Seymour dealt to Raiders

Joe in PB · Post by **Joe in PB** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:05 pm

Oakland has at least one good player.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4450767

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Sun Sep 06, 2009 5:53 pm

Heard this on the way to the gym a couple of hours ago. Not too surprised, here. There was no way they could re-sign both Wilfork and Seymour after this year. Hopefully NE will parlay this into a top 5 pick in 2011, trade down for numerous picks, wash... rinse... repeat.

Ron Brace, let's see how well you fit into the scheme of things.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:16 pm

Some Patsie fans seem to think the team found a gem in 6th rd pick, DT Myron Pryor.

This looks like a classic Patriot move.
Dump the aging guy who has already given you a lot, before you have to pay up to keep him around.
Use the pick(s) to re-load.

Seeing the state of the defense, and the D-Line in particular, I don't know how a Raider fan can complain about this trade.
You add a 5 time pro bowl D-Lineman, a guy who might be on his way to the Hall of Fame.
A stud.

Concerns:

Seymour has played a lot of games, and alot of playoff games.
He's not a kid.

Can you sign him long-term?
If not, you've burned a first round pick for a one-year guy.
Well, there is the franchise tag.

What is Seymour's state of mind, going from a potential Super Bowl team in NE to ... Oakland?

Well, I've been itching for Al to do SOMETHING to shore up the defensive front.

Here it is.

Question his methods, but I give him credit for almost always stepping up to make moves in an EFFORT to improve the team.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:37 am

A top five pick in the draft to rent a vet for a year?

The number of the 2011 draft pick is obviously yet to be determined.

One year?
Also yet to be determined.

Thanks for nothing.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:08 am

poptart wrote:The number of the 2011 draft pick is obviously yet to be determined.

One year?
Also yet to be determined.

Thanks for nothing.

Bullshit- until they drop Alcula The Daywalker in a pine box the Raydahs are DESTINED for Top 5 draft picks from here on out, and you KNOW it.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:12 am

They drafted #7 this year.

Lap time, fat@ss.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:33 am

poptart wrote:They drafted #7 this year.

Lap time, fat@ss.

Top 5, Top 10.....what's the fucking difference at this point for that shit franchise?

Joe in PB · Post by **Joe in PB** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:48 am

NFL.com's Jason La Canfora writes that he'd be "very surprised" if Richard Seymour reports to the Raiders without a new contract.
Seymour only has one year left on his old deal. La Canfora says he "gets the strong sense" that Seymour is willing to sacrifice weekly game checks as negotiations go on. It's unclear if the Raiders even approached Seymour about a mega contract, however. After surrendering a future first-round pick, Oakland risks not having the defensive end for Week 1 and beyond. Sep. 7 - 8:42 pm et

Ouch!

This is the kind of thing that happens to bottom dwellers, I know because not too long ago it was happening to the Bolts.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:49 am

Richard Seymour: %#! damn it, I am f*#$!*n p!ssed off to be going to the $%# damn Oakland f*$%!*n Raiders!!!

Wife Seymour: I'm so sorry, honey. What are you going to do?

Richard Seymour: Well ... I'm so pissed off about having to go to Oakland that ... ummm ... well, I think I'll demand that they lock my in LONG TERM to play there.

Wife Seymour: :?

ummm...

Logic?

Seymour gives up 3.7 million this year if he sits out.
And he IS Raider property.
So they can simply tag him next year.
And tag him the year after.

Good luck with ... sitting it out, Richard.

Oakland will soon sign him to a "long term" deal -- 3-5 years.

I predict.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:16 am

I think the same thing may have happened were he in NE, tart. This is not the first "power play" he's made about a contract:

"Dissatisfied with his contract last spring, Seymour skipped much of the Patriots' early offseason workouts. The two sides subsequently worked out their differences, with the Patriots enhancing the 2005 portion of his existing contract and essentially promising to pursue a long-term extension."

I also heard on the local am channel yesterday that Seymour and agent went to the front office and demanded an extension last week... and threatened to sit out if an agreement wasn't reached... this pretty much precipitated the trade out of town.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:24 pm

...bwahaha welcome to the Raiduhs Richard, any value you may have had, just went south.

sin, Deangelo Hall, Javon Walker

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:31 pm

I wonder if Seymour's been talking to Warren Sapp....

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:35 pm

Demanding a new contract from a position of maximum negotiating weakness- I'd say it's more likely Seymour's been talking to Brandon Marshall

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:14 am

This article on the Seymour situation is in line with what I am thinking.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2513 ... -back-time

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:00 pm

That's great, pops... no direct quotes. No confirmed sources. Your link is utter shit and all conclusions contained therein are fucked. "Payback"? --->

From the most emtionless human being on the planet. Sure, that makes sense.

