PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour


JD10367
09-07-2009, 01:57 PM
Found this on Patsfans.com, don't know where it came from, but it would be f**king hilarious...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/268657-rumor-seymour-trade-not-done-deal.html

Post #5:

They're saying that Seymour could end up going to KC for their 2010 #2, without saying more about what is written there it sounds like the Patriots could probably fall back on that if they wanted and the assumption (by me) is it depends if they want to do that or push the Raider deal, presumably with the 5 day letter which would leave Seymour little choice but to report.

corandval
09-07-2009, 01:59 PM
That would be great!

DA_T_84
09-07-2009, 02:00 PM
man... can you imagine?

This offseason has already been the best ever... but dear god...

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:02 PM
Hey, why not.

Belichick likes Pioli.

The Chiefs have cap space.

The Chiefs could use Seymour.

Seymour would probably rather play in KC, for Pioli, with Vrabel and Cassel, where he has a better chance to win.

Seymour would probably work out a new contract to stay in KC, as opposed to wanting to run screaming from Oakland at the first opportunity.

Last but not least, it would allow Patriots fans to root for Seymour, since almost no one hates the Chiefs but almost everyone hates the Raiders. :D

BradyFTW!
09-07-2009, 02:02 PM
That would absolutely slay all of these Oakland fans who have already worked themselves into a frenzy over how they got a bargain by getting him for a first :P

Hell, even if the Chiefs don't trade for Seymour, I bet they sign him as a FA in 2010.

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2009, 02:02 PM
Why would the Chiefs trade a 2nd for a D-end when they already got 2 D-ends that were first round picks?

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:02 PM
What am I missing here?

Is the Seymour trade not final?

And even if it's not, how fucking stupid would it be to invest ANOTHER high draft pick in a goddamn 5-technique?

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:03 PM
That would absolutely slay all of these Oakland fans who have already worked themselves into a frenzy over how they got a bargain by getting him for a first :P

Oh my God, it would be worth it just to see all the shellshocked faces wearing masks and makeup, LOL.

DBOSHO
09-07-2009, 02:03 PM
idk if id give up a 2 for him

KCtotheSB
09-07-2009, 02:03 PM
Oakland has to give up their #1 in 2011 for Seymour but we dish out one of our #2's? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that would be faaaaaaaaaaaantastic

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 02:04 PM
When did Seymour start playing on the o-line?

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:05 PM
What am I missing here?

Is the Seymour trade not final?

And even if it's not, how ****ing stupid would it be to invest ANOTHER high draft pick in a goddamn 5-technique?

ROFL Why am I not surprised by this post? Some of you, man, you're unbelievable. Mention a rumor that the Chiefs might get Seymour for a 2nd-rounder, which would be a pretty good deal for them, and not five minutes later it's already labeled as a stupid move. I swear, if Pioli traded for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, someone here would complain that the #3 QB sucks ass, LOL...

SNR
09-07-2009, 02:05 PM
Why? He wouldn't play NT. That's what we need is a nose.

Besides, as mediocre as Tank is, we should give him a season at his new position. After we go 1-15, THEN we'll figure stuff out.

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:06 PM
That would be great!

man... can you imagine?

This offseason has already been the best ever... but dear god...

Oakland has to give up their #1 in 2011 for Seymour but we dish out one of our #2's? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that would be faaaaaaaaaaaantastic

I'd love to know what is great about spending the 3rd overall pick, the 5th overall pick, a 2nd round pick and a high 3rd round pick on the same goddamn position, which isn't even that fucking important in a 3-4 defense?

SNR
09-07-2009, 02:06 PM
ROFL Why am I not surprised by this post? Some of you, man, you're unbelievable. Mention a rumor that the Chiefs might get Seymour for a 2nd-rounder, which would be a pretty good deal for them, and not five minutes later it's already labeled as a stupid move. I swear, if Pioli traded for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, someone here would complain that the #3 QB sucks ass, LOL...Tyson Jackson- #3 overall
Glenn Dorsey- #5 overall

Are we spending a 2nd rounder on a backup or what? That would be stupid, especially a 30+ year old backup.

KCrockaholic
09-07-2009, 02:06 PM
What am I missing here?

Is the Seymour trade not final?



Im wondering the same thing.

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 02:07 PM
I'd love to know what is great about spending the 3rd overall pick, the 5th overall pick, a 2nd round pick and a high 3rd round pick on the same goddamn position, which isn't even that ****ing important in a 3-4 defense?BPA!!!

The Bad Guy
09-07-2009, 02:07 PM
This would mean Dorsey would never see the field. I don't know how I'd feel about it. Seymour and Jackson as DE's would be nice. Dorsey would have to gain 30 pounds and just clog the middle.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:07 PM
Why would the Chiefs trade a 2nd for a D-end when they already got 2 D-ends that were first round picks?

When did Seymour start playing on the o-line?

Why? He wouldn't play NT. That's what we need is a nose.

Besides, as mediocre as Tank is, we should give him a season at his new position. After we go 1-15, THEN we'll figure stuff out.

:clap: Well done, all!

I swear, if some of you got a reach-around from Megan Fox, you'd complain that she didn't lick your bunghole at the same time. :D

DBOSHO
09-07-2009, 02:07 PM
lets convert back to a 4-3 and go seymour tank dorsey jackson

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 02:07 PM
All defense all of the time.

RedThat
09-07-2009, 02:08 PM
Tyson Jackson- #3 overall
Glenn Dorsey- #5 overall

Are we spending a 2nd rounder on a backup or what? That would be stupid, especially a 30+ year old backup.

