Not sure where this perception of yours comes from. Maybe it is because Patriots rookies typically don't have an immediate impact? If you look at the Pats two-deep depth chart, it is littered with Belichick draft picks.
If the first round paychecks don't get reigned in on the next lockout, is it even worth it to have an early first round pick? The kind of hamstring it puts teams in just doesn't seem to worth it, seems a lot more safe to give the money to a veteran FA instead. For example, who would you rather give $100 MM to, Albert Haynesworth or Matt Stafford? I think both are overpaid, but at least I know one is actually a NFL worthy player. However, by having that pick, unless you're willing to trade down (and recent trend shows it's not that easy), you're locked to giving somebody a huge sum of money without seeing them playing a down at this level.
Their drafts over the past few years haven't been very rich with talent if you hadn't noticed. But fine, don't believe me. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_y...YcB?slug=cr-seymour090609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
That article is terribly off-point. Dealing Seymour strictly had to do with cap considerations, not the fact that the Patriots sorely need to bolster their team through the draft. And again, your wrong about the Patriots recent drafts. Like I said previously, there aren't a lot of guys that have made an immediate impact, but that's because the Patriots roster spots were filled with veterans up until a couple years ago. The Patriots entire LB core, with the exception of Adalius Thomas, and their entire secondary, with the exceptions of this year's FA signings Leigh Bodden and Shawn Springs, are all recent Belichick draft picks - and both those positions include going two-deep on the depth chart. Going back 5 drafts to 2005, the only "bad" draft for the Patriots was the 2006 draft because Chad Jackson was a complete flop and Laurence Maroney hasn't been close to the RB that the Patriots were hoping for. The 2007 draft was thin for them, but that's mainly because they dealt a crapload of their picks which ended up yielding them: Wes Welker, Randy Moss, and the pick they used in the next year's draft to pick Jerod Mayo.
I'm sure ESPN had made you believe that the Patsies can do no wrong and everything the Hoodie touches turns to gold, but you can't possibly believe that getting the draft considerations played only a small part in their decision to deal Seymour, especially if a pay scale is put in place to curb outrageous amounts of guaranteed money being given to unproven commodities. Since you've said very little to discredit what I've claimed, my point remains and you have even furthered it. Because the Patriots haven't exactly found play making studs through the draft and resorted to trading their picks to build their offense (Moss, Welker, etc). They will probably look to do the same with the pick they have acquired in this deal. They made a move realizing that the value the draft pick will bring now is worth losing Seymour a year early when he's still one of the best D-linemen in the game.
I think this trade makes sense for both teams. Classic patriot move trade a player right before he startt to decline. Raiders havent drafted really well so might as well get a proven vet I believe they can franchise him next off-season.. Seymour should have another 3 good years are so im guessing. Raiders are terrible now but who knows you can get up pretty quick in the nfl they just havent done it. I would rate the raiders ahead of the chiefs and broncos in terms of rebuilding....Heck if Rivers goes down. The raiders could win that divison at 8-8 or something crazy
I love this trade. It makes the pats worse in the short term. Sure, it makes the raiders better this season, but they still suck. Woohoo!
The Patriots have a pretty solid record of dumping veterans who are basically about to fall off the cliff. Seymour will probably do well this year, and then descend into mediocrity for his final 3-4 years.
Oh, I'm sure the pats will end up better; trading with the raiders is like hitting a piñata. But, I'm happy for now.
I think the 2011 pick was probably the best they could've gotten for Seymour if they wanted to deal him now and get maximum value. Otherwise, they are left trying to deal him at the end of the season as a 30-year old. Even if the Raiders weren't offering a draft pick, the Patriots would have been looking elsewhere to deal Seymour. He was going to either be traded this year, or cut following this year. The Patriots have to re-sign Vince Wilfork, Logan Mankins, and Tom Brady. The scenario the past year or so has been Belichick trying to decide which out of Wilfork or Seymour to extend. It was basically 99% sure that they weren't going to be able to re-sign both. Now the Patriots get ridiculous value if a rookie pay scale is implemented, and Belichick probably holds onto the pick (last two top ten picks Belichick had were Jerod Mayo and...Richard Seymour). If there is no rookie pay scale, and there isn't anyone the Patriots are in love with, they will probably trade it for a package of picks. That's Belichick's M.O. He drafts based on value with the salary cap always being the overriding #1 consideration. Maybe I'm misconstruing your argument, but you seem to think that the Patriots really wanted a high draft pick so they could get a playmaker, but that isn't the case. The fact is, Seymour was gone regardless of what the Patriots were getting. Correct me if I have the premise of you argument incorrect, I have a feeling that may be the case.
I think this was a good move by both teams. I actuall thought ne would let seymor walk and get the 3rd compensatory pick the following year. I think its really good for the pats because jarvis green and the other rotation guy plays well when they play. As for the raiders, they can't get a better de than seymore in next yrs draft. He is unique beecause unlike a lot of 3-4 ends,he has first step quickness and explosion. I think he has shown he can dominate a game even thrugh doubles. The problem the raiders face is when you're used to winning like seymore,oakland doesn't have enough money to keep him. I look for him to wind up with kc next yr or one of the other patriots proteges.
1) We actually have a snowball's chance in Hell to make the playoffs and Seymour would fill a huge need. Oakland will still be bad...4 wins tops. 2) Our 2011 draft pick most likely won't be a top 10, while most likely Oakland's pick will be...as long as the Sea Monster is still running the show as he falls further into senility
So its ok for a team that won 8 games last year to deal for a run-stuffing D-lineman who would solve a huge problem, but not a 5 win team? Especially in the Parity-Driven NFL where a team's fortune seems to change by the season? Makes sense to me. Oh yeah, and your "snowball's chance" team couldn't beat the Raiders last season.
That's a nice pie in the sky view of things. But reality is only 1 (or at best 2) bad teams end up making the playoffs the next year. There's a reason Oakland is an afterthought and the Texans are getting lots of people predicting double digit wins...
Why in the hell would a team with a bad draft history who needs desperately to stop the run not try to trade a FUTURE 1st rounder for a Run-Stuffing DL who actually still has some good years left? Whats the difference between the 2011 Draft where the Texans wouldn't have to waste another mid-round pick on another Travis Johnson / Okoye or where the Raiders waste another early-round pick on another dud who can't adjust to the NFL? Just admit it, if the Texans had made this move, it would be viewed differently based on Future Expectations. If you are going by past results, the Raiders would most likely get the 7th pick in the 2011 draft. How about we find the WR/CB who runs the fastest time in the 40 that year and assume the Raiders would have picked him, and we'll compare that player's value to what the Raiders end up getting for Seymour.
I'm not denying that at all. In fact, I embrace it, because I absolutely think its true and valid and I wholly agree that this would be a better move by the Texans than the Raiders.
I'd agree. Based on past history and future expectations, this trade seems likely another terrible move by a bad team and another good move by a highly competent front office. But we'll see. I tend to remain blindly optimistic for at least the first year.
Bottom line is it is a good move for the Patriots for no other reason than they needed to move Seymour and they got a solid return for him. It could be a good/great move for Oakland, but that is dependent on Seymour staying healthy and continuing his high level of play into his 30s. It's impossible to judge Oakland's side of the trade at this point. I do agree with your thoughts on Oakland taking the sure thing over a draft pick that may or may not work out. Hell, I think that is a pretty solid strategy for building a team, in general. People get wrapped up in "potential", but getting a proven commodity trumps potential almost every time in my book.
and when the 2011 draft rolls around, they will turn around and trade that #5 pick for a late first rounder, a late second rounder, another 3 rounder, and a box of imported cigars for the owner.
