New England with essentially 3 first round picks (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

And I wouldn't be surprised if Seymour comes back.

Seymour has said he would play for any of the 31 other franchises and never NE. I don't see those bridges being rebuilt, and I really don't see the Pats paying him anywhere close to what he would want. The only way I see this even remotely happening would be if 31 other teams said no to Seymour and he came back on bended knee and pleaded for another contract at the league minimum, and I would guess he would retire before he ever did that.

 

[TheWheel]

When did he say that? Before or after two years in Oakland? The only reason he wouldn't go back to the Pats is that there are so many shoddy 3-4's without personnel to run it that they'd pay an arm and leg for Seymour's skill

 

[Warrior]

I don't know how they do it every year, but these guys are the masters of manipulating the draft. I feel like every year they have extra picks in the first and second rounds. I have no doubt that they'll trade back again this year and stock pile more picks for next year's draft. :jealous:

Trading away their good players for studs really worked out great this year. One and done again.

 

[GroveDiesel]

When did he say that? Before or after two years in Oakland? The only reason he wouldn't go back to the Pats is that there are so many shoddy 3-4's without personnel to run it that they'd pay an arm and leg for Seymour's skill

He's not going back to NE. With the way that went down, there's no chance of that happening. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just simply being unreasonable. There is zero reason to believe that Seymour has any interest in ever playing for the Pats again. And why bash Oakland? Yes, Al Davis is still senile, but the team looked a lot better this hear and the defense has been pretty good.

 

[eakfootball]

The 3 picks Im hoping for are Cam Jordan, Jon Baldwin, and Mikel Leshoure.

 

[munchkin]

I don't know how they do it every year, but these guys are the masters of manipulating the draft. I feel like every year they have extra picks in the first and second rounds. I have no doubt that they'll trade back again this year and stock pile more picks for next year's draft. :jealous:

Trading away their good players for studs really worked out great this year. One and done again.

Who did they trade away this past season that affected their chances in the playoffs? The only player of consequence that they moved was Moss. Seymour's time was done in NE two years ago. The team was not going to pay him what he wanted to keep him happy; having him on the team during the 09 season may have helped them in the playoff loss to Baltimore but Brady did not have a great year and the team likely was not a SB contender anyhow. Mayo was not 100% last season and the secondary was even worse. This team was very fortunate to achieve a 14-2 record as it was. The team was only going to go as far as Brady was going to take them. This D was not nearly as strong as either team in the SB. Ben and Rodgers don't have to be perfect for their teams to win; Brady did.

 

[Bossman]

I don't know how they do it every year, but these guys are the masters of manipulating the draft. I feel like every year they have extra picks in the first and second rounds. I have no doubt that they'll trade back again this year and stock pile more picks for next year's draft.

:jealous:

Trading away their good players for studs really worked out great this year. One and done again.

Who did they trade away this past season that affected their chances in the playoffs? The only player of consequence that they moved was Moss. Seymour's time was done in NE two years ago. The team was not going to pay him what he wanted to keep him happy; having him on the team during the 09 season may have helped them in the playoff loss to Baltimore but Brady did not have a great year and the team likely was not a SB contender anyhow. Mayo was not 100% last season and the secondary was even worse.

This team was very fortunate to achieve a 14-2 record as it was. The team was only going to go as far as Brady was going to take them. This D was not nearly as strong as either team in the SB. Ben and Rodgers don't have to be perfect for their teams to win; Brady did.

How quickly we forget about the Maroney trade to DEN.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

So, based on those percentages we can discount them having a chance, so get rid of the players for picks....got it. It's amazing how we justify things in our own mind.

Seriously. Where do you guys come up with these things? They got rid of these thes guys for picks: Cassel and Vrabel (together), Seymour, Moss, and Maroney. Where's the outrage in trading Cassell? Moss? Maroney?It's been made pretty clear that Seymour was the unhappy camper Moss was and was becoming both less productive on the field and a distraction of the field. He was going to complain about not getting a new deal at the pay he wanted (he had done that before and threatened to hold hold previously). He would have only been a Patriot in 2009 and would not have been at the top of his game, no way, no how. The Pats took that opportunity to trade a one year rental and flipped him for a first round pick.I don't think any sane person looked at the 2009 Patriots and saw a SB winning team. They were not going to win with or without Seymour. Now they get to reap the benfeit of trading him when with a huge amount of certainty they would not have won the SB and would not have had him on their roster.So at this point, which is better, getting a third for Moss, a fourth for Maroney (which turned into Branch the sequel), a first rounder for Seymour, and Patrick Chung (the player taken with the draft pick from the Cassell/Vrabel deal).OPTION A: Moss, Maroney, a compensatory pick for Seymour, Cassell, and VrabelOPTION B: Chung, Branch, a 1st, and a 3rd in the upcoming draft

just the facts ma'am.

 

[steelcityman]

they should take all those picks and trade up for a beast WR or RB. An aging QB and 2 good TEs doesnt make an offense.

