Good trade?

[JoeSixPat]

Had a discussion, curious to see what some of you say. Now that we know that with the Raiders remaining schedule, they will most likely miss the P.O.'s and be at best, a 15th pick, worst 18th. How does that compensation weigh versus having an above average DE with this team for the past two seasons, meaning last and this. At first, everyone thought it would be a top 5 MAYBE 10 pick! Given our injuries, would we be better off having Seymour? AND what do we address with that pick?

Thanks

Whether it was the #1 pick or # 30 pick it really comes down to who they pick and how it pans out.

But at 15, frankly I'm liking the value to cost ratio, knowing that we can find a quality starter at any number of positions. Young quality starters are a commodity every where and at 15 they free up money the team can spend elsewhere.

If they get a quality player its very much worth the trade in my mind.

 

[Kontradiction]

The trade was never a good one. It's gotten even worse now that we don't even have a pick in the top ten as compensation for losing the best 3-4 DE in the NFL. This topic has been beaten to death numerous times as well.

 

[Fencer]

Pretty sure the choice was between a 2011 1st rounder or a 2010 2nd rounder.

Doubt it's exactly that. More likely, it was between two things that the Pats regarded as being of similar value -- e.g., 1 1st vs. 2 2nds.

 

[WhiZa]

Pretty sure the choice was between a 2011 1st rounder or a 2010 2nd rounder. There's no way the Pats gave them the choice between a 2010 1st and a 2011 1st, that's like offering someone the choice between $10,000 or $1,000.

You're probably right. The only reason I thought it was possible was because Kraft has been known to go above and beyond when dealing with other teams. One I can remember was with Welker where the Pats have every right to acquire him for just a second, but because of the disagreement with the way they were going to do it (poison pill) he decided to give them an extra 7th and end the conflict there.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The trade was never a good one. It's gotten even worse now that we don't even have a pick in the top ten as compensation for losing the best 3-4 DE in the NFL. This topic has been beaten to death numerous times as well.

To be honest, I thought he'd be much better in Oakland without the two-gap responsibilities, but he hasn't really lit it up. Last season was pretty mediocre. This year has been solid, but hardly a fantastic season.

Some may point to the difference in record but when you really look at it, most of the gains in the past year were on the offensive side of the ball. Consider the defensive comparisons between the 2008 Raiders without Seymour and the 2010 Raiders with Seymour.

2008: 24.2 points against per game (24th)
2010: 23.6 points against per game (20th)
Not a huge improvement. But on offense, they jumped from 16.4 ppg (29th) to 25.2 ppg (9th), which is really the key to their success this season.

2008: 4.7 yards per rush allowed and 159 yards per game allowed.
2010: 4.5 yards per rush allowed and 131 yards per game allowed.
A 20-yard difference per game seems significant, but the difference is approximately 4 carries per game fewer this season compared to 2008. When you factor that in, the run defense isn't much better at all.

2008: 32 sacks (13th), 16 INTs and 15 FFs, recovering 8.
2010: 40 sacks (4th), 8 INTs and 15 FFs, recovering 12.
Seymour has 6 of those sacks and has clearly mattered in this area, though the extra pressure hasn't led to a significant increase in turnovers.

2008: 7.2 yards per pass attempt allowed and held QBs to 79.3 rating (12th).
2010: 7.4 yards per pass attempt and held QBs to a 91.6 rating (26th).
Not a real positive change here.

So the Oakland defense isn't significantly improved with Seymour other than in sacks, and even that hasn't translated to other areas such as fewer points or pressuring QBs into more turnovers.

I know there's more to the game than just numbers, but Oakland's improvement has really been on the offensive side of the ball. Combined with the difference in schedule (2008 Raiders played the AFC East and NFC South, where each division had 3 teams with winning records vs. the 2010 Raiders playing the NFC West and weakened AFC South), and you can make the case that Seymour hasn't really made much of a difference at all for Oakland.

