Vrabel and Seymour trades

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    No, these are guys who are on the downside of their careers and BB understands that he's going to have to rebuild his defense.  It will take several years to do that. BB's success or failure needs to be judged by what happens two or three years from now, not by what's happening now.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Disagree I reckon they got rid of too much at once. Vrabel and Seymour still help this team this year much less last year. Pats need to take advantage of having Brady still in his prime. Once again what did the Pats get for trading Vrabel a player who always lifted in big games and did things on both sides of the ball not to mention his leadership in the locker room. It was almost like he was given to Kansas as a gift. I could understand if Mayo and others were ready to take over but Mayo has regressed big time.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from John413. Show John413's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    I don't think Vrabel or Seymour could help our current situation, the talent is just not there anymore.

    It's scary to compare Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, Seymour, Law, and Harrison in their prime to our current sad collection of defensive misfits.

    Mayo would have been a reserve on our SB championship teams, and now he is supposed to be the best player on our D. That sums up how much our D has declined.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    John, defensive misfits is a bit harsh, no?  There are a lot of young guys out there learning on the job. 

    The dilemma here with vets is if they stayed and the D was still questionable, some people would be screaming for their heads or chastising BB for not trading them when they still had value. 

    I think the organization made a decision to get younger because the status quo of two years ago wasn't gonna get it done. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1024us. Show m1024us's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]Disagree I reckon they got rid of too much at once. Vrabel and Seymour still help this team this year much less last year. Pats need to take advantage of having Brady still in his prime. Once again what did the Pats get for trading Vrabel a player who always lifted in big games and did things on both sides of the ball not to mention his leadership in the locker room. It was almost like he was given to Kansas as a gift. I could understand if Mayo and others were ready to take over but Mayo has regressed big time.
    Posted by Brad34[/QUOTE]

    Are you trying to tell us that Belichick knew that Bruschi and Harrision were going to retire?  Yeah, ok!  You do have a nice imigination!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1024us. Show m1024us's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]I don't think Vrabel or Seymour could help our current situation, the talent is just not there anymore. It's scary to compare Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinest, Seymour, Law, and Harrison in their prime to our current sad collection of defensive misfits. Mayo would have been a reserve on our SB championship teams, and now he is supposed to be the best player on our D. That sums up how much our D has declined.
    Posted by John413[/QUOTE]

    It is funny how much you don't know about football.....

    When the Pats won the SB's Bruschi, Vrabel, Mcginest, Law and Harrison were in thier prime......The guys that we have out there now have not hit their prime yet.

    To think that Mayo is better than Wilfork is a grave mistake by you....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Hindsight I doubt he regrets it. We have a pretty good #1 coming in for Seymour this year and if that pick pans out he'll have no regrets at all.

    As for Vrabel he has 6 tackles and no sacks in the Chiefs first 2 victories which means he is on pace for last years stats (53 tackles and 2 sacks).

    I don't see any regrets, we need to move forward not backwards.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from matty37111. Show matty37111's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    The thing to remember about Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Law, Harrison, etc. is that these guys weren't all-pro caliber players in their first 1-3 years. They didn't start coming into their own for a while. I mean Law and Bruschi weren't recognized as great players until the 2001 Super Bowl team and they had been on the team for like 5 years prior to that season.

    Again, I'm not happy that they lost all these players but in 2006-2007 all we were talking about was how "old" our defense was. Now they are younger, but have hit some bumps like all young players do. I'd obviously prefer our older more dominant defense but you can't have your cake and eat it too. They had to get younger and they did...this is what happens.

    The bigger concern is loosing Kevin Faulk when our offense looked like crap already on Sunday.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    The D has 7 new starters, 3 of them rookies and 2 0f them 2nd year players.  Is anyone truly surprised that there are growing pains?  Give the D time.

    Seymour trade = 2 thumbs up.

    Vrabel trade = a positive.

    Neither Seymour nor Vrabel would help this unit come together.

    Not sure how one can compare Wilfork to Mayo since they play two completely different positions.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from boomerst3. Show boomerst3's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Absolutely BB knew they were going to retire.  I bet BB encouraged Bruschi to retire because he saw the decline in his skills just because of the aging process.  Didn't Bruschi retire after the training camp?  BB respects him so let him retire rather than ride the bench or get cut.  Harrison had always said he thought that was going to be his last year.  He should have transitioned Vrabel out to have some veteran leadership.  The stats mentioned for Vrabel are meaningless for this year.  It depends on the D they are playing.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Remember the AFC championship game against the Colts when our old defense was gasping for air in the second half? At that point the need for a younger, faster defense became abundantly clear.  We could have held on to some of these old guys for longer, but I think BB decided it was time to aggressively rebuild.  To do that you need draft picks, and so BB is trying to maximize his picks.  Losing some of the guys BB is giving up for picks will hurt us in the short term, but BB is trying to build the defense back up to Super Bowl caliber quickly and this means taking some hits in the near term in order to have the players in place two or three years down the road.  Brady will still be here then, and BB is probably aiming to get the team peaking for the last few years of Brady's reign.

