Seymour dealt to Raiders

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

His signing bonus was 18 million, and as clarified a number of times - it can't be avoided.

Yes, I know that.

it can't be avoided.

Neither can the other 7 million that is guaranteed. See, you should just stop here. But it's dick stepping time, eh?

The only reason he counted for just 4.7 million last season was because NE has chosen to feel the pain later - when they might very well be dishing out significant money for a guy who isn't even playing..

They did not CHOOSE to 'feel the pain later.' They CHOSE to pay him an 18 million dollar signing bonus. How and when it gets counted against their cap is not a choice. It's determined by the NFL's salary cap rules, you complete fucking imbecile. How many times are you going to fuck this up?

[poptart]

New England CHOSE to pay Wilfork a piddly 8% of the total guaranteed salary in his 5 year deal in 2010.
And they will do the same thing in '11.

That's fine, but know that about 84% of his total guaranteed salary will be paid on out 2012.

They absolutely chose to feel pain later when they made those arrangements with him last spring.

On top of that, they are required to take future cap hits of 3.6 million per season for the next 4 seasons, even if fat ass isn't around.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

8% in 2010? 84% in 2012? Where are you getting these figures from? What do you think these percentages refer to? Here is the actual payment schedule and cap hit per year on the contract:



You were right when you said you could care less about his contract. You sure seem to know absolutely nothing about it.

Let take a look at some defensive stats for the Raiders and the 'huge impact' Seymour has made since coming there:

In 2008, the Raiders were 31st against the run and 24th in pts allowed (without Seymour.)
In 2009, the Raiders were 29th against the run and 23rd in pts allowed (with Seymour.)
In 2010, the Raiders were 29th against the run and 20th in pts allowed (with Seymour.)

So basically, this piece of shit has helped them improve from 2nd worst against the run to 4th worst against the run. 2 whole slots. Amazing!. From 24th in pts allowed to 20th. Yippee! HUGE IMPACT!!! Let's make him the highest paid player on the defense in the league.

[mvscal]

2008, before he arrived, they were 27th in the league in defense.
Last season they were 11th.
He's THE center piece.
He is the engine.

Simple question. IYO, is he the best defensive player in the NFL? Second best? Top five? Top ten?

[poptart]

Where are you getting these figures from?

Wilfork's total guaranteed SALARY in that contract is just over 6 million dollars.

He was paid $750,000 SALARY in '10 and he'll be paid $765,000 SALARY in '11.

The rest of his guaranteed SALARY is paid in '12, and that will be $4,500,000, or about 75% of his total guaranteed SALARY.
I said 84%, but I correct myself - because it is about 75%.

Your point is that Oakland is ruining their available cap space with the Seymour contract, and yet he Pats run the risk of having 7.2 million of cap space sliced away (by having to pay out his signing bonus) in '13 for a guy that isn't even on the team ... if it should happen that Wilfork isn't.

The Raiders don't have to shell out for a first round draft choice this year, so they've got extra money to kick around.
Davis has gotten a number of his key free agents locked down.
I like.

EAD, ucunt.

Run the numbers on Seymour if you like, ucunt, but also run the numbers that Oakland was 2nd in the league in sacks and 11th in total defense.

I told you, mvscal, Seymour might be one of the top 10 defensive players in the league.
He's one of the best D-Linemen, imo.
And again, I WATCHED the Raider games.
As I said, go ahead and list the defensive players in the AFC West who you think are better.
It's a short list.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Your point is that Oakland is ruining their available cap space with the Seymour contract, and yet he Pats run the risk of having 7.2 million of cap space sliced away (by having to pay out his signing bonus) in '13 for a guy that isn't even on the team ... if it should happen that Wilfork isn't.

So, 1 year of 'taking it in the ass' against a substantially higher cap is not worth 3 other years of totally getting over against a lower cap? Is this the point you're trying to make? If so, it's an awfully shitty take... at the worst, the trade-off would be a wash. How many years of MVP type play do you think Brady has left? They made a nice run this year. At the end of the regular season they looked like the team to beat. I don't have any regrets regarding 'year 1' of the 3 years of getting over.