I still wish that pick was in the top 10 though. But he hasn't been that great since he left, and he hasn't made that team much better either.

 

[Kontradiction]

To be honest, I thought he'd be much better in Oakland without the two-gap responsibilities, but he hasn't really lit it up. Last season was pretty mediocre. This year has been solid, but hardly a fantastic season.

Some may point to the difference in record but when you really look at it, most of the gains in the past year were on the offensive side of the ball. Consider the defensive comparisons between the 2008 Raiders without Seymour and the 2010 Raiders with Seymour.

2008: 24.2 points against per game (24th)
2010: 23.6 points against per game (20th)
Not a huge improvement. But on offense, they jumped from 16.4 ppg (29th) to 25.2 ppg (9th), which is really the key to their success this season.

2008: 4.7 yards per rush allowed and 159 yards per game allowed.
2010: 4.5 yards per rush allowed and 131 yards per game allowed.
A 20-yard difference per game seems significant, but the difference is approximately 4 carries per game fewer this season compared to 2008. When you factor that in, the run defense isn't much better at all.

2008: 32 sacks (13th), 16 INTs and 15 FFs, recovering 8.
2010: 40 sacks (4th), 8 INTs and 15 FFs, recovering 12.
Seymour has 6 of those sacks and has clearly mattered in this area, though the extra pressure hasn't led to a significant increase in turnovers.

2008: 7.2 yards per pass attempt allowed and held QBs to 79.3 rating (12th).
2010: 7.4 yards per pass attempt and held QBs to a 91.6 rating (26th).
Not a real positive change here.

So the Oakland defense isn't significantly improved with Seymour other than in sacks, and even that hasn't translated to other areas such as fewer points or pressuring QBs into more turnovers.

I know there's more to the game than just numbers, but Oakland's improvement has really been on the offensive side of the ball. Combined with the difference in schedule (2008 Raiders played the AFC East and NFC South, where each division had 3 teams with winning records vs. the 2010 Raiders playing the NFC West and weakened AFC South), and you can make the case that Seymour hasn't really made much of a difference at all for Oakland.

I still wish that pick was in the top 10 though. But he hasn't been that great since he left, and he hasn't made that team much better either.

I'm less concerned with what has happened to Oakland's defense since he arrived there than I am with what happened to our defense since he left. Our defense as a whole declined visibly last year without him. Personally, had we had someone that was capable in there to replace him, I don't think the trade would have been as bad. I said as much at the time. However, we didn't have anybody that could replace his production. Jarvis Green failed miserably and Mike Wright was only good against the pass while both were liabilities against the run. Seymour could have helped last year.

 

[Sciz]

I'm less concerned with what has happened to Oakland's defense since he arrived there than I am with what happened to our defense since he left. Our defense as a whole declined visibly last year without him. Personally, had we had someone that was capable in there to replace him, I don't think the trade would have been as bad. I said as much at the time. However, we didn't have anybody that could replace his production. Jarvis Green failed miserably and Mike Wright was only good against the pass while both were liabilities against the run. Seymour could have helped last year.

What would it have taken to resign him, though, and would he have been worth that?

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I'm less concerned with what has happened to Oakland's defense since he arrived there than I am with what happened to our defense since he left. Our defense as a whole declined visibly last year without him. Personally, had we had someone that was capable in there to replace him, I don't think the trade would have been as bad. I said as much at the time. However, we didn't have anybody that could replace his production. Jarvis Green failed miserably and Mike Wright was only good against the pass while both were liabilities against the run. Seymour could have helped last year.

Fair enough, and the defense definitely declined without him. You could even argue that our defense still is recovering, as we haven't really found a guy like him, and with Ty getting injured, we've had our struggles along the DL all season.

But he hasn't been playing great football the past two years, so I'm not convinced he'd have been a difference maker for us. And I don't think we could have kept him past last season unless we paid a ton of money.

It reminds me of when we traded Branch to Seattle. We didn't really have a good substitute available, and we definitely suffered without him. It wasn't what I wanted to see, but it had to be dealt with one way or another, and we got good value for it when we could.

