Sunday, September 6, 2009

Hey, Look What Belichick Did Today!

I like to goof on those that argue that the Packers should just copy everything that Belichick does (even though what people "think" Belichick does is not always what he actually does).

Well, now its time to turn the tables. The Patriots did something pretty bold and pretty smart today: they traded Richard Seymour for a first round pick. Why? Because: (A) they could get a first round pick for him and (B) he was likely to leave next season anyhow.

(That sort of reminds me of a particular Packer that was forced to play out of position in his final contract season and would have had some trade interest, but I digress.)

The lesson here is that almost no one should be considered "untradeable." On the Packers, I think there is one one player that is truly "untradeable" and that Aaron Rodgers. Other than that if the price is right let's make a deal.

Lombardi traded Jim Ringo, Hall of Fame center, to the Eagles as Ringo was coming off seven consecutive Pro Bowls. Today, we have Nervous Pervises who are scared of trading a back-up center.

If a Hall of Fame center is tradeable, a back-up center sure as hell is tradeable.

Here's a thought experiment: let's say the Seahawks offer three first round picks for Wells. Would you balk because it might leave the team a "little thin" in the event of an injury on the line? Hell no.

As the old joke goes, now we are just negotiating the price.



  1. It was a fair trade, but you cannot convince me it helped the Patriots NOW. Richard Seymour is THE BEST 3-4 DL in the game IMO. Aaron Smith is a great player, and Haloti Ngata is also a beast. But they're not Seymour. The guy just had 8 sacks playing DE in the 3-4, and is 29. Yes, there is the contract issue, but we're not talking about a serviceable player here. What's the odd of getting a guy as good as him from a first round pick? In the end, it hurt their chances of winning the Lombardi...

  2. Have you ever noticed that the teams that set out to win NOW . . . never (and I do mean never) do.

    Its the teams that systematically build for the future and good value whenever they can that seem to be good year in and year out. And there is a good reason for that: today is merely yesterday's future. If you were building for the future three years ago, that future is hear now.

    Whether the Patriots be able get a guy "as good as Seymour" is completely irrelevant because Seymour **will not be on the Patriots next year.** I bet whoever the Patriot pick next year (and given that they will get the Raiders' pick it stands to be a very good prospect) will be infinitely better than "nothing." Which is what they would be left with if they buried their heads i9n the sand and waited for Seymour to leave next year.

  3. They won't get Raiders pick next year. It's 2011. That's why it's a fair deal. If it was a 2010 deal, then I would agree that it favored the Pats. But it's not the case. We'll see if Seymour is missed during the season. And it's not only that. Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, Harrison... It's a lot of talent, but mainly a lot of leadership lost.

  4. Give me a break - you're right, the depth on the Packers offensive line is comparable to the depth on the Patriots D-line. And way to use a never-going-to-happen (3 firsts for Wells)to prove your point. (rollseyes)

  5. Simmer down there, pot roast. I think I was clear that it was a "thought experiment." My point is NOT that Wells is actually worth three first round picks, my point is that you cannot denounce a trade without knowing th return compensation. Unless you are a fool. In which case you can do anything you want.

  6. Well, only a great fool would reach for what he is given...

  7. Hey, DDD, in case you don't go to tonight's blogcast, did you see both MNF games? How did Seymour do? And what about the pats D? That Belichick is the second coming of Lombardi, I'll tell you that...