Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour
 

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-...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.

That would be great!

man... can you imagine?

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

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

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.

Why would the Chiefs trade a 2nd for a D-end when they already got 2 D-ends that were first round picks?

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?

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

idk if id give up a 2 for him

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

When did Seymour start playing on the o-line?

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...

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.

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?

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.

Im wondering the same thing.

BPA!!!

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.

: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

lets convert back to a 4-3 and go seymour tank dorsey jackson

All defense all of the time.

Are you calling Seymour a backup? thats crazy

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?

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

Why the **** is she behind me!

in advance of any real info, i too will freak out and light my hair on fire....

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?

We shall now run a 5-2 defense and have the best scoring defense in the league as our offense consist only of Colquitt.

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

Well, JD?

We're waiting.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3TJBkoZeMV...00/waiting.jpg

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.

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

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

http://atypicalsnowman.files.wordpre.../01/danger.jpg

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

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.

n00b alert!!!

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



:)

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

What would be the cap hit if we traded Dorsey? We all know he doesn't fit into Pioli's long term plans.

Yep, and even made a post in it.

I could live with that. We do have two 2nd round picks next year.

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.

Sooo, depending on which #2 pick we send, we'd essentially be trading Tony Gonzalez for Richard Seymour?

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

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

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.

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

haha, thats funny.

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.

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.

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..."

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.

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...

This.

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

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

Maybe Dorsey's about to be traded.

The Pats' scout.com site is citing "our friends at Warpaint Illustrated" as their source.

I honestly hope we go into the next draft and just get the B5TA in every round.

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.

Maybe we can just trade Dorsey for Seymour? :D

: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"?

I'm selfish.

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

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!"

Can't Seymour play RDE in a 3-4 too? Jackson could learn alot from him.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

There you go.

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

This deal makes sense if the Chiefs are desperate to win now.

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

hamas wants his shtick back

ROFL The Planet, is BACK!

Tank looked a lot better last game....

I vote we trade that second for Wilfork instead. We would then have probably one of the strongest lines in the NFL then.

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.