    At least this is the glass half full version of what's going on.  Sometimes, like you, I'm less certain that BB is doing the right thing. But honestly, I like the direction the team is headed more than I'm concerned about it not having reached its destination just yet.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from djkg. Show djkg's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    They got Pat Chung with the pick from the Vrabel/Cassel trade. He looks like he is legit.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronf. Show ronf's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Considering Vrabel was just thrown into the Cassel deal, I would say it was a mistake to flip Vrabel the way we did. He would have been a club house leader and taught the young guys how to conduct themselves on a Professional football team.
    Also, he knew how to play the OLB position in the 3-4. I agree his skills re most likely dimminishing but I fo one would have kept him through this season. The Seymour trade was a salary cap decision and the fact that his contract was up and they got a 1st Rd pick instead of just letting him would! Sounds logical to me. Frankly, this team needs to go down before it can go up. I know thats hard for a lot of fans to swallow but we need a shot at the top flight talent coming out of the draft. This past draft may eventually yield as many as six starters plus a punter. The Patriots have a shot at duplicating that again in the next draft. So in three drafts the Pats could have 15 or more young guys starting. The other important element is to get back to the 2001 concept of finding unselfish, hard working, tough football players as free agents. Once this is done it will take a while for chemistry to set in. To me the Moss experiment is coming to an end and hopefully we get back to the no name team concept we had in 2001-2004.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Gross!

    Vrabel and Seymour are a combined 11 tackles, 0 sacks. 
    Ninkovich and Warren are a combined 13 tackles, 2 sacks. 

    Warren and Ninkovich are stop-gap players and they have better stats than Vrabel and Seymour. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from STP43FAN. Show STP43FAN's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]Anyone think BB regrets these 2 trades last off season now. Their veteran leadership would be helpful with all these new/rookie players on D. It looks like it is going to take years to get over the loss of Harrison,Bruschi,Vrabel and Seymour all in 1 hit. What did the Pats actually get out of the Vrabel trade?
    Posted by Brad34[/QUOTE]

    They got rid of a player who'd become irrelevent to the team.  In the Seymour trade they got rid of a player who was quitting on the team (he still does in Oakland) because he was more interested in money than actually earning it.  Vrabel is making zero difference in KC, Seymour is dogging it in Oakland, and all they're doing is proving they would never have been leaders with the Patriots today.
    People say the Patriots need to lose the Moss-Welker crutch; the old guard crutch wore itself out and had to be tossed.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    When Pat get either A.J. Green or Robert Quinn for the Seymour trade you will be saying Seymour who...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 123meg. Show 123meg's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Maybe in hindsight would've kept Vrabel but the Seymour trade?  With the way Oakland has played in recent years that looks to be a top 5 or 6 pick which for Seymour is an absolute steal. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from agentcooper. Show agentcooper's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    Agree with the "patience" people. It was horrific watching the old group age in place. And it would have just got worse. You have to re-tool at some point. Only thing I question is why so few new options at OLB (just Cunningham). Guess you could include Crable not working out (or maybe a miracle is brewing on the practice squad). That's a pretty big piece that you'd like to see the players of the future learning -- let's hope cunningham is one of them. I think the D is shaping up nicely -- who'd of figured Brace would actually start contributing? Butler will be fine with more experience: McCourty looks good, Chung looks great. Meriweather can barely get on the field and he was lall-rpo last year (okay, so 5th replacemnt or something like that, but stilll). Mayo and Spikes young and solid. Really, it's looking pretty good the next few years....albeit with some growing pains this year. It had to be done.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]Agree with the "patience" people. It was horrific watching the old group age in place. And it would have just got worse. You have to re-tool at some point. Only thing I question is why so few new options at OLB (just Cunningham). Guess you could include Crable not working out (or maybe a miracle is brewing on the practice squad). That's a pretty big piece that you'd like to see the players of the future learning -- let's hope cunningham is one of them. I think the D is shaping up nicely -- who'd of figured Brace would actually start contributing? Butler will be fine with more experience: McCourty looks good, Chung looks great. Meriweather can barely get on the field and he was lall-rpo last year (okay, so 5th replacemnt or something like that, but stilll). Mayo and Spikes young and solid. Really, it's looking pretty good the next few years....albeit with some growing pains this year. It had to be done.
    Posted by agentcooper[/QUOTE]