With regard to his SALARY, it's standard operating procedure to not pay out a large SALARY immediately after giving a dude a suitcase full of cash. You 'get' the low SALARY in 2010 and 2011, right? Or would you rather they pay less money towards the end of the contract. If you don't 'get' the 15 million non-guaranteed at the end of the contract, my offer to draw you a picture still stands.

[poptart]

So, 1 year of 'taking it in the ass' against a substantially higher cap is not worth 3 other years of totally getting over against a lower cap?

Your issue with the Seymour deal is that it damages Oakland's ability to improve their team NOW.

But you don't see the irony in playing that card when the Pats may very well be damaging their own cap freedom in a future year by having guaranteed money paid out to a guy who may be giving you NO performance at all at that time?

As I noted, Oakland has no first round draft pick to pay for in '11.
They will also very likely not have Nnamdi to pay for - who would gobble up a LOT of coin.
Not only that, they don't have, as many teams have, large money being paid out to their QB.

Point is, they can AFFORD to pay their most important defensive player the money they are paying him - for two years.

That's why they DID it.


I'm well aware of how most free agent contracts are structured - and backloaded.

But why don't you look at the 2010 free agents.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/03/04/2010 ... y-tracker/

Now it's true that most all of the 'star' free agents are given 4 or 5 year deals, but the majority of free agent deals are 3 years or under.

A two year deal like Seymour got, for a player of his caliber, is not the norm.

But Seymour is on the older side, and most teams don't have the ability to be able to pay out on a two year deal the way the Raiders do right now, due to their own current salary 'freedom' situation - as I explained earlier.

At any rate, as I said, teams all over the league have a couple/few guys who they are paying major coin to in any given year.

You pretty much can't avoid it.

I'm NOT ragging on NE for the contract they gave Wilfork.
It's not unusual.
I'm just saying that such a deal also has a downside risk associated with it - which can kick in at a later time.


Bottom line here is, Oakland is NOT damaging their ability to improve their current team by signing Seymour to this deal, imo.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I told you, mvscal, Seymour might be one of the top 10 defensive players in the league.

Or. He might not even be in the top 20. It's weird how a supposed Top 10 player doesn't rate, unless of course, you're a fan (or the owner) of the worst run franchise in the NFL.



http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?ve ... listId=350

[mvscal]

I told you, mvscal, Seymour might be one of the top 10 defensive players in the league.

Or. He might not even be in the top 20. It's weird how a supposed Top 10 player doesn't rate, unless of course, you're a fan (or the owner) of the worst run franchise in the NFL.



http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?ve ... listId=350

Shit, he isn't even the best defensive player on his own team let alone the entire league.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that the Duhs are the loose, dripping asshole of the NFL and, as such, they are forced to pay exhorbitant salaries to retain even the most mediocre free agents such as the $31.5 million they dished out for Standford Routt ($20 mil guaranteed). Routt only tied for the second most touchdowns and PI penalties given up in the league.

Seymour is nothing more than a pretty decent defensive tackle yet they made him the highest paid defensive player in the league. It's a joke and so are the Duhs.

4-12

[poptart]

Retard Olympics.

Seymour is nothing more than a pretty decent defensive tackle

Stanford Routt.

http://www.examiner.com/oakland-raiders ... burn-rates

One can make a case for Routt being more impressive than Nnamdi last season.

It's a joke and so are the Duhs.

Says the retard who saw his team get SWEPT by the Raiders last season.

THAT was fun! :)

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/rank?ve ... listId=350

What an asinine exercise.

Raider fans, you know those of us who actually WATCH the games, know that having Nnamdi on a list like that instead of Seymour is stupidity.

Is he an outstanding corner?

Oh, for sure.

But all things being equal, the value of an outstanding interior guy out-weighs the value of an outstanding back guy.

