baiting Richard Seymour

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Iceman4. Show Iceman4's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    Seymour knows he hasn't got it anymore.........washed up

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to Iceman4's comment:

    Seymour knows he hasn't got it anymore.........washed up



    well that and the Raiders are paying him $13M this year to not play

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

    The reason why Sey is upset with the Pats (Mrs Sey much more than Sey) is because they never shook hands and said they could not get a deal done, thanks for your time...the Pats dealt him while he was still negotiating.

     



    It seems "Seymour Road" is a one way street.

     

    It's okay for him to hold out and not keep his word on the rookie contract, but BB trading him is somehow foul play and he is all miffed for eternity about it.

    They guy never made all-pro again once he got his new extorted contract.

    Screw him forever and a day.



    thats fine, but if Patriot way is a one way street, why begrudge the players the same one way street when they have leverage?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to Iceman4's comment:

     

    Seymour knows he hasn't got it anymore.........washed up

     



    well that and the Raiders are paying him $13M this year to not play

     




    Ok ...  I'll accept that at face value.  Raiders are paying him 13mil to not play since if he did play, they would have to pay him 19mil?  so..  "saving" 6mil.

    Wow. Brilliant.

    this is a contract they signed in 2010, so how could they be that stupid...?  Apparently 3 years ago they thought he was worth this money.

    fascinating.  Still doesn't answer the question of what he can do on the field.   it just means raiders would rather pocket the 6mil.

    this is lunacy...  meanwhile  big rich is getting more and more removed from the football field.  yeah he's probably done. 

    if he doesn't have the sense to stay connected to the game itself by signing on somewhere then he just doesn't love the game enough.  thats a red flag right there.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

     

    The reason why Sey is upset with the Pats (Mrs Sey much more than Sey) is because they never shook hands and said they could not get a deal done, thanks for your time...the Pats dealt him while he was still negotiating.

     

     



    It seems "Seymour Road" is a one way street.

     

     

    It's okay for him to hold out and not keep his word on the rookie contract, but BB trading him is somehow foul play and he is all miffed for eternity about it.

    They guy never made all-pro again once he got his new extorted contract.

    Screw him forever and a day.

     



    thats fine, but if Patriot way is a one way street, why begrudge the players the same one way street when they have leverage?

     



    The holdout is deliberate action to deviate from the agreement a player signed, because they no longer want to honor the deal they freely made.

    A trade fully honors the agreement made, as the player receives exactly the compensation agreed to in the contract from his next stop.

    Two entirely different things.

    Rest assured, if it were up to me when Richie Rich pulled his holdout stunt, he would have had the screws turned so tight it would have popped his greedy little head.

    I cheered the day BB traded this money grubbing cretin. And I haven't missed him for one nanosecond since.

    I find it laughable that he keeps saying he would play for anybody but the Pats and making a fool of himself. THE PATS DON'T WANT YOUR GREEDBALL AZZ RITCHIE RICH! They made that clear long ago when they booted it out of town to the hellhole in Oakland. LMAO@RR

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rodimus77. Show Rodimus77's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    He's said multiple times he wouldn't play for the Pats again. Not going to happen. That bring was burnt down, the ashes made into bread, the bread eaten by hogs, the end product used are cement for another bridge specifically built to be burned down a second time for good measure, and the ashes of that second bring launched into the sun.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus



    So your saying there is absolutely no chance in hell....gotcha

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    When you shaft my team, you hold out, you don't honor the deal you signed - you are dirt to me.

    Seymour, Branch and Mankins are dirt in my eyes. I loathed Branch coming back. I will cheer the day Mankins is gone (in the meantime I hope he plays well).

     

    Now you bastards know how I feel.

     




    Now that's a passionate post .  Gotta appreciate that.  BTW...  Bastards is spelled "bastids" around here.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    When you shaft my team, you hold out, you don't honor the deal you signed - you are dirt to me.

    Seymour, Branch and Mankins are dirt in my eyes. I loathed Branch coming back. I will cheer the day Mankins is gone (in the meantime I hope he plays well).

     

    Now you bastards know how I feel.

     

     




    Now that's a passionate post .  Gotta appreciate that.  BTW...  Bastards is spelled "bastids" around here.

     




    Heh heh, the mods let it slide. The bastids.

    (Gotta admit I stole the last line from the Patton speech.) (And I'm in the west of the state, we say bastards.)

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Sey's contract this year would have been $19 if he played a certain amount of snaps last year. So the Raiders shutting him down last year after 8 games certainly had financial implications....

    Sey is being paid $13m this year by the Raiders, so he isnt coming back for $$$, only for love of the game, pride or a ring.

    Many here criticize him for not resigning with the Pats, but they had 100% leverage on his 6 year rookie contract, making it smart for him to play hard ball while he had leverage. It's not his fault the Raiders gave him a stupid contract. I will let others here argue if the Pats might have won additional SB's if they had paid Sey.  

