Revisiting The Richard Seymour Trade - Oakland Raiders Fans Not Happy

[satz]

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".

Disagree , I know he brought 2 plots in the development and was just finishing this monster house spanning 2 lots in the development. He was moving himself and some of this family from the carolina`s permanently [The reason he would miss some offseason workouts to be with his extended family]. That house went for sale as soon as it was finished as he went to oakland. I can argue he would taken less.

All along he wanted to play in a attacking DT in a 4-3, i sometimes wonder how good he will be next to vince as the other tackle.Not a knock on love but sey had twice 8 sacks for a 3-4 DT in 04 and 07 .he was a special player. He brought attitude a mean streak on the DL that we have missed.
in some game he would just smack the OL around and dominate .We have seen that till vince took brick to the woodshed in last year playoff here against ravans. seymour did that alot more.

as far as solder goes we could always traded one or 2 picks we used to select all the 2nd round super picks which we seem to make .

 

[IllegalContact]

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.

LOL....you don't know what you're talking about

the current defense is weaker than any from 05-09 save the first half of 2005 .... nothing was masked in 2007.....they still had a good defense.....2006 might have been the best defense BB had at NE

outside of points being the leading indicator of results, the quality of a defense can be directly attributed to who is making the tackles. if you top 5 are primarily secondary guys, then your defense is lousy, even more so if they are CB's.....it's not even so much about the turnovers and sacks and plays made.......it's who's making the tackles

so far in 2012, the top 6 tacklers are:
mayo
mccourty
spikes
chung
arrington
wilson

2011:
mayo
mccourty
arrington
ninko
ihedigbo
chung

2010:
mayo
chung
mccourty
meriweather
guyton
arrington

2009:
mayo
guyton
meriweather
mcgowan
bodden
banta-cain

2008:
mayo
meriweather
bruschi
wilfork
vrabel
sanders

2007:
bruschi
thomas
vrabel
seau
sanders
harrison

2006:
bruschi
vrabel
warren
samuel
hawkins
seau

when your secondary is most of your leading tacklers, things are not going well

 

[patfanken]

Disagree , I know he brought 2 plots in the development and was just finishing this monster house spanning 2 lots in the development. He was moving himself and some of this family from the carolina`s permanently [The reason he would miss some offseason workouts to be with his extended family]. That house went for sale as soon as it was finished as he went to oakland. I can argue he would taken less.

All along he wanted to play in a attacking DT in a 4-3, i sometimes wonder how good he will be next to vince as the other tackle.Not a knock on love but sey had twice 8 sacks for a 3-4 DT in 04 and 07 .he was a special player. He brought attitude a mean streak on the DL that we have missed.
in some game he would just smack the OL around and dominate .We have seen that till vince took brick to the woodshed in last year playoff here against ravans. seymour did that alot more.

as far as solder goes we could always traded one or 2 picks we used to select all the 2nd round super picks which we seem to make .

That's interesting stuff, Satz and goes contrary to the stuff I was hearing at the time which was the for a variety of reasons, Seymour wanted out of NE. Among those reasons were:

1. He wanted to play in a more attacking defense and felt individually held by by being a 2 gap 3-4 DE

2. He didn't like NE and the NE culture./lifestile, and weather

3. He was still unhappy with the way the Pats handled the death in his family

4. He knew he'd never reach his the peak of his personal glory playing in the no name Pats system.

I think if his contract had run out he would have gone on to play in Carolina or some other warm weather city. The trade to Oakland, I'm sure surprised him, but the offer Al Davis gave him just couldn't be turned down, besides the SF/Oakland area is warmer than NE and very nice. Still your comment is interesting an could lead to one to think on a different line. I guess we'll have to wait until Bill's tell all book comes out (lots of luck waiting for that), or Richard writes his book.

 

[Rob0729]

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.

That's a good point. Not that he wouldn't stay no matter how much money he was offered, but he might not have been able to be retained. Both he and Wilfork were scheduled to hit free agency at the same time. We already know they couldn't get a deal done with Wilfork before free agency. If they couldn't get a deal done for either guy before free agency, one of them would have hit UFA (most likely Seymour). If either guy hit UFA, odds were pretty low that the Pats would be able to retain them because as we saw with Mario Williams, Julius Peppers, etc. that when an elite defensive lineman (or at least perceived elite) hits the market they are always overpaid by a lot.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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.

And who would not have been on the Patriots because the they couldn't afford the other players?

I think you're dreaming. The Patriots weren't in a position to win the Super Bowl and 2009 and resigning him was not a realistic option.

