Looking back at our trades with the Raiders

[Deus Irae]

If you think they were stupid then you will think they are ******ed when they re-sign Burgess another season.

If they ain't keeping AD,they certainly won't let Burgess go as well,this team would look like an expansion team in the front 7,even if an experienced LB like Burgess sucks he stays because Thomas is going...Burgess is only gone if the team finds several veteran OLBs in FA soon.

Burgess as a free agent that costs the team nothing but money and has to compete for a position is not the same as Burgess who cost the team a 3rd and 5th and had a position handed to him. Barring trades, I expect that the Patriots will use one of the 4 first picks on a DE, and at least one of them on an OLB. I would not be stunned to see a DE, 2 linebackers and either a WR or OG making up the 4 selections.

Of course, having said that, I probably should expect the Patriots to draft 4 tight ends.

 

[Rob0729]

The Seymour deal was terrible.

The Burgess deal was terrible

The Gabriel deal was terrible

The Moss deal was great


3 of the last 4 trades Belichick has made with the Raiders have been terrible trades for the Patriots.

The Seymour trade is incomplete. If you are going to say it is terrible based on the performance of the people who replaced Seymour in 2009, you need to wait to see what the 2011 pick produces. Again, if the guy they pick with the Raiders' first rounder turns into an All World, Franchise, HOF player who plays for the Pats for 10 years and helps them to win a Super Bowl or two or three; there is no way it was a bad trade for the Pats.

Whether the Pats would have kept Seymour after the 2009 season is debatable, but all we know for sure is that the guy was going to be a Patriot for that season. If there was little to no way the Pats were going to resign Seymour, it is hard to argue it was a terrible trade. Losing a solid to elite starter for one year on a gamble you can get an elite starter in 2011 who could be the cornerstone of the Patriots offense or defense for a decade is not a terrible trade.

Now if there was any strong evidence that the Pats would have most certainly kept Seymour past this year and kept Wilfork too, then you might have an argument. But the general belief was the Pats planned to keep one or the other.

 

[Rob0729]

If you think they were stupid then you will think they are ******ed when they re-sign Burgess another season.

If they ain't keeping AD,they certainly won't let Burgess go as well,this team would look like an expansion team in the front 7,even if an experienced LB like Burgess sucks he stays because Thomas is going...Burgess is only gone if the team finds several veteran OLBs in FA soon.

I think the Burgess trade was a bad trade based on his 2009 production, but based on his December production I welcome him back.

 

[shmessy]

How'd the Patriots pass rush look up the middle?

How'd the run defense fare against the Ravens?

Wasn't it awesome watching Wilfork having to play DE because the other players couldn't defend the point of attack?



It's not comedy, although the comments made by the homers trying to defend an entire season being pissed away are quite amusing.

A potential help years down the road does not make up for throwing away a season in the present, which is what was done.

Seymour would not have brought them a Super Bowl last year.

The far bigger loss was Mayo going down in the first few minutes of the season. THAT was the season-changer right there.

Meanwhile, please tell me how the Oakland Raiders "improved" themselves last year (and please don't try to point out that their defense improved from 24th in 2008 to 23rd in 2009 in points against)......actually, please DO, that would only be funnier.

The OP was asking to judge the trade based on what each team received in value. Well, it's the top of the first inning and the visiting team got a scratch single, but scored no runs.

People who throw out namecalling like "homers" or "chicken littles" only do so when they have no arguable points to make - - it's a sign of frustration.

 

[bucky]

Seymour would not have brought them a Super Bowl last year.

While I would generally agree with that notion, an argument can be made against it. The Pats were essentially 1 play away from beating the Colts, Broncos, and Dolphins. And when I say 1 play, I mean 1 play out of about 10 during the course of each of those games. Seymour certainly could have made those plays. And the Pats could have ended up with the 2nd seed. After that, you never know.

Either way, there's no question that trading Syemour was a major detriment to the 2009 season.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think the Burgess trade was a bad trade based on his 2009 production, but based on his December production I welcome him back.

Agreed. 4 sacks and a bunch of pressures in his last 4 games. Because of the emphasis on the running game, he didn't see much time vs Balt in the WC game.

