ch19079 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3854126 "While the team did not lock him up to a long-term extension, the two sides came to an agreement for this season that worked out for both parties." sorry if already posted, i didnt see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 it's only more money for this year. It will indeed be interesting to see if they try to sign seymour long term, cause of the 5 year 12-18 million dollar contract (based on incentives) that the pats recently signed seymours backup jarvis green too. I think they try to trade seymour after this season. Paying a backup that much money while Seymour/Ty Warren are the starters it will be interesting to see what Ne does with Seymour after this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 it's only more money for this year. It will indeed be interesting to see if they try to sign seymour long term, cause of the 5 year 12-18 million dollar contract (based on incentives) that the pats recently signed seymours backup jarvis green too. I think they try to trade seymour after this season. Paying a backup that much money while Seymour/Ty Warren are the starters it will be interesting to see what Ne does with Seymour after this season. 396037[/snapback] I kind of agree. Green's deal definitely seems like full time starter money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 it's only more money for this year. It will indeed be interesting to see if they try to sign seymour long term, cause of the 5 year 12-18 million dollar contract (based on incentives) that the pats recently signed seymours backup jarvis green too. I think they try to trade seymour after this season. Paying a backup that much money while Seymour/Ty Warren are the starters it will be interesting to see what Ne does with Seymour after this season. 396037[/snapback] Seymour had the Pats bent over on this one. They are already down 3 defensive starters (Law, Bruschi, Johnson) and they couldn't afford a 4th, contrary to the prevailing belief in New England that Bill Billichick could win another Super Bowl with a team of Pop Warner kids. Seymour is definitely G-O-N-E after this year. It will be curious how the rest of the team, especially the guys who took the fat pay cut to play for Team Perfect, responds to Seymour extorting real money from Bob Kraft's fat ring-studded fingers? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Seymour had the Pats bent over on this one. How? DL is the team's deepest unit by far, and they didn't miss a beat in the playoffs when he was out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Seymour had the Pats bent over on this one. They are already down 3 defensive starters (Law, Bruschi, Johnson) and they couldn't afford a 4th, contrary to the prevailing belief in New England that Bill Billichick could win another Super Bowl with a team of Pop Warner kids. Seymour is definitely G-O-N-E after this year. 396054[/snapback] Why do people keep bringing up Ty Law like it is some big loss? He didn't play for over half the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 How? DL is the team's deepest unit by far, and they didn't miss a beat in the playoffs when he was out. 396064[/snapback] So then why were they so anxious to sign him and get him back in camp? If they didnt miss a beat without him, you'd think they'd move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Why do people keep bringing up Ty Law like it is some big loss? He didn't play for over half the year! The same reason people talk about Roman Phifer, who is 37 and loast his job last year to a one-dimensional run stuffer, as if he's a big loss - some people will do almost anything to convince themselves that the Pats were ravaged this offseason, even though that's not the case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 So then why were they so anxious to sign him and get him back in camp? If they didnt miss a beat without him, you'd think they'd move on. Seymour's a great player, and all team's want great players participating in camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Seymour's a great player, and all team's want great players participating in camp. 396287[/snapback] Even though they proved in last year's playoffs that they could win without him? Seems like with all that great DL talent, the Pats just wasted money on Seymour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Seymour's a great player, and all team's want great players participating in camp. 396287[/snapback] I just dont follow the logic.... The Pats with the "team mentality" gives in to a hold out, even though he wasn't missed when he was out and his eventual replacement is waiting in the wings with "starter money." Hollywood, your argument isn't following the facts that are presented. It's obvious he was missed, and that the D unit needed him back to hold the integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Even though they proved in last year's playoffs that they could win without him? Doesn't mean they want to try and do it every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Doesn't mean they want to try and do it every week. 396300[/snapback] So they can't win consistently without Seymour. Their depth isn't as good as you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Hollywood, your argument isn't following the facts that are presented. It's obvious he was missed, and that the D unit needed him back to hold the integrity. 396292[/snapback] The only thing that's obvious is that I'm not a member of the Patriots' front office staff, and that I don't have full knowledge of their motivations. I'm just speculating like you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 So they can't win consistently without Seymour. Their depth isn't as good as you claim. Depth != Winning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Depth != Winning 396305[/snapback] Man, you're all over the place! Scurry troll, scurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Doesn't mean they want to try and do it every week. 396300[/snapback] Why not? If it saves salary cap room, that'd be my approach. I'm just speculating like you all. 396302[/snapback] But please, speculate on something logical. Don't come ranting in here saying "I think in week 6 JP is going to be abducted by bigfoot, will miss a few starts, but will come back strong in week 8, that's my speculation." Depth != Winning 396305[/snapback] But winning does not equal depth, so don't confuse the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Man, you're all over the place! No, I'm not. Scurry troll, scurry. That's not a very nice way to speak to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 No, I'm not.That's not a very nice way to speak to another. 396332[/snapback] Actually, you are. You dismiss the loss of Law, Bruschi, and Johnson and potential holdout of Seymour by saying the Pats have the depth to cover it. You also point out that they won in the playoffs without Law and Seymour. But now that the Pats cave and sign Seymour to a weird contract, you say that depth DOESN'T equal winning. Your posts up until know indicate that you expected the Pats to stare down Seymour just like the Eagles did to T.O. But now that they haven't, you say, they can't win without him. Flip-flop goes the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Actually, you are. You dismiss the loss of Law, Bruschi, and Johnson and potential holdout of Seymour by saying the Pats have the depth to cover it. You also point out that they won in the playoffs without Law and Seymour. But now that the Pats cave and sign Seymour to a weird contract, you say that depth DOESN'T equal winning. Your posts up until know indicate that you expected the Pats to stare down Seymour just like the Eagles did to T.O. But now that they haven't, you say, they can't win without him. Flip-flop goes the troll. 396344[/snapback] Hey, pick your own fight, I'm instigating with Hollywood.. Well, I guess sometimes there's enough stupidity to go around, OK I'll share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts