PDA

View Full Version : Seymour would consider 31 teams


The MVPlaya
01-12-2010, 11:01 AM
After a year spent in Oakland, Richard Seymour is headed for unrestricted free agency.

He's open to playing for just about any team. Except the one that drafted him.

"There's probably about 31 teams I'd consider going to," Seymour said in a conversation with Tom Curran of Comcast Sports New England. TC asked him if he'd take a call from the Patriots if they approached him.

"That isn't something I'm looking to do at all," Seymour said. "But there's no ill will. I wish them the best. I really mean that. . . . I think it could have ended in a more respectful way, but that's just my personal opinion."

Seymour certainly isn't at his career peak, but he'll be an attractive, experienced starting option for the many 3-4 teams in the league. (The Chiefs and Broncos come to mind.)

With that said, the Patriots are likely very content to hold Oakland's first-round pick in 2011.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/01/12/seymour-would-consider-31-teams/

titan
01-12-2010, 11:04 AM
And I thought the Alphonso Smith trade was bad. Why in the world would Oakland trade a #1 pick for a player they'd only have 1 year, and a player past his peak?

PRBronco
01-12-2010, 11:07 AM
Mr. Seymour apparently forgot about the franchise tag. The Raiders are retarded, and awful, and disgraceful, and an embarrassment to the league, but they can't be that stupid to let him walk after 1 year. Can they?

kamakazi_kal
01-12-2010, 11:10 AM
He won't be coming here. Seymour is not "team" enough for denver...... dude wants to get paid wtf? He should return to Oakland for the sake of loyalty....


Hilarious!

DivineLegion
01-12-2010, 11:13 AM
I would take Seymore in a heartbeat, we could focus on a lot bigger needs if we brought a guy like him in here to take some pressure off of Doom.

Beantown Bronco
01-12-2010, 11:15 AM
Mr. Seymour apparently forgot about the franchise tag. The Raiders are retarded, and awful, and disgraceful, and an embarrassment to the league, but they can't be that stupid to let him walk after 1 year. Can they?

Maybe he had them agree not to franchise him this year in order to accept the trade.

bowtown
01-12-2010, 11:16 AM
Can anyone tell me what the details are with the franchise tag this year? Does it it still exist? I thought it was part of the CBA.

Garcia Bronco
01-12-2010, 11:23 AM
Can anyone tell me what the details are with the franchise tag this year? Does it it still exist? I thought it was part of the CBA.

yes and each team gets 3 of them

bowtown
01-12-2010, 11:25 AM
yes and each team gets 3 of them

Wait, really?

DivineLegion
01-12-2010, 11:28 AM
I could be wrong but I think its only 2.

bowtown
01-12-2010, 11:32 AM
Garcia is right:

Three tags instead of one
Currently, a team can put either a franchise tag (average of the top five salaries at his position) or a transition tag (average of the top ten salaries at his position) on any one player on the club to protect the team from losing the unrestricted free agent. If the NFL gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011, teams will have use of one franchise tag and two transition tags. So not only would none of the young players with less than six years of service be free, but now the top three players who are eligible for free agency on a roster can be protected.

If this situation existed in 2008, a team like Pittsburgh -- which used a transition tag to retain OT Max Starks -- could have also tagged Alan Faneca with either a transition or franchise tag if it so desired. If every team in the league used one or two tags, not even the three they would possess, it could take another 40 quality free agents off the market.

There is speculation teams would not overuse this trigger because so many of their quality younger players would not be free to depart.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true

I feel like there is going to be very little big name movement this year in FA.

bpc
01-12-2010, 11:57 AM
Man, I would love to see Seymore come to Denver. I think he's an A-Hole, dirty, but he's a mean, TOUGH, SOB who would fill the role of Romanowski in this defense. Everybody needs a hitman.

DivineLegion
01-12-2010, 12:00 PM
Clady might break his back in Training camp.

Popps
01-12-2010, 12:06 PM
Yea, I don't get the article. Why wouldn't they franchise him? Seems obvious.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-12-2010, 12:08 PM
He won't be coming here. Seymour is not "team" enough for denver...... dude wants to get paid wtf? He should return to Oakland for the sake of loyalty....


Hilarious!

oh the drama is so uninteresting...

BroncoMan4ever
01-12-2010, 12:13 PM
Clady might break his back in Training camp.

i would love to be a fly on the wall when those two meet

Rohirrim
01-12-2010, 12:17 PM
We could start next season with Peterson, Cody and Seymour, and then Doom at OLB. Works for me.

Or, for a real wet dream, get another 1st for Marshall and have Jerry Hughes at the other OLB. ;)

Hogan11
01-12-2010, 12:21 PM
Yea, I don't get the article. Why wouldn't they franchise him? Seems obvious.

Well, they are the Raiders.

GoHAM
01-12-2010, 12:30 PM
Yea, I don't get the article. Why wouldn't they franchise him? Seems obvious.

Al Davis found out Seymour can't run a 4.4 40? ???

Ambiguous
01-12-2010, 12:54 PM
Bring him in.

fontaine
01-12-2010, 02:25 PM
There is no way McD would want Seymour.

I mean the guy is clearly a malcontent prima donna because after he was blindsided by the trade to Oakland he only reported to the Raiders just days before the season began.

I mean who needs quitters, and other me first players who don't want to risk getting an owie or a boo boo in training camp?

barryr
01-12-2010, 02:26 PM
If the Broncos are not going to start Dumervil and Ayerns together at OLB, then finding a DL that can get pressure on the QB is even more important. So Seymour, assuming the money is right, would be a good fit.

chazoe60
01-12-2010, 03:11 PM
He should go to whichever team is in the most need of a hairpulling sissy-mary punk ass little bitch. I hope Al puts a leash on that mutt and Franchise tags him and he's stuck in purgatory like the scumbag deserves.



If you can't tell, I don't particularly care for him.

extralife
01-12-2010, 03:23 PM
I'd love to have him. If he's unrestricted, spend the money. He's a complete player.

The Joker
01-12-2010, 03:30 PM
Signing Seymour would be brilliant.

However, there's absolutely no way Oakland doesn't franchise him. Maybe we could work out a trade... I reckon Oakland could use a true #1 WR. :wiggle:

Houshyamama
01-12-2010, 06:46 PM
We could start next season with Peterson, Cody and Seymour, and then Doom at OLB. Works for me.

Or, for a real wet dream, get another 1st for Marshall and have Jerry Hughes at the other OLB. ;)

I really doubt Cody starts game 1, maybe by the end of the year... maybe.

ZONA
01-12-2010, 08:19 PM
No thanks. I hope we're not trying to assemble the over 30 club on defense. No thanks.

RhymesayersDU
01-12-2010, 08:23 PM
"That isn't something I'm looking to do at all," Seymour said. "But there's no ill will. I wish them the best. I really mean that. . . . I think it could have ended in a more respectful way, but that's just my personal opinion."

So he'd refuse to sign with them, BUT there's no ill will.


A complete contradiction in just two sentences.


Awesome.

brncs_fan
01-12-2010, 08:24 PM
So he'd refuse to sign with them, BUT there's no ill will.


A complete contradiction in just two sentences.


Awesome.

I think that was his nice way of telling them to go sit on a banana.