Are you calling Seymour a backup? thats crazy

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:08 PM
ROFL Why am I not surprised by this post? Some of you, man, you're unbelievable. Mention a rumor that the Chiefs might get Seymour for a 2nd-rounder, which would be a pretty good deal for them, and not five minutes later it's already labeled as a stupid move. I swear, if Pioli traded for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, someone here would complain that the #3 QB sucks ass, LOL...

How do you see that being a good move for KC?

How many high draft picks to we have to spend on a complementary position?

We've already invested the 3rd overall pick, the 5th overall pick and a high 3rd rounder on fucking 5-techniques in the past two drafts.

Now you're suggesting that we spend a 2nd on another?

The Bad Guy
09-07-2009, 02:08 PM
:clap: Well done, all!

I swear, if some of you got a reach-around from Megan Fox, you'd complain that she didn't lick your bunghole at the same time. :D

Billay would rather get his hole licked by Michael J. Fox instead of Megan.

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 02:08 PM
:clap: Well done, all!

I swear, if some of you got a reach-around from Megan Fox, you'd complain that she didn't lick your bunghole at the same time. :DWhy the fuck is she behind me!

the Talking Can
09-07-2009, 02:09 PM
in advance of any real info, i too will freak out and light my hair on fire....

KCtotheSB
09-07-2009, 02:11 PM
I just noticed that "Patriots Insider" is providing the rumor mongering. Is this like an East-coast version of WIPE or is there actually some credibility here? I read they provided the Pioli to KC announcement two days prior, but are they consistent?

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 02:12 PM
We shall now run a 5-2 defense and have the best scoring defense in the league as our offense consist only of Colquitt.

The Bad Guy
09-07-2009, 02:12 PM
I just noticed that "Patriots Insider" is providing the rumor mongering. Is this like an East-coast version of WIPE or is there actually some credibility here? I read they provided the Pioli to KC announcement two days prior, but are they consistent?

Not every Scout.com fansite is full of fucking shit all the time.

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:14 PM
Well, JD?

We're waiting.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3TJBkoZeMVU/R7YXzOZ2hTI/AAAAAAAABcs/mlbmcV0SvkU/s400/waiting.jpg

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:14 PM
How do you see that being a good move for KC?

How many high draft picks to we have to spend on a complementary position?

We've already invested the 3rd overall pick, the 5th overall pick and a high 3rd rounder on ****ing 5-techniques in the past two drafts.

Now you're suggesting that we spend a 2nd on another?

Let me follow that logic: a team has already used a high pick on a position. The use of that pick, on that particular player, may or may not have been a good decision. As a result, if you have an opportunity to upgrade by adding a Pro Bowler at a fair price, you shouldn't do it. Uh, okay. That's the kind of thinking that your last regime had: keep the players we drafted, no matter how good or bad they are, 'cause we'll look bad if we don't.

You have to have a more Belichickian philosophy. You don't compound one mistake with another. Draft Kevin O'Connell in the third round, and don't like how it worked out? Cut him. Sign Zach Taylor and Amani Toomer, and get the fans interested, but decide their tanks are empty? Send them on their way as quickly as you brought them in. It's about upgrading. A Raider 1st for Seymour is a butt-raping of Oakland; a KC 2nd for Seymour is a pretty damn good deal, IMO (especially since I think KC will be around .500 so that 2010 pick would be mid-round). Who gives a fat flying f**k what technique he plays, whether he plays DT or DE, whatever... on your defense, at the price of a 2nd rounder--AND, assuming you can re-sign him to a fair contract--that's a very solid pickup, no? Who else you've drafted and where you drafted them is irrelevant, I would think.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:16 PM
Why the **** is she behind me!

Damn... that's actually a good point. I stand corrected!

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:17 PM
Well, JD?

We're waiting.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3TJBkoZeMVU/R7YXzOZ2hTI/AAAAAAAABcs/mlbmcV0SvkU/s400/waiting.jpg

If you signed Seymour for a 2nd? Hey, everybody! We're all gonna get laid!

http://atypicalsnowman.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/danger.jpg

LTL
09-07-2009, 02:18 PM
Im wondering the same thing.

He hasn't reported to Oakland yet....and hasn't made any kind of indication that he will do so either.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:21 PM
He hasn't reported to Oakland yet....and hasn't made any kind of indication that he will do so either.

Would you, LOL? I can't blame the guy. Shit, he might take less money to NOT go to Oakland. ROFL

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:23 PM
Let me follow that logic: a team has already used a high pick on a position. The use of that pick, on that particular player, may or may not have been a good decision. As a result, if you have an opportunity to upgrade by adding a Pro Bowler at a fair price, you shouldn't do it. Uh, okay. That's the kind of thinking that your last regime had: keep the players we drafted, no matter how good or bad they are, 'cause we'll look bad if we don't.

You have to have a more Belichickian philosophy. You don't compound one mistake with another. Draft Kevin O'Connell in the third round, and don't like how it worked out? Cut him. Sign Zach Taylor and Amani Toomer, and get the fans interested, but decide their tanks are empty? Send them on their way as quickly as you brought them in. It's about upgrading. A Raider 1st for Seymour is a butt-raping of Oakland; a KC 2nd for Seymour is a pretty damn good deal, IMO (especially since I think KC will be around .500 so that 2010 pick would be mid-round). Who gives a fat flying f**k what technique he plays, whether he plays DT or DE, whatever... on your defense, at the price of a 2nd rounder--AND, assuming you can re-sign him to a fair contract--that's a very solid pickup, no? Who else you've drafted and where you drafted them is irrelevant, I would think.

Upgrade at what cost?

We have holes all over the 53. Spending a 2nd round pick to upgrade a position that we're not desperate at is a waste of resources, IMO.