     

     

     



    Umm, they COULD NOT pay him. It was Wilfork in 2010 or Seymour. BB chose Wilfork. Clearly, without question, based on where each was in their careers, that was the slam dunk move. By 2009, Wilfork was clearly more important than Seymour.

     

     

     

     

    The only argument that could be made for Seymour is if BB kept him in 2009, and dealt Mankins after 2009 to avoid his 8 mil per price tag.

    There was no possible way to sign Mankins, Wilfork, Brady and Seymour into the lockout. No possible way.

    Please do your homework. It has nothing to do with being cheap, margins or whatever garbage the morons on the Felger and Mazz show constantly babble about there.

    You don't get it, many of our own fans refuse to get it or want to learn it.  

    Go look at why Pitt and the Giants are 0-4.  There's your answer.  

     

     



    that is 100% false...each contract could have been structured to fit. Of course it would have been at the expense of some other players, but each of those 4 could have fit...TB was willing to go along. Mankins, Vince and Sey each played hard ball because the Pats played hard ball. Each was in their own right to do so, and I begrudge no one for getting as much as they can. But there was certainly ways to get it done, both parties simply didnt get it done...

     

     

    The reason why Sey is upset with the Pats (Mrs Sey much more than Sey) is because they never shook hands and said they could not get a deal done, thanks for your time...the Pats dealt him while he was still negotiating. As with Vince and Mankins and Wes, BB's way or the high way...which I have no problem with...

    Again, I will leave it to others to debate if this cost the PAts additional SB's...

     



     

    It's false Seymour wanted a 2nd massive deal out of BB? It's not false at all. Seymour also held out his first time around, so he's no stanger for nickel and diming the Pats either.

    You are right about one thing....If he did resign Seymour, the rest of our roster would been weaker with Vince gone in FA, maybe Mankins.  

    Why do you think BB walked from Samuel?  Because he was trying to keep Seymour one more time.  He couldn't due to Seymour's outrageous demands. Did you see what Oakland re-upped him for?  Are you daft?  14 million in 2010?  He was in no way worth 14 mil per year at that stage of his career. No way.   HIs agent and himself knew another moron, desperate franchise would give himi what he wanted, so BB called his bluff knowing we weren't winning a SB in 2009. We get a 1st rd pick, Al Davis gets fleeced as  Seymour lays down all the way to the bank.

    The Pats dealt Seymour because they had already offered their best deal in August of that summer. That's why he was dealt so late in the year. It's no different than Millloy not taking the paycut with BB then realizing Milloy's contract was too bloated based on what he was worth on the team and in the market.

    I think it's great people like Seymour and Welker, or even Mesko now, think they are "neogtiating" for months on end, but that the end of the day, it just doesn't register that the player isn't going to get top dollar here unless your name is Tom Brady.  They know they can parlay their time with NE to a higher price, so they chose to do so. All of that is their choice. Plain and simple.

    If moron franchises want to overpay, then keep losing and not sniff a SB while you overpay.

    Bludgeoned.

     



    the rest of our roster weaker by losing possibly Mankins instead of Seymour? I would take that swap any day of the week. i think VW and Seymour both could have been signed long term. Gee, we put how much in 2 TE's, one of which will never see the field, yet we get cheap when it comes to DT? 

    I think BB has some strange priorities when it comes to certain positions. Like Samuel for example. We didn't pay him, he walked, and we spent 50 draft picks, signed multiple FA's, and wasted 3-4 years to finally arrive at a solution...Talib. Hopefully the brilliant one can see the value a good corner has on his defense..the trickle down effect. If he lets Talib get away, this is going to be comical. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: baiting Richard Seymour

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Sey's contract this year would have been $19 if he played a certain amount of snaps last year. So the Raiders shutting him down last year after 8 games certainly had financial implications....

    Sey is being paid $13m this year by the Raiders, so he isnt coming back for $$$, only for love of the game, pride or a ring.

    Many here criticize him for not resigning with the Pats, but they had 100% leverage on his 6 year rookie contract, making it smart for him to play hard ball while he had leverage. It's not his fault the Raiders gave him a stupid contract. I will let others here argue if the Pats might have won additional SB's if they had paid Sey.  

     

     

     



    Umm, they COULD NOT pay him. It was Wilfork in 2010 or Seymour. BB chose Wilfork. Clearly, without question, based on where each was in their careers, that was the slam dunk move. By 2009, Wilfork was clearly more important than Seymour.

     

     

     

     

    The only argument that could be made for Seymour is if BB kept him in 2009, and dealt Mankins after 2009 to avoid his 8 mil per price tag.

    There was no possible way to sign Mankins, Wilfork, Brady and Seymour into the lockout. No possible way.