 

[RayClay]

I think the world of Seymours ability and toughness but...

The premise of this thread is, by signing him at this age to a long term contract we could have possibly won two more games and be undefeated? Without even necessarily improving our home field advantage?

Because that is the total upside when you're 12-2.

Given the world of possibilities, and the incredible attitude of our young players and leadership of Wilfork, it's quite possible we could be having a worse season with big Sey.

I'm not saying that is a given, but Richard was not exactly a ray of sunshine all the time and i wouldn't say he was an emotional leader, except by example.

But anyway, if you're on some game show and the emcee asks you if you'd like to trade for what's behind the curtain, and you're 12-2, that's an easy choice...you don't do it.

 

[pats_premi]

I think it was a good trade and BB got rid of him at the right time. Seymour still had the talent but I think it was his attitude that got him shipped out of here. I think, he felt that he had to stand up to the BB/Krafts.

I think Seymour being traded to the Raider probably humbled him bit and he probably know now that he is not as good as he thought he was.

 

[Sciz]

I think it was a good trade and BB got rid of him at the right time. Seymour still had the talent but I think it was his attitude that got him shipped out of here. I think, he felt that he had to stand up to the BB/Krafts.

I think Seymour being traded to the Raider probably humbled him bit and he probably know now that he is not as good as he thought he was.

Probably worth adding that it is widely believed that Ellis Hobbs was calling out Seymour when referring to a player who faked an injury but still made lots of money.

 

[RayClay]

Probably worth adding that it is widely believed that Ellis Hobbs was calling out Seymour when referring to a player who faked an injury but still made lots of money.

That would make Hobbs an idiot, in my opinion.

 

[Ring 6]

In hindsight, obviously it would have been better to get the Raiders second round pick last year, especially in a loaded draft. But it was worth the chance of getting a top 5 pick this year. A gamble that didn't pay off.

We'll have to compare the player we get this year to the guys that went in the 2nd and 3rd last year

No way.
The point of the 2011 pick was getting an additional 1st rounder and potentially a very high one after the rookie cap goes into place.
1st round picks will have greater value from 2011 on because they will take up substanitally less cap room.
By the way, banking on Al Davis' account of the facts is like asking Pinochio for some inside info.

 

[Off The Grid]

Yes, I concur with Il Duce's position, here.

Trading High Caliber Grizzlies ~ unless you have an Higher Caliber Grizzly Lock + Loaded ~ is INVARIABLY a mistake.

* Moss could've been traded for TWO 1st Rounders, a few short years ago.

* Watson could've fetched a 3rd or a 2nd, a year or two ago.

* Ditto, Maroney.

* HELL: SAMUEL could've fetched at LEAST a 1st Rounder.

Make THOSE trades.

Do NOT trade High Caliber GRIZZLIES.

 

[Off The Grid]

Kraft hooked Al Davis up by allowing it to be a 2011 first rounder instead of a (likely) 2010 first rounder. Being a nice guy he let Al Davis choose his draft pick.

Al Davis Tells All: How the Seymour Deal Went Down - New England Patriots - NESN.com

Are you even REMOTELY serious??

There're about 30 posts after this one...So I'm gonna go ahead and assume that someone's pointed out the DRAMATIC flaw in your thinking, my good man.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

we don't even have a pick in the top ten as compensation for losing the best 3-4 DE in the NFL. This topic has been beaten to death numerous times as well.

Yeah, if your 1st round pick isn't in the top 10 then it's worthless.

Vince Wilfork, Devin McCourty, Logan Mankins...all picked in the 1st round after pick 20 and we saw how bad they all busted.

 

[Off The Grid]

Fair enough, and the defense definitely declined without him. You could even argue that our defense still is recovering, as we haven't really found a guy like him, and with Ty getting injured, we've had our struggles along the DL all season.

But he hasn't been playing great football the past two years, so I'm not convinced he'd have been a difference maker for us. And I don't think we could have kept him past last season unless we paid a ton of money.

