Pats vs. Raiders Preseason

[Coach42]

It's one deal. Get Wilfork signed and franchise Seymour. Instead, the team spent its time and capital all during that year getting smaller deals done with players like Kaczur, Connolly, et al. They made a choice. There was nothing impossible or difficult about it.

Well maybe if you were the GM it wouldn't be difficult but the Patriots style of negotiating bigger contracts with star players has always at best been a slow process. So yes it would have been difficult because of the parties involved. For the most part I agree with you I would have like to have Seymour but with this particular front office it was never going to happen.

 

[Ring 6]

Well maybe if you were the GM it wouldn't be difficult but the Patriots style of negotiating bigger contracts with star players has always at best been a slow process. So yes it would have been difficult because of the parties involved. For the most part I agree with you I would have like to have Seymour but with this particular front office it was never going to happen.

Well, it is extremely easy from my living room. That way I can argue that it could have been done, and not have to take into account that every previous negotiation with Seymour was contentious. Its easy to say we could have signed both without considering the budget, and acting as if the team just didnt try. Any argument that says the team decided to spend its time negotiating with Kaczur and ddn't have enough time to negotiate with other plays is jaded, or ignorant.
Seymour was traded becuase the team decided it would not be able to agree with him on a contract.
Also he was traded because the team was getting potentially a top 5 pick in the first rookie capped draft. That is enormously more value that a comp pick sandwiched between the 3rd and 4th.

 

[Ring 6]

Because it pissed away last season and has them already behind the 8-ball on the D-line this season, all for a jump of 2 rounds in the draft 2 years down the road.

5th to 100th isn't your normal 2 round difference.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well maybe if you were the GM it wouldn't be difficult but the Patriots style of negotiating bigger contracts with star players has always at best been a slow process. So yes it would have been difficult because of the parties involved. For the most part I agree with you I would have like to have Seymour but with this particular front office it was never going to happen.

But what you're doing is this:

The Patriots are hardasses in negotations.

Because the Patriots are hardasses in negotiations, it's not their fault that they had to get rid of Seymour because they were going to be hardasses in negotiations.

Yes, if you say "The Patriots are unwilling to adapt to changing needs, so this was a way of making a terrible decision at least have something positive", you've got a point. I just don't give the team a pass for needlessly extending negotiations with key players. I expect a team as well run as the Patriots generally have been to be more capable than that.

Unfortunately, last year, they were well below their usual standards.

 

[Coach42]

But what you're doing is this:

The Patriots are hardasses in negotations.

Because the Patriots are hardasses in negotiations, it's not their fault that they had to get rid of Seymour because they were going to be hardasses in negotiations.

Yes, if you say "The Patriots are unwilling to adapt to changing needs, so this was a way of making a terrible decision at least have something positive", you've got a point. I just don't give the team a pass for needlessly extending negotiations with key players. I expect a team as well run as the Patriots generally have been to be more capable than that.

Unfortunately, last year, they were well below their usual standards.

Well actually that kind of gets back to my original point which is until a player is drafted and we get a look at the first couple of years the outcome of this trade is still an unknown, good or bad. The decision to "get the old band back together" for one last run or to break it up and start anew is probably the most difficult decision in sports. For whatever reason it seems like last year was the year BB and Co. decided to pull the plug and I don't they could have gotten anything more valuable for Seymour. It sucked for last year but the end of the story has not yet been written.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't they could have gotten anything more valuable for Seymour.

I agree

It sucked for last year

I agree

but the end of the story has not yet been written.

I disagree. What the pick becomes is irrelevant, other than its spot (#5, $10, #15, etc...), which isn't all that important either, because it's dependent upon the actions of the other team.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

But if Mankins isn't signed, than that money can go to RESIGN Seymour after the season. (He is playing on a Franchise designation). He'll enjoy using the Raider's First rounder for the Seymour rental. GWarren has said he discussed signing with Raider teammate Seymour. Seymour said the Pats are a great organization and a good place to play, but football is a business. So there is little ill will on his part.