 

[TruthSeeker]

*compensation was deferred 1 season, ala the Branch trade of 2005/06 season. we all know what the 'chart of values' says about that.

You mean the chart of value that says, as time elapses, the value grows back to what you actually get (i.e. a first round pick really is first round pick)? That chart of value?

You know, it's not really true that the average 2nd round pick in 2003 was equivalent to the average 1st round pick in 2004. It just isn't. Please, do the historical research if you really think otherwise.

And it really is true that people who give up a second round pick for a first round pick end up with more value despite someone's chart that may have something else written on it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

LOL....you don't know what you're talking about

the current defense is weaker than any from 05-09 save the first half of 2005 .... nothing was masked in 2007.....they still had a good defense.....2006 might have been the best defense BB had at NE

outside of points being the leading indicator of results, the quality of a defense can be directly attributed to who is making the tackles. if you top 5 are primarily secondary guys, then your defense is lousy, even more so if they are CB's.....it's not even so much about the turnovers and sacks and plays made.......it's who's making the tackles

so far in 2012, the top 6 tacklers are:
mayo
mccourty
spikes
chung
arrington
wilson

2011:
mayo
mccourty
arrington
ninko
ihedigbo
chung

2010:
mayo
chung
mccourty
meriweather
guyton
arrington

2009:
mayo
guyton
meriweather
mcgowan
bodden
banta-cain

2008:
mayo
meriweather
bruschi
wilfork
vrabel
sanders

2007:
bruschi
thomas
vrabel
seau
sanders
harrison

2006:
bruschi
vrabel
warren
samuel
hawkins
seau

when your secondary is most of your leading tacklers, things are not going well

In 01 Milloy, OTIS, Law, Bru and Pheif let the team- 3 DBs. In 03 is was Rodney, Bru, McG, Pheif and Law- 2 DBs. In 04 is was Rod, Eugene Wilson, Johnson, Bru and Vrabel- 2 DBs.

The game is different. There is more passing. Teams are in nickel defenses more. Pats are putting up over 30ppg. Team trail more and thus pass more. Not sure you are factoring that in.

All depends on scheme and great players playing all over the field making plays.

 

[IllegalContact]

in 2001, the pats did lots of platooning on the front 7 .... only pleasant and phifer started 16 games
2003 and 2004 make my point

this year, the niners have 2 DB's in their top 6 along with willis, bowman, and the 2 smiths..

while by no means is it a single factor, if your secondary is doing most of the tackling, it tends to be not so good for your defense

In 01 Milloy, OTIS, Law, Bru and Pheif let the team- 3 DBs. In 03 is was Rodney, Bru, McG, Pheif and Law- 2 DBs. In 04 is was Rod, Eugene Wilson, Johnson, Bru and Vrabel- 2 DBs.

The game is different. There is more passing. Teams are in nickel defenses more. Pats are putting up over 30ppg. Team trail more and thus pass more. Not sure you are factoring that in.

All depends on scheme and great players playing all over the field making plays.

maybe, but if you look at the best defenses (this year the niners

 

[RobertWeathers]

in 2001, the pats did lots of platooning on the front 7 .... only pleasant and phifer started 16 games
2003 and 2004 make my point

this year, the niners have 2 DB's in their top 6 along with willis, bowman, and the 2 smiths..

while by no means is it a single factor, if your secondary is doing most of the tackling, it tends to be not so good for your defense



maybe, but if you look at the best defenses (this year the niners

We'll agree to disagree. My contention is that is depends on the scheme, where your playmakers are on defense and the style of the game.

Look at Pitt last year. They allowed 14.2ppg and 3 of their top 5 tacklers were DBs. Ravens same #. 49ers had 2 of the top 5 and 3 of 6 were DBs.

Its a passing league....

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Sey is playing in his 12th year at a position that can be merciless in the punishment absorbed. For Raiders fans to think they were getting the Sey from 2001 - 2007 is foolish. That the Raiders forked over a 1st round pick for "on the downswing of his career" Richard shows where the frustration should be directed. He had his moments in 2009 and 2010, but started falling off the cliff in 2011...right as the Pats were starting Solder with that Raiders pick.

Richard looks the same facially and physique-wise as he did during the SB titles, so people see that and wonder why he doesn't play like he did then. Age and the game took their toll.

