Making Sense Of The Richard Seymour Trade
by Khaled Elsayed
8/9/2009
It’s very rare in the modern game that we see such a huge trade go through completely out of the blue. But on the 6th September 2009 the New England Patriots traded away one of their most recognisable (and productive) players in Richard Seymour.
For a SuperBowl contender to give up one of its prized possessions and get nothing in return for 2 years is somewhat shocking. It’s understandable and there’s a perfect logic to it, but let’s analyse the trade and see who (if anyone) won.
The Patriots
Why We Like This Trade:
The Patriots had a massive headache facing them at the end of this year in trying to resign players like Seymour, Wilfork and Jarvis Green. With a host of players in 2011 as well primed for contract renegotiations the Pats were facing a tough time cap wise and so have managed to offload some of that burden and get something back for a time when they’ll be in a better cap position to utilise. Better to get something than nothing, and Jarvis Green is a more than capable back up.
Why We Don’t Like This Trade:
The Patriots are built to win now so why would you get rid of one of the best defensive linemen in the NFL? Jarvis Green may be a good player and not much of a drop off, but with the way defensive lines are rotated how are the Patriots going to account for that loss of production? It just seems the Patriots have harmed their chances of winning right now. While it may benefit them in the long run, if you have a chance to win now wouldn’t you do everything possible to maximise that?
The Raiders
Why We Like This Trade:
The Raiders lack talent on their defensive line and needed to find something quickly or risk finding themselves in a situation where they were looking at another wasted season. As it they have significantly improved their defence with one move without giving up too much in the immediate future. Granted you never want to lose 1st round picks but considering its 2 years away, the Raiders have managed to find an established talent who should have plenty of years left in him.
Why We Don’t Like This Trade:
The Raiders aren’t build to win now. They may play in the worst division in football but they have an offensive line that can’t impose itself on teams, and outside of their running backs and Zach Miller a set of skill players who are questionable at best. Even with Seymour the defence still has too many below averages players to go with some upper echelon talent. They’ve put themselves in a position where they are far too reliant on certain individuals which is never a good way to play things. Have they mortgaged their future for no real (playoffs at least) gain?
Richard Seymour
Why We Like This Trade:
Richard Seymour has won three SuperBowls and proven himself as one of the best defensive linemen of his era. Now he wants to get paid and with the Redskins not on the market after forking out on Albert Haynesworth, he turns to the Raiders and should get his massive pay day (would Al Davis be silly enough to make this trade without having a contract in the works?). Additionally having played in the Patriots 3-4 as an end, there’s a theory that Seymour is actually better suited to the role of DT in a 4-3 line so by moving to the Raiders he is giving himself the best opportunity to play to maximises his abilities (and his impact on the stat sheet).
Why We Don’t Like This Trade:
You’re playing for one of the best teams in the league and you have a chance at winning another SuperBowl, further enhancing your reputation and lending weight to the Hall of Fame calls that will come when his career finishes. You replace that with a move to a franchise famed in recent years for its failures and as some form of retirement home for players who were once elite. Furthermore you’re entering a contract year, by leaving now has Seymour missed out on an even bigger pay day come the end of the season? Sometimes patience is a virtue.
The Diners Final Word
Simply put the Patriots have made themselves weaker in the hope of hitting on something in the future. Much like Josh McDaniels took abuse for getting rid of a proven player, the Pats deserve some criticism for weakening their impending SuperBowl charge but also credit for not being prepared to lose a valuable commodity for nothing. It was a situation they simply were not going to win so they took in their mind the less damaging route. We’ll see if this is the case over the upcoming year, at the end of season free agency (if they get people signed) and then with whom they turn the pick into.
The Raiders think they are ready to challenge now. In a weak division there is an opportunity there that people don’t see because of the anti-Al Davis hype that masks what is a roster nowhere near as bad as people make out. Whether Richard Seymour is good enough to bridge the gap between them and the Chargers is debateable, and ultimately if they can’t catch them have they not harmed their future with an expensive veteran when they should be more concerned with finding numerous players to fill numerous holes?
Richard Seymour will be remembered as a great player. He doesn’t need any more SuperBowl victories for that, but his reputation can take a big lift if he plays a part in re-establishing the Raiders as a force in the NFL. More so he not only gets paid, but gets to play in a position that should present a new challenge that fully takes advantage of his skill set. Other than the upheaval of moving to the West Coast, this could work out fantastically for Seymour.
So the Diner feels there’s plenty of potential for this to work out for everyone involved. However the Pats want to win the SuperBowl now and they’ve hurt their chances of doing it and the Raiders are rebuilding and they’ve sacrificed their future for the long shot they can compete this year. So this is a trade where we’re going to go against conventional wisdom (doubting the Grey Hooded Grump) and say this is a lose, lose for both teams with the real winner being Richard Seymour.
Any time a man is about to get paid the amount he is set to get paid he’s a winner in the Diners’ eyes.
|
