Seymour for Solder

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriots44. Show patriots44's posts

    Seymour for Solder

    Looks like this trade worked out for both sides. Very Happy with Solder
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    I am ok with it as well and for the next decade or so :)
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimmytantric. Show jimmytantric's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    You need to post more often 44-you are a welcome addition to this board-and easy on the eyes-bravo to you!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from taljr. Show taljr's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    I think most of us would make the trade again. Brian Waters comments on Solder recently are pretty remarkable calling him the most talented young lineman he's ever worked with. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    It was a good deal IMO. Solder well be here long after Seymore is on the couch eatin popcorn.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moskk. Show moskk's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    In Response to Re: Seymour for Solder:
    I think most of us would make the trade again. Brian Waters comments on Solder recently are pretty remarkable calling him the most talented young lineman he's ever worked with. 
    Posted by taljr


    Seymour was traded because his production did not justify his salary demands.  He seems to have been somewhat rejuvenated with the Raiders. Solder has exceeded expectations considering his value to the Patriots in his first year.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NESportnut. Show NESportnut's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    In Response to Re: Seymour for Solder:
    In Response to Re: Seymour for Solder : Seymour was traded because his production did not justify his salary demands.  He seems to have been somewhat rejuvenated with the Raiders. Solder has exceeded expectations considering his value to the Patriots in his first year.
    Posted by moskk

    You're right about that, and Sey is gonna watch from his couch today, too!!!
     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    I agree with the trade but note that Seymour got hurt playing FB, it's not like he was a dog who didn't do everything he could to help the Pats.  He tried to play hurt and it didn't work.  It was between Vince and Sey, and given where Sey was in his career it was inevitable that the Pats went in another direction.  I think Seymour would've helped this defense but there was no way to keep him.   

    Same with Ty Warren.  We got his best years. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    I think Seymour helped Oakland, while Solder helped the Pats.  A perfect trade, which opens the door to future mutually benefical trades between the two teams.

    Seymour may not be what he was here, but he is still a force in ways.  He had those two S/T blocked kicks recently in one game.  Some guys go a whole career without blocking a kick and he got two-in-one. He is definitely over-paid, but he is not just some journeyman, either. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    In Response to Re: Seymour for Solder:
    I agree with the trade but note that Seymour got hurt playing FB, it's not like he was a dog who didn't do everything he could to help the Pats.  He tried to play hurt and it didn't work.  It was between Vince and Sey, and given where Sey was in his career it was inevitable that the Pats went in another direction.  I think Seymour would've helped this defense but there was no way to keep him.    Same with Ty Warren.  We got his best years. 
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn

    Yup, on a goal line stance.  Really a poor use of his talent and it resulted in a major loss for the Pats in the long-term.  In his own words, it ruined his attitude at the Patriots.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    Here's a different way to look at it.  I'll add a bit of fact to my statement. 

    Our offence was a juggernaut before Solder and still is.  Our Defense was very good with Seymour and has since sucked without him.

    In conclusion I'd say, as of right now, the loss of Seymour may have cost us Super Bowl's the last 2 years. To me that = net loss.

    I will reopen this in 4 years to reevaluate.  Maybe by then Solder will be the reason why we win a Super Bowl or Two and if that's the case then yes it would of been a good trade.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    The actual trade was, one year of Seymour at a low price for something like four years of Solder at a low price.

    Solder was mentioned on at least one prognosticator's all-rookie team.  He didn't get either the tackle position or the tight end position because he played half of both, but otherwise he'd be in like Flynn.  He's good now, but he'll blossom.  I'm waiting to see if he can catch touchdown passes.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moskk. Show moskk's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    In Response to Re: Seymour for Solder:
    Here's a different way to look at it.  I'll add a bit of fact to my statement.  Our offence was a juggernaut before Solder and still is.  Our Defense was very good with Seymour and has since sucked without him. In conclusion I'd say, as of right now, the loss of Seymour may have cost us Super Bowl's the last 2 years. To me that = net loss. I will reopen this in 4 years to reevaluate.  Maybe by then Solder will be the reason why we win a Super Bowl or Two and if that's the case then yes it would of been a good trade.
    Posted by tcal2-


    You are confusing Seymour in his prime with the much less productive /disruptive Seymour that was traded.  Understandable to reminisce but quite a reach to suggest that his continued presence in a Pats uniform could have produced another SB.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DAC1344. Show DAC1344's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    A rookie lineman that has only allowed 3 sacks and 4 pressures in more than 600 snaps? I'll take it. Great trade. and He's only gonna get better.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    Would love to still have Seymour, but the deal worked out, period.

