th....wow.
Last year, Oakland's defense was ranked 29th. This year they're all the way up to 25th.

After this year, Seymour will be gone from the Raiders and we will have our starting Left tackle for the next 10 years.

Slam dunk.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The year before he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders went 5-11. His first year with the Raiders they improved to....5-11.
He has been with them for 4 seasons with this being his 5th and they haven't had one winning season...not one.

The year he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders had the 27th ranked defense. His first year with thr Raiders they improved to.....26th....wow.
Last year, Oakland's defense was ranked 29th. This year they're all the way up to 25th.

After this year, Seymour will be gone from the Raiders and we will have our starting Left tackle for the next 10 years.

Slam dunk.

Now look at all of the defensive players that they've lost in the interim.

 

[Hudson Pats Fan]

But have we won any SB's since Big-Sey left? Like BB said time and time again guys like Richard Seymour don't grow on trees. I still think we have won at least one of our last two SB's if we had him.

Haven't read the whole thread, but guys like Vince Wilfork don't grow on trees either.

 

[patsfan13]

The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:

#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt

Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.

A franchise LT is worth more than any of these guys even Watt, especially what e now know about Matt Light's Crone's disease issue.