    Please do your homework. It has nothing to do with being cheap, margins or whatever garbage the morons on the Felger and Mazz show constantly babble about there.

    You don't get it, many of our own fans refuse to get it or want to learn it.  

    Go look at why Pitt and the Giants are 0-4.  There's your answer.  

     

     



    that is 100% false...each contract could have been structured to fit. Of course it would have been at the expense of some other players, but each of those 4 could have fit...TB was willing to go along. Mankins, Vince and Sey each played hard ball because the Pats played hard ball. Each was in their own right to do so, and I begrudge no one for getting as much as they can. But there was certainly ways to get it done, both parties simply didnt get it done...

     

     

    The reason why Sey is upset with the Pats (Mrs Sey much more than Sey) is because they never shook hands and said they could not get a deal done, thanks for your time...the Pats dealt him while he was still negotiating. As with Vince and Mankins and Wes, BB's way or the high way...which I have no problem with...

    Again, I will leave it to others to debate if this cost the PAts additional SB's...

     



     

    It's false Seymour wanted a 2nd massive deal out of BB? It's not false at all. Seymour also held out his first time around, so he's no stanger for nickel and diming the Pats either.

    You are right about one thing....If he did resign Seymour, the rest of our roster would been weaker with Vince gone in FA, maybe Mankins.  

    Why do you think BB walked from Samuel?  Because he was trying to keep Seymour one more time.  He couldn't due to Seymour's outrageous demands. Did you see what Oakland re-upped him for?  Are you daft?  14 million in 2010?  He was in no way worth 14 mil per year at that stage of his career. No way.   HIs agent and himself knew another moron, desperate franchise would give himi what he wanted, so BB called his bluff knowing we weren't winning a SB in 2009. We get a 1st rd pick, Al Davis gets fleeced as  Seymour lays down all the way to the bank.

    The Pats dealt Seymour because they had already offered their best deal in August of that summer. That's why he was dealt so late in the year. It's no different than Millloy not taking the paycut with BB then realizing Milloy's contract was too bloated based on what he was worth on the team and in the market.

    I think it's great people like Seymour and Welker, or even Mesko now, think they are "neogtiating" for months on end, but that the end of the day, it just doesn't register that the player isn't going to get top dollar here unless your name is Tom Brady.  They know they can parlay their time with NE to a higher price, so they chose to do so. All of that is their choice. Plain and simple.

    If moron franchises want to overpay, then keep losing and not sniff a SB while you overpay.

    Bludgeoned.

     

     

     



    the rest of our roster weaker by losing possibly Mankins instead of Seymour? I would take that swap any day of the week. i think VW and Seymour both could have been signed long term. Gee, we put how much in 2 TE's, one of which will never see the field, yet we get cheap when it comes to DT? 

     

     

    I think BB has some strange priorities when it comes to certain positions. Like Samuel for example. We didn't pay him, he walked, and we spent 50 draft picks, signed multiple FA's, and wasted 3-4 years to finally arrive at a solution...Talib. Hopefully the brilliant one can see the value a good corner has on his defense..the trickle down effect. If he lets Talib get away, this is going to be comical. 

     



    You're such a moron. Was there a lockout in 2011 or not?  You think BB could have wildly structured an irresponsible deal for a 29 year old, past his prime DE?

     

    Do you have any idea the leverage that would have given Vince's agent, being the better player than Seymour at that time?

    Every time you try to challenge me, you forget to do your homework. Just move on already.

    It's wildly irresponsible to not budget for whatever players you are signing to massive, long term deals like that. Look at what happens to some of these teams.

    Courtland Finnegan for 14 million per? Look at what Talib got 1 year later!  Stupid teams wildly overpaying out of desperation never works. Mike Wallace, 13 million? Outrageously stupid.

    There is no way on earth they could have paid Seymour 13-14 mil per in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (or beyond) without knowing the landscape of the new CBA. No way.

    The cap right now is what it was in 2009!  The only reason NE paid Gronk and Hern was to avoid them going to FA and it was budgeted for because the new CBA is pretty much known, with the first real spike not until the 2015 season (if that even happens).

     



    oh, okay, whatever you say. I thought Brace the bust was the leverage against VW and his contract negotiations. He was drafted at the same time they were going through the process with VW. 

    I don't think a 29 yearl old DE is past his prime. Yes, Seymour seemed on the decline, and his head wasn't in it for whatever reason, but I would have rather kept (if these were my options) Seymour than Mankins. Mankins is good, but how many years (like Samuel) did we shuffle, draft, acquire, etc. to fill the Seymour void? 

    I know, I should have learned my lesson. BB is so good not signing players to inflated, long term deals like that. he learned his lesson with Thomas, Ocho Stinko, Bolden, etc. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share