Revisiting The Richard Seymour Trade - Oakland Raiders Fans Not Happy

[Off The Grid]

I'll take your word for it in regards to how the money is being distributed in regards to the cap. Frankly, that's pretty impressive that you went into that kind of detail

I still didn't like the trade because it took us several years to recover (we still haven't fully recovered IMO). We spent the money somewhere, and it didn't all go to Brady and Wilfrok.

Yup.

The Revisionism on The Seymour Trade is amusing, in its own way.

But in all fairness: These things don't happen in a Vacuum: there's no guarantee that Seymour ~ or Clemens ~ would've righted'is ship if he hadn't received a firm boot'n the @$$.

 

[Off The Grid]

Off The Grid Goes Dien Bien Phu, Chapter #847

The idiocy of continuing to insist that it was a choice between jettisoning Seymour or Wilfork ~ or Mankins ~ astonishes me.

Had my advice been taken then ~ rather than one long year later ~ we could've jettisoned Randy Moss and'is bloated contract...and gotten one HELL of a lot more than a 3rd Rounder for'm.

And we could've kept all of those guys...

NOT that it pleases me to be in Accord with Deuce Awry, you understand...

HELL...

If I'D been running the Books, we would've Tagged & Traded Moss IMMEDIATELY after'is 23 TouchDown 2007 Season...and probably gotten CONSECUTIVE 1st Rounders out'f'm...maybe from the SKINS.

But I digress...

 

[ATippett56]

Had my advice been taken then ~ rather than one long year later ~ we could've jettisoned Randy Moss and'is bloated contract...and gotten one HELL of a lot more than a 3rd Rounder for'm.

HELL!

I'd like to jettison Steven Gregory and his contract, no matter how inconsequential the salary cap hit.

 

[supafly]

HELL!

I'd like to jettison Steven Gregory and his contract, no matter how inconsequential the salary cap hit.

Tip--

So far this year, you want to jettison Donald Thomas, Ryan Wendell, Marcus Cannon, Sterling Moore, Steve Gregory, at least ONE of Vereen/Woodhead, and probably many more that I can't think of.

I am in agreement with you with some of them, at least the fact that they should not be starting...but if you ran the team we'd only have about 30 guys on it

All of those guys will have roles here in some form or another, whether that is starting, providing rotational reps, or just providing depth for injuries and practice reps during the week.

You so often bring up the salary cap....think about it.

 

[DarrylS]

Always thought the there were behind the scenes mitigating circumstances that caused Seymour to leave(Malloy also), perhaps having grown up in paranoid times dictates my skepticism.

Some day when Bill writes the trilogy of what happened here, we may begin to know the whole story, but until then we wait for all of this to unfold..

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Forgotten in this is the fact that the Pats first offered Wilfork to the Raiders, when faced with the "either/or" of the two DL's. When they didn't bite, the Pats offered Seymour, and the Raiders bit.

It was forgotten because it was Felger who made the claim, and then he went back against it.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/269911-felger-wilfork-talked-about-raiders-first.html

Felger says Wilfork was offered to Raiders [Archive] - KFFL Community

Both of these threads started with the Patriots offering Wilfork to the Raiders, then both threads mention a reversal from Felger who said maybe it was the Raiders who inquired.

In the first link, a poster heard Lombardi's version saying the Raiders asked about Wilfork which coincides with Felger's reversal.

No one can be really certain what is said behind closed doors. But I wouldn't consider Felger much of a source. Might as well start quoting your uncle Bob who watches football on Thanksgiving as a reliable source.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Forgotten in this is the fact that the Pats first offered Wilfork to the Raiders, when faced with the "either/or" of the two DL's. When they didn't bite, the Pats offered Seymour, and the Raiders bit.

This was a rumor, I remember reading about it too. To my knowledge it was never proven as fact, unless you have a legit trusted source with a link.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i was never happy about the trade at the time they did trade a all pro DT in he's prime for a pick in two years but in the long run it worked out for the pats and they learned from mistakes by signing Gronk and hernandez long term befor the price for TE's goes to high,


when Seymour wanted a new contract the price was only about 9 or 10 million per when they trade it him the price was 12 to 14 million per

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Rather than an either/or with Wilfork and Seymour, with the benefit of hindsight, the miscalculation was tying up Warren over Seymour. Talk about being invisible after signing a contract. The quality of his play went downhill soon after he signed along with his health and seemingly, his commitment.

 

[patsfan13]

A franchise LT is probably worth about the same a franchise DE on most teams. However, I would argue that we don't necessarily need a top 10 LT talent for Scar to turn into a franchise LT. Meanwhile, that combination of size, speed and skill that those top D picks had is a rarity. That is what made Seymour so special.

As Solder develops he seems to have the tools to be able to handle speed rushers. If (when) he can handle them 1 on 1 without help that is a huge bonus for the offense.

