A New Fact: Seymour Is ON Raiders Roster

[psychoPat]

As of 2:30 pm Wednesday,
the roster displayed on Oakland's website, linked by NFL.com,
carries Richard Seymour
(with no jersey number assigned yet.)

Yesterday it didn't.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That's just a webmaster function. Doesn't mean any more than the depth charts the PR and IT people post.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

As of 2:30 pm Wednesday,
the roster displayed on Oakland's website, linked by NFL.com,
carries Richard Seymour
(with no jersey number assigned yet.)

Yesterday it didn't.

He has been listed on the Raiders website roster for a couple days now.

 

[pats1]

As of 2:30 pm Wednesday,
the roster displayed on Oakland's website, linked by NFL.com,
carries Richard Seymour
(with no jersey number assigned yet.)

Yesterday it didn't.

No, he has been on there since the day of the trade. And online team rosters mean nothing, they are entirely unofficial. Just whatever the webmaster or PR department choses.

 

[jacenlukesolo]

Yeah he'll probably end up on their roster under a list that says did not report.

 

[mgcolby]

He has been officially listed as a Raider on the Players Association website. I can't believe this is still a discussion.

The man is a raider, unless he fails a physical. End of story. If he retires, then he officially retires as a Raider.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Adam Schefter disagrees that his roster presence is irrelevant:

Money for nothing - Richard Seymour remains on Oakland's 53-man roster, which means he's on course to collect weekly check of $216,764.71.

Adam Schefter (Adam_Schefter) on Twitter

 

[BPF]

Adam Schefter disagrees that his roster presence is irrelevant:

Money for nothing - Richard Seymour remains on Oakland's 53-man roster, which means he's on course to collect weekly check of $216,764.71.

Adam Schefter (Adam_Schefter) on Twitter

I saw that as well, interesting.

 

[BPF]

As of 2:30 pm Wednesday,
the roster displayed on Oakland's website, linked by NFL.com,
carries Richard Seymour
(with no jersey number assigned yet.)

Yesterday it didn't.

I pointed it out on another thread that he's been on there since at least 9/8: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...r-trade-not-done-deal-page16.html#post1492305

 

[JoeSixPat]

Is this "drama" over yet?

I'm not sure refusing to show up for a physical is the same as failing a physical, is it?

Seems like the League would want to take a stand on that one. Richard Seymour wasn't traded - his contract was. And his contract is currently owned by the Raiders. If he legitimately fails his physical that's one thing but I don't think the League is going to allow a defacto "no trade clause" in every contract because a player might not want to play somewhere

Seymours only option then would be not to play - but I can't see the league handcuffing teams by giving in to this tactic