armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan

About the Author

Lovelykd
Married. Mother of two. Part-time sports blogger looking for a way to get full-time money writing about the sport I love: football.

More By Lovelykd

NFL Week Six: Really? Seriously? This is Professional Football?
4 votes, 1 comment
NFL Week One: Jumping to Conclusions and Making Some Quick Assessments
11 votes, 3 comments
Plain and Simple, Tony Romo Will Never Be "That Guy"
13 votes, 9 comments
View All

Other recent contributors

Make this page better by editing it.

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Richard Seymour Got Punk'd by the Pats...Good Luck in Oakland

by Lovelykd
created September 08, 2009, last edited November 05, 2009
10
Vote

Richard Seymour has a right to be mad as hell, he's gone from a perennial Super Bowl contender in the New England Patriots to a joke of a franchise in the Oakland Raiders.

Truthfully, you can't blame the Patriots for taking this deal; Seymour is an aging defensive lineman who has seen the injured list more than the line of scrimmage over the last few years, but still, it seems kind of cruel to trade him to such a poor team this late in his career.

The Raiders haven't seen the playoffs in six-years and don't look to be headed there any time soon—least of all this year.

Seymour is reportedly "angry" about the trade and likely feels a little unappreciated by the Patriots.

At the same time, however, Richard should know that Bill Belichick is less about loyalty than he is about longevity—it's the best man for the job, regardless of the name on the jersey.

That is how Bill works and that is what works for the Patriots; plug and play.

Honestly, it was pure brilliance on behalf of the Patriots front-office, the Raiders are likely to remain in the basement and are almost a lock to have a Top 15 pick in 2011—anyone who believes the Raiders are anywhere near being a playoff team is kidding themselves.

That said, the Patriots stand to get a top-flight player in 2011 without having to do too much wheeling and dealing on or before draft day. It's hard to argue with their decision.

As for Seymour, he needs to use his anger to play like a beast this season as 2010 is likely to see an uncapped year and his services could be in high demand from a team with a spot for a Pro Bowl caliber player such as himself who is stout against the run.

That said, the Raiders clearly won't have any chance of keeping Seymour beyond this year so it begs the question, why make the deal in the first place?

Did someone feel that he would make the difference between a 5-6 win season or a 8-9 win one? Either way, they wouldn't make the playoffs with what they have now. Jamarcus Russell is likely to be better, but will he continue to overachieve now that he has no competition to push him?

The Raiders cut Jeff Garcia but he wasn't likely to have made an impact on the field this season anyhow as he spent most of training camp injured and absent. However, that does leave only Bruce Gradkowski and Charlie Frye as the backups.

Not sure if those two are the answer to anyone's quarterback question. If nothing else, the presence of Garcia would have been good for the maturation of Russell as a quarterback—not sure if Garcia was willing to take that role on, however.

Darren McFadden is talented and can be a playmaker...when he's healthy. However, that is something he has not been since arriving in Oakland. Add to that the sheer plethora of backs that Oakland has on roster and it's any wonder that there aren't cage matches for playing time.

The addition of Seymour will help their defensive line, as it was awful against the rush last season, but again, it's a one-year fix and it won't lead to a playoff appearance for the team; again, scratching my head as to the Oakland upside.

If anything, Oakland made a move that on the surface seems like a good one—they had a need on the line for a run-stopping defensive end and they met that need. However, wouldn't it have been better to address that in the draft instead of opting for another fast wide receiver?

Just a thought.

New England, for it's part, did need to consider the expiring contracts of players like Vince Wilfork (2010) and Tom Brady (2011) so they are looking ahead to the future and Seymour, with his injury warts and all, was the most expendable piece of the puzzle.

Good luck to Richard in his season of purgatory. Despite what Oakland fans believe, the Raiders will be lucky to hit six wins this season; 4-5 seems much more likely.

As for the Patriots, well, they will miss Richard in the run game, that is for sure. However, Bill knows how to make the most of what he has—that's precisely why he is one of the best coaches in the NFL.


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
91 days ago
Score 3+-
So Belichick is disloyal for trading a player to a bad team? And it's also a misnomer that Seymour is injury prone. He's missed 16 regular season games in 9 years, which is pretty darn good for a lineman.


It's hard to celebrate the departure of a player like Seymour, and it certainly hurts the Patriots in 2009. But if one assumes he'd leave after the season anyway, getting a 2011 1st rounder is much better for the long-term success of the team than hanging on to Seymour for a season, then only getting that compensatory pick after the 3rd round for him.


Oakland was the team that initiated this deal, and it doesn't make much sense for them. They need draft picks, not unhappy 1 year rental defensive linemen.
Permalink | Reply
Steel TownDraft Pick
90 days ago
Score 1+-
To answer your question: Yes, he is disloyal for trading Seymour to Raiders. But, BB is not known or paid for his loyalty to players, he is paid to run a football team, and (vomit) he does it very well.
Permalink
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
90 days ago
Score 3+-
Disloyal? For trading a guy? For trading a guy who was likely to LEAVE THE TEAM anyway? Where was Seymour's loyalty? I guess Seymour was disloyal for wanting to get paid what he was worth and not taking the veteran minimum to stay with the Pats.


I understand people's dislike for Belichick, but to call him disloyal for trading a player is preposterous. It's his job. If he traded a player, then bashed him in the media after, that would be disloyal.


If he had turned down the trade because Oakland is a crummy team, he wouldn't be loyal, he'd be fired.
Permalink
Steel TownDraft Pick
90 days ago
Score 2+-
So let me get this strait. A guy who shows no loyalty to his player by trading him to a crummy team because it was the right football move, is not considered Disloyal? I'm not bashing him at all. Trading a player to a team he does not want to go to is not loyalty. The opposite of loyal is disloyal. You do the math. Loyalty is only good to a point. Chuck Noll has stated that his loyalty to his 70's era players was his downfall. I understand that it is his job and I think he did the right thing. The Steelers like to cut ties with good team guys too, when they feel the time is right. Your so worried that his being bashed and called disloyal you fail to see that he is also often called the best coach in the league. One of the reasons he is regarded as one of if no the best coach in the league is because he doesn't let loyalty to his players hurt his team.
Permalink
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
90 days ago
Score 1+-
The opposite of black is white, so if something isn't black, it MUST be white? No. That's where we get terms like "grey area."


Disloyalty, to me, is synonymous with traitorous. And I don't see Belichick betraying Seymour in any way.


I know you're not criticizing him, ST, I just think the word "disloyal" is being misused, and it's easy to misuse words when it comes to people they don't like. Instead of saying that Belichick is "all business," he's called "heartless." Instead of saying he's "clinical" in his moves, he's called "disloyal." It's subtle word choice, and it probably doesn't matter, but it's a major pet peeve of mine.
Permalink
PmoehrinVarsity
90 days ago
Score 5+-
Pro football is serious business.

Every player in the NFL needs to accept the fact that along with the money comes the possiblility that at any time your life could be turned completely upside down by being traded or released. It goes with the territory I feel.

The only thing that gets me is ESPN trying to play this up as a much bigger issue then it really is. Is it just me or does the quality of writing at Bristol going down a little bit further each day?

I'm fully expecting to see ESPN the Magazine at the front of the grocery checkout line next to the rag containing the new Oprah diet any day now.
Permalink | Reply
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
90 days ago
Score 1+-
It doesn't just happen in football. Lots of people get transferred by their jobs. Lots of people have to move to GET a job.


I love Seymour, and can't imagine him holding out for anything but a guarantee that he won't be franchised. He's not sitting out a season just because he doesn't want to play for the Raiders.
Permalink
Steel TownDraft Pick
90 days ago
Score 1+-
You have a lot more options for employment in the real world than you do in the NFL.
Permalink
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
90 days ago
Score 0+-
Well yeah, I guess someone working for a big company could decide to stay where he/she is and work at McDonald's instead of being transferred to Oakland.
Permalink
The oldest manVarsity
90 days ago
Score 1+-
I would hope that Seymour is smart enough to cover his six on this not playing . The Raiders wouldn't want to franchise a player that is Seymours' age and certainly isn't going to get any better in the rest of his contract. It must be accepted today that the owners control the contract and until that changes the Seymour type trade is going to continue to happen to alot of older established players. Money is money and a contract is a contract. But the owners must remember with the canceling of the agreement comes changes that they can't control either so we will see what happens with the new agreement and what the players association does from now on.
Permalink | Reply
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
90 days ago
Score 0+-
Why wouldn't Oakland want to franchise him? Were they just trying to get him to "win it now?" I don't think so.
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
90 days ago
Score 2+-
Given Al Davis's age, I think they are trying to win now...
Permalink
CheezerAll-Star
90 days ago
Score 2+-
OK Rawb. For the record, I think the Patriots made the right call, but I have some questions. You say two things that I would like more information on. First of all, you say that Seymour was likely to leave the team anyway. Where do you get that information. Secondly, you question Seymour's loyalty for not taking the veteran minimum. Was this a financial issue? Was that ever an option? Where did you hear that?

Since I tend to stay away from NE sites (and never watch ESPN or it's ilk) I would appreciate some more detail.
Permalink | Reply
RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer
90 days ago
Score 2+-
This is his last year, it's also NT Vince Wilfork's last year, Brady's contract is also up after 2010. It wasn't a sure thing that Seymour was gone, but it was extremely likely that either Seymour or Wilfork was going to leave. The smart money was on signing Wilfork, who's younger, and makes the 3-4 possible.


I wasn't questioning his loyalty, just making a point that if BB was "disloyal" for trading him, Seymour was just as "disloyal" for not doing everything he could to remain a Patriot.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
89 days ago
Score 0+-
LK, since no one else will stop masturbating themselves with their super-insightful assumed understandings of the professional sports infrastructure/the role of a bull's digestion tract to say it, here goes:

[edit] You did a pretty nice job with this article. Kudos!

I wish more people took the time crafting their stories (or simply creating some articles, in many cases) like you have. Keep it up!
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free
Categories: Opinions | Opinions by User Lovelykd | September 8, 2009 | September 2009

Don't Miss

Phillies World Series 2009: A Year Later, and They Still Don't Want Us
Sorry, But I'm Not Sorry
2009 NHL Preview
In Which Ricketts Wins World Series
2009 Week 3: Let’s Talk About Your Favorite NFL Team

In the News

Packers 27, Ravens 14. It wasn't pretty: 310 total penalty yards and 7 total turnovers, but the Packers stay alive in the NFC Wild Card race.

Play the Quiz Game

Who gave up Barry Bonds Record Breaking 756th Home Run

New Articles

SF Giants: Catching Prospectives Aren't Too Exciting
SF Giants And the Winter Meetings
SF Giants: No Arbitration Offered to Free Agents
The 1976 Cincinnati Reds: One of Baseball's Greatest Teams
Thai Circle Takraw

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:Richard_Seymour_Got_Punk%27d_by_the_Pats...Good_Luck_in_Oakland"

This page was last modified 17:47, 8 September 2009. Content is available under the GFDL.

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise