Blog Entry

Take that, Seymour

Posted on: September 6, 2009 5:54 pm
Edited on: September 6, 2009 8:53 pm

Can one move mean a man is both smart and vindictive?

The Richard Seymour trade says both about New England Patriots mastermind Bill Belichick.

The move is smart because Belichick stole a 2011 first-round pick from Oakland Raiders for Seymour. That pick, barring a drastic change in the Raiders, will be a top-15 pick -- bare minimum.

They get that for a 29-year-old defensive tackle who is entering the final year of his contract.

Good move.

Bad move for Seymour. And that's where the vindictive side comes into play. Seymour was one of the few players who would stand up to Belichick. He didn't hang on his every word. When Seymour wanted to stay home in South Carolina with his wife and kids and work out, Belichick balked.

Seymour stayed.

Now he's shipping him to one of the worst teams in the NFL.

Take that.

It also shows the Patriots way, which is no loyalty. Nor should there be. There never is on the team's side, so why should a player ever feel loyal? He shouldn't. The team will send you to Siberia, uh, Oakland, in a minute.

If you're in decline, you're done.

Seymour helped the Patriots win three Super Bowls. He helped earn Belichick a lot of money.

That mattered none on Sunday. Nor should it.

But couldn't Belichick have traded him to a team that had a chance?

This trade was a smart move, Bill -- as usual. But I bet Belichick's a little happy sending Seymour off to Oakland.



Category: NFL
Tags: NFL

Since: Feb 4, 2009
Posted on: September 8, 2009 12:00 am

Take that, Seymour

"If you're in decline, you're done".
That comment is vastly premature. The guy is only 30 years old and most d-linemen are still in the prime of the careers at that age for crying out loud. Especially if you're as good as he is and has been over his career in New Englend. Sure the Oakland Raiders gave up a first rounder but who the heck knows how that pick will turn out whereas Richard Seymour has proven himself year in and year out over his career and will definitely help the run defense for the Silver and Black.
Oh yeah and final thought.
The Pats may have won the trio of Lombardi Trophies during Seymour's career in New England but given a choice, would you as a player rather wear the jersey of the Silver and Black or the pansy photo of a Patriot stuck to your chest?
Yeah right and so I'll rest!

Since: Dec 5, 2006
Posted on: September 7, 2009 11:18 pm

Take that, Seymour

Pete, what are you thinking? Belichik did what he thought was best for the team only. Wilfork is in need of a contract as well as a few others This allows them to pay some other players. Seymour would have signed with someone else after the season anyway because he was going to be a free agent, so why not rob the Raiders blind once again (see Randy Moss for a 4th rounder).  This had nothing to do with giving it to Seymour. There are only 2 reasons I can think of that you would suggest that: 1 would be just to stir up responses to your piece or 2 becasue your a complete dope. Quite frankly i'm not sure which one it is.

Since: Mar 3, 2008
Posted on: September 7, 2009 7:42 pm

Take that, Seymour

she ya shemour

Since: Sep 1, 2006
Posted on: September 7, 2009 7:40 pm

Take that, Seymour

Prisco Is an idiot! I said it before on this thread but "someone" deleted it. So I'll say it again. Prisco is an idiot. ALWAYS HAS BEEN ALWAYS WILL BE>

Since: Dec 19, 2006
Posted on: September 7, 2009 2:41 pm

Take that, Seymour

I think that one needs to look at the context of the total dealings between two teams in a year.  Earlier this year the Raiders traded Derrick Burgess, who has only one year on his contract for a 2010 3rd Round pick and a 2010 fourth round pick, which could be exchanged for a fifth round pick if the Patriots could acquire one.  They did just that when they traded little used Defensive End LeKevin Smith to Detroit for a fifth rounder.

The Patriots then traded Richard Seymour who has one year left on his contract to the Raiders for a 2011 first round pick.

Burgess was NOT going to play for the Raiders this year.  Seymour would not have been signed by the Pats in 2010.  No way the Patriots could have signed Wilfork AND Seymour AND paid Warren, who is tied up through 2013.  Seymour would not have taken the hometown discount a la Tedy Brusci to stay with the Pats.

So let's sum up the trade in a overall view.

The Patriots, in a three way trade, send Richard Seymour, a 2010 3rd Rounder, and a 2010 5th rounder acquired from Detroit for LeKevin Smith to Oakland.

The Patriots in return get Derick Burgess and the Raiders 1st Round pick in 2011.  It is doubtful that the Patriots will franchise Burgess in 2010, although they could definitely sign him.

Assuming the Patriots have a pick somewhere around 28th - I'm assuming they will not win the Super Bowl, even though they are favorites - the Raiders get Seymour for at least 2009, plus the 92nd pick in the 2010 draft, plus assuming Detroit finished somewhere around the fifth worst record in the NFL, around the 140th pick.  You can find very good players at these spots.  In addition, do not put it past Oakland to franchise Seymour and either pay him to play in 2010 OR do a sign and trade for Draft pick(s) in 2011.

This may be one of those deals that is good for both teams.

As far as loyalty, one should remember the rather nasty holdout that Seymour had in 2005.  Vince Wilfork is honoring his contract, even though he does not like it.  My bet is that Vince will be rewarded for doing the right thing.

Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posted on: September 7, 2009 2:34 pm

Take that, Seymour

A history of trading?  The Pats stole Randy Moss for a 4th rounder and now they get a 1st rounder for a past him prime pash rusher.

Why would Oakland even want him?  This is a move that is supposed to put a team over the top not make a 3-13 team 5-11, at best.

Since: Apr 27, 2009
Posted on: September 7, 2009 2:25 pm

Take that, Seymour

Boy, Prisco, you're so smart - You're right, they should have traded Seymour to a team that had a chance to win it all and possibly knock the Patriots out of the playoff's..Why didn't Bill think of that?  Instead, the moron Belichick traded him to loserville and got a top ten pick in return.
(Please tell me that somebody hacked into the CBS site and wrote this pretending to be Pete Dippso?  If not, I have to wonder how much they're paying this guy and why he's even around...)

Since: Feb 11, 2007
Posted on: September 7, 2009 1:51 pm

Take that, Seymour

Prisco you're still an idiot.  Why did they ship him to Oakland?  Because they gave up a 1st round pick to a perrenial loser!  Should the Pats have traded him to a contender for a lesser pick?  That's why your Jets stink, because they don't have the business saavy of the Patriots!

Since: Jul 17, 2007
Posted on: September 7, 2009 11:04 am

Take that, Seymour

Who's to say that Belichick was even the one who pulled the trigger on the trade?  Teams should be more loyal to their players although I do understand the nature of the business.  The Pats and Raiders have been activley trading back and forth for a while now as stated by a previous poster.  The Pats traded and got the best deal for them for the player.  To suggest that it was done to spite Seymour is laughable.

Since: Jan 11, 2007
Posted on: September 7, 2009 10:50 am

Take that, Seymour

I agree with most of the commentary so far. Prisco, anything to knock the Pats and their coach.  This was a smart move and a business move. The Pats could not afford to sign Wilfork and Seymour, so they shipped the older and less durable player to the team that offered a #1 pick ( and based on Oaklans play in the last few years could be a top 5) . The Pats will turn that pick into 5 or 6 picks and restock a team that has some aging key spots ( QB, RB, WR)  ............but the collective agreement is alos uo in the air for who gets the last last will remain to be seen.  Either had nothing to do with spite......its always about business!

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or