    You get my vote for most reasonable and realistic post of the day. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]Agree with the "patience" people. It was horrific watching the old group age in place. And it would have just got worse. You have to re-tool at some point. Only thing I question is why so few new options at OLB (just Cunningham). Guess you could include Crable not working out (or maybe a miracle is brewing on the practice squad). That's a pretty big piece that you'd like to see the players of the future learning -- let's hope cunningham is one of them. I think the D is shaping up nicely -- who'd of figured Brace would actually start contributing? Butler will be fine with more experience: McCourty looks good, Chung looks great. Meriweather can barely get on the field and he was lall-rpo last year (okay, so 5th replacemnt or something like that, but stilll). Mayo and Spikes young and solid. Really, it's looking pretty good the next few years....albeit with some growing pains this year. It had to be done.
    Posted by agentcooper[/QUOTE]

    A thoughtful, perceptive response - 2 thumbs up.  Totally agree across the board.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    The Vrabes trade was coming I mean after 07 he played like crap. Couldnt set the edge, couldnt stop the run, couldnt rush it was just a bad year for him in 08 looked like he spent everything he had in 07.  

    Seymour he had one good year left in em hes overpaid now in Oakland but he would have done alot of damage here last year. Thing is when do you say enough is enough? Even though hes your captain and leader when is it time to say goodbye? I dont agree with when Bill traded him but really there was no other time. Wait until FA tag him and then let Wilfork test waters? Rich wouldnt have resigned here anyways and I think hes overpriced himself big time.

    We miss Sey thats the only player I think Bill has let go that we actually do miss. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    I remember in 2006 the Pats came within a inch of going to the SB and probably would have if Brady wasn't throwing to Larry, Moe and Curly (also the mystery PI helped). 

    I also recall Seymour holding out in 2005 to get a pay raise, and Seymour insisting that he become the highest paid player in the NFL in 2006.  Branch also held out wanting big money.  So Seymour got his money because he was the better player and Branch got traded.  The interesting thing about that year is that the Pats were under cap that year by $0.76 cents. 

    Meaning that Seymour's gigantic contract which accounted for 10% of the Pats whole cap # meant that they couldn't afford Branch's demands, therefore they couldn't afford Branch, therefore they played 2006 without receivers worth a crap, which probably cost the Pats a 4th SB that year.

    That turmoil of the 06 sometimes gets forgotten but I have a feeling it wasn't forgotten by BB.  The lesson learned- don't blow your whole salary cap on one guy.

    Seymour then proceeded to get injured every year and be less productive every year. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from changes1677. Show changes1677's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]I remember in 2006 the Pats came within a inch of going to the SB and probably would have if Brady wasn't throwing to Larry, Moe and Curly (also the mystery PI helped).  I also recall Seymour holding out in 2005 to get a pay raise, and Seymour insisting that he become the highest paid player in the NFL in 2006.  Branch also held out wanting big money.  So Seymour got his money because he was the better player and Branch got traded.  The interesting thing about that year is that the Pats were under cap that year by $0.76 cents.  Meaning that Seymour's gigantic contract which accounted for 10% of the Pats whole cap # meant that they couldn't afford Branch's demands, therefore they couldn't afford Branch, therefore they played 2006 without receivers worth a crap, which probably cost the Pats a 4th SB that year. That turmoil of the 06 sometimes gets forgotten but I have a feeling it wasn't forgotten by BB.  The lesson learned- don't blow your whole salary cap on one guy. Seymour then proceeded to get injured every year and be less productive every year. 
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    so right.. and damn did i love branch.  remember what he did vs the eagles in the superbowl... incredible. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    In Response to Vrabel and Seymour trades:
    [QUOTE]Anyone think BB regrets these 2 trades last off season now. Their veteran leadership would be helpful with all these new/rookie players on D. It looks like it is going to take years to get over the loss of Harrison,Bruschi,Vrabel and Seymour all in 1 hit. What did the Pats actually get out of the Vrabel trade?
    Posted by Brad34[/QUOTE]

    2 different senerios.

    Seymour was asking way to big a contract for someone on the downside of his career. You can't keep paying guys like that huge money in the world of salary cap and expect to remain competative.

    They didn't want to trade Vrabel but that was the price that had to be paid. Had they not traded him than Cassel would have been lost with nothing gained in return.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw. Show Philskiw's posts

    Re: Vrabel and Seymour trades

    When we gave Seymore his last deal, it was structured so he could get another contract while he had some game left in him. Kind of setting him up for that last big payday. I think right then and there Bill B knew he'd be trading him or at least not resigning him when the new deal came up. That was part of the hold out negotiations. They say Al Davis called us, but I wonder if there wasn't a little casting going on.
    the vrable deal may have happened because he was the union rep. I heard somewhere that he was big time pro players union. could have been some bad blood there from the past.

    I like both deals with the exception that the Cassel/vrable deal we could have got more.
     

Share