Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

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

    Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    lets revisit the trade Bill made a couple years back & see how it has played out...so far...

    Seymour for 1st rounder in 2011= Nate Solder
    By being able to get their guy & not needing to trade up to get him from their original spot in round 1 the Patriots saved some important additional picks...also, by getting their guy they were then able to trade out of their 1st round spot with the Saints picking up their 2nd rounder this year=Vereen & their 1st rounder next year=?

    So as a result of trading a great yet often injured somewhat disgruntled Seymour that we couldn't have afforded to keep anyways we directly pick up Nate Solder at a fixed reduced rate & future key piece to our O-line for years to come...

    Indirectly we get Vereen & a 2012 first rounder because we were able to get the player we needed with the Raiders 1st rounder....

    SOOOOOOOOOO...the final result of the Seymour trade won't be known until Bill picks a player with that Saints pick....soooooooooo the trade of Seymour has netted the Pats a 1st rounder directly & a 2nd & 1st indirectly.....NOT TOO SHABBY ON BILL'S PART......

    NOW here's the real kicker....what if Bill doesn't select a player with the Saints pick & trades it for more picks.....wow, the magnatude/ramifications of that trade are unbelievable.....I guess the trade of Seymour is kind of like the Energizer bunny...it keeps going & going & going....

    yea, I think Bill knows what he's doing....can't wait to see what happens next year & this year(which looks increadible I might add) hasn't even started yet....how many fans of other teams can say that!!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from murghkhor. Show murghkhor's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    this is a bs analysis.

    we got raider's 1st round for seymour and we picked solder. if solder is bust, we lose. If solder is an average starter, the trade is even. If Solder is great, then we came out on top. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    Very nice breakdown, thanks! I was wondering the same thing but you already answered it: what happens if Belichick doesn't pick both #1s next year and just keeps parlaying that into more future picks. You'll always have a position of weakness with the salary cap, free agency, and parity in the NFL.

    Unbelievable. To think the Raiders are blowing #3's on Pryor and the Broncos and Cowboys are blowing #1's on Tebow and Bryant, respectively, is lunacy.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    I think he's assuming that Solder will pan out, which it looks like he will. I know it's not much film to go off but the guy has a large frame, he'll grow into it, and he'll be coached by the best staff in football.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from cwiegmann24. Show cwiegmann24's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    I think that Bill's strategy is to have an extra 1st round pick every year, that he can trade for a 2nd and a 1st next year. That way he'll always have an extra 2nd rounder and a chip for the next year. Seems like good business to me. I'd take 2 2nd rounders every year rather than 2 1st rounders one year. The draft is so much of a gamble that more picks is always the best strategy.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dmcpatsfan. Show dmcpatsfan's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    apdynasty: Thanks, was just having some fun tying to figure out a new thread that was relevant to the past/present/& future of the Patriots .....

    as far as calling the Cowboys Bryant a blown pick I wouldn't be so fast on that one...is he a diva, yea for sure but the guy is a talented mo-fo....I expect to see some great things from him now that Romo is back at the helm....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    Truth be told, I think that trade hurt our chances of advancing in the playofffs and possibly winning a Super Bowl over the last two years. We had very little front 7 talent over these two years and it killed us, the Baltimore loss was just pathetic. Did we have to get rid of this guy? Debatable. Could we of beaten the Jets - at home - during the playoffs last year if we had him? I think that is not so debatable...we would of beaten them and won a Super Bowl in my opinion. And that to me is worth more than any first rounder, future picks, value play, plan for the future move we could ever of made.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]Truth be told, I think that trade hurt our chances of advancing in the playofffs and possibly winning a Super Bowl over the last two years. We had very little front 7 talent over these two years and it killed us, the Baltimore loss was just pathetic. Did we have to get rid of this guy? Debatable. Could we of beaten the Jets - at home - during the playoffs last year if we had him? I think that is not so debatable...we would of beaten them and won a Super Bowl in my opinion. And that to me is worth more than any first rounder, future picks, value play, plan for the future move we could ever of made.  
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]
    Maybe, I don't think he could have done much for them in 08 without Brady, but last year who knows if he had enough.  Warren went out too and that put the Dline in a bad spot.  Hopefully we see that improve this year, if it does it will probably be the right move, if not, I guess not.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dmcpatsfan. Show dmcpatsfan's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    Seymour's contract wa up after the 09 season....we would have had to give him a new contract or franchised him & if WE franchised him he might not have played for us...he's held out twice before & him seeing Brady & Wilfork get taken care of & not him probably would have really ticked him off....in 09 when the Ravens beat us Sey wouldn't have been  what we needed...in10 yea sure but like I said the situation was pretty much not gonna happen for him to be here & happy about it...