Mr. Krab
09-07-2009, 02:23 PM
He hasn't reported to Oakland yet....and hasn't made any kind of indication that he will do so either.
n00b alert!!!

Did you read the n00b thread before posting, young man?!?! :#



:)

the Talking Can
09-07-2009, 02:25 PM
Would you, LOL? I can't blame the guy. Shit, he might take less money to NOT go to Oakland. ROFL

can you image?

guy is part of a dynasty, wakes up one morning and checks his voice mail to hear Belichick say, while eating an egg mcmuffin, "nuumm numm hey....numm numm you're going to oakland....mmnumm....later"


edit*

which is exactly what happened to vrabel...lol

corandval
09-07-2009, 02:25 PM
What would be the cap hit if we traded Dorsey? We all know he doesn't fit into Pioli's long term plans.

LTL
09-07-2009, 02:26 PM
n00b alert!!!

Did you read the n00b thread before posting, young man?!?! :#



:)

Yep, and even made a post in it.

Bwana
09-07-2009, 02:27 PM
I could live with that. We do have two 2nd round picks next year.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:27 PM
Upgrade at what cost?

We have holes all over the 53. Spending a 2nd round pick to upgrade a position that we're not desperate at is a waste of resources, IMO.

Jeez, it's just a 2nd-round pick, it's not the trade the Saints made for Ricky Williams. If you seriously wouldn't trade a 2nd-rounder for Richard Seymour, under the assumption you can re-sign him to a fair deal, I don't know what to say. IMO that deal has to be made, no matter what other variables there are in terms of players already on the roster.

KCtotheSB
09-07-2009, 02:28 PM
Sooo, depending on which #2 pick we send, we'd essentially be trading Tony Gonzalez for Richard Seymour?

Mr. Krab
09-07-2009, 02:28 PM
Upgrade at what cost?

We have holes all over the 53. Spending a 2nd round pick to upgrade a position that we're not desperate at is a waste of resources, IMO.
Just think......

we could of drafted Sanchez instead of cassel and kept our #2
traded for Seymour instead of drafting Jackson
Picked up a NT in the 2nd round like Ron Brace

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:28 PM
can you image?

guy is part of a dynasty, wakes up one morning and checks his voice mail to hear Belichick say, while eating an egg mcmuffin, "nuumm numm hey....numm numm you're going to oakland....mmnumm....later"

No, no, Belichick slipped him a napkin that said "You resign as DT of the NEP". :D

CrazyPhuD
09-07-2009, 02:29 PM
Let me follow that logic: a team has already used a high pick on a position. The use of that pick, on that particular player, may or may not have been a good decision. As a result, if you have an opportunity to upgrade by adding a Pro Bowler at a fair price, you shouldn't do it. Uh, okay. That's the kind of thinking that your last regime had: keep the players we drafted, no matter how good or bad they are, 'cause we'll look bad if we don't.

You have to have a more Belichickian philosophy. You don't compound one mistake with another. Draft Kevin O'Connell in the third round, and don't like how it worked out? Cut him. Sign Zach Taylor and Amani Toomer, and get the fans interested, but decide their tanks are empty? Send them on their way as quickly as you brought them in. It's about upgrading. A Raider 1st for Seymour is a butt-raping of Oakland; a KC 2nd for Seymour is a pretty damn good deal, IMO (especially since I think KC will be around .500 so that 2010 pick would be mid-round). Who gives a fat flying f**k what technique he plays, whether he plays DT or DE, whatever... on your defense, at the price of a 2nd rounder--AND, assuming you can re-sign him to a fair contract--that's a very solid pickup, no? Who else you've drafted and where you drafted them is irrelevant, I would think.

In addition, I don't think there is a chance in hell we'd be able to resign him after the season, so it would be a 100% waste of a draft pick. Why would he want to come here? He could go to a better team, with an actually chance to play(and win) in the postseason for similar money.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:30 PM
Sooo, depending on which #2 pick we send, we'd essentially be trading Tony Gonzalez for Richard Seymour?

Given that Seymour's still under 30, and Tony's 33-1/2, that seems like a fair deal.

ilovemichaelsettle
09-07-2009, 02:31 PM
He hasn't reported to Oakland yet....and hasn't made any kind of indication that he will do so either.

haha, thats funny.

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:31 PM
Jeez, it's just a 2nd-round pick, it's not the trade the Saints made for Ricky Williams. If you seriously wouldn't trade a 2nd-rounder for Richard Seymour, under the assumption you can re-sign him to a fair deal, I don't know what to say. IMO that deal has to be made, no matter what other variables there are in terms of players already on the roster.

There's your problem.

You're assuming he'll re-sign to strengthen your argument.

If he doesn't want to play for a loser in Oakland, it's ridiculous to think he'll play for, and re-sign a "fair deal" to play for a loser in KC.

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2009, 02:32 PM
Jeez, it's just a 2nd-round pick, it's not the trade the Saints made for Ricky Williams. If you seriously wouldn't trade a 2nd-rounder for Richard Seymour, under the assumption you can re-sign him to a fair deal, I don't know what to say. IMO that deal has to be made, no matter what other variables there are in terms of players already on the roster.

You don't know what you're talking about. 2nd round picks in some sense have more value then a first with the current way contracts are for first round picks. 2nd round picks are starters at a much cheaper price.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:32 PM
In addition, I don't think there is a chance in hell we'd be able to resign him after the season, so it would be a 100% waste of a draft pick. Why would he want to come here? He could go to a better team, with an actually chance to play(and win) in the postseason for similar money.

I disagree. I think having Pioli and Cassel there would entice him to re-sign.

