Chiefs Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour - Page 5

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-...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.

Mr. Krab · 09-07-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Maybe Dorsey's about to be traded.

Maybe we can just trade Dorsey for Seymour?

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billay

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

This.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab

Maybe we can just trade Dorsey for Seymour?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

"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.

Titty Meat · 09-07-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-07-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-07-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

"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

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott free

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by scott free

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

"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.

Dante84 · 09-07-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acesn8s

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

Hammock Parties · 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.

09-07-2009, 01:57 PM
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	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.
Posts: 12,916

09-07-2009, 03:51 PM	#75
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $1010478	This deal makes sense if the Chiefs are desperate to win now. If not...Magee should be getting Seymour's snaps. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 296,750