ChiefsPlanet
Page 4 of 9 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=213475)

CrazyPhuD 09-07-2009 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 6042943)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCtotheSB (Post 6042987)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTL (Post 6042952)
He hasn't reported to Oakland yet....and hasn't made any kind of indication that he will do so either.
haha, thats funny.

OnTheWarpath15 09-07-2009 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 6042985)
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.

Titty Meat 09-07-2009 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD10367 (Post 6042985)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD (Post 6042991)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by billay (Post 6043000)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6042999)
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...

OnTheWarpath15 09-07-2009 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by billay (Post 6043000)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6042902)
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?
It would be high comedy, there's no doubt.

keg in kc 09-07-2009 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Guy (Post 6042922)
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott free (Post 6043024)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17 PM.
Page 4 of 9 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.