Seymour is more valuable to the Oakland Raiders.
No doubt.

He belongs on a list like that instead of Asomugha.

[mvscal]

One can make a case for Routt being more impressive than Nnamdi last season.

Uh...no. One can't. He gave up five TDs and five PI penalties. That was tied for second most in the league in both categories.

He is a pile of shit and your fucked up team just threw 31.5 million dollars at him and Seymour remains little more than a journeyman slappy who was just made the highest paid defensive player in the league.

You had better hope there isn't any football next year. It's the best thing that could happen to your pathetic shit team.

[poptart]

Seymour remains little more than a journeyman slappy

Nice meltdown, idiot.



Did you look at the cornerback link?

Looks like you didn't.

Or if you did, it was swept away in your tears of frustration.

[DallasFanatic]

Put down the sake Tart.

Defensive coordinators can come up with exotic blitz packages to compensate for just a "good" pass rusher, like Seymour. A DC get's an absolute woody when his cornerback says, "Hey Coach, I got this half of the field or I got this elite receiver, so you take care of the rest." That's what Nhamdi does and there's absolutely no price tag in the NFL for that type of cornerback.

As soon as Nhamdi leaves, you will see teams throwing to both sides of the field with quick throws, neutralizing any kind of pass rush Seymour has left in the tank. I see these signings as regression for the Raiders and not progression. And yes, I did, do and will watch a TON of football (in-laws are all Raider fans so their games too) each and every Sunday as long as I am blessed to be on this earth.

Seymour being the highest paid defensive player in the league is an absolute joke and trying to justify it is kinda funny. The sad part of this is to say that mv is right. The Raiders have a peception of being a shit franchise, and that's only because of their owner. They do have to pay top dollar to keep good players like Seymour.

Sorry bud, no disrespect here, cause the NFL is a lot more fun when the Raiders are doing good. I just don't see these signings as helping their cause.

[poptart]

All of Nnamdi's greatness didn't translate to many wins over his time in Oakland.

The Raiders swept the division last season and got themselves up to 8-8.
Great at getting to the QB.
11th in total defense.
Nnamdi and S. Routt grade out as one of, if not THE, best corner duos in the league.

Coincidence?

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

11th in total defense.
Nnamdi and S. Routt grade out as one of, if not THE, best corner duos in the league.

Coincidence?

Exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. 2nd against the pass. 29th against the rush. The corner play is obviously driving the sack numbers, not vice-versa you complete fucking tool.

You can run on Seymour, and if giving enough time, he'll get a sack every other game. Yea.

[poptart]

The corner play is obviously driving the sack numbers, not vice-versa

I don't agree.

The Raider front seven brought major heat last season.

Anyone who WATCHED the games knows that to be the case.

[DallasFanatic]

The corner play is obviously driving the sack numbers, not vice-versa

I don't agree.

The Raider front seven brought major heat last season.

Anyone who WATCHED the games knows that to be the case.

You are exactly right Tart. It was the front SEVEN. Seymour didn't create havoc in a four man pass rush, he needed some blitz packages to get him somewhere. Combine that with amazing corner play and you had yourselves a great pass defense. The bottom line is this Tart, and I consider you to be a pretty smart guy, Seymour is not worth the jack Al dished out. Everyone on this planet knows that. I just hope these crippling salaries Al is dishing out to "good" players doesn't prevent the team from addressing major needs.

[Goober McTuber]

I just hope these crippling salaries Al is dishing out to "good" players doesn't prevent the team from addressing major needs.

Funny, I’m hoping for just the opposite.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

Oakland went 2-1 in the games SeeMorePine missed and they had a losing record when he played. Furthermore, they piled up 13 out their 47 sacks on the season when this stiff wasn't even playing.

That's right, BITCH! 4.3 sacks/game sans SeeMorePine. A mere 2.6 with SeeMorePine.

Coincidence... I think not.

[poptart]

Some really amazing takes produced in this thread.

Seymour is broken down.

Seymour is nothing more than a pretty decent defensive tackle.

