Raiders get Richard Seymour?

Can't make decisions in this league based on loyalty. Seymour is on the last year of his contract, and for the Pats to get a first rounder for a guy about to hit 30 and they had no intentions of giving a big money deal to is simply smart business.


Please understand if I was NE i'd make that trade too. I was just saying when you've been in the league for awhile i'm not mad when it's contract time and you want alot more.

I've started to realize that over the years the Redskins really are one of the few loyal organizations when it comes to players. For example I personally think many teams would have cut ARE a long time. They also stuck with Phillip Daniels and countless other players.

Interesting cut. Not sure what this means for the Patriots defense this year, but it does show you how much they value their high draft picks. As long as you have good depth, it's the recipe for sustaining a good team for years instead of *right now*, and saving money for the pivotal players (Brady, Moss, etc).

1) 29yo probowler --> play maybe 4-5 years
2) Draft a 1st round ?probowler --> play 10 years, cheaper

I'd say IF someone offered a #1 pick for Fletcher, we should take it. Blades has looked good and Fletch probably only has 1-2 years left. Then we could even *draft* a replacement SLB/MLB - and solve the problem for the next decade.

So what would be another "Belichick move" for the Redskins? I guess it'd have to be a top-tier aging player in a position of at least borderline depth.. (I'm NOT saying we should do these moves)
-- L.Fletcher (backup Blades) -- definitely worth it
-- A.Carter (backup Orakpo/Wilson) -- but we'd have no SLB
-- C.Rogers - and then pickup a #1st round CB -- too risky
-- S.Moss/ARE (Backup MK/DT/MM) - Moss is our best player, but if MK/DT develop...? probably too risky
-- Cooley (backup F.Davis) - our second best weapon & still only 27, so we should not trade him

Just food for thought -- again, I don't believe we should do these moves.

What a crazy trade. I am sorry, but Al, if he was behind this, has totally lost it. And New England comes off looking super smart. The way Al is running the Raiders, that pick is going to be in the top 3.

I find myself wishing we could have convinced Al of Montgomery's greatness :)

Maybe Vinny can make that a project of his and we can get Asomugha. :laughing- I guess even crazy old Al's not that stupid....is he?

The biggest problem I have with this trade is, um, where does he play in Oakland's defense? Nose tackle?

Agreed. I don't see the wisdom for the Raiders in this.

Poor Seymour. Overnight he went from football heaven to football hell.

I think this came down to a financial consideration between keeping Seymour, who is approaching the final year of his contract, and Vince Wilfork, who has been trying to negotiate a long term deal with the Patriots for a while.

By cutting ties with Seymour and finding a willing and able suiter in the Oakland Raiders, I think it gives them more room to bargain with Wilfork. At the very least they'll slap the franchise tag on Wilfork and retain his services for a few more years.

I think the perfect scenerio for the Pats would be for Seymour to play out his deal with the Raiders, test the market when he becomes a FA, and eventually find his way back to New England ala Jason Taylor and the Dolphins.

Wow, the Raiders are the dumbest team in the league (think about that pessimistic fans when you bitch about our FO). And the Pats one of the luckiest, plus this furthers Darth Hoody's status as a genius, since obviously Pioli is not there anymore.

Maybe RS will be a no show,to the clown show.......?

What if Richard Seymour doesn't show in Oakland?
Posted by Mike Florio on September 7, 2009 10:11 AM ET
A league source has raised an intriguing concept with us.

It's established, via Peter King of SI.com, that former Patriots defensive lineman Richard Seymour is "angry" about the trade that sent him into football's literal and figurative Black Hole.

A good friend of Seymour's told King on Sunday, "I would not be surprised if he doesn't report."

We've heard the same sentiment. So the source posed a great question.

What happens if Seymour doesn't show?

It's not completely out of the question. Seymour held out not once but twice from the Patriots during his time there, and Seymour's agent is -- you guessed it -- Eugene Parker, who currently is embroiled in one of the nastiest rookie holdouts in recent memory, as the agent for 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree.

So, if Seymour refuses to report to the Raiders, either because he doesn't want to play for the Raiders or because they're not offering him the kind of contract he wants, what happens?

Because all trades hinge on the player showing up and passing a physical, Seymour wouldn't become a Raider unless he enters the building. Thus, it apparently would fall back to the Patriots to take action against Seymour aimed at coaxing him to honor the last year of his current contract.

Under that contract, he's due to earn $3.685 million this year. That's more than $216,000 per game he'll lose if he doesn't accept the trade, in addition to any other potential fines that could be imposed.

If he stays out past Week Ten his contract will toll for a year, keeping him from becoming an unrestricted free agent in what looks to be an uncapped year. But this situation can't linger for two months. At some point, the Raiders will reel in that first-round pick, and the Pats will be forced to slay the fatted calf for a son who was made involuntarily prodigal.

maybe the raiders will cut him midway through the season as they did with DeAngelo Hall, we pick up Richard Seymour, and he plays DT next to haynesworth the rest of the year and does great!

It seems a lot of people think this is a stupid trade and on that I agree. However I don't think the problem is the actual amount of talent they got in exchange for their 1st round pick (8 sacks from a 3-4 DE spot is something else).

What I don't like is the fact that Richard Seymour is a winner with one year left on his contract playing in Oakland. Chances are that he's not going to want to play for them past 2009. I guess Oakland could franchise him but other then that I can't see why Seymour would stay in Oakland after this year.