And, I know it's hard for you guys to grasp, having watched the suckitude there, but: from the outsiders' perspective, the Chiefs ARE a "better team", or at least a lot of people think they will be, very soon. And even if you don't think it, remember, we're talking Oakland here, LOL. He might be so scared shitless of going there that Pioli could talk him into anything. "Stop crying, Richard... Uncle Scott will take care of everything... here you go, just sign this contract... it's okay, stop crying on the signature, you're blotting the ink, just sign it and you'll never have to think about Oakland again except for twice a season..."

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 02:37 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. 2nd round picks in some sense have more value then a first with the current way contracts are for first round picks. 2nd round picks are starters at a much cheaper price.Not to metion we are going to draft a d-lineman next year with the 1st pick. Those 2nd rd picks are the only hope in hell that we will get an o-line.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:38 PM
There's your problem.

You're assuming he'll re-sign to strengthen your argument.

If he doesn't want to play for a loser in Oakland, it's ridiculous to think he'll play for, and re-sign a "fair deal" to play for a loser in KC.

Well, yeah, I'm assuming he'll re-sign. But it's a pretty easy determination to make. Rumor has it that his agent was saying Seymour won't report to Oakland unless they agree not to tag him at the end of the season. Translation? "I have ABSOLUTELY NO F**KING INTEREST in being a Raider in 2010." :D If he requested the same thing of Pioli, I'm sure Pioli would say, "No thanks, we're not interested." Pioli's a lot smarter than the Raiders are.

And, again, the idea of KC being a "loser" is a lot different than Oakland's "loser". In KC, right now, they have a GM with the proper attitude and solid history, a coach with a good attitude, a young QB who has promise... Oakland is just a Mongolian clusterf**k of unimaginable proportions, where players leave the team and laugh about it in public. Oakland makes Detroit look good. Aside from the obvious powerhouses (New England, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Indy, etc.,.), why wouldn't a player want to go to KC, which has promise? Certainly beats Oakland, or Denver, or Detroit (which, to be fair, at least finally DID get rid of Millen). Miami? Hard to say, they go back and forth. The Jets? They seem ready to implode. There are a lot worse choices a player could make for a rebuilding team...

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 02:38 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. 2nd round picks in some sense have more value then a first with the current way contracts are for first round picks. 2nd round picks are starters at a much cheaper price.

This.

And as a NE fan, he should know it. BB values 2nd round picks much more than 1sts.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-07-2009, 02:38 PM
What am I missing here?

Is the Seymour trade not final?

And even if it's not, how fucking stupid would it be to invest ANOTHER high draft pick in a goddamn 5-technique?

It would be high comedy, there's no doubt.

keg in kc
09-07-2009, 02:39 PM
This would mean Dorsey would never see the field. I don't know how I'd feel about it. Seymour and Jackson as DE's would be nice. Dorsey would have to gain 30 pounds and just clog the middle.Maybe Dorsey's about to be traded.

BigRock
09-07-2009, 02:43 PM
The Pats' scout.com site is citing "our friends at Warpaint Illustrated" as their source.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-07-2009, 02:43 PM
I honestly hope we go into the next draft and just get the B5TA in every round.

Easy 6
09-07-2009, 02:43 PM
IF, in some wild twist of fate we get Seymour...it doesnt seem as laughable for him to see the right plan in place here & re-sign, as it would were he in jokeland. He's young enough to endure a bumpy ride this year & still have good years left for a playoff run in a year or two.

IF, we could acquire him for a 2 or Dorsey & whatever...it would immediately, fairly & drastically upgrade a spot that needs it.

Theres nothing to argue about here, IMO.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-07-2009, 02:47 PM
IF, in some wild twist of fate we get Seymour...it doesnt seem as laughable for him to see the right plan in place here & re-sign, as it would were he in jokeland. He's young enough to endure a bumpy ride this year & still have good years left for a playoff run in a year or two.

IF, we could acquire him for a 2 or Dorsey & whatever...it would immediately, fairly & drastically upgrade a spot that needs it.

Theres nothing to argue about here, IMO.

Meanwhile, the 60 million dollar man enjoys the world's largest anal gangbang every week off the right side because we can't muster up any resources for that.

Mr. Krab
09-07-2009, 02:47 PM
Maybe Dorsey's about to be traded.
Maybe we can just trade Dorsey for Seymour? :D

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:48 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. 2nd round picks in some sense have more value then a first with the current way contracts are for first round picks. 2nd round picks are starters at a much cheaper price.

This.

And as a NE fan, he should know it. BB values 2nd round picks much more than 1sts.

:spock: Are you both trying to argue that a 2nd-round pick is better than a 1st-rounder? That, somehow, the Pats getting a 2nd-rounder from KC would be equal to or worse than them getting a 1st-rounder? I'm not sure how to even respond to that.

You can TRADE 1st-rounders if you don't want them. 1st-rounders are better than 2nd-rounders because... well... they're first! You can find a franchise player in the 1st if it's a high pick.

A 2nd-round pick--probably a mid-round pick--for Richard Seymour, assuming he can be re-signed, is a ridiculously good deal. Draft picks are a crapshoot. When Tom Brady throws to Wes Welker, you're looking at a 6th-rounder throwing to an undrafted player. The Steelers' James Harrison went undrafted. Your new QB was a 7th rounder. Ever hear "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?

WilliamTheIrish
09-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Maybe we can just trade Dorsey for Seymour? :D

I'm selfish.

Give me the reacharound from Megan Fox. The OL can wait while I get pleasure.

JD10367
09-07-2009, 02:51 PM
Meanwhile, the 60 million dollar man enjoys the world's largest anal gangbang every week off the right side because we can't muster up any resources for that.