I believe what I heard on Sunday. Seymour was unhappy with how the negotiations were going and threatened to sit unless a deal was reached before Week 1... he saw what Haynesworth got and demanded to be paid = See ya later. That's not payback, that's Belichick getting rid of someone who was making problems for his team. "Never saw it coming"? What the in the fuck was Seymour expecting after DEMANDING more money than Brady? Fuck him.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:10 pm

lol

You roll out of bed in a pissed off mood every day, huh?

Does your "I heard" have more credibility than what was written in that piece?

Whatever, it doesn't matter.

Seymour will be signed soon, imo.

KC Scott · Post by **KC Scott** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Just saw last night the Raiders have given Seymour until Tuesday to report or he's suspended for the season

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:03 pm

The report that Oakland gave Seymour the 5 day letter is erroneous, imo.

Raider "voice" Greg Papa was talking over possibilities with the Seymour situation and he said a 5 day letter was one of those possibilities.
That was somehow taken and turned into ... Oakland has sent the 5 day letter.

Papa insists he never said Oakland sent the letter, and more importantly nobody from the Raider organization has indicated a letter was sent.

I hesitate to comment because it's mostly speculation, but it's my belief that contract negotiations are taking place and that he'll be in Oakland soon.

Seymour has NO CHOICE but to report, unless he's going to now retire.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:25 pm

mvscal wrote:Always an option

If you're a pussy.

It's not that long ago that vets like Rice, Romanowski, R. Woodson, etc., came onboard and overcame that "dysfunctional and fucked up" organization to win 3 straight AFC Wests and make it to the Super Bowl.

Th · Post by Th » Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:17 pm

poptart wrote:The report that Oakland gave Seymour the 5 day letter is erroneous, imo.

Raider "voice" Greg Papa was talking over possibilities with the Seymour situation and he said a 5 day letter was one of those possibilities.
That was somehow taken and turned into ... Oakland has sent the 5 day letter.

Papa insists he never said Oakland sent the letter, and more importantly nobody from the Raider organization has indicated a letter was sent.

I hesitate to comment because it's mostly speculation, but it's my belief that contract negotiations are taking place and that he'll be in Oakland soon.

Seymour has NO CHOICE but to report, unless he's going to now retire.

This HAS turned into quite the mess. I wonder if its possible to include a 'clause' in the upcoming CBA about players like Seymour holding a team hostage like this. Your are under a contract that YOU signed = you show the fuck up & play.

KC Scott · Post by **KC Scott** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:27 pm

poptart wrote: I hesitate to comment because it's mostly speculation, but it's my belief that contract negotiations are taking place and that he'll be in Oakland soon.

Seymour has NO CHOICE but to report, unless he's going to now retire.

They may be talking contract now - but to me that's a mistake on the Raiders part.
I'd make him show fucking up, get ready to play, then talk contract.

I think his salary is $3.6M for this season, it seem the Raiders would have all the leverage - unless he just doesn't need the cash.

I agree with TH about a stipulation on contract hold outs in the new CBA.
Something to the effect that holdout players wouldn't count against your cap number, and if they hold out an entire season you would get a compensatory draft choice - Maybe 3rd or 4th rounder

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:31 pm

mv,

I'm pretty sure the Pats were going to pay Seymour the money they both agreed to in the contract. Did you see/hear something differently?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:43 pm

mvscal wrote:That isn't the point. The point is that these contracts aren't guaranteed. Since players can get cut they have every right to hold out. That is the the flip side to the coin that doesn't seem to get considered very often.

True.

However, I like the NFL's format better than baseball. NFL says perform or get the fuck out. Baseball says have one good year, get paid, and sit on your fat ass because we can't cut you.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:58 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:mv,

I'm pretty sure the Pats were going to pay Seymour the money they both agreed to in the contract. Did you see/hear something differently?

I have heard that Seymour was going to do this to whatever team he was with.

Fortunately for NE, Oakland really pushed hard for Seymour as part of the Burgess deal (fact confirmed by Belichick heard by me on WEEI 4 days ago.) When Seymour suddenly "became available", Oakland was more than happy to take him off our hands.

Belichick stated that Oakland initiated the phone call that made the deal happen... but I am not so sure about this.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:06 am

Scott wrote:They may be talking contract now - but to me that's a mistake on the Raiders part.
I'd make him show fucking up, get ready to play, then talk contract.

I agree.

