Richard Seymour...

[mvbighead]

Now, I normally don't get too interested in FA, but it seems like this guy could be a sizable upgrade over, say, Heard or Guy.

 

I realize he is looking for "the right" deal, but a defensive line where we have Seymour playing opposite Redding?  WOWZA.  If Chapman is what they think he is, we could have a truly special front 3.  

 

I realize the man is 33, but with Redding being 32, I don't see a whole lot of difference.  Granted, he may be looking for too much, but I'd definitely kick the tires as he has been one heck of a play maker.

 

Bring along Hughes slowly behind Redding, spelling him for whatever packages.  You have Redding with Mathews or whomever behind him.  Chapman, McKinney, and Franklin available at nose.  I dunno, but it just seems intriguing.

[CR91]

Too old and we already have rjf to play opposite redding

[mvbighead]

Ah, how did I forget that one.

 

As for too old... I'd simply disagree.  If Seymour is too old, Redding is too old.

[Colts_Fan12]

I like RJF and they could bring up Hughes to replace Redding and have RJF Chapman and Hughes

[jamesie jr]

That would be scary good. And he would prove to be a mentor for someone like Hughes. Learning off of Redding and Seymour. Only problem is RJF got payed a lot and Seymour for the talent he could provide would want a paycheck to represent his ability. So i doubt we would go for him but it would be nice.

[mvbighead]

I like RJF and they could bring up Hughes to replace Redding and have RJF Chapman and Hughes

 

The only thing I will say here is depth.  Depth is important, especially when you look at what these guys are doing.

 

I am not so much concerned with the 3 starters.  I am concerned with the whole package.  If we were to add Seymour for this season, and maybe a second, he and Redding could be quite the force up front.  Mix in RJF and Hughes, and rotate through NTs, and you have one heckuva group up front.  I dunno, but to me, Seymour, while older, can play the Ngata DE role.  He did some very impressive things for NE, and was a good leader and player for Oakland.

 

I am just thinking in terms of having a solid group of 6-7 guys for 3 positions all through the 2013 season.  Chapman and Hughes should come along nicely.  Redding and Seymour would probably be among our most powerful DEs.  And RJF can be thrown around early and often.  Just seems like it'd be one heck of a group.

[mvbighead]

That would be scary good. And he would prove to be a mentor for someone like Hughes. Learning off of Redding and Seymour. Only problem is RJF got payed a lot and Seymour for the talent he could provide would want a paycheck to represent his ability. So i doubt we would go for him but it would be nice.

 

Yep, that would be the problem.  I still would figure they could sign Seymour within our current space for a season or two.  That's a group of 5-7 guys that if we lost one for any period of time would be no problem.

[John Dee]

I have been banging the drum for Seymour all the way up to FA signing day.       But it didn't happen.

 

But Seymour has been very productive outside of his NE days.     I would love to see RS in a Colt uni.

 

Also a lot of speculation he will end up in Atlanta.     

[southwest1]

I have been banging the drum for Seymour all the way up to FA signing day.       But it didn't happen.

 

But Seymour has been very productive outside of his NE days.     I would love to see RS in a Colt uni.

 

Also a lot of speculation he will end up in Atlanta.     

You do make a great point John Dee. Richard Seymour has been a solid player in Oakland & he does deserve to exit with a good NFL team like INDY. Forget Atlanta. Going to the Raiders is like going to the federal pen. Give the guy time served for good behavior & early parole to a decent NFL team & city. I'd like to see him go out on top personally. Well said John! Well said. 

[John Dee]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SeymRi00.htm

 

Seymour's career stats...    he has NOT fallen off one bit.

[Nobody]

Ah, how did I forget that one.

As for too old... I'd simply disagree. If Seymour is too old, Redding is too old.

By that logic all of our WRs can be just older than Wayne, and all our QBs can be just older than Hasselbeck.

[ColtJ82]

Knees are shot

[Superman]

Yep, that would be the problem.  I still would figure they could sign Seymour within our current space for a season or two.  That's a group of 5-7 guys that if we lost one for any period of time would be no problem.

 

I think we have a nice potential rotation along the defensive line right now. I'm not turning my nose up at Seymour, assuming he's healthy. I just don't see him as an upgrade over any of the top five or six guys. Yes, he's probably better than Heard or Guy, but I don't see those guys making the final roster anyways. If we suffered an injury to someone critical to our defense, then I'd consider Seymour.

[John Dee]

hmmm... 

 

Seymour would not be an upgrade over who?  

 

He made the Pro Bowl in 2010 and 2011 playing for a horrible Raider team.    Last season he played 8 games with 3 sacks and then suffered a season ending injury.   All Pro in 2011......    

 

He is better than every lineman Indy has excluding Mathis and Werner (Maybe). 