ROFL

"Hey! The Chiefs just traded for Baltimore's Ed Reed and New England's Vince Wilfork!"

"Who f**king cares?!? We need offensive linemen!"

Mr. Krab
09-07-2009, 02:53 PM
Can't Seymour play RDE in a 3-4 too? Jackson could learn alot from him.

Chocolate Hog
09-07-2009, 02:58 PM
:spock: Are you both trying to argue that a 2nd-round pick is better than a 1st-rounder? That, somehow, the Pats getting a 2nd-rounder from KC would be equal to or worse than them getting a 1st-rounder? I'm not sure how to even respond to that.

You can TRADE 1st-rounders if you don't want them. 1st-rounders are better than 2nd-rounders because... well... they're first! You can find a franchise player in the 1st if it's a high pick.

A 2nd-round pick--probably a mid-round pick--for Richard Seymour, assuming he can be re-signed, is a ridiculously good deal. Draft picks are a crapshoot. When Tom Brady throws to Wes Welker, you're looking at a 6th-rounder throwing to an undrafted player. The Steelers' James Harrison went undrafted. Your new QB was a 7th rounder. Ever hear "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?

What are you talking about? In terms of value 2nd round picks are better, you get a player who will be a starter for a much cheaper price. Would you rather pay a guy whos only slightly better 10 mil guarnteed money or a 2nd round pick whos about as good for much cheaper? Also look at how the Patriots trade there 1st round pick and stockpile picks. They traded there 1st a few years ago to the Niners and the next year drafted the rookie of the year. It's all about value and teams who get the most value are also the ones who are most successful.

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 03:00 PM
:spock: Are you both trying to argue that a 2nd-round pick is better than a 1st-rounder? That, somehow, the Pats getting a 2nd-rounder from KC would be equal to or worse than them getting a 1st-rounder? I'm not sure how to even respond to that.

You can TRADE 1st-rounders if you don't want them. 1st-rounders are better than 2nd-rounders because... well... they're first! You can find a franchise player in the 1st if it's a high pick.

A 2nd-round pick--probably a mid-round pick--for Richard Seymour, assuming he can be re-signed, is a ridiculously good deal. Draft picks are a crapshoot. When Tom Brady throws to Wes Welker, you're looking at a 6th-rounder throwing to an undrafted player. The Steelers' James Harrison went undrafted. Your new QB was a 7th rounder. Ever hear "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?

Where did I say that a 1st is worth less than a 2nd?

Nowhere.

What I did say is that BB values 2nd round picks more than 1st's because of what Billay pointed out.

Easy 6
09-07-2009, 03:00 PM
Meanwhile, the 60 million dollar man enjoys the world's largest anal gangbang every week off the right side because we can't muster up any resources for that.

Hamas, obviously the right side leaves something to be desired...to say the least.

But theres no gaurantee that some 'name' will come in & integrate any better than a no-name guy, who has atleast started for a top team & is a known quantity in the eyes of this regime.

I'm not playing up Seamus O'Callaghan as the next Eric Williams, who knows? the guy might not even start. I guess i'm just willing to bet theres more to it than we know.

We gotta start somewhere, every position group cant be brought up to par in one offseason.

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 03:01 PM
ROFL

"Hey! The Chiefs just traded for Baltimore's Ed Reed and New England's Vince Wilfork!"

"Who f**king cares?!? We need offensive linemen!"

If you can't see the stupidity in that post, you should just hang out with Hootie and TTC.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-07-2009, 03:03 PM
Hamas, obviously the right side leaves something to be desired...to say the least.

But theres no gaurantee that some 'name' will come in & integrate any better than a no-name guy, who has atleast started for a top team & is a known quantity in the eyes of this regime.

I'm not playing up Seamus O'Callaghan as the next Eric Williams, who knows? the guy might not even start. I guess i'm just willing to bet theres more to it than we know.

We gotta start somewhere, every position group cant be brought up to par overnight.

No one's expecting this to be the 2003 line. The only thing that people wanted (and still want) to see is an attempt to allocate some resources for players who might possibly have the chance to be effective. Not third teamers that you give up picks for, not guys with cement shoes and lead dicks, not guards as backup LTs who can't even play RT, and not 4 RBs when you only have 2 OTs on your roster.

Easy 6
09-07-2009, 03:14 PM
No one's expecting this to be the 2003 line. The only thing that people wanted (and still want) to see is an attempt to allocate some resources for players who might possibly have the chance to be effective. Not third teamers that you give up picks for, not guys with cement shoes and lead dicks, not guards as backup LTs who can't even play RT, and not 4 RBs when you only have 2 OTs on your roster.

I agree, i certainly would have liked for more to be done, especially in the draft, i'm not a Pioli Zombie...he isnt batting a .1000 in my eyes, but i still like the general direction.

KCrockaholic
09-07-2009, 03:16 PM
I agree, i certainly would have liked for more to be done, especially in the draft, i'm not a Pioli Zombie...he isnt batting a 1.000 in my eyes, but i still like the general direction.

There you go.

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 03:47 PM
ROFL

"Hey! The Chiefs just traded for Baltimore's Ed Reed and New England's Vince Wilfork!"

"Who f**king cares?!? We need offensive linemen!"And Ed Reed speeds down he sideline yet again while Cassel lays flat on his back while being carted off still clutching the football.

DA_T_84
09-07-2009, 03:49 PM
And Ed Reed speeds down he sideline yet again while Cassel lays flat on his back while being carted off still clutching the football.

meh

Count Zarth
09-07-2009, 03:51 PM
This deal makes sense if the Chiefs are desperate to win now.

