NFL 2009

[Guest Izzie]

Yes but a trade should be contingent on both sides getting what was discussed. If Seymour never shows up then the Raiders did not get what they agreed to trade for, so how can the trade be considered legitimate. Its even worse if he retires or trys to pull some shady crap to end up back on the Pats.

Unfortunately that's between the Raiders, Seymour, and Seymour's agent. The Patriots sent Seymour away, thus completing their part of the deal. Seymour would be ON the Raiders, just on the physically unable to play list or something like it.

[ACCBiggz]

At what point does the league step in and revoke the Seymour trade? Its absolutely ridiculous already and there's no fucking reason the Pats should get to keep that pick if Seymour never shows up, gets suspended and never plays.

That makes virtually no sense, and just comes off as someone who hates the Patriots. The two teams made a deal and the deadline was set by Oakland. Why should New England get punished for Oakland making a bad trade, then they set the deadline and said he could face season-long suspension... Patriots didn't force anyone into this. That's just absurd.

Also, according to numerous sources from what I've heard a lot of this has to do with his wife and kids. School has already started and they are enrolled in the East coast and to have this thrust upon him he has been taking time to take care of home matters... those were just reports though.

Edited September 12, 2009 by ACCBiggz

[Maxx]

How is it absurd? He's completely fucked over a team. Seymour has a contract he's now choosing not to honor and it's completely absurd that he gets off scott free for such behavior. They spent a first round pick on the guy and he's not going to even show up? If Richard Seymour never plays a down for the Raiders they deserve some form of compensation, because stupid trade or not, they aren't getting their end of the deal. You're acting as if they're just out of the blue choosing to suspend the guy. No, he was traded to the team and never reported and that's completely fucked up that they'll lose a first round pick for that. Yeah maybe its stupid to say the league should step in and revoke it but there should absolutely be some time frame in which a trade can be overturned if something like this occurs.

[Guest Izzie]

How is it absurd? He's completely fucked over a team. Seymour has a contract he's now choosing not to honor and it's completely absurd that he gets off scott free for such behavior. They spent a first round pick on the guy and he's not going to even show up? If Richard Seymour never plays a down for the Raiders they deserve some form of compensation, because stupid trade or not, they aren't getting their end of the deal. You're acting as if they're just out of the blue choosing to suspend the guy. No, he was traded to the team and never reported and that's completely fucked up that they'll lose a first round pick for that. Yeah maybe its stupid to say the league should step in and revoke it but there should absolutely be some time frame in which a trade can be overturned if something like this occurs.

The only way I see the league stepping in is by giving the Raiders a compensation pick from whatever team that Seymour signs with next. So, if he signs with the Patriots for the 2011-2012 season, they would get a pick as if he were a RFA even though he was a UFA.

Not sure how they'd make that work.

EDIT: Remember, by not playing this season, Seymour would NOT be a free agent until he played with another team for a year. That could be the Raiders, as they have the rights to him for one more season, or they could trade the rights to Seymour for some sort of compensation next offseason. Hell, they could be working on a deal now.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Izzie

[Lint]

How is it absurd? He's completely fucked over a team. Seymour has a contract he's now choosing not to honor and it's completely absurd that he gets off scott free for such behavior. They spent a first round pick on the guy and he's not going to even show up? If Richard Seymour never plays a down for the Raiders they deserve some form of compensation, because stupid trade or not, they aren't getting their end of the deal. You're acting as if they're just out of the blue choosing to suspend the guy. No, he was traded to the team and never reported and that's completely fucked up that they'll lose a first round pick for that. Yeah maybe its stupid to say the league should step in and revoke it but there should absolutely be some time frame in which a trade can be overturned if something like this occurs.

Thing is, there is precedent for this. A few years ago, the Eagles traded Darwin Walker (I think) to the Bills(?) for Kelly Holcomb and Takeo Spikes if the Bills signed him to a new contract or the Eagles gave the Bills a 6th round draft pick. Walker never reported to the Bills, but since they had his rights they just traded him away..