 

[patsfan13]

It was forgotten because it was Felger who made the claim, and then he went back against it.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/269911-felger-wilfork-talked-about-raiders-first.html

Felger says Wilfork was offered to Raiders [Archive] - KFFL Community

Both of these threads started with the Patriots offering Wilfork to the Raiders, then both threads mention a reversal from Felger who said maybe it was the Raiders who inquired.

In the first link, a poster heard Lombardi's version saying the Raiders asked about Wilfork which coincides with Felger's reversal.

No one can be really certain what is said behind closed doors. But I wouldn't consider Felger much of a source. Might as well start quoting your uncle Bob who watches football on Thanksgiving as a reliable source.

Yeah I seriously doubt that the Pats offered Wilfolk before Big Sey.

A guy who can Play NT at the Elite level as well as play DT at and Elite level is harder to find than a player who can play at the Elite level at the DT/DE position.

When you add in the age factor of the 2 Wilfolk was much more valuable to the Pats at that point in time.

Getting the prime of Big Sey's career then flipping that for a guy with the potential to be you LT for 10 years is a great deal for the Pats.

No need to knock Seymour, he was great while he was here and probably his first couple of years in Oakland, but the move was the right one for the Pats.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Wasn't he still on the team in 2007 when they went to the super bowl?

Yeah, he was the one being blatantly held from behind on the should been holding/or could of been sack play that would of sealed the win.

 

[IllegalContact]

its all about ROI once a player is deemed to be on his way

it's not about whether or not the pats should have moved seymour. It's about whether it was the best time to move him and was the ROI a sound move.

I understand making the move, and I think the compensation was pretty good.

but it is a fact that this team has still not recovered defensively from the removal of seymour and warren on consecutive years. was it because of them? well, it forced the team away from the 3-4 which I do not believe was what BB wanted

dominant 3-4 DE's aren't a dime a dozen

 

[SeymourTrophies]

At the time of the trade, I was livid because telling Jarvis Green to do Seymour's job was giving up on the defense for that year. I got the trade value aspect, and I'm happy with that now. At the time, I was not okay with essentially giving up on the defense for that season because, as a fan, you don't want to hear that a season is going to be a waste while it's going on.

To be better in the trenches in the immediate future in a season where we wouldn't have done much anyway was not as crucial as having a rock in the middle of the line tied down for years to come, the A Football Life bit on BB had a scene where Kraft talked about how trading Seymour freed up money for Vince. I get it. I just wasn't happy to know I was watching a season that was given up on early.

 

[51Hits]

its all about ROI once a player is deemed to be on his way

it's not about whether or not the pats should have moved seymour. It's about whether it was the best time to move him and was the ROI a sound move.

I understand making the move, and I think the compensation was pretty good.

but it is a fact that this team has still not recovered defensively from the removal of seymour and warren on consecutive years. was it because of them? well, it forced the team away from the 3-4 which I do not believe was what BB wanted

dominant 3-4 DE's aren't a dime a dozen

Recovered from what?

When they had Seymour and Warren from 03-09. (might be off a year) the defense was mediocre/awful between 05-09 (07 the offense certainly masked the D)

I think the defense is better this year than its been in years simply because the front 7 has improved. Jones looks amazing, Kyle Love has proven to be a good player, hell Cunningham has had a bit of a coming out party even.

 

[51Hits]

At the time of the trade, I was livid because telling Jarvis Green to do Seymour's job was giving up on the defense for that year. I got the trade value aspect, and I'm happy with that now. At the time, I was not okay with essentially giving up on the defense for that season because, as a fan, you don't want to hear that a season is going to be a waste while it's going on.

To be better in the trenches in the immediate future in a season where we wouldn't have done much anyway was not as crucial as having a rock in the middle of the line tied down for years to come, the A Football Life bit on BB had a scene where Kraft talked about how trading Seymour freed up money for Vince. I get it. I just wasn't happy to know I was watching a season that was given up on early.

Are you sure asking Green to step up for Seymour for one year was really giving up? Green stepped up bigtime when Seymour went down in 04. Didn't he have a good post season for us in 03 as well? BB was counting on a player for one season that stepped up a few times before. Our pass rush was just as bad in 09 as it was in 08 WITH Seymour. Granted our run D suffered without him, but I'll trade a good run defender anyday for a first round pick. JMO anyway

 

[BradyFTW!]

Lamarr Houston had a very good 2010 but trailed off a little in 2011. Must be that Seymour leadership factor at work again.


Let's see what they're saying about Nnamdi Asomugha:


Former Eagles linebacker Seth Joyner doesn’t like what he’s seeing out of Nnamdi Asomugha.
“I think he got put in a situation he wasn’t prepared for, on top of trying to learn a new defense, and his confidence is just gone, shot,” said Joyner. “He’s gone from a guy that was a shutdown corner to in my opinion, as I watch him play, he’s a below-average cornerback right now.”