Seymour remains little more than a journeyman slappy

... this stiff (Seymour)...

Will be interesting to revisit at a later time.

[poptart]

they piled up 13 out their 47 sacks on the season when this stiff wasn't even playing.

Btw, this is not accurate.

Seymour missed the STL game - and Oakland had 3 sacks.
He missed the INDY game - and Oakland had 0 sacks.
And he missed the last game of the year, v. KC, where Oakland had 7 sacks.

10 total for Oakland in the 3 games Seymour was out.

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

You're right. I pulled in the TFL number (3) from the Indy game as opposed to SACKS (0.)

The point still remains: 3.3 SACKS/game without him is still > 2.8 with him.
2-1 without him > 6-7 with him.
16.7 PPGA without him < 23.8 with him.

Why the fuck should we revisit this thread at a later time? You've gotten pummeled mercilessly here by multiple people. No one agrees with your opinion. No one in this thread. No one in the NFL. ESPN didn't even include him in their Top 20 defensive players in the league. He's not sniffed being an ALL PRO in years. He's not been in the Defensive Player of the Year discussion for years. Why do we need to revisit this thread. SeeMorePine is overpaid. About that, there is no doubt.

You're only real takes in this thread is that "you've seen the games." Who cares what you've seen? What about the actual fucking stats I've beaten you over the head with? SeeMorePine is not a Top 10 player, as you suggest. He is not worthy of being the highest paid defensive player in the league. Your shit team actually did better WITHOUT him on the field last year. You get that FACT, right? It's a God damned fact. Not an opinion. FACT.

Wants some more FACTS? Train wrecks are stopping in mid-collision to take a look at your shit performance in this thread. Charlie Sheen put down the crack pipe just to point out how fucked up you are. m2 is ready to come out of retirement because you may actually steal his BOARDBITCH crown from him. You are fucked up. If Al Davis were an emoticon, this would be it: These are facts. Fuck your shit opinion.

[poptart]

What's clear is that you are a desperate idiot.

Trying to justify your bitter takes by pointing to a three game stat sample isn't too damn funnay or anything.

No, it really isn't, 'tard.

A team racking up 7 sacks v. an opponent who HAS NOTHING TO PLAY FOR in week 17 just might turn a three game sample into more of a joke than it already is to begin with.

Get over it.
Seymour is gone.
Make the most of your #17 overall pick.
Oakland will continue to enjoy Richard's considerable services.

Yes, Al paid him more than what he would have gotten if he had gone on the open market.
I already SAID that, 'tard.

But as I also already said, the Raiders can, due to their current situation, AFFORD to pay their best defensive player a handsome amount.

[mvscal]

But as I also already said, the Raiders can, due to their current situation, AFFORD to pay their best defensive player a handsome amount.

No, they can't. They're letting Numnum Assamwa walk away. Seymour might not even be their best defensive lineman.

[poptart]

Who's their better defensive lineman?


If Nnamdi goes, it has nothing to do with the Seymour deal.

[poptart]

ESPN didn't even include him in their Top 20 defensive players in the league.

SeeMorePine is not a Top 10 player, as you suggest.

More humor.

The BSPN list is a joke, as I already said.
Disagree if you like.
Just don't think you're going to find many Raider fans who will tell you that Nnamdi is a more valuable player to the Raiders than Seymour, and yet Nnamdi is on the list.

It wasn't my suggestion that Seymour is a top ten defensive player in the league.
That was a QUESTION from mvscal.
I said he might be, and I asked mvscal to step to the plate and list the AFC West defensive players who are better.
He failed to answer that call - TWICE.

He's Oakland's best defensive player, and according to Howie Long and Jerry McDonald (NOT a Raider homer beat reporter), the Raiders have not had a defensive lineman as dominant as him in a very long time.

Al locked him down as his #1 priority before moving ahead with anything else in free agency.


All smiles here. :)

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

I said he might be.