Then again, I hope they go away for a while. Use the picks, take head scratchers, and continue down the road to becoming part of the pack, rather than leading it.

 

[David Yudkin]

they should take all those picks and trade up for a beast WR or RB. An aging QB and 2 good TEs doesnt make an offense.Then again, I hope they go away for a while. Use the picks, take head scratchers, and continue down the road to becoming part of the pack, rather than leading it.

With the guys they had this year including an "aging QB and 2 good TE," the Pats scored the 7th most points in the history of the league. I'd be interested to hear how bad an offense they have and how they were able to accomplish that with no offense.

 

[moondog]

If the owners believe a significant rookie wage scale will be in a new CBA then I expect teams drafting in the top ten slots or so will be more willing to use those picks instead of trading them.

 

[Boston]

If the owners believe a significant rookie wage scale will be in a new CBA then I expect teams drafting in the top ten slots or so will be more willing to use those picks instead of trading them.

...or get better offers than they have in the past...could work either way because those picks will be more desirable...

 

[onlyseventeenpoints?]

So, based on those percentages we can discount them having a chance, so get rid of the players for picks....got it. It's amazing how we justify things in our own mind.

Seriously. Where do you guys come up with these things? They got rid of these thes guys for picks: Cassel and Vrabel (together), Seymour, Moss, and Maroney. Where's the outrage in trading Cassell? Moss? Maroney?It's been made pretty clear that Seymour was the unhappy camper Moss was and was becoming both less productive on the field and a distraction of the field. He was going to complain about not getting a new deal at the pay he wanted (he had done that before and threatened to hold hold previously). He would have only been a Patriot in 2009 and would not have been at the top of his game, no way, no how. The Pats took that opportunity to trade a one year rental and flipped him for a first round pick.I don't think any sane person looked at the 2009 Patriots and saw a SB winning team. They were not going to win with or without Seymour. Now they get to reap the benfeit of trading him when with a huge amount of certainty they would not have won the SB and would not have had him on their roster.So at this point, which is better, getting a third for Moss, a fourth for Maroney (which turned into Branch the sequel), a first rounder for Seymour, and Patrick Chung (the player taken with the draft pick from the Cassell/Vrabel deal).OPTION A: Moss, Maroney, a compensatory pick for Seymour, Cassell, and VrabelOPTION B: Chung, Branch, a 1st, and a 3rd in the upcoming draft

just the facts ma'am.

You forgot about all those playoff losses in option B.

 

[doubletrouble]

I don't know how they do it every year, but these guys are the masters of manipulating the draft. I feel like every year they have extra picks in the first and second rounds. I have no doubt that they'll trade back again this year and stock pile more picks for next year's draft. :jealous:

Trading away their good players for studs really worked out great this year. One and done again.

Better than trading their future draft picks for washed up players and not even making the playoffs...

 

[Kit Fisto]

So, based on those percentages we can discount them having a chance, so get rid of the players for picks....got it. It's amazing how we justify things in our own mind.

Seriously. Where do you guys come up with these things? They got rid of these thes guys for picks: Cassel and Vrabel (together), Seymour, Moss, and Maroney. Where's the outrage in trading Cassell? Moss? Maroney?It's been made pretty clear that Seymour was the unhappy camper Moss was and was becoming both less productive on the field and a distraction of the field. He was going to complain about not getting a new deal at the pay he wanted (he had done that before and threatened to hold hold previously). He would have only been a Patriot in 2009 and would not have been at the top of his game, no way, no how. The Pats took that opportunity to trade a one year rental and flipped him for a first round pick.I don't think any sane person looked at the 2009 Patriots and saw a SB winning team. They were not going to win with or without Seymour. Now they get to reap the benfeit of trading him when with a huge amount of certainty they would not have won the SB and would not have had him on their roster.So at this point, which is better, getting a third for Moss, a fourth for Maroney (which turned into Branch the sequel), a first rounder for Seymour, and Patrick Chung (the player taken with the draft pick from the Cassell/Vrabel deal).OPTION A: Moss, Maroney, a compensatory pick for Seymour, Cassell, and VrabelOPTION B: Chung, Branch, a 1st, and a 3rd in the upcoming draft

just the facts ma'am.

You forgot about all those playoff losses in option B.

Pats quote as a screen name.Pats quotes in your sig section.Posting in a Patriots-oriented thread.Boy, you're not too much of a are ya?

 

[David Yudkin]

You forgot about all those playoff losses in option B.

Let's play this out, since you brought it up. Of the players listed from this year, the only ones NE would have had would have been Moss, Maroney, Cassell, and Vrabel. Do you really think not having those 4 guys against the Jets would have had any impact on their loss to New York?Moss and Maroney did nothing all season. Cassel would have been a back up, and Vrabel had 0 sacks on the season. Vrabel, BTW, has made 1 Pro Bowl in 14 seasons, so while a decent player most years he has not been a game changer. Those guys would have helped NE beat the Jets?