Richard Seymour

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

    Richard Seymour

    The day Richard Seymour was traded (Sept. 9, 2009) to the Oakland Raiders, I just knew the defense was going to tank and it sure did and has been that way ever since. Richard Seymour is just like Mike Vrabel (where you can play Vrabel at all the linebacker positions and defensive end as well), you can play Seymour at every single position on the defensive line in the 3-4 and 4-3. When Seymour was traded, it was just a sinking feeling that this defense was not going to be the same. I understand that it was a business move, it was just the timing that still sticks with me to this day. Big "Sey" was the kind of player that others benefited from and it shows in Oakland. Tommy Kelly (Yes, the same Tommy Kelly who in the 2008 offseason was signed to a 7-Year, $50.5 million contract with $18.125 million in guarantees and $25.125 million in the first three years by Al Davis) benifited from Seymour the most and has been a different player the ever since then. Hopefully when the 2012 season gets here, this defense (as a unit) puts it all together.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    I've a small dream in the back of my mind that Seymour will come back and retire a Patriot while he still has some gas left in the tank.  Hopefully Oakland tanks horribly and wants to shed contracts...

    Seymour was a high Patriot draft pick, won a ring starting as a rookie at defensive tackle, tough assignment, but he was dominant from the beginning.  I'm getting a warm feeling thinking about Chandler Jones and the rest of our draft picks from this year, we really reloaded.

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

    Re: Richard Seymour

    I did not want Seymour to leave N.E. but the Patriot's did the right thing in trading him, when Seymour would not sign a reasonable contract. Seymour was injured the last few years in New England and one has to look at past performance to see what the future results might be. There was no guarantee the future results would be positive or negative. So the Patriot's offered Seymour a fair contract and he rejected it. Thus he was traded. As Belichick probably would state "If I had a crystal ball at the time, I would have made sure we signed him instead of trading him." In the end Seymour was treated fairly, and so is Wes Welker. It is up to the player to choose where their priorities lie, with money or a talented team.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Richard Seymour

    we got another potential pro bowler and stud at his position in solder and i think between chandler jones, bequette, and hightower one of them will step up and take his place.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    this has been discussed many times in the past. Even the all pros have a shelf life on the Patriots, for good or for bad. Just like the current situation with Welker....or in the future with the likes of Gronk. Tough decisions will be made. Some will be bad ones, others good ones.

    As fans, we can only hope that success in general won't be fleeting.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Re: Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Richard Seymour : translation: sometimes the pats coldhearted cheapness costs them
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]
    Translation It's how you put together a competitive team year after year. It's seams to me that the Gmen do the same. BB knew he was not going to be able to keep both Sey and Vince. He decided he would keep Vince. Only time will tell if he was right or wrong. All I can say is after watching the Pats play Oakland last year where Sey cost them the game with all of his foolish penalties I believe BB picked correctly.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    It was either Seymour or Wilfork and Wilfork won out because of strength of character and age. Loved Seymour, but he wasn't a reliable guy.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patafan. Show patafan's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]The day Richard Seymour was traded (Sept. 9, 2009) to the Oakland Raiders, I just knew the defense was going to tank and it sure did and has been that way ever since. Richard Seymour is just like Mike Vrabel (where you can play Vrabel at all the linebacker positions and defensive end as well), you can play Seymour at every single position on the defensive line in the 3-4 and 4-3. When Seymour was traded, it was just a sinking feeling that this defense was not going to be the same. I understand that it was a business move, it was just the timing that still sticks with me to this day. Big "Sey" was the kind of player that others benefited from and it shows in Oakland. Tommy Kelly (Yes, the same Tommy Kelly who in the 2008 offseason was signed to a 7-Year,  $50.5 million contract with $18.125 million in guarantees and $25.125 million in the first three years by Al Davis) benifited from Seymour the most and has been a different player the ever since then. Hopefully when the 2012 season gets here, this defense (as a unit) puts it all together.
    Posted by millergrnv[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from patafan. Show patafan's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]The day Richard Seymour was traded (Sept. 9, 2009) to the Oakland Raiders, I just knew the defense was going to tank and it sure did and has been that way ever since. Richard Seymour is just like Mike Vrabel (where you can play Vrabel at all the linebacker positions and defensive end as well), you can play Seymour at every single position on the defensive line in the 3-4 and 4-3. When Seymour was traded, it was just a sinking feeling that this defense was not going to be the same. I understand that it was a business move, it was just the timing that still sticks with me to this day. Big "Sey" was the kind of player that others benefited from and it shows in Oakland. Tommy Kelly (Yes, the same Tommy Kelly who in the 2008 offseason was signed to a 7-Year,  $50.5 million contract with $18.125 million in guarantees and $25.125 million in the first three years by Al Davis) benifited from Seymour the most and has been a different player the ever since then. Hopefully when the 2012 season gets here, this defense (as a unit) puts it all together.
    Posted by millergrnv[/QUOTE]
         We lost a lot more great defensive players that affcted our defense , not just one .
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    I could be wrong on this but I believe the timing was due to the surprise of Oakland contacting the Pats about Seymour.  I don't believe the Pats were actively searching for a trade partner at the time and were expecting to lose Seymour to FA at the end of the season. 