 

[Deus Irae]

Seymour would not have brought them a Super Bowl last year.

The far bigger loss was Mayo going down in the first few minutes of the season. THAT was the season-changer right there.

I could probably disagree more if I tried, but I'd have to really try hard to do so. Frankly, it would be a waste of my time. You actually think Mayo would have been more of an impact player than Seymour, despite almost a decade of evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, please tell me how the Oakland Raiders "improved" themselves last year (and please don't try to point out that their defense improved from 24th in 2008 to 23rd in 2009 in points against)......actually, please DO, that would only be funnier.

1.) How well the trade worked out for Oakland is irrelevant to whether or not it was a good trade for the Patriots

2.) I'm reasonably sure that Seymour was only one player of 4 on the Raiders line. I'm not a PFF fan because I don't buy their ratings but, because people here have been using it so much, let's take a quick look: Oh, Seymour rated out at the #13 DE in the NFL, in his first season as a 4-3 DE in over half a decade, despite being on a team where the other linemen had terrible years. Of course, watching Raiders games made it apparent that Seymour could still play, but you probably didn't try doing that, right?

The OP was asking to judge the trade based on what each team received in value. Well, it's the top of the first inning and the visiting team got a scratch single, but scored no runs.

I guess when you're willing to turn a blind eye to the problems with the D-line all last season and to the impact of those problems, and you're willing to ignore that Seymour could still be with the team instead of the RDE position needing to be replaced, and if you're willing to pretend that having that elite RDE would have made absolutely no difference on the field, then yes, you can make your argument.

I'm not willing to play such games of pretend.

People who throw out namecalling like "homers" or "chicken littles" only do so when they have no arguable points to make - - it's a sign of frustration.

Actually, it's a categorization. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with frustration. Frankly, I find both ends of the spectrum to be amusing, fascinating, annoying and ridiculous pretty much all at the same time. The front office is neither perfect nor always wrong.

 

[shmessy]

While I would generally agree with that notion, an argument can be made against it. The Pats were essentially 1 play away from beating the Colts, Broncos, and Dolphins. And when I say 1 play, I mean 1 play out of about 10 during the course of each of those games. Seymour certainly could have made those plays. And the Pats could have ended up with the 2nd seed. After that, you never know.

Either way, there's no question that trading Syemour was a major detriment to the 2009 season.

Yes, the top of the first inning.

The question is who got the better of the deal? It's foolish to judge it now based on 7% of the data (assuming Seymour plays 4-5 more years and the 1st rounder in 2011 plays approx 8-10 years).

In the meantime, in the most prime chronological year of Seymour that Oakland received, their record went from 5-11 all the way to 5-11. There were no parades.

 

[bucky]

The question is who got the better of the deal?

If that is the question then the answer is indeed TBD. However, there's no question that the Patriots' 2009 season suffered significantly because of this trade.

 

[shmessy]

I could probably disagree more if I tried, but I'd have to really try hard to do so. Frankly, it would be a waste of my time. You actually think Mayo would have been more of an impact player than Seymour, I could probably disagree more if I tried, but I'd have to really try hard to do so. Frankly, it would be a waste of my time. You actually think Mayo would have been more of an impact player than Seymour, despite almost a decade of evidence to the contrary.

Wait a second!!!!

You actually think, going into last season, that Seymour was a more important cog to the Patriots defense than Jerod Mayo????????? Wow, Deus.

Then you follow that up with "....despite almost a decade of evidence to the contrary." That's too hilarious. There was only ONE year you could compare the two in the same defense - - 2008. And it wasn't even close.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

seymour being would nave have necessarily brought the pats an SB, but they were buried the moment he was traded......

 

[Deus Irae]

Wait a second!!!!

You actually think, going into last season, that Seymour was a more important cog to the Patriots defense than Jerod Mayo????????? Wow, Deus.

Then you follow that up with "....despite almost a decade of evidence to the contrary." That's too hilarious. There was only ONE year you could compare the two in the same defense - - 2008. And it wasn't even close.