If not...Magee should be getting Seymour's snaps.

the Talking Can
09-07-2009, 03:53 PM
And Ed Reed speeds down he sideline yet again while Cassel lays flat on his back while being carted off still clutching the football.

hamas wants his shtick back

Raised On Riots
09-07-2009, 04:37 PM
Meanwhile, the 60 million dollar man enjoys the world's largest anal gangbang every week off the right side because we can't muster up any resources for that.

ROFL The Planet, is BACK!

EyePod
09-07-2009, 04:39 PM
Why? He wouldn't play NT. That's what we need is a nose.

Besides, as mediocre as Tank is, we should give him a season at his new position. After we go 1-15, THEN we'll figure stuff out.

Tank looked a lot better last game....

Nightfyre
09-07-2009, 04:50 PM
I vote we trade that second for Wilfork instead. We would then have probably one of the strongest lines in the NFL then.

dirk digler
09-07-2009, 05:12 PM
What am I missing here?

Is the Seymour trade not final?

And even if it's not, how fucking stupid would it be to invest ANOTHER high draft pick in a goddamn 5-technique?

I don't know if anyone answered your question but the rumor is that he is not going to show in Oakland so it nullifies the trade. Which is weird that the NFL has a rule that pretty much gives alot of leverage to the player in this situation.

Mr. Krab
09-07-2009, 05:18 PM
ROFL The Planet, is BACK!
Oh good, all the Dirty Sanchez butt buddies are getting back together for a circle jerk session. Maybe they can kill the rest of the traffic around here and turn it into WPI

Raised On Riots
09-07-2009, 05:21 PM
"Don't cry for me, Argentiiiiina...

STFU

OnTheWarpath58
09-07-2009, 05:24 PM
Oh good, all the Dirty Sanchez butt buddies are getting back together for a circle jerk session. Maybe they can kill the rest of the traffic around here and turn it into WPI

http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg

So a handful of realists, that are accused of hating the Chiefs and hoping they fail are going to turn ChiefsPlanet into a board full of mouth-breathing, football illiterate, Chiefs-can-do-no-wrong-and will-win-the-division posters.

Got it.

BradyFTW!
09-07-2009, 05:44 PM
What are you talking about? In terms of value 2nd round picks are better, you get a player who will be a starter for a much cheaper price. Would you rather pay a guy whos only slightly better 10 mil guarnteed money or a 2nd round pick whos about as good for much cheaper? Also look at how the Patriots trade there 1st round pick and stockpile picks. They traded there 1st a few years ago to the Niners and the next year drafted the rookie of the year. It's all about value and teams who get the most value are also the ones who are most successful.

That's trading forward in time, not trading down in the draft. Two very different things. In the case that you're citing, he traded a first round pick for... a first round pick, so it really doesn't support your theory at all. And the DROY that you spoke of was drafted in the first round, which doesn't exactly support your premise that second rounders are worth more :P

This year was the first year that Belichick traded a first rounder down in to the second round, and he explicitly stated that it was because of the talent breakdown for this year. He thought that early second round talent was about as good as the late first round talent.

He did not think that, one would assume, when he drafted Richard Seymour, Daniel Graham, Vince Wilfork, Ben Watson, Logan Mankins, Jerod Mayo and Brandon Meriweather all in the first round. The value of a second round pick is higher *because* you can get one much cheaper than you can get a first rounder. If the price is the same, then you take the first rounder (provided that it's outside of the top 5) every time.

3rd&48ers
09-07-2009, 07:25 PM
What am I missing here?

Is the Seymour trade not final?

And even if it's not, how ****ing stupid would it be to invest ANOTHER high draft pick in a goddamn 5-technique?

The deal is not final until he or any player passes a physical in a trade

He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

The Bad Guy
09-07-2009, 07:27 PM
The deal is not final until he or any player passes a physical in a trade

He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

You're right. Our owner wouldn't shell out a first round pick and all that money for a guy who plays 6 games a year.

I'm sure Seymour is going to be super motivated watching FatMarcus sink any chance that defense has.

Raised On Riots
09-07-2009, 07:29 PM
You're right. Our owner wouldn't shell out a first round pick and all that money for a guy who plays 6 games a year.

I'm sure Seymour is going to be super motivated watching FatMarcus sink any chance that defense has.

LMAO

chefsos
09-07-2009, 07:35 PM
The deal is not final until he or any player passes a physical in a trade

He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

I think you have to be actually present in order to pass a physical.

3rd&48ers
09-07-2009, 07:41 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B-GtMDLlGRI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B-GtMDLlGRI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

acesn8s
09-07-2009, 07:44 PM
ROFL The Planet, is BACK!I've only been gone a few weeks.:huh:

tk13
09-07-2009, 07:50 PM
This isn't going to happen, but that doesn't mean I'd turn it down. We are not good enough to be not be looking to upgrade at almost any position. Yeah we need a new right side of the O-line but that wouldn't keep me from acquiring talent elsewhere if the right opportunity presents itself. This team is not good enough for that.

And I mentioned it in another thread, but even though we're in a 3-4 the Patriots guys obviously value having talented guys across the defensive line. More so than the conventional 3-4 wisdom would have it anyway.

Skip Towne
09-07-2009, 07:52 PM
The deal is not final until he or any player passes a physical in a trade

He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

You ned to shut the fuck up.

3rd&48ers
09-07-2009, 07:55 PM
You ned to shut the **** up.

Don't you have a meth lab to tend to? WTF are you doing here? My name is not ned either...

Raised On Riots
09-07-2009, 07:57 PM
Don't you have a meth lab to tend to? WTF are you doing here? My name is not ned either...


Die.