Show up and then we can talk new contract.

If this is a case of Seymour not showing up because he wants a contract extension in place, well, then add him to a very long list of bitch athletes who have taken this approach.

What part of ... YOU ARE CURRENLT UNDER CONTRACT ... is hard to understand, Dick Seymour?

And if this is the case, and Al is working on a contract for Seymour, then Al is capitulating to a bitch, which makes him a bitch's bitch.

But it's all speculation, because we really don't know what is going on.

KC Scott · Post by **KC Scott** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:10 am

mvscal wrote:That isn't the point. The point is that these contracts aren't guaranteed. Since players can get cut they have every right to hold out. That is the the flip side to the coin that doesn't seem to get considered very often.

They aren't guaranteed but they do get up front bonus money which is a huge consideration - and more reason for him to fufill the terms of his contract

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:26 am

Jmo, again, but both sides are really quiet.
This usually means contract negotiations are in progress.

If it was a "I'm NOT going to Oakland, PERIOD," thing, I think we would have heard that knd of rumbling come from Seymour or "his people."

My guess is that this is a hold-up in negotiations due to haggling over GUARANTEED jack.

But wait and see.

It'll be very interesting to hear what comes out when this thing finally gets to it's conclusion.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:01 am

Adam Shyster reports that Seymour will report tomorrow and is expected to play Monday night.

Developing ...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:45 am

Prolly only Raider Fan can appreciate it, but the Seymour press conference kicked TOTAL @ss.

http://raiders.fandome.com/video/115277 ... n-Oakland/

As usual, the Godfather stole the show.

He brought the plunger HARD on a few media weasels who spoke out of line and pushed forward tales of BULLSHIT in opposition to the destiny of greatness that BELONGS to the Raiduhs.

Rodney Harrison
Mike Lombardi

Sorry Al didn't kiss you two numbnuts, 'cuz he sure as hell gave you a FUCKING you'll not soon forget.

Seymour was nails, too.

Just a few of the critical highlights:

- Seymour NEVER told anyone that he didn't want to play for the Raiders, and the exact OPPOSITE is the truth.
He WANTS to be a Raider.
He grew up a Raider fan and he totally DIGS the idea of wearing the Silver and Black.
He told both Al and Tom Cable this from the beginning of it all.

- Contract.
Seymour is happy to play this year under his current contract and the Raiders will treat him right when the time comes to ante-up again, as they ALWAYS have with players who hold up their end of the bargain by performing on the field.

David White: "Richard, do you want a long term contract or are you content to play out the last year of your contract and hit free agency?"

Al Davis: "He has an agent, I assure you. Everyone knows who his agent is. David, don't worry about things that don't concern you."

bwaaaa hahaha

- Seymour's issue which caused the delay was that he was "blindsided" by the trade -- TOTALLY didn't expect it or see it coming.
He's got a big family and a lot of responsibilities and he needed to get things squared away before he could freely come out and begin the next chapter of his career -- cross country.

If a long term deal is never reached and Oakland has to go the franchise route, this trade will likely look bad for Al.

As I view it now, I don't think that'll happen.

All systems GO.

Kick the fucking Chargers in the nuts, boys!!

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:46 pm

Al Davis wrote:Allow me to bring you up to date. In 1975 we traded for Ted Hendricks...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:06 am

Paul wrote:Bullshit- until they drop Alcula The Daywalker in a pine box the Raydahs are DESTINED for Top 5 draft picks from here on out, and you KNOW it.

Hit the track, fatso.

The Pats picked up the #17 pick in the '11 draft.
Oakland picked up Seymour for '09 and '10.

Now can the Raiders sign sign him to a new deal?

Remains to be seen.

Th · Post by Th » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:30 am

poptart wrote:
Paul wrote:Bullshit- until they drop Alcula The Daywalker in a pine box the Raydahs are DESTINED for Top 5 draft picks from here on out, and you KNOW it.
Hit the track, fatso.

The Pats picked up the #17 pick in the '11 draft.
Oakland picked up Seymour for '09 and '10.

Now can the Raiders sign sign him to a new deal?

Remains to be seen.

Good luck with that prospect, since its the reason Seymour got traded to begin with. He WILL be asking for a ton of cake. The Pats had to pay Seymour OR Wilfork, and they made the right decision. Its true that the Patriots pass rush from the DE position hasn't been as solid. However, I think its easier to find a 3-4 DE than it is an NT that can produce at a high level. In addition, Wilfork is younger than Seymour. With 3 picks in the top 33 and 7 in the top 100 coming up in the draft, I like the Patriots' chances of filling Seymour's shoes. That all depends on a new CBA of course . . . . . . . .