It reminds me of when we traded Branch to Seattle. We didn't really have a good substitute available, and we definitely suffered without him. It wasn't what I wanted to see, but it had to be dealt with one way or another, and we got good value for it when we could.

Yeah, Stomper's been a real peach.

There is such a thing as cutting the meat off with the fat, and Coach Bill The Mad did that when he stood off Branch AND when he jettisoned Seymour.

We probably wouldn't've won it all, last year, without Seymour.

But there's not even the slightest possibility...that we wouldnt've won it all with Branch, in 2006.

Coach Bill II The Mad is by FAR The Greatest in ALL The Land.

And I am 100% certain that when all is said and done, his Stature will eclipse that of even The Great One, Vince Lombardi.

But he flushed one (1) Championship RIGHT down the toilet, when he torqued on Deion Branch, 4 years ago.

And this notion that we HAD to trade Seymour is HILARIOUS.

If we were up against The Cap...we could've simply traded MOSS.

And we would've done one HELL of a lot better, last Autumn, than a 2011 3rd Rounder!!

 

[Off The Grid]

By the way, banking on Al Davis' account of the facts is like asking Pinochio for some inside info.

That doesn't matter.

Whiza implied that Davis had had a choice between a 1st in 2010 or a 1st in 2011...But if you Click the Link, Davis made no such claim: Whiza is misleading.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Yeah, Stomper's been a real peach.

There is such a thing as cutting the meat off with the fat, and Coach Bill The Mad did that when he stood off Branch AND when he jettisoned Seymour.

We probably wouldn't've won it all, last year, without Seymour.

But there's not even the slightest possibility...that we wouldnt've won it all with Branch, in 2006.

Coach Bill II The Mad is by FAR The Greatest in ALL The Land.

And I am 100% certain that when all is said and done, his Stature will eclipse that of even The Great One, Vince Lombardi.

But he flushed one (1) Championship RIGHT down the toilet, when he torqued on Deion Branch, 4 years ago.

And this notion that we HAD to trade Seymour is HILARIOUS.

If we were up against The Cap...we could've simply traded MOSS.

And we would've done one HELL of a lot better, last Autumn, than a 2011 3rd Rounder!!

You never really know, but I do believe we win another championship with Branch if he stays in 2006.

The problem is what it would have taken for him to stay. We offered him a $4M signing bonus, and $9.3M in new money over 3 years. He ended up getting a $13M signing bonus and around $23M over the first 3 years of his 6-year, $39M deal. I mean it was a big, big difference.

Miguel had us barely under the cap by $400K in 2006. And we were $536 (dollars, not thousands) under the cap in 2007 even with Moss re-structuring his deal from close to $10M down to $3M. And with Branch, 2007 may have turned out differently and maybe we don't blow people out and go undefeated. Then again, maybe we win another SB. Hard to say for certain.

As for trading Moss earlier, maybe we should have. But it seems unrealistic to get 2 1sts for him considering Brandon Marshall got traded for 2 2nds, Boldin went for two mid-round picks, and Holmes went for a 5th rounder. I know Moss is a bigger name and a HOFer, but considering his age, he wasn't significantly better than a young stud WR like Marshall.

As for Seymour, he hasn't lit it up in Oakland, and I couldn't see teams trading for him at the end of the season when he's about to become a free agent, so that may have been a case where they got what they could. Plus that locker room was awful last season, and Seymour had a bit of a rep following him (which I thought was wrong, but it was still there). I don't know.

But it is what it is.

 

[stinkypete]

It's an unanswerable question. If this pick nets a 5-10 year starter then yes, the Seymour deal was a good one. If this pick nets a bust, then no, it wasn't.

Given the prospects projected to be mid-1st round types...Allen Baily, Brandon Harris, Ryan Kerrigan, Derek Sherrod, Cameron Heyward, Akeem Ayers, Julio Jones...I will guess that this trade turns into a pretty good one.