    The NFL is a salary cap league.

    After the 2009 season the Pats had to re-sign Brady, Wilfork and Seymour and they could only re-sign two of them.

    The obvious choice to be the odd man out was Seymour. He was older than Wilfork and played hard only when he wanted to at that point in his career. It simply made more sense to trade him prior to the season to get something in return for him than to let him go to FA and lose him for nothing. Hurt the defense in 2009, for sure, but it was still the right move to make because they ended up getting something valuable in return for him, and still got to keep Brady and Wilfork.

    Take away the salary cap and they would have re-signed him, because finding a DE with that kind of versatility and star ability, who already knew their system, is difficult.

    But in the end, Wilfork was the more important of the two DLs at that point.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    In Response to Seymour for Solder:
    Looks like this trade worked out for both sides. Very Happy with Solder
    Posted by patriots44


    Wait, wait, wait, wait....

    <-------That's you? =0
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    In Response to Re: Seymour for Solder:
    Here's a different way to look at it.  I'll add a bit of fact to my statement.  Our offence was a juggernaut before Solder and still is.  Our Defense was very good with Seymour and has since sucked without him. In conclusion I'd say, as of right now, the loss of Seymour may have cost us Super Bowl's the last 2 years. To me that = net loss. I will reopen this in 4 years to reevaluate.  Maybe by then Solder will be the reason why we win a Super Bowl or Two and if that's the case then yes it would of been a good trade.
    Posted by tcal2-


    Appreciate the different view.

    You could look at it that they could have won a coupl e more SB's if they had someone like Solder earlier.

    If they had the o-line depth they have this year in 2007,2010 and maybe 2009 they might have won all those years or at least won in 2007 and gone farther the other years. As I recall some more protection would have helped.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    BB is a good trader.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    They had Seymour in 05, 06, 07, and 08 and didn't win the SB. I find it hard to believe that having him stay for the last year of his contract in 09 would seal the deal, or even if they signed him for 10. Great player, spent his last 3 years in NE injured and mostly mediocre. Id be happy to have him back, but that deal was a no brainier. One year left, huge contract, multiple injuries for a first round pick under the rookie cap.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from taljr. Show taljr's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    After watching the documentary in BB (Football Life) this season and seeing the exchange with BB and Kraft while they discuss Seymour, they decided to trade Seymour in order to secure Wilfork as they felt they could only afford one of them. Seymour gets traded as he still had value and the pick for Solder, so far, seems like a great one. Although the D has disappointed al of us, without Wilfork they be sitting home right now watching the playoffs. 

    These personnel moves and cap issues and drafts and trades shows how difficult it is to balance a team to win now and in the future, BB and Krafts goal. They don't tank a season to rebuild (no 2-14 seasons to draft their next QB). 

    The consistency of winning is really remarkable with the unbalanced schedule and cap and all. Seymour for Solder is the kind of vision the Pat's have. Now, you don't always get the trade right or gets picks in the draft but, here is an example of employing a consistent stradegy for trying to win now and later whether you agree with it or not. Sometimes going for broke is not a great thing to do. Oakland probably overpaid the price for Seymour and now for Palmer in both cap space and draft picks. They didn't win anything this year. These moves, that going-for-broke mentality, can set a franchise back years. 

    That's why NE fans are so lucky as we at least have a chance to win every year and in the forseeable future thanks to these types of Seymour trades.  
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from taljr. Show taljr's posts

    Re: Seymour for Solder

    By the way, it's interesting how Seymour has had nothing but complimentary things to say about NE and BB and the Krafts, a testament to the organization.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share