Jump to content

Richard Seymour Prepared to Sit Out Season


PatsFanTX

Recommended Posts

Credit to our own RS for finding the article.

I'm sure you folks will have a field day with this. #-o

Seymour no-show as Pats kick off

Source: All-Pro willing to sit out season over contract

As far as football news in the middle of June goes, it was as big as the subject himself: Richard Seymour was AWOL yesterday from the first day of mandatory Patriots mini-camp.

And although there was no official word from the team or the player yesterday as to the whys and why nots, this isn't in the Pedro Martinez 'family business' department -- this is a serious rift, one that could linger longer than anyone wants it to.

Sources close to Seymour told The Standard-Times the Pro Bowl lineman is prepared to sit out the entire season unless his contract is restructured.

Put the whole mess in the category of surprising news that's not really that surprising.

Seymour and agent Roosevelt Barnes have been actively lobbying for the team to tear up the two remaining years on his rookie contract and for the team to sign him to a much more lucrative deal more consistent with other defensive linemen of similar skills and ability.

He is due to make a base salary of $1.12 million in 2005, but reportedly has already reached escalator clauses that would pay him an additional $1.75 million.

That's a good paycheck, but not for a fifth-year All-Pro at one of the NFL's glamour positions. And with the Pats already having restructured the deals of Tom Brady and Corey Dillon, a precedent for rewarding excellence has been set.

With a huge media contingent on hand yesterday for their first full look at the 2005 Pats, coach Bill Belichick played politician at his press conference, answering 'I don't know' to a series of questions about Seymour when he clearly meant I don't want to say.

"He's under contract and he's not here," he said. "That's really the only thing I have to say about it. Anything else, you'll have to ask Richard about it."

Belichick did flash his annoyance with Seymour's absence while running the media gauntlet, though. When asked by a veteran reporter about possible disciplinary action, Belichick chastised him for asking a question that couldn't be answered because of the league's collective bargaining agreement.

But I'd love to, Belichick added with some passion, letting his emotions slip a bit before going back into shutdown mode.

Seymour will likely find the Patriots are willing to live without him, as they showed they were willing to live without Lawyer Milloy in 2003 and were willing to live without Ty Law in 2004.

The Patriots under Belichick have regularly signed their first-round picks to six-year rookie deals risky if the player is a bust, but with huge salary-cap benefits if the player thrives. Seymour has thrived and the Pats are happy, but not in a hurry to pay full price for their bargain.

When Seymour tells his side of the story in the coming days, a story that's sure to be more compelling than Law's embarrassing episode of 2004, Pats fans will likely be split. Sure, he should honor his contract, but what about Brady? What about Dillon? What about other talented young players throughout the league? Why did they get new deals? And if the Pats can release Troy Brown before the lucrative final year of his contract, only to re-sign him for short money, what does that say about the sanctity of an NFL contract?

Fortunately, holdouts rarely last into the regular season, mostly because NFL teams almost never give in to the demands. And if your average NFL team isn't going to bend, the Pats would seem even less likely to do so.

That being said, they also don't want to go into the season without arguably their most talented player. Of the Pats' summer roster, only Willie McGinest (drafted No. 4 overall in 1994) was a higher draft pick than Seymour (No. 6 in 2001), and at 25 with two All-Pro selections under his belt, he's certainly in his prime. Scouts and coaches love him, and everyone agrees he's a physical wonder with a good feel for the game.

Still, you could argue he might be slightly overrated simply because someone's got to get the credit for the Pats remarkably well-balanced defense. He's made two straight All-Pro teams as a defensive tackle, even though he doesn't really play the position anymore. He played less than 20 percent of his 2004 snaps there for the Pats in the 3-4, so calling him a defensive tackle is a bit like calling Jerome Bettis a fullback just because he's built like one.

And his 2004 numbers were remarkably unspectacular. He had five sacks (48th among DLs) and 24 solo tackles (109th), zero passes defensed and one forced fumble. He has to be doing a lot of invisible damage to post those numbers and still carry the reputation he does. Then again, that's the Patriots trademark -- they might not wow you with stats, but they get the job done. The Pats' pass rush and run defense are both excellent, largely due to Seymour occupying so much attention from opposing offensive lines.

If Seymour does sit out the season in a contract dispute -- something that hasn't been done in the NFL since 1998, when Dan Williams did so with Kansas City -- the Pats do have solid depth on the defensive line and several linebackers who can also move down to play defensive end (Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Dan Klecko). But they would be very thin in the middle, where Vince Wilfork and untested Ethan Kelley would be the only true tackles.

Although it's no coincidence the Pats have won three Super Bowls in Seymour's four seasons, it hasn't been all peaches and cream.

In 2003, Seymour was benched for the first quarter of a game for violating team rules -- he was late returning from his grandfather's funeral -- and that move may have started a problem between coach and player that has extended into the front office.

Belichick once said of Seymour, "You'll be looking a long time before you find the next Richard Seymour."

Now, he can only hope he hasn't lost the original.

Jonathan Comey is a columnist for The Standard-Times. E-mail him at jonathancomey@hotmail.com. Standard-Times writer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to discredit this piece, but why does a reporter use a hotmail account? :shock:

With that out of the way, I believe RS would do this. I have said before all the personnel moves over the last few years (Bailey, Wilfork, Warren and HIll) were put in motion for this day.

I am going to miss him, but the world moves on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well. Yes, he is the best defensive player on the Pats - but the contract is what the contract is. Sit the season out and rest. Good for you, Richard.

What do you mean "lose" him? Do you all think he's going to sit out the season? C'mon..... Just you all wait 'till he gets his third ring at the party at the Krafts this coming week. He;ll be there. He'll be all smiles. He'll be ready to buckle on the chin-strap. Trust me on this one.

Remember this gem, Garb???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean "lose" him? Do you all think he's going to sit out the season? C'mon..... Just you all wait 'till he gets his third ring at the party at the Krafts this coming week. He;ll be there. He'll be all smiles. He'll be ready to buckle on the chin-strap. Trust me on this one.

Remember this gem, Garb???

That was actually pretty funny 13. =D>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, you could argue he might be slightly overrated simply because someone's got to get the credit for the Pats remarkably well-balanced defense. He's made two straight All-Pro teams as a defensive tackle, even though he doesn't really play the position anymore. He played less than 20 percent of his 2004 snaps there for the Pats in the 3-4, so calling him a defensive tackle is a bit like calling Jerome Bettis a fullback just because he's built like one.

And his 2004 numbers were remarkably unspectacular. He had five sacks (48th among DLs) and 24 solo tackles (109th), zero passes defensed and one forced fumble. He has to be doing a lot of invisible damage to post those numbers and still carry the reputation he does.

=D>=D>=D>

About time somebody in the media said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...