I think we have a nice potential rotation along the defensive line right now. I'm not turning my nose up at Seymour, assuming he's healthy. I just don't see him as an upgrade over any of the top five or six guys. Yes, he's probably better than Heard or Guy, but I don't see those guys making the final roster anyways. If we suffered an injury to someone critical to our defense, then I'd consider Seymour.

[mvbighead]

By that logic all of our WRs can be just older than Wayne, and all our QBs can be just older than Hasselbeck.

 

Never said Hasselbeck wasn't too old.  Hasselbeck was never an elite talent like Manning anyhow.  Manning can play into late 30s/early 40s.  Hasselbeck at this point is a backup on any roster.

 

As for Wayne, well, he still dominates.  I'd like to think that next year, his skills will diminish a minute amount, but he'll still be a threat.

 

In any case, at 33, Seymour likely has a good 2-3 three years left.  He's pretty much the same age as Justin Smith, who has long been regarded as one of the best 3-4 DEs in the game.

 

Like I said, if we consider Seymour too old, what the heck do we consider Redding?  Do we cut ties ASAP when the next season starts?  I don't think so.  Eventually his skills will diminish too much to be worth it, but at this point, he's still better than everyone we have aside from maybe Redding.

 

I like our youth, but I still think Seymour could be an option.

[Superman]

hmmm... 

 

Seymour would not be an upgrade over who?  

 

He made the Pro Bowl in 2010 and 2011 playing for a horrible Raider team.    Last season he played 8 games with 3 sacks and then suffered a season ending injury.   All Pro in 2011......    

 

He is better than every lineman Indy has excluding Mathis and Werner (Maybe). 

 

I don't count Mathis and Werner among our linemen. Semantics.

 

He didn't finish the season last year due to leg problems. He'll be 34 this season. I'm not sure he's as good now as he was two or three years ago.

 

His experience makes him valuable in comparison with our young guys, but we're not going to give their spots away for a guy who would be a stopgap. He's a three/five tech, so he would be in competition with Nevis, Mathews, RJF and Hughes. He's marginally better than Redding, but that's technically a different position. He's better than Moala, but Moala isn't one of the top guys I was referring to. Moala might not ever play for us again. So I think Seymour would take Moala's spot on the roster. That's fine.

 

And that's all assuming he's healthy, and I don't think anyone knows whether he is. 

 

I think we should balance our current roster status against future projections. And that makes it hard to argue for adding Seymour in place of one of the guys that we're all projecting should make the roster. I think our top eight linemen competing for roster spots are Redding, Chapman, Franklin, RJF, Mathews, Hughes, Chapman, and Tevaseu. I like Mathews, but would probably take Seymour in place of him, if he's healthy and still playing well. But I think we'll only keep seven linemen, so...

[Superman]

Never said Hasselbeck wasn't too old.  Hasselbeck was never an elite talent like Manning anyhow.  Manning can play into late 30s/early 40s.  Hasselbeck at this point is a backup on any roster.

 

As for Wayne, well, he still dominates.  I'd like to think that next year, his skills will diminish a minute amount, but he'll still be a threat.

 

In any case, at 33, Seymour likely has a good 2-3 three years left.  He's pretty much the same age as Justin Smith, who has long been regarded as one of the best 3-4 DEs in the game.

 

Like I said, if we consider Seymour too old, what the heck do we consider Redding?  Do we cut ties ASAP when the next season starts?  I don't think so.  Eventually his skills will diminish too much to be worth it, but at this point, he's still better than everyone we have aside from maybe Redding.

 

I like our youth, but I still think Seymour could be an option.

 

Is Seymour healthy?

[mvbighead]

Is Seymour healthy?

 

It sure seems like it.  Rumour is that the hold up is he is not looking to just get a simple paycheck, but wants to be paid according to his abilities.  I'd guess that puts him around the Justin Smith mark at just under 6mil per season.  If he could be had for 4-5, I'd say why the heck not.

[mvbighead]

Also, to me, Tevaseu and Franklin are more or less stop gaps.  I think Seymour would actually be more useful than either.

 

To me, there probably at least 2-3 guys who are gone after this season, so if Seymour were to replace one of them, oh well.  I'm just looking at this team as one that can still see the post-season, and perhaps improve on their post season success.  If you can help them without handicapping the team in the future, why not?

 

To me, if you give Seymour 50% of the defensive snap count and rotate him with RJF and Hughes, that's a pretty solid looking group.  I'd like to think you could move RJF around, and use Hughes primarily in short yardage downs.  To me, there is something to be said for having a handful of quality defensive linemen.  The more you have, the fresher they'll be week after week, and hopefully into and through the post season.  Stamina is not likely to be easy for 300lb+ men, so having a good group is key.

[Superman]

Also, to me, Tevaseu and Franklin are more or less stop gaps.  I think Seymour would actually be more useful than either.

