What was BB thinking when he traded down picks and traded Seymour?

What was Billy thinking when he traded down picks and traded Seymour?

  • The 2009 wasn't good enough, better to defer and build

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • The team was good enough, but he could get by with what he had and build for the future, too

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • He wasn't sure what he had, but still thought he could get by and build

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

Share this page

The Gr8est said:
+1. I have no problem with people questioning BB's moves, but the arrogance of some fans who literally think they know more about player acquisition and development than someone who not only does it for a living, has been around the game all of their life, and who also just happens to be a sure fire 1st ballot HOF head coach, is just really stunning to me.

This is not necessarily aimed at anyone in this thread, or even on this board, but I have seen comments such as "BB needs to be locked out of the draft room", and there were some pretty negative comments about the last draft when BB drafted some OT from Houston in the 2nd round, who would have been there in the late rounds or even as a UFA, when he could have drafted William Beatty.

Now I liked Beatty, but where are these naysayers now? Probably waiting for the final projections from USA Today so that they can establish their binkies and castigate BB's ignorance on the next draft day.
Click to expand...
This is not a defensive reaction because I take your point that your post is not directed at anyone here.

But my reply is that on a football board, people should be able to question the Hoodie and probe into his thought process.

It's very possible that everything said in this thread as to what Bill was thinking or whether he was right is dead balls wrong.

But the talk and the batting about of ideas is the main thing, no?

All that said, I agree that those saying "keep Bill away" are silly. But I think it's also silly to utter the "In Bill I Trust" mantra and not engage in any discussion, either. Not saying you were advocating that. Just saying generally.
 
Jaric said:
You don't franchise a player to rent him for another year.

You franchise him so that you can work out a long term deal without having to bid against the rest of the league. That's the purpose of the franchise tag.
Click to expand...

Remember Adam V.? Pats franchised him in 2004.. hows that long term contract working out? ;)
 
Actually Mikie, can tag a guy infinitely. See: Pace, Orlando.
It's actually something I would be in favor of the owners changing in order to ensure a rookie starting salary slot per draft position. I DO think that the players have a right to be pissed about getting tagged a bunch. I would restrict it to ONE time per player per team. Because the OSTENSIBLE reason for tagging is to work out a LT deal but the spirit of it gets violated at times.
 
I think he was thinking that sucky brady was not taking them anywhere anyway, so he could get a first rounder and use it to get a Qb that can actually complete passes.
 
HSanders said:
Actually Mikie, can tag a guy infinitely. See: Pace, Orlando.
It's actually something I would be in favor of the owners changing in order to ensure a rookie starting salary slot per draft position. I DO think that the players have a right to be pissed about getting tagged a bunch. I would restrict it to ONE time per player per team. Because the OSTENSIBLE reason for tagging is to work out a LT deal but the spirit of it gets violated at times.
Click to expand...

my bad it is two years in a row

Consecutive Years As Franchise Player
A player can only be named a franchise player two years in a row. The second year must include at least a 10 percent increase over his previous salary or the average of the top five players at his position, whichever is higher. A player cannot be given a franchise player tag three years in a row.
Click to expand...
 
Jh said:
"This hawt cougar is good at fellatio."
Click to expand...

so am I correct to understand this post to say that BB was on the phone with Al Davis while the lovely lady was under his desk prostate cleansing and she offered up the 'my what a big dick you have' and the senile old coot Al took it as Seymour was available and the trading of Richard 'big Dick' Seymour was finalized with the 'OH GAWD YES' screams of one BB


the truth is now known
 
Mikie-
I think I must be wrong then if that's not a new rule because OP played under a tag for several years in a row. Maybe it's the other tag he played under. Or maybe the rule you noted is the EXCLUSIVE FT.
 
mikiemo83 said:
so am I correct to understand this post to say that BB was on the phone with Al Davis while the lovely lady was under his desk prostate cleansing and she offered up the 'my what a big dick you have' and the senile old coot Al took it as Seymour was available and the trading of Richard 'big Dick' Seymour was finalized with the 'OH GAWD YES' screams of one BB


the truth is now known
Click to expand...

ROFL

Sounds plausible!!!

ROFL
 
mikiemo83 said:
so am I correct to understand this post to say that BB was on the phone with Al Davis while the lovely lady was under his desk prostate cleansing and she offered up the 'my what a big dick you have' and the senile old coot Al took it as Seymour was available and the trading of Richard 'big Dick' Seymour was finalized with the 'OH GAWD YES' screams of one BB


the truth is now known
Click to expand...

ROFL :coffee:
 
I don't think the same answer applies to both parts of this question.

I agree with the comments by others that with Seymour it was a decsion based on the assumption that they would have to make a choice between Seymour and Wilfolk after this season. Both would be FA and both would want relatively large contracts. They wouldn't be able to afford both, and I think many people think Wilfolk is more important to this defense than Seymour.

Thus when Oakland made the offer, it allowed BB to get potentially a very high pick for Seymour, for the loss of him for one year. If one does the cost-benefit on that it seems a reasonable choice.

As far as dropping down in the draft, there is one factor that no one has mentioned yet.

Second round picks don't get paid as much as first round picks. I can recall more than one pre-draft prediction had the Pats take Butler at 23. They got him anyway, but later in the second round.

Draft picks is an inexact science, to say the least, and picking at 23 is more of a crap shoot anyway.

By dropping down, BB got more picks, for less of a salary cap hit.

One can argue that picking a certain player with a higher pick would have been more effective, but that is based in part on seeing the guy play for a year, a luxury BB didn't have last April.

I think he thought that the lower price offset the possible drop off in talent that letting player A go and "settling" for players X, Y, and Z in later rounds.

Is it possible that BB didn't have a good read on the players available? Sure.

Is it possible that Peoli helped a lot more in that area than we knew? Sure.

But to wonder why BB decided that more 2nd round picks, at a lower price, was a good idea, I think the $ and quantity factors were the major reasons.
 
HSanders said:
Mikie-
I think I must be wrong then if that's not a new rule because OP played under a tag for several years in a row. Maybe it's the other tag he played under. Or maybe the rule you noted is the EXCLUSIVE FT.
Click to expand...
I think he is the reason it was changed then we are both correct


I feel the love
 
O_P_T said:
I don't think the same answer applies to both parts of this question.

I agree with the comments by others that with Seymour it was a decsion based on the assumption that they would have to make a choice between Seymour and Wilfolk after this season. Both would be FA and both would want relatively large contracts. They wouldn't be able to afford both, and I think many people think Wilfolk is more important to this defense than Seymour.

Thus when Oakland made the offer, it allowed BB to get potentially a very high pick for Seymour, for the loss of him for one year. If one does the cost-benefit on that it seems a reasonable choice.

As far as dropping down in the draft, there is one factor that no one has mentioned yet.

Second round picks don't get paid as much as first round picks. I can recall more than one pre-draft prediction had the Pats take Butler at 23. They got him anyway, but later in the second round.

Draft picks is an inexact science, to say the least, and picking at 23 is more of a crap shoot anyway.

By dropping down, BB got more picks, for less of a salary cap hit.

One can argue that picking a certain player with a higher pick would have been more effective, but that is based in part on seeing the guy play for a year, a luxury BB didn't have last April.

I think he thought that the lower price offset the possible drop off in talent that letting player A go and "settling" for players X, Y, and Z in later rounds.

Is it possible that BB didn't have a good read on the players available? Sure.

Is it possible that Peoli helped a lot more in that area than we knew? Sure.

But to wonder why BB decided that more 2nd round picks, at a lower price, was a good idea, I think the $ and quantity factors were the major reasons.
Click to expand...

Intetresting stuff, thanks.
 
RhodyPatsFan said:
Maybe Seymour wanted big money to re-sign and the Pats weren't going to pay him. So instead of letting him walk and get nothing in return, they made the trade.

By the way, how does Seymour really help Oakland now that he will probably walk?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Jets try to get him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top