Regards,
Chris

 

[satz]

That's interesting stuff, Satz and goes contrary to the stuff I was hearing at the time which was the for a variety of reasons, Seymour wanted out of NE. Among those reasons were:

1. He wanted to play in a more attacking defense and felt individually held by by being a 2 gap 3-4 DE

2. He didn't like NE and the NE culture./lifestile, and weather

3. He was still unhappy with the way the Pats handled the death in his family

4. He knew he'd never reach his the peak of his personal glory playing in the no name Pats system.

I think if his contract had run out he would have gone on to play in Carolina or some other warm weather city. The trade to Oakland, I'm sure surprised him, but the offer Al Davis gave him just couldn't be turned down, besides the SF/Oakland area is warmer than NE and very nice. Still your comment is interesting an could lead to one to think on a different line. I guess we'll have to wait until Bill's tell all book comes out (lots of luck waiting for that), or Richard writes his book.

Richard wanted to retire a pat for sure.I think people take contract talks too literally. Its like pat saying you resign you can get a SB,even though we have not won in 7 yrs.... I remember in this forum of trading brady and keeping cassel or even i remember when brady quinn fell all the damn threads on how he should be drafted ,developed for a year and brady traded away as brady wants to play in SF.

We do not live in the artic circle. they play what 2 months here in the cold , then in Jan they move to SB and the season ends. the whole they cannot work a month of Dec in a colder temp is pure myth.

I am big sey fan, even the first raider game the monday nighter he was hitting rivers and pushing the OL around.He is a bully , if a gaurd shows any weakness he will just make him look stupid that day. A attitude we have missed the last few yrs.He made plays and maybe would have made one or 2 to get to manning in the SB.we generated no pressure on those games.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Richard wanted to retire a pat for sure..

I'm not sure about that. If there is one thing that is clear, Seymour treated his time with the Patriots as a business. Whether it be sitting out portions of camp, contract negotiations- he wanted to get paid. With that said, there is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can out like Troy, Bru of Faulk. If Sey finished his career here it would have been on his terms- not the Pats.

I think people take contract talks too literally. Its like pat saying you resign you can get a SB,even though we have not won in 7 yrs.... I remember in this forum of trading brady and keeping cassel or even i remember when brady quinn fell all the damn threads on how he should be drafted ,developed for a year and brady traded away as brady wants to play in SF...

Those people were on drugs

I am big sey fan, even the first raider game the monday nighter he was hitting rivers and pushing the OL around.He is a bully , if a gaurd shows any weakness he will just make him look stupid that day. A attitude we have missed the last few yrs.He made plays and maybe would have made one or 2 to get to manning in the SB.we generated no pressure on those games.

There is no question that if this team had Seymour circa 2003 they would be a better defense. If they had 2012 Seymour I don't think they would be appreciably better so and for that reason-along with his financial demands, other younger, cornerstone players who were in line for big deals is why he is not here.

 

[goheels22002]

There is no question that if this team had Seymour circa 2003 they would be a better defense. If they had 2012 Seymour I don't think they would be appreciably better so and for that reason-along with his financial demands, other younger, cornerstone players who were in line for big deals is why he is not here.

Correct. The reason the Patriots have the most wins and five Super Bowl appearances since 2001, is that they do not keep players around after their prime and/or the market for their services exceeds what they budget for any specific position. The Patriots have consistently been the deepest team in the AFC for a decade such that injuries to key players did not bring the whole team down as it does with so many other teams like the ones dressed in green uniforms to the south of these parts.

The Eagles and the Jets have both gone down the path of big ticket free agents and keeping veterans at salary-cap busting salaries. When the big-salary guys get injured or just can't perform, their seasons go down the drain.

Seymour, and a number of other great Patriots, reached that point where the market would pay them more money and years than it was worth and they left. With a limited lifespan in the NFL, we can't begrudge them for getting what they could before it was over by their early to mid 30s.

Welker is precisely at that point in his career. How much, and for how long, do the Patriots invest in a slot receiver? If they can get three good players for the money they'd invest in one great player on the downside of his career, what should they do? Wes understands this.

The Oakland fans should be glad they got what they did, but they had to know he came with back and knee issues, so the four years was a big risk.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Welker is precisely at that point in his career. How much, and for how long, do the Patriots invest in a slot receiver? If they can get three good players for the money they'd invest in one great player on the downside of his career, what should they do? Wes understands this..

This statement is off. Sey was not the same player at 30 as he was at 24. Slot receiver or no slot receiver, Welker is playing the best football of his career and is a vital cog in this offense. If the Pats didn't think so, they would not have franchised him at $9.4m.

Now, paying him top 5 WR money at 32 years old is a different subject.