He was then traded on March 26, 2007 (along with a conditional 2008 draft pick) to the Buffalo Bills for linebacker Takeo Spikes and quarterback Kelly Holcomb. However, there was a proviso to that trade stating that if Walker did not report to Bills training camp by August 5, 2007, he would be returned to the Eagles in exchange for a sixth round draft pick in 2008. He reportedly held out for a contract extension and never reported to Buffalo's training camp that year.

On July 29, 2007, the Buffalo Bills traded Walker's rights to the Chicago Bears in exchange for an undisclosed draft pick in 2008

[ACCBiggz]

No, he was traded to the team and never reported and that's completely fucked up that they'll lose a first round pick for that.

Caveat emptor.

It's not like Bill told him not to go. It's on Oakland, Patriots don't deserved penalized.

Edited September 12, 2009 by ACCBiggz

[Evil Chase K]

According to Adam Schefter's Twitter, Seymour will be reporting and playing on Sunday.

EDIT: Or Monday.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Evil Chase K

[NobBe Nobbs]

No, he was traded to the team and never reported and that's completely fucked up that they'll lose a first round pick for that.

Caveat emptor.

It's not like Bill told him not to go. It's on Oakland, Patriots don't deserved penalized.

I disagree. For one, I don't put it past Belichick and co. to have a quiet word with Seymour reminding him he can always just not show up, but until Seymour shows up and plays for Oakland for me the trade hasn't taken place.

[alldaws1]

It's only the first week and I have a fantasy dilemma already. Matt Ryan at home to the Dolphins or Matt Hasselbeck at home to the Rams? NFL/CBS fantasy experts suggest Hasselbeck.

[Maxx]

That's alot nicer than my dilemma of Carson Palmer or Kyle Orton.

And for the record, Hasselbeck.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Maxx

[Slogger]

I've got two.

Brees (Vs Detroit) or Warner (vs SF)

I'm thinking that Brees doesn't have the receivers that Warner has to throw to, But it's Drew Brees and it is against Detroit.

and either Cutler (vs GB) or Schaub (vs Jets)

Schaub is listed as probable.

to AllDawson - Start Hasselbeck, It's the Rams.

[Szumi]

Brees doesn't have the recievers, but it's Drew Brees. Led the league last year in passing yards, and against Detroit, you know he's going to toss some TDs today too. Brees all the way, especially since Warner's hip may not be fully healed. I don't know what that status is, tbh.

[Meacon Keaton]

Never, ever bench Drew Brees. And how the hell did you get Brees AND Warner? You must really be lacking at another position or two to have gotten both of them.

[Slogger]

Never, ever bench Drew Brees. And how the hell did you get Brees AND Warner? You must really be lacking at another position or two to have gotten both of them.

Small league, I got the jump on them while they were picking replacement receivers.

Drew Brees

Calvin Johnson

Wes Welker

Hines Ward

Maurice Jones-Drew

Brandon Jacobs

Tony Gonzalez

Donald Driver

David Akers

Philly

and 3 Defensive Players

---

Kurt Warner

Santana Moss

Bernard Berrian

Thomas Jones

John Carlson

Dallas

1 Defensive Player

[mystikz]

Drew Brees doesn't need perfect receivers vs Detroit. 2 Td's on 2 fast early possesions.

[ACCBiggz]

Ummm, Brees has a very good receiving corp.

[Meacon Keaton]

Exactly. Just because he isn't throwing to Randy Moss doesn't mean he doesn't have good receivers. Colston, Devrey Henderson, Jeremy Shockey, Bush catching out of the backfield. That's a lot better than some other teams.

[mystikz]

I hate Jake Delhomme. He's already handing the game to the Eagles. No idea why The Panthers couldn't of went out and picked up a good back up to replace him. With guys like Tyler Thigpen and Derek Anderson possibly on the trade block.... I'm just sick of Delhomme fucking up.

[Meacon Keaton]

Yeah, he's absolutely horrible. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Mark Sanchez is looking very impressive so far today.

[Tits McGee]

Because we don't have high draft picks to waste on backup qb's.. we only have 5 for next season.