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:37 am

Oh, I'm not arguing that the trade was bad from the Pats point of view.
I understand their move and it's the sort of shrewd play by that organization that has kept them among the best in the league for the past decade.

Having the 17th pick in this year's draft does not suck.

I was just cracking on Paul for putting his own foot up his @ss ... again.

Th · Post by Th » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:17 am

poptart wrote:Oh, I'm not arguing that the trade was bad from the Pats point of view.
I understand their move and it's the sort of shrewd play by that organization that has kept them among the best in the league for the past decade.

Having the 17th pick in this year's draft does not suck.

I was just cracking on Paul for putting his own foot up his @ss ... again.

Point taken. Whats up with letting Cable go? I thought he might be gaining a foothold in moving the Raiders back up toward contention.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:26 pm

I'm not big on Cable and wanted to see him replaced at the end of last season.

LONG take cut short:

The chances of Cable ever being hired by any other NFL team as a head coach are very slim.
The chances of Cable ever being hired by any other NFL team as even an OC are even more slim.

He's an O-Line coach.
That's it.

This season the Raiders played a weak schedule and made it to 8-8 - fucking away a few games that they, based on talent level, should not have fucked away.

They gained 3 games over last season.
5-11 became 8-8.

How to account for that?

Dumped JaWalrus and brought in a real OC - Hue Jackson.

Jackson took an offense with sub-par pass protection, sub-par QBing, and sub-par receivers - and made them the 6th highest scoring team in the league.

Curly Cable had little to do with that.

Judging from the last 40 years of Al Davis coaching hires, the odds are strongly against him filling the spot with a real keeper - or at least a real keeper that can manage to hang in there in Oakland.

But I'd rather take a shot at Al getting lucky, because I believe what we saw from Cable this year is the best we'll see from him - 8-8 v. a weak schedule.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:23 pm

poptart wrote:I'm not big on Cable and wanted to see him replaced at the end of last season.

He shouldn't have been coaching anywhere in any capacity after physically assaulting an assistant coach and breaking his jaw while threatening him with death. He has absolutely no self control whatsoever and that showed on the field. The Duhs had over 1,200 yards in penalties this year.

He's is completely unprofessional in every respect.

Th · Post by Th » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:37 pm

mvscal wrote:
poptart wrote:I'm not big on Cable and wanted to see him replaced at the end of last season.

He shouldn't have been coaching anywhere in any capacity after physically assaulting an assistant coach and breaking his jaw while threatening him with death. He has absolutely no self control whatsoever and that showed on the field. The Duhs had over 1,200 yards in penalties this year.

He's is completely unprofessional in every respect.

Ok, so, who's the next candidate? Better question - who would you LIKE to see have the job?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:03 pm

It appears to me that it's going to be Hue Jackson.
Might be ok, but I'd prolly prefer for him to step aside as OC because a rookie HC wearing both hats is placing a bit much on the plate.
Asking for trouble.

If Jackson is bumped up to HC and Al agrees that someone else should be OC, who is that gonna be?
Might be an important hire.

Jackson has not been named and my read on things is that Al doesn't believe anyone will offer Jackson a HC spot, so before officially naming him HC, he's fishing around to see what he could possibly land.
Or ... he wants to interview some people, just because that's how he rolls.
Likes to pick the brains of others around the league.

Who would I want as Raider head coach?

Shit, I could make a long list.

But we're talking about Al here.
History shows that he doesn't want to PAY for a "top drawer" coach.
And history shows that he's a major pain in the @ss to work for, so even if he did want to pay up, coaches would shy away because they're spooked by the Oakland situation.

Making any list of who I want is futile.

I assume it's going to end up being Jackson, and I consider that most likely better than Cable.

Flawed Logic · Post by **Flawed Logic** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:29 pm

With Hue Jackson already under contract, Al doesn't have to make a move unless he thinks another team will offer Jackson a HC spot. That seems unlikely, though it's hard to tell if the 49ers were seriously considering him or using him to fulfill the Rooney Rule during their pursuit of Harbaugh.

I'm not even going to begin to get my hopes up for anyone other than Jackson since we know Al won't pony up the cash or the control for a high profile guy.

As for Seymour, if the Raiders want to bring him back, they will. Al always seems to retain the free agents he wants, even at ridiculous amounts as we have seen plenty of times.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:54 pm

Th wrote:Ok, so, who's the next candidate? Better question - who would you LIKE to see have the job?

Me? I think Art Shell would be a good fit. Maybe Singletary or "Chilly."