Bostonian1962
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,096
- Reaction score
- 34
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I am not 'bashing' him I am discussing what he did.
He made almost no plays. To say 'he got penetration' is to try to put a positive spin that isnt quantifiable on a poor perfermance.
I think you have an idea and are trying to pretend reality fits it.
Yesterday's game completely justified that Seymour trade.
He made no plays, he exerted no pressure. If you want to say that he had penetration that resulted in not making plays, go ahead. My point is if the ball is going to the offensive right and the defensive RDT takes an outside path, his penetration is pointless because he is taking himself out of the play and there is no indication he would have gotten that penetration if the play was desgined to block to prevent it.So now you are trying to claim that any mention of penetration is somehow useless?
If you think pointing to a DTs ability to penetrate is akin to some sort of consolation prize cause it didn't result in a highlight reel play -- then you simply don't get it. This isn't a black and white deal. Just because a play doesn't result in a sack doesn't mean that penetration wasn't there. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet doesn't mean it doesn't exist....or that the O-line just sort of let him through...or whatever it was you were previously trying to argue.
The only official way to "quantify" a DTs ability to penetrate is sacks. And at only, what, a dozen a year for even the best of the best - then it's hardly ever going to be quantifiable within a single game. Especially when playing against one of the least sacked QBs in the NFL: Brady. So to say that there is no way to quantify his ability to penetrate does not somehow prove he had a poor game.
You may as well be arguing that DB coverage can only be good unless there are INTs. In reality, that's crap. There is no statistic to "quantify" a DBs ability to cover his man, and make the QB look elsewhere. Same with penetration. It matters. It matters even more than sacks...cause those only happen less than once per game.
Yesterday's game completely justified that Seymour trade.
I am not 'bashing' him I am discussing what he did.
He made almost no plays. To say 'he got penetration' is to try to put a positive spin that isnt quantifiable on a poor perfermance.
He was barely blocked early on, he was constantly getting past the line. He just didn't do it for 4 quarters, not sure how he did nothing and had a poor game.
So now you are trying to claim that any mention of penetration is somehow useless?
If you think pointing to a DTs ability to penetrate is akin to some sort of consolation prize cause it didn't result in a highlight reel play -- then you simply don't get it. This isn't a black and white deal. Just because a play doesn't result in a sack doesn't mean that penetration wasn't there. Just because it doesn't show up on a stat sheet doesn't mean it doesn't exist....or that the O-line just sort of let him through...or whatever it was you were previously trying to argue.
The only official way to "quantify" a DTs ability to penetrate is sacks. And at only, what, a dozen a year for even the best of the best - then it's hardly ever going to be quantifiable within a single game. Especially when playing against one of the least sacked QBs in the NFL: Brady. So to say that there is no way to quantify his ability to penetrate does not somehow prove he had a poor game.
You may as well be arguing that DB coverage can only be good unless there are INTs. In reality, that's crap. There is no statistic to "quantify" a DBs ability to cover his man, and make the QB look elsewhere. Same with penetration. It matters. It matters even more than sacks...cause those only happen less than once per game.
How could my mind be made up a long time ago about how Seymour played on Sunday? No agenda here, just obsevation. Are you disagreeing and saying he played well?The existence of this thread is an agenda at work. Don't expect to convince him, his mind was made up a long time ago, and any evidence, no matter how flimsy and irrational, is apparently going to have a whole thread dedicated to it.
Seymour helped the Patriots more in the game, that at any time during his last 2 years with them.
It is utter folly to evaluate the trade of a very good player based on one game. Sure we all felt good seeing Big Sey self destruct and hand us 1/3rd of a scoring drive and do nothing significant for his team while Wilfork where we spent out cap $ had his 2nd pick. But it's his absence for years vs what we got for however long that makes or breaks the deal. Yesterday was a very nice day for the trade.