BradyBranch39
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,650
- Reaction score
- 276
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:
#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt
Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.
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.
Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.
Laughable. JJ Watt and Von Miller might have helped us win it all last year. Matt Light gets more money thrown his way and returns. We could have gotten our T this spring.
Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.
Seymour went to two pro-bowls and has been a steady locker room presence amidst the chaos his entire time in Oakland. Fans seem to forget how laughable that team was the several years leading up to when Seymour got there.
Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.
Oakland Fans are NOT happy with the way things have played out. It appears they overpaid for a far past his prime former great who cannot get it done anymore
Richard Seymour
What do you guys think of the man we got in this trade, Nate Solder. Has he lived up to your expectations?
Not having Solder now would be worse than what we would have gained from any of those players.
You'd rather have Solder than JJ Watt? Seriously?
Why are you guys even talking as if JJ Watt was an option. He was NOT! Watt was picked 6 full picks before we had a chance to choose.
Because there are no direct correlation between the examples you gave. It is the general understanding that the Pats felt they could only keep either Seymour or Wilfork and not both. They chose Wilfork.
Also, who says it is revising history? We never know for sure what the Pats are thinking and what their real organizational system can and can't handle, but the general consensus of people in the know was that the Pats could only keep one of Wilfork and Seymour.
To point out other bad moves they made are a bit of a red herring to divert from the original premise. Personally, I am more than happy to move on. Seymour has been gone for years and the Pats have been one drive away from winning a Super Bowl since. The Pats have moved on too.
I hated the trade at the time, because I thought that, with Seymour, we could have won another title in '09 (and/or in '10 if we'd found a way to tag/keep Seymour). People seem to have already forgotten how good he was, but he was pretty much impossible to run on and also generated a credible pass rush at the same time. Once-in-a-generation type talent at his best, and he was still pretty close to his prime.
Over time, I've softened my stance. I still think that there's a >25% chance that this trade cost the Pats a fourth Lombardi, especially when the Ravens knocked us out at home in '09 by attacking where Seymour should have been (and remember, this was a year that a fairly unimposing Jets team went to the AFCCG). That said, if the economic reality was that it was literally impossible to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, then letting Seymour go was the right call. Wilfork's brought his game to a whole new level over the last couple of seasons, and Seymour isn't quite so valuable in the defense that the Pats run these days.
On the Oakland side, I don't see what they're complaining about. Seymour has been a leader and an impact player for them, and they would have whiffed on the pick anyway.
The year before he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders went 5-11. His first year with the Raiders they improved to....5-11.
He has been with them for 4 seasons with this being his 5th and they haven't had one winning season...not one.
The year he arrived in Oakland, the Raiders had the 27th ranked defense. His first year with thr Raiders they improved to.....26th....wow.
Last year, Oakland's defense was ranked 29th. This year they're all the way up to 25th.
After this year, Seymour will be gone from the Raiders and we will have our starting Left tackle for the next 10 years.
Slam dunk.
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.
The real problem with that trade was that Oakland didn't suck as badly as they should have. Solder was a nice pick up but if you look at some of the defensive talent that went at the top of that round, getting one of those guys might have made this a slam dunk success. How good would the defense be with one of these guys:
#2 Von Miller
#3 Darnell Dareus
#5 Patrick Peterson
#7 Aldon Smith
#11 JJ Watt
Stupid Raiders. They can't even lose correctly.