Chiefs Weird rumor about the Chiefs getting Seymour - Page 3

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.

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.

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acesn8s

Why the **** is she behind me!

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

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Well, JD?

We're waiting.

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

LTL · 09-07-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTL

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.

**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.

Mr. Krab · 09-07-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTL

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Krab

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

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.

MMXcalibur · 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

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

JD10367 · 09-07-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

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".

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, 02:25 PM	#39
corandval Chief fan 4 life! Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hastings, Minnesota Casino cash: $10004900	What would be the cap hit if we traded Dorsey? We all know he doesn't fit into Pioli's long term plans.
Posts: 130

09-07-2009, 02:27 PM	#41
Bwana It's Five O'Clock Somewhere Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Billings, Montana Casino cash: $2136043647	I could live with that. We do have two 2nd round picks next year. __________________ Adventure is dangerous....but monotony can kill you.
Posts: 70,474

09-07-2009, 02:28 PM	#43
MMXcalibur Pessimistically optimistic. Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Denver, CO Casino cash: $-144914	Sooo, depending on which #2 pick we send, we'd essentially be trading Tony Gonzalez for Richard Seymour?
Posts: 16,747