You're right, regarding 2008. Seymour was the best player on the Patriots defense. Wilfork, for the record, was #2. Mayo doesn't even enter the discussion until you start weighing Mayo v. Warren. Of course, the actual term I used was impact player, rather than 'important cog', but that's irrelevant, because Seymour was so much better than Mayo that either phrase would apply. You're right, it wasn't even close. Mayo was nowhere near as good as Seymour.


But, again, if you want to pretend, that's your choice. Me, I saw a player strong against the run and strong enough against the pass to get 8 sacks from the 3-4 DE position. You seem to have seen a completely different player.

 

[Badluck]

A 5th for a guy who caught 20 balls for almost 300 yards in the uniform? If a 5th did that in 2006, people would be fine w/ it.





W

yea because he would have been a rookie signed to the team with room to grow, gabriel was playing with the raiders again by the end of the season

 

[signbabybrady]

You're right, regarding 2008. Seymour was the best player on the Patriots defense. Wilfork, for the record, was #2. Mayo doesn't even enter the discussion until you start weighing Mayo v. Warren. Of course, the actual term I used was impact player, rather than 'important cog', but that's irrelevant, because Seymour was so much better than Mayo that either phrase would apply. You're right, it wasn't even close. Mayo was nowhere near as good as Seymour.


But, again, if you want to pretend, that's your choice. Me, I saw a player strong against the run and strong enough against the pass to get 8 sacks from the 3-4 DE position. You seem to have seen a completely different player.

Speaking of pretending you keep pretending that there was a way to keep Seymour here (outside of completely caving to his contract demands) and ignore the fact that he was as good as gone.

The Patriots have shelled out 84 million in contracts thus far this offseason but in your mind it would have been no problem to add another 30-40 mil to that.

Since they realisticly were not just gonig to add that on, keeping Sey would have likely meant losing out on most of the other FA we retained not to mention there would have been no guarentee we could have retained both him and Vince anyway. But keep living in a fantasy world.

and don't give me this crap about they should have taken care of Vince without the Tag because they would have if they could they needed to use it in order to get the Vince Deal done so that was not an option.

 

[Fencer]

So, of these 5 trades:
Patriots: Randy Moss, 2011 1st, Duane Starks, Doug Gabriel, Derrick Burgess
Raiders: Richard Seymour, 2 3rds, 4th, 2 5ths

If you include Moss, we dominated from our standpoint -- several years of Moss >> 1 year of Seymour.

From the Raiders' standpoint, Moss wasn't worth much. So it's open until we see what value they get for Seymour's rights (Seymour or other value), and how high the pick is.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

If that 2011 Raiders pick turns into Mark Ingram then this all becomes very worth it. Regardless of the Burgess debacle.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's pretty embarassing how badly the Raiders and ol' Uncle Al jobbed us for Burgess. Jesus...

 

[JMarr]

Agreed. 4 sacks and a bunch of pressures in his last 4 games. Because of the emphasis on the running game, he didn't see much time vs Balt in the WC game.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I say the jury's still out on the Burgess trade. Granted BB shouldn't have put us in that position to begin with (i.e. made a better pick than Crable in 2008 and grabbed just ONE of the freakin OLBs available in 2009--I still can't believe it!!), but he clearly had to do something at LB on the eve of the season so the trade had to be made. Burgess's production for the entire season was unnacceptable, but this defense is not easy to pick up and he clearly was emerging as a solid pass rusher by the end of the year.

I see no reason why Burgess won't on the team this year and he could surprise a lot of people. BB isn't perfect and it was a kneejerk trade, but I applaud him for giving up the picks and trying to improve what was clearly an immediate deficiency.

 

[ausbacker]

If that 2011 Raiders pick turns into Mark Ingram then this all becomes very worth it. Regardless of the Burgess debacle.

That Raiders pick will probably turn into a whole host of picks from some team that desperately wants to move up in the draft order.

 

[abba]

what are the chances the raiders turn it around a bit this year and the finish at .500.....that's a swing of 15 slots....


i disagree with the trade not for value but i don't believe you should take brady's window for granted....its closing and to think we could add a franchise qb so easily is hubris. therefore, don't tear apart a team, and arguably the best guy at his position for future prospects esp when said guy is not replaceable....trade rbs, wrs, te, or even backup dts..