Semantics. Or he might not be. Either way, you're covered right? Wow, are you pathetic.

and I asked mvscal

I don't care what you asked someone else to do. What does that have to do with me pummeling the shit out of your oft abused dimehole in this thread?

list the AFC Worst defensive players who are better.

Do you understand there's a difference between the NFL and that shitty fucking division known as the AFC Worst, right? I can name 10 better defensive players just from Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago, and Green Bay. None of them are in the AFC Worst. Does this matter? SeeMorePine is not in any rational thinking person's Top 25, and yet is throwing money at him like Charlie Sheen would to a coked-out hooker.

Trying to justify your bitter takes by pointing to a three game stat sample isn't too damn funnay or anything.

My 'bitter takes' <--- included 2 years worth of stats that show you can run on Oakland, just the way you could before SeeMorePine arrived. You can score on Oakland, just the way you could before SeeMorePine arrived. This stiff has not pushed the needle the way a true impact player would have. You admitted to having the best CB tandem in all of football. No one is going to argue with you there, slappy. You can't throw on Oakland, as evidenced by their #2 ranking against the pass. This is largely due to their superior secondary. Not SeeMorePine. You kicked your own ass rather severely with that take. Here, let's look at it again, shall we?:

Nnamdi and S. Routt grade out as one of, if not THE, best corner duos in the league.

Coincidence?

No. It's not a coincidence. Give a tard enough rope and he inevitably hangs himself.

[poptart]

I can name 10 better defensive players just from Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago, and Green Bay.

Go ahead and post your list.

You can't throw on Oakland, as evidenced by their #2 ranking against the pass. This is largely due to their superior secondary.

lol

Dude, you really don't know much at all about the Raiders or Raider football.

The 6 Raiders who got the bulk of the playing time in the secondary were Asomugha, Routt, Mitchell, Huff, C. Johnson and Branch.
Here is how I grade each of them for '10.

Asomugha: A-
Routt: A-
Mitchell: C+
Huff: B
Johnson: C+
Branch: C-

The young safeties, Mitchell and Branch (especially), got lit up too often.
Johnson fell off from his '09 level.

Beyond this 6, there were a few 'bit' players, mostly youngsters, who were fair to partly cloudy.

Routt and Asomugha were excellent - and Huff had some good games (also a few poor ones), but aside from that, the Oakland secondary was pretty sketchy.

Overall, the unit gets about a (maybe generous) B- from me for the year.

You admitted to having the best CB tandem in all of football.

lol

No I didn't.

I said they graded out as one of, if not THE, best corner duos in the league last season.

And prior to saying that, I made it VERY clear that the excellent Raider pass rush was largely responsible for them grading out that way - and that despite Nnamdi's excellence, strong corner play didn't translate into many wins until they got a defensive line together that could harass the shit out of the opposing QB.

[Goober McTuber]

Jesus, can we archive this thread already?

[ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2]

James Harrison
Troy Polamalu
Lamarr Woodley
Julius Peppers
Brian Urlacher
Claw Matthews
Charles Woodson
Ed Reed
Ray Lewis
Haloti Ngata

[poptart]

James Harrison
Troy Polamalu
Lamarr Woodley
Julius Peppers
Brian Urlacher
Claw Matthews
Charles Woodson
Ed Reed
Ray Lewis
Haloti Ngata

They are all outstanding players.

Quick thoughts:

Woodley didn't make that BSPN 20 list - and he didn't make the pro bowl.
Urlacher also didn't make that 20 list - although he (like Seymour) did make the pro bowl.

Reed is a helluva player ... when he's on the field.
Missed 10 games the past two seasons.

Would Woodson be of more value to the Raiders than Nnamdi?
Is he 'better' than Nnamdi?
He's a much more physical player.
Makes a helluva lot more tackles.
Of course he's older and never was as good a pure cover guy as Nnamdi to begin with.
Asomugha might very well be the very best in the game in that single aspect.
I'd bottom line Woodson by saying Seymour is of more value to Oakland than Charles would be.