    Another timing story is how BB dumped a couple of safties just before the season started and then dumped a couple of CBs during last season.  I didn't understand that.  Dump the players in question at the end of the season where you have FA and a draft to help you out.  I sure would like to know the story behind that mess.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Re: Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]I could be wrong on this but I believe the timing was due to the surprise of Oakland contacting the Pats about Seymour.  I don't believe the Pats were actively searching for a trade partner at the time and were expecting to lose Seymour to FA at the end of the season.  Another timing story is how BB dumped a couple of safties just before the season started and then dumped a couple of CBs during last season.  I didn't understand that.  Dump the players in question at the end of the season where you have FA and a draft to help you out.  I sure would like to know the story behind that mess.
    Posted by garytx[/QUOTE]

    Good points on both accounts and I agree, although with seymour probably walking away after the season I can see if we put him on the block to see what happened?

     I still can't figure out the safety thing or the Bodden/Wilhite/Butler thing as we didn't have much depth behind them. Now Butler obviously didn't look good but again, what were the other options? BB might have thought Dowling was going to be a starter before his injury which gets me excited about him this season.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Re: Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]It was either Seymour or Wilfork and Wilfork won out because of strength of character and age. Loved Seymour, but he wasn't a reliable guy.
    Posted by 49Patriots[/QUOTE]

    It's water under the bridge now, but to say we couldn't of kept both is wrong. We were 7 million under the cap last year. We are 15 million under the cap heading into this season. We wasted 4 million on a defensive lineman (Ellis) and another million on Haynesworth - it did nothing for our defense. We threw a few million into Burgess the year we dumped Seymore and wasted a few more million into Tully Banta Cain, if Solder isn't a solid left tackle this year it will be a big mistake.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Re: Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Richard Seymour : It's water under the bridge now, but to say we couldn't of kept both is wrong. We were 7 million under the cap last year. We are 15 million under the cap heading into this season. We wasted 4 million on a defensive lineman (Ellis) and another million on Haynesworth - it did nothing for our defense. We threw a few million into Burgess the year we dumped Seymore and wasted a few more million into Tully Banta Cain, if Solder isn't a solid left tackle this year it will be a big mistake.
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    All a far cry from the 20-30 million it would have took to lock up Seymour. I am sure that you knew in your heart that the 10 sacks Bant-Cain had the previous year was luck and we shouldn't have re-signed him? Seems to me that in BB's system it is worth accumualting mulitiple players in order to find a few contributors as opposed to paying 2 men 60 million dollars who both play close to the same position.(VW and Sey)

     I would have like to keep Seymour but I don't think he would have won us the Ravens playoff game....point being that we probably were not winning a SB that year so better to get a draft pick which appears to be the LT of the future as opposed to letting big Sey walk and get nothing.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    In Response to Re: Richard Seymour:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Richard Seymour : All a far cry from the 20-30 million it would have took to lock up Seymour. I am sure that you knew in your heart that the 10 sacks Bant-Cain had the previous year was luck and we shouldn't have re-signed him? Seems to me that in BB's system it is worth accumualting mulitiple players in order to find a few contributors as opposed to paying 2 men 60 million dollars who both play close to the same position.(VW and Sey)  I would have like to keep Seymour but I don't think he would have won us the Ravens playoff game....point being that we probably were not winning a SB that year so better to get a draft pick which appears to be the LT of the future as opposed to letting big Sey walk and get nothing.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Alright, let's say they wouldn't of beaten the Ravens that year, how about the close game against the Jets the following season. You remember that game don't you? The one where Sanchez wasn't sacked one single time and made to look like a real NFL QB (perhaps for the first time in his career) while he was free to sit back and do whatever he wanted, because no one got within shouting distance of him. Or how about during the last Super Bowl? Especially during that last drive - where we did absolutely nothing to slow down their offense.

    It's over now, but why pretend that we didn't potentially make a mistake on a guy that was one of the best defensive linemen we've ever had here? Or the fact that we're still trying to replace him...or that we maybe could of used a guy like that when we were bringing guys in off the streets for tryouts right before our last two play off runs.

    Personally I was tired of listening to the guy whine about his contract, but they all do that. And he has been very well compensated since the day he stepped into the NFL (perhaps not earning all of it), but the guy could play and he would of still been able to help this team at a position of need. The following players have failed to do so for us...Pryor, Ellis, Haynesworth, Brace, Wright...and Deadric, Love and Warren haven't exactly lit it up either.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    I loved sey but I love what they got for him and I think this year will show they no longer miss his presence. As for who he retires as... anything but a patriot is a joke
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Richard Seymour

    I dont understand threads like this. Big Sey had his day in New England. Similar to Roger Clemens he kind of tailed off the last few years of his career here, only to be rejuvenated in Oakland. Good for him. The bottom line is he would have walked at the end of the year FOR NOTHING. The choce was Wilfork or Sey, and BB chose Sey. PERIOD. One more thing, since Sey left we have gone 10-6, 14-2 and 13-3, and appeared in one Super Bowl. Seems to me like we have done OK without him. And all you folks that say we would have won 1 or 2 super bowls with him, I say; who knows? Who knows if he wouldn't have had a season ending injury one of those years. "If my aunt had ba11s she would be my uncle."
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share