SDChief
09-07-2009, 08:20 PM
The deal is not final until he or any player passes a physical in a trade

He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

how does it feel to support a team so bad that players won't even report when traded. Commitment to Excrement

CaliforniaChief
09-07-2009, 08:31 PM
The deal is not final until he or any player passes a physical in a trade

He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

Let's follow the logic, here. The Cable Guy says it's being held up by issues with the Patriots and said player. You're saying the deal is not final until said player passes a physical in a trade. So you're saying the thing that's holding this up is Seymour taking a physical for the Patriots so that the Raiders can have him?

Oh and by the way, "owner smack" when it comes to anything related to Al Davis is an automatic loss for you before it even starts.

Raised On Riots
09-07-2009, 08:34 PM
Oh and by the way, "owner smack" when it comes to anything related to Al Davis is an automatic loss for you before it even starts.


LMAO

Skip Towne
09-07-2009, 09:27 PM
Don't you have a meth lab to tend to? WTF are you doing here? My name is not ned either...

Read your post. I was making fun of your misspelling

bh13
09-07-2009, 10:08 PM
He will be a Raider, you Chief fans ned to quit dreaming.....Your owner would never shell out the coin needed for a player of this caliberLMAO

You're right. Clark needs to learn from Al Davis and trade a 2nd and a 5th round pick to get Seymour, sign him to a 7 year deal, then cut him 8 games into the season like Al Davis did with DeAngelo Hall.

CaliforniaChief
09-07-2009, 10:23 PM
You're right. Clark needs to learn from Al Davis and trade a 2nd and a 5th round pick to get Seymour, sign him to a 7 year deal, then cut him 8 games into the season like Al Davis did with DeAngelo Hall.

Nice launch!

salame
09-07-2009, 11:27 PM
undead al would be furious

CrazyPhuD
09-07-2009, 11:48 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/07/SP9919JOMS.DTL&type=sports

Seymour still has failed to report....it would still be the dumbest of all dumb moves to trade a 2nd for him. There is no chance and there never will be a chance that he will ever sign with the chiefs long term. It's simple there are 28 teams better than us, many of them will be able to offer exactly the same money than us and he will go to a contender that can offer him enough money. Why? Because quite simply by the time we are ready to contend on a consistent basis, he will no longer be in the league... It would be silly for him to play here, for the same reason it is silly for TG to play here. By the time we are ready to contend again, they will both be done.

DA_T_84
09-07-2009, 11:50 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/07/SP9919JOMS.DTL&type=sports

Seymour still has failed to report....it would still be the dumbest of all dumb moves to trade a 2nd for him. There is no chance and there never will be a chance that he will ever sign with the chiefs long term. It's simple there are 28 teams better than us, many of them will be able to offer exactly the same money than us and he will go to a contender that can offer him enough money. Why? Because quite simply by the time we are ready to contend on a consistent basis, he will no longer be in the league... It would be silly for him to play here, for the same reason it is silly for TG to play here. By the time we are ready to contend again, they will both be done.

He has a ring. TG didn't. Big difference.

DA_T_84
09-07-2009, 11:51 PM
And FTR, I dont think it will happen at all. I'm just saying, that reasoning doesn't hold much water; at least how you framed it.

CrazyPhuD
09-07-2009, 11:59 PM
And FTR, I dont think it will happen at all. I'm just saying, that reasoning doesn't hold much water; at least how you framed it.

Why you think any vet would play with a losing team, when they can get paid similar money to play with a team that winning? That just doesn't happen, not unless you team is in, NY or LA. Sorry hate to say it no matter how we get him there is no chance we're singing him next year. Especially considering next year is uncapped. Dude is going to dallas, or NYG, or even Wash, and there's really no where else he's going, with an uncapped year those will offer him the most.

Mecca
09-08-2009, 12:00 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/07/SP9919JOMS.DTL&type=sports

Seymour still has failed to report....it would still be the dumbest of all dumb moves to trade a 2nd for him. There is no chance and there never will be a chance that he will ever sign with the chiefs long term. It's simple there are 28 teams better than us, many of them will be able to offer exactly the same money than us and he will go to a contender that can offer him enough money. Why? Because quite simply by the time we are ready to contend on a consistent basis, he will no longer be in the league... It would be silly for him to play here, for the same reason it is silly for TG to play here. By the time we are ready to contend again, they will both be done.

I'm going to disagree with this, the Chiefs have the cap room to pay him what he wants.

CrazyPhuD
09-08-2009, 12:02 AM
I'm going to disagree with this, the Chiefs have the cap room to pay him what he wants.

And so does every other team in the league next year.

Mecca
09-08-2009, 12:03 AM
And so does every other team in the league next year.

That's not exactly true, have you seen the rules for the uncapped year?

Raised On Riots
09-08-2009, 12:04 AM
If this guy is a DE and not an NT; why do we care? Let's throw McGee back on the bench? Meh.

kysirsoze
09-08-2009, 12:06 AM
Why you think any vet would play with a losing team, when they can get paid similar money to play with a team that winning? That just doesn't happen, not unless you team is in, NY or LA. Sorry hate to say it no matter how we get him there is no chance we're singing him next year. Especially considering next year is uncapped. Dude is going to dallas, or NYG, or even Wash, and there's really no where else he's going, with an uncapped year those will offer him the most.

IF we get him, signing him next year might not be an issue because we'll franchise him. I don't see Pioli allowing a deal with him that pre-empts a franchise tag.

That said, I think this is all bullshit.

salame
09-08-2009, 12:06 AM
If this guy is a DE and not an NT; why do we care? Let's throw McGee back on the bench? Meh.

well in all seriousness seymour is taller and heavier than tank tyler
and he is a converted dt

Mecca
09-08-2009, 12:09 AM
Now look here, if the Chiefs can get Big Dick Seymour for a 2nd rounder they should probably do that.