I'd love to see him back and play and then eventually retire as a Patriot. And it would be sweet to use his rental fee to draft his eventual successor, with a few years to groom him.

Oh how sweet it would be to get Seymour back and charge Al a rental fee to boot; that is a dream scenario but keep in mind with these scenarios that this will not happen in a vacuum; there are a lot of other teams that could use Seymour. It is almost impossible to find DL that can play both the run and pass.

As far "little ill will" I have my doubts. I suspect that there is plenty of ill will; Seymour is too much of a gentleman to air it out in the press.

 

[Coach42]

I agree



I agree



I disagree. What the pick becomes is irrelevant, other than its spot (#5, $10, #15, etc...), which isn't all that important either, because it's dependent upon the actions of the other team.

You are correct the number they pick at is irrelevant but who we take with that pick is completely relevant. If we take a player that is a major contributor for the next say 5 years I say solid trade.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are correct the number they pick at is irrelevant but who we take with that pick is completely relevant. If we take a player that is a major contributor for the next say 5 years I say solid trade.

The trade was 2009 Richard Seymour for 2011 1st round pick of the Raiders. The positioning of the pick does have some relevance, if it's well outside what would have been expected when the trade was made in 2009, but that's minor because it's a result of the Raider's actions, not anything the Patriots have done. The player gotten with the pick is irrelevant, though. If the pick is the next Ryan Leaf, the deal isn't any worse. If the pick is the next Tom Brady, the deal isn't any better. The trade was a player for a pick, not a player for a player.

The Branch trade to Seattle was a good one for the Patriots, because they got a first round draft pick out of it. The player taken with that pick doesn't change whether or not the trade itself was a good one.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The official NFL sleeper pick of 2010

 

[Patsrock]

They hadn't used it on Wilfork. Wilfork wasn't franchised until after the season was over (in February). Had the Patriots wanted to, they could have gotten Wilfork under contract during the year and franchised Seymour. Instead, they traded Seymour, signed smaller contracts, and made Wilfork wait.

Another thing, could be if you kept both Wilfork and Seymour for 09 both knowing only one could be franchised agreed to not re-sign during the year and make the Pats choose. I am positive if that happened you would have been on here the day after saying the Pats should have traded one during the season or previous offseason.

 

[Deus Irae]

Another thing, could be if you kept both Wilfork and Seymour for 09 both knowing only one could be franchised agreed to not re-sign during the year and make the Pats choose. I am positive if that happened you would have been on here the day after saying the Pats should have traded one during the season or previous offseason.

Why on Earth would I be saying that? Even if they'd just let Seymour go after the year, they'd still have gotten the year of service out of him AND a compensatory draft pick. Hell, that's part of why the trade was such a bad move. There were multiple options available to the team that didn't involve leaving a gaping hole on the defensive line.

 

[Ring 6]

Why on Earth would I be saying that? Even if they'd just let Seymour go after the year, they'd still have gotten the year of service out of him AND a compensatory draft pick. Hell, that's part of why the trade was such a bad move. There were multiple options available to the team that didn't involve leaving a gaping hole on the defensive line.

Instead of a comp pick at around 100 they may well be picking top 5. You can't dismiss those as close to the same thing.

 

[Patsrock]

Why on Earth would I be saying that? Even if they'd just let Seymour go after the year, they'd still have gotten the year of service out of him AND a compensatory draft pick. Hell, that's part of why the trade was such a bad move. There were multiple options available to the team that didn't involve leaving a gaping hole on the defensive line.

I just disagree, I think a Top 25 pick is better than 97(can not be higher than that) and can not be traded. Also you are not guaranteed a compensatory pick if you lost Seymour to Free Agency. I just do not think Seymour makes a difference in wins last year. Patriots lost the games in the 2nd half last year because the offense couldn't score or hold on to the ball when they needed too,

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Meanwhile back with the Raiders, Hayward Bey has just returned from being tired :bricks: and Schilens is out at least half the year. I think the Raiders COULD be much improved but it's looking like the same old Raiders, and a top ten pick, to me. For the record, though, the 2011 first round looks REALLY good so any non playoff #1 should yield a very good player.

 

[Off The Grid]

Co-sign this.

If the Raiders end up with the 15th pick in the draft, will the Seymour trade have been worth it?

I've been against the trade from the onset, but I would be even more perturbed by it if we fail to get a blue-chipper. The reasoning behind the trade was a) we would get a top prospect b) we would do so with a rookie wage-scale in place. I'm not sure either is going to happen. And even worse, there may not be football next year.

There is no doubt Seymour would - now more than ever - make a massive difference on this team. To me, I'd feel very confident about our SB chances if we had a 3-down DE of Pro Bowl caliber lined up next to Big Vince. I still think this Patriot team as a whole is vastly underrated going into the season and like its chances, but there is no doubt these past two seasons were made more difficult by Seymour's absence - the Ravens game being huge proof of that. To jeopardize your chances in two of Brady's remaining prime years (though I do think the window with him is still up until he's about 40), just seems too risky.

BEAUTIFULL post.

I am an HUGE fan of trading Vets for Picks, as well as Trading Back, and I actually think the Raider Pick has a STRONG shot at going Top 5.

But unless you have a young stud of equal or superior FirePower, you should NEVER trade Defensive Stalwarts like Richard Seymour, if you're in the THICK of the Super Bowl Hunt, as we clearly WERE, before that trade.

This is going to be our SECOND consecutive year of missing Seymour BADLY.

Our ONLY weaknesses are Pass Rush and OutSide Run Defense, and Seymour obviously would've gone a LONG way towards buttressing those.

If we end up with The Mighty Quinn...Then we'll end up ahead.

But nothing will ever get these two years back.

 

[Off The Grid]

I don't think he would have made a difference in the Ravens game, but you have to wonder if his leadership and defense wouldn't have prevented one or even two fourth quarter collapses. Then you're talking about having a bye and the ravens game never happens.

I'm actually for the trade. Was then and still am now. But when playing What If? you have to look at the whole season.

Very strong point. We match up BADLY with the Ravens, primarily because of Rice's ability to blast it OutSide, behind an exceptional Front Wall.

***

Of course, playing "What If" is foolish, in the first place.

The only thing that merits consideration is what our chances of competing for a Super Bowl in 2009 and 2010 were on the day of the trade...And those chances were very real.

 

[Off The Grid]

• It is incorrect to claim that they only had Seymour for 1 year.
  
• And it was a terrible deal that most of this board bought into.

THANK you.

You can certainly make an ARGUMENT that we would've only had'm for the one year...But it's foolish to proclaim that as a FACT.

 

[Off The Grid]

The trade was 2009 Richard Seymour for 2011 1st round pick of the Raiders. The positioning of the pick does have some relevance, if it's well outside what would have been expected when the trade was made in 2009, but that's minor because it's a result of the Raider's actions, not anything the Patriots have done. The player gotten with the pick is irrelevant, though. If the pick is the next Ryan Leaf, the deal isn't any worse. If the pick is the next Tom Brady, the deal isn't any better. The trade was a player for a pick, not a player for a player.

The Branch trade to Seattle was a good one for the Patriots, because they got a first round draft pick out of it. The player taken with that pick doesn't change whether or not the trade itself was a good one.

Beautifully, beautifully put: an ACCURATE assessment of the trade can virtually always be made on the very day the trade is made, because while the Pick's Ultimate Value is an unknown, its MARKET Value is COMPLETELY known, albeit subjective.

 

[Patsrock]

THANK you.

You can certainly make an ARGUMENT that we would've only had'm for the one year...But it's foolish to proclaim that as a FACT.

It is also foolish to say that Seymour would have made a difference last year. Since both can't be proven we are stuck speculating.

My speculation Seymour would not have made that much of a difference, because I thought the reason the Pats lost most their games was a inability to score in the 2nd half and come up with the big first down to run out the clock.

I think the Pats were going to let Seymour go not matter what and got max value in a trade for him.