Chiefs Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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?

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...

**RealSNR** · 09-07-2009, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

RedThat · 09-07-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR

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

Quesadilla Joe · 09-08-2009, 02:49 AM

Quote:

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/...entry_id=47033

Quote:

"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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-07-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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 ****ing 5-techniques in the past two drafts.

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

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-07-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-07-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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."

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...

Titty Meat · 09-07-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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.

acesn8s · 09-07-2009, 02:37 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.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 09-07-2009, 02:38 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.

This.

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

Mr. Krab · 09-07-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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