He's got several years left in him and he is still a premier player.

Raised On Riots
09-08-2009, 12:10 AM
well in all seriousness seymour is taller and heavier than tank tyler
and he is a converted dt

So is he a viable NT then?

CrazyPhuD
09-08-2009, 12:11 AM
That's not exactly true, have you seen the rules for the uncapped year?

Yes...and baring the specific playoff teams and those specific rules anyone can afford him, even the playoff teams could with creative accounting find a way to make it work. Yes if capped years come into play they could be put in cap hell, but no one knows what the next CBA would be. I'd be willing to bet certain owners will roll the dice with marquee players, if they think they can win now. Especially considering there is no guarantee that a cap will ever come back.

Mecca
09-08-2009, 12:12 AM
No he is not a NT...

However I don't know why someone would turn their nose up at a premier player.

salame
09-08-2009, 12:12 AM
So is he a viable NT then?

is tank tyler?

Raised On Riots
09-08-2009, 12:26 AM
No he is not a NT...

However I don't know why someone would turn their nose up at a premier player.


Because defensively, we're closer to a stage of surgical addition and subtraction as opposed to the offense, where you could basically run a sandblaster across that crew and not destroy much.

BarrySPAMAID
09-08-2009, 12:27 AM
is tank tyler?

ROFL

Mecca
09-08-2009, 12:30 AM
That defense has a ton of holes in it too.

Raised On Riots
09-08-2009, 12:32 AM
That defense has a ton of holes in it too.

But are they DE's?

Chiefs=Good
09-08-2009, 01:20 AM
Well... Seymour is something we lack.. A proven great player...

Raised On Riots
09-08-2009, 01:22 AM
Well... Seymour is something we lack.. A proven great player...

True enough.

Von Dumbass
09-08-2009, 02:49 AM
I have talked to about 10 different league sources and not one thinks that Seymour was worth a future 1

http://twitter.com/MoveTheSticks/status/3818953868

CrazyPhuD
09-08-2009, 03:05 AM
Additional info....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?entry_id=47033

"We have attempted to make a deal," Cable said. "There are some issues still between him and the Patriots that are being worked out. Hoping that that will get resolved as quickly as possible. We know that the player wants to be here but we have really no control over those issues. So that's really all I'm going to talk about it for now."

Cable then added he spoke with Seymour, and said Seymour wants to be here.

dirk digler
09-08-2009, 06:14 AM
Now look here, if the Chiefs can get Big Dick Seymour for a 2nd rounder they should probably do that.

He's got several years left in him and he is still a premier player.

Wow I am shocked. I wouldn't have thought you would support such a trade especially with his age and all.

carlos3652
09-08-2009, 09:45 PM
Any news on this, is he a raider yet?

Shag
09-08-2009, 09:55 PM
Any news on this, is he a raider yet?

Nope. He didn't report today, either...

carlos3652
09-08-2009, 09:56 PM
Nope. He didn't report today, either...

ALAMEDA, Calif. (AP)—Richard Seymour(notes) failed to report to Oakland for a second straight day Tuesday after being traded from the New England Patriots.

“I really have nothing to report on that,” Raiders coach Tom Cable said. “Nothing has changed at this point.”
Other popular stories across the Yahoo! network:

Seymour, a five-time Pro Bowl defensive end, was acquired from the Patriots on Sunday in exchange for Oakland’s first-round draft pick in 2011. The move was on the NFL’s official transactions list and Seymour is on the Raiders’ roster on their Web site.

Cable said he spoke with Seymour earlier this week and that the defensive lineman told him he wants to play in Oakland.

Cable reiterated that he is hopeful Seymour will play for the Raiders but declined to discuss reports the two sides were in talks on a new contract.

“I don’t want to comment about anything of that until we have something that’s done and concrete,” Cable said.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick also refused to talk about Seymour and the trade during his daily meeting with the media.

carlos3652
09-08-2009, 09:57 PM
So what happens at this point, can this trade actually become null and void?

chefsos
09-08-2009, 10:01 PM
Any news on this, is he a raider yet?
Maybe, and maybe. Either he's negotiating a new deal before reporting, or walking there reeaallly slowly, like I did at 8 years old when I knew a whippin' awaited.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest
http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2009/09/08/raiders-mum-on-seymour/

JD10367
09-08-2009, 10:03 PM
Apparently, Cable said Seymour said that he needs to work some stuff out with the Patriots. And the Patriots pretty much responded, "What the f**k are they talking about?" ROFL

Rumor has it that Seymour wants a contract extension. But I've also heard that he wants them to guarantee not to use the tag on him. I would think he's demanding either/or: either you pay me a shitload of cash in a new contract to sacrifice the rest of my career wasting my talents in Oakland, or you promise to let me free with my 40 acres and a mule after my year of toiling in servitude in the purgatory that is Oakland.

All I know is, I'm willing to bet his relationship with the Patriots is permanently in the shitter over this. So, if for some reason the trade DIDN'T happen, there's no way he's going back. Which mean the Pats would be forced to move him SOMEWHERE. Which means they'd be forced to take the best deal available. If I were Pioli, I'd be calling Belichick and be in his ear, like that little devil sitting on Tom Hulce's shoulder when he was pushing the chick home in the shopping cart, saying, "F**k her! Suck her tits!" I'd be saying, "Hey, Bill... I hear you're having problems over there... you know, we'd be happy to take Seymour off your hands..."

Chocolate Hog
09-08-2009, 10:04 PM
Now look here, if the Chiefs can get Big Dick Seymour for a 2nd rounder they should probably do that.

He's got several years left in him and he is still a premier player.

You're obviously joking