Seth Joyner Critical Of Nnamdi Asomugha - Birds 24/7


Thomas Howard had a season ending ACL injury, so he's out.

Kirk Morrison had 7 tackles for the Bills last year...total. He has ZERO tackles this year (I'm not sure he has even played).

Trevor Scott had 7 tackles for the Raiders all of last year and has a whopping 3 tackles for us this year (with zero sacks).

Oakland released Stanford Routt because he wasn't worth his contract.

Chris Johnson was cut also because he was making starter money and wasn't a starter. In fact, I don't think he was even picked up by another team.

Greg Ellis was only with Oakland for the 2009 season and they still went 5-11.

Kamerion Wimbley has 9 tackles and 1 sack this year.

The funny thing is that if they didn't trade for Seymour and his ridiculous contract extension they could have kept Asomugha and maybe Wimbley plus have a 1st rounder.

Next year they'll have nothing and we'll have our starting Left Tackle for 10 years.

None of this addresses any of the points that I made. Good work destroying the straw man that you created, though. Expertly done.

 

[rookBoston]

Seymour is not what's wrong with the Raiders D. The premise of the thread is sketchy.

In the structure of the trade, the value for the Raiders was in the first years after the trade. The value for the Pats was back loaded because the pick was deferred for 2 years. At the time of the trade, Pats fans were pulling their hair out because the roster had a hole, and nothing to point to as fair value in exchange. As time passes, it feels better for us because we have Solder on the field and improving every week. And the Raiders fans are pulling their hair out because Seymour is in his decline, the upside is behind them, and they're doing the woulda, shoulda, coulda game. Pretty predictable.

I do think the Seymour trade is an example of Belichick at his best as a GM, deriving top value from an impossible situation, where he had more elite talent than he could afford to keep under the cap.

But, as with any good trade, it was fair value for the Raiders too. They were horrible, but most importantly, they had a losing team culture. Bringing someone like Seymour in from a winning franchise was as much for his on-field play as his locker room influence.

The fact that the Raiders D has not improved is not something you can hang on any single DT. I think you have to hang that on their front office. Stupid of Raiders fans to think that one trade, no matter how bad they think it was, is the lynchpin of their crappiness.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

Are you sure asking Green to step up for Seymour for one year was really giving up? Green stepped up bigtime when Seymour went down in 04. Didn't he have a good post season for us in 03 as well? BB was counting on a player for one season that stepped up a few times before. Our pass rush was just as bad in 09 as it was in 08 WITH Seymour. Granted our run D suffered without him, but I'll trade a good run defender anyday for a first round pick. JMO anyway

I think the masses were optimistic at the time that Green could hold his own on 1st and 2nd down and contribute more on passing downs. I didn't think Green was going to be sufficient; I was right once in a row. In the end, Green sucked and that was partly because he was hurt. Green was a situational player, but we lost his ability to step up in that passing down role because he was worn down from the increased workload. There's plenty of reason to believe BB thought Green could contribute more in the passing game without conceding too much in the run, but it didn't work that way.

To beat an already long dead horse, Seymour gave up an average of a whole yard less on his side in the run game than in the middle or the other side and had a career high amount of sacks in 08. The Ravens ran all over Green in the playoffs and I cursed that trade multiple times. The pass rush absolutely sucked with and without Seymour, but that's not really a biss hoss's job.

The trade was the right decision, largely because the deal Seymour signed with the Raiders was ridiculous. We got Solder out of it, so I'm happy. I just wasn't crazy about what I viewed as conceding defeat on the defensive side of the ball, though it's not like one run-stuffing 3-4 end was going to save all of the issues that defense had. It's just not something a fan in the heat of the moment is going to be happy about.

 

[patfanken]

Another point that has to be made in this Seymour thread was the fact that there was a good chance that when his contract ran out no amount of money was going to get Seymour to stay. Well that might be a bit of hyperbole, but he certainly wasn't going to take a "hometown discount". Quite the opposite the Pats might have had to play MORE to keep him. So when you add in who they they couldn't keep if they managed to keep Seymour. His injury situation, and seemingly deteriorating play. Trading him and getting a #1 pick was a huge win.

The fact is that NO player is really worth top 3 money, with the exception perhaps of a QB. Its almost impossible for a player to play to the value of those huge contracts. And its not just examples like Chris Johnson that are cautionary. Just look right at home to Logan Mankins. Its not like he isn't still a great OG, but has be played like he's the best these last 2 years? I don't think so.

So when you get into these situations like Seymour and now Welker, your heart might want to say yes yes yes, but history is pretty conclusive that you'd better say no. The sad fact is that although it might seem improbable right now, its more likely than not, that both Gronk and Hernandez will be viewed at some point in their contract as being vastly overpaid as injury and age erode their skills

That's why I don't understand the constant yammering of the "pay them" crowd, when history has so often proved that "paying them what the want" simply doesn't work.