    besides the pats just played BAD...lots of mistakes from Crumps drop,Brady's int & overall poor play & Chungs blown direct snap is what caused the loss...thats a lot of points lost & we only lost by 7
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]Truth be told, I think that trade hurt our chances of advancing in the playofffs and possibly winning a Super Bowl over the last two years. We had very little front 7 talent over these two years and it killed us, the Baltimore loss was just pathetic. Did we have to get rid of this guy? Debatable. Could we of beaten the Jets - at home - during the playoffs last year if we had him? I think that is not so debatable...we would of beaten them and won a Super Bowl in my opinion. And that to me is worth more than any first rounder, future picks, value play, plan for the future move we could ever of made.  
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    I think that's a HUGE reach. 2009, we weren't going to do anything. Moss was on his last leg with us, our offense was still hanging onto the 2007 offense. Brady was beat up as well. We had no running game. Last year, we made plenty of mistakes aside from simply not getting pressure on Sanchez. We came out flat and froze. We kept thinking of the 42-3 game. Belichick got outcoached. Brady threw a pick and really, that shocked the entire team. Chung has a mental gaffe. Alge dropped an easy one. Our run D did nothing and part of that was the line being so thin. Plus, let's say we get all the way to the Super Bowl. Can we really say we'd beat Green Bay? I don't know about that....
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade.... : I think that's a HUGE reach. 2009, we weren't going to do anything. Moss was on his last leg with us, our offense was still hanging onto the 2007 offense. Brady was beat up as well. We had no running game. Last year, we made plenty of mistakes aside from simply not getting pressure on Sanchez. We came out flat and froze. We kept thinking of the 42-3 game. Belichick got outcoached. Brady threw a pick and really, that shocked the entire team. Chung has a mental gaffe. Alge dropped an easy one. Our run D did nothing and part of that was the line being so thin. Plus, let's say we get all the way to the Super Bowl. Can we really say we'd beat Green Bay? I don't know about that....
    Posted by apdynasty23[/QUOTE]

    A huge reach? Aside from not getting pressure and our run defense not up to par (which is a direct result from not having a stud defensive lineman), we really didn't have a terrible game. To say Belichick was out coached is ridiculous, you can't coach the fact that we didn't have the players up front. One drop by a blocking tight end and a mistake by a second year safety is something that most teams will gladly live with in the playoffs. I don't think we came out flat at all and as for the Brady interception...that's what happens when you play against a good defense...something we weren't. I'd take my chances against the immortal Green Bay Packers - with Belichick, Brady - and a strong front seven (which we did not have).
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from xxxcrwn. Show xxxcrwn's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]Truth be told, I think that trade hurt our chances of advancing in the playofffs and possibly winning a Super Bowl over the last two years. We had very little front 7 talent over these two years and it killed us, the Baltimore loss was just pathetic. Did we have to get rid of this guy? Debatable. Could we of beaten the Jets - at home - during the playoffs last year if we had him? I think that is not so debatable...we would of beaten them and won a Super Bowl in my opinion. And that to me is worth more than any first rounder, future picks, value play, plan for the future move we could ever of made.  
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    You're kidding right? You pay the guy & suddenly he's a different player? Seymour had his chance in the SB & couldn't break O'hara's hold on his facemask during "the play" & hold on to Manning, & certainly didn't do enough to warrant his return when his contract was up. His been backsliding for some time.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]this is a bs analysis. we got raider's 1st round for seymour and we picked solder. if solder is bust, we lose. If solder is an average starter, the trade is even. If Solder is great, then we came out on top. 
    Posted by murghkhor[/QUOTE]
    BB did not trade four or five years of Seymour away.  BB traded the Raiders the right to sign Seymour to as much money as an aging free agent Seymour is worth, along with 1 year of Seymour's services at low cost.  If BB had not traded Seymour then he would have gotten the final year of Seymour, and the Raiders would then have had the right to sign Seymour for the same pot of gold.  So the trade was pick #17 for one year of Seymour on the cheap.

    So far #17 seems to be exactly the ticket.  Solder has been knocked as not being quick enough to stop the really fast defensive ends, but he's been plenty quick so far.  People worry about Solder being bull-rushed and needing a bit more lower body strength but so far so good.  Solder's strong run-blocking has been as expected.  Gronkowski was successful in rookie camp and then he went out and caught 10 touchdowns, so yes, camp performances mean something.

    Sometimes BB loses out, but that has been the exception.  This one looks like a victory so far, 5 years of a goodie for 1 year of a goodie.

    At least one trade chain wasn't finalized for 4 years, on and on and on, always to the Patriots' benefit.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade.... : You're kidding right? You pay the guy & suddenly he's a different player? Seymour had his chance in the SB & couldn't break O'hara's hold on his facemask during "the play" & hold on to Manning, & certainly didn't do enough to warrant his return when his contract was up. His been backsliding for some time.
    Posted by xxxcrwn[/QUOTE]

    He's got three Super Bowl rings on his resume and was a complete beast in all "4" games he played in. He was one of the best defensive players in the league last year. You think Belichick wouldn't of wanted him for the Jets game last year? When we were pulling people off the streets and putting them in uniform for the biggest game of the year.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tjwoods. Show tjwoods's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    Slice it, dice it anyway you want. Our D-line has stunk without Richard Seymour and who knows what we could've done with him anchoring the defense. 

    He can still play. I miss him. 

    I hope like all Pats fans this year we'll have great defense again: one that can compete, seriously, for a Super Bowl.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from cantstopme. Show cantstopme's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    uhhh seymour definitely wasnt the difference b/w losing to the jets and winning the super bowl. i'd trade a declining dlineman for a possible franchise left tackle any day.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]uhhh seymour definitely wasnt the difference b/w losing to the jets and winning the super bowl. i'd trade a declining dlineman for a possible franchise left tackle any day.
    Posted by cantstopme[/QUOTE]

    Hypothetical threads like this are tough, because the outcomes/possibilities are infinite. I would trade a declining defensive lineman for a franchise tackle too, but Seymore was still in his prime (still productive)... he has played very well the last two seasons. I like Solder a lot, but we never traded Seymore for a franchise left tackle...what we traded was a player (at a position we needed and lacked, that killed us for two seasons without), for a rookie that will not be starting three years after the fact. I'm talking about when the trade went down, until he steps on the field as a starter. Keep in mind that this guy went 16th overall, not top 5. It wouldn't of been impossible to move up and grab him without giving away your pro bowl defensive end. 
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    Rusty is partly right. The other part is about the money. If, for some odd reason, Seymour is still with the Pats then either Wilfork or Mankins (or both) is not. From a financial point you simply can't keep all three players. The Raiders,  essentially, made the choice to pay Seymour and low-ball Asmougha because they could not afford to pay both. If, however, the Raiders had decided to keep Asmogha and let Seymour go elsewhere then the Patriots would have got Solder for a rent-a-player. You cant discuss the value of the trade until you see what Solder does. And saying that the Pats would have ruled the world had they kept Seymour is just hypothetical speculation.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    The underrated thing about the trade is that it was thought BB asked for an 11 pick because there could be a rookie cap.  There is he was right and the savings and impact will be enormous.  The money saved would very well be linked to 10mil a year for 5 years.  And that could be Mankins, and Haynesworth by itself.

    One think I have learned is BB is more patient than anyone. I don't have that patience.  Everyone wanted Moss in 04, he gets him 3 years later for nothing.  Same with Haynesworth, same with draft picks
     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    In Response to Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....:
    [QUOTE]Rusty is partly right. The other part is about the money. If, for some odd reason, Seymour is still with the Pats then either Wilfork or Mankins (or both) is not. From a financial point you simply can't keep all three players. The Raiders,  essentially, made the choice to pay Seymour and low-ball Asmougha because they could not afford to pay both. If, however, the Raiders had decided to keep Asmogha and let Seymour go elsewhere then the Patriots would have got Solder for a rent-a-player. You cant discuss the value of the trade until you see what Solder does. And saying that the Pats would have ruled the world had they kept Seymour is just hypothetical speculation.
    Posted by JohnHannahrulz[/QUOTE]

    Hypothetically, as far as the money aspect of it goes, we are roughly 9 million under the cap right now. Keep in mind that's after our free agent signings this summer, draft choices and Mankins contract. Let's say we don't sign Ellis (save 3 million plus)...what's that leave us at? 12 million under. I find it hard to believe we'd have to give Seymore 12 million a year, if he signed 3 years ago. It really doesn't matter at this point, we can't get the years back. I just don't like to see us waste years of Brady's and Belichick's prime, these two guys come along once in a lifetime and I believe every effort should be made to win the Super Bowl. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: Vereen & more an indirect result of the Seymour trade....

    Excellent thread.  Lots of good thoughts and analysis by all.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share