 

To me, there probably at least 2-3 guys who are gone after this season, so if Seymour were to replace one of them, oh well.  I'm just looking at this team as one that can still see the post-season, and perhaps improve on their post season success.  If you can help them without handicapping the team in the future, why not?

 

To me, if you give Seymour 50% of the defensive snap count and rotate him with RJF and Hughes, that's a pretty solid looking group.  I'd like to think you could move RJF around, and use Hughes primarily in short yardage downs.  To me, there is something to be said for having a handful of quality defensive linemen.  The more you have, the fresher they'll be week after week, and hopefully into and through the post season.  Stamina is not likely to be easy for 300lb+ men, so having a good group is key.

 

Seymour isn't a nose tackle. It's a completely different position. We're a lot younger and have a lot of future potential at Seymour's position.

 

We could fit him in if we wanted, but I really kind of like what we have already. Of course, it's not even preseason yet. We might not be as good as I hope we are. We might suffer injuries.

[Superman]

It sure seems like it.  Rumour is that the hold up is he is not looking to just get a simple paycheck, but wants to be paid according to his abilities.  I'd guess that puts him around the Justin Smith mark at just under 6mil per season.  If he could be had for 4-5, I'd say why the heck not.

 

Even healthy, I wouldn't want to pay him that much. I think the Niners went too high with Justin Smith, JMO.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000214574/article/richard-seymour-ready-to-retire-without-right-deal

 

No mention of health issues there. I think the team that most needs him would be the Saints. He'd help their transition to the 3-4 dramatically. But they're tight on cap space.

[The Peytonator]

I don't count Mathis and Werner among our linemen. Semantics.

 

He didn't finish the season last year due to leg problems. He'll be 34 this season. I'm not sure he's as good now as he was two or three years ago.

 

His experience makes him valuable in comparison with our young guys, but we're not going to give their spots away for a guy who would be a stopgap. He's a three/five tech, so he would be in competition with Nevis, Mathews, RJF and Hughes. He's marginally better than Redding, but that's technically a different position. He's better than Moala, but Moala isn't one of the top guys I was referring to. Moala might not ever play for us again. So I think Seymour would take Moala's spot on the roster. That's fine.

 

And that's all assuming he's healthy, and I don't think anyone knows whether he is. 

 

I think we should balance our current roster status against future projections. And that makes it hard to argue for adding Seymour in place of one of the guys that we're all projecting should make the roster. I think our top eight linemen competing for roster spots are Redding, Chapman, Franklin, RJF, Mathews, Hughes, Chapman, and Tevaseu. I like Mathews, but would probably take Seymour in place of him, if he's healthy and still playing well. But I think we'll only keep seven linemen, so...

 

Well you can take one of the Chapman's off your list, so that keeps us at 7. I'm not big on Tevaseu and I think you really only need two NTs; Chapman and Franklin. A five man DE rotation of Seymour, Redding, RJF, Nevis, and Hughes sounds pretty good to me. I do agree Seymour would be something of a stop-gap, but I think you're underrating him quite a bit. He is way better than Redding who is also a stop-gap.

 

At a fair, 2 year deal, I'd love to have him, but I'm also cool with giving Lawrence Guy his fair shake. I really liked what I saw from him in his limited reps and you never really know what you have until they're given a shot.

[Superman]

Well you can take one of the Chapman's off your list, so that keeps us at 7. I'm not big on Tevaseu and I think you really only need two NTs; Chapman and Franklin. A five man DE rotation of Seymour, Redding, RJF, Nevis, and Hughes sounds pretty good to me. I do agree Seymour would be something of a stop-gap, but I think you're underrating him quite a bit. He is way better than Redding who is also a stop-gap.

 

At a fair, 2 year deal, I'd love to have him, but I'm also cool with giving Lawrence Guy his fair shake. I really liked what I saw from him in his limited reps and you never really know what you have until they're given a shot.

 

You know what they say: Why have just one Chapman when you can have two??

 

My bad. Good catch. I meant McKinney, assuming he's healthy.

[The Peytonator]

You know what they say: Why have just one Chapman when you can have two??

 

My bad. Good catch. I meant McKinney, assuming he's healthy.

 

 

Two Chapman's would be nice, assuming the first one pans out.

[NewColtsFan]

I'm late to this party, but I have several thoughts to share....

 

Why the interest in Seymour now?     Why the need for him in late June when we didn't seem to clamor for him in March when he became a free agent?

 

So....

 

Let's say in March,  that Grigson called and enquired (not likely, too old)  and was told how much $$$ Seymour wanted and we passed.

 

We haven't lost any DL of any type to an injury or other reason since then,  and we have less money to spend,  why should we have greater interest in him now?

 

And if your argument is that it's late in the off-season and maybe his price has come down,  I'd say the odds are that is just not true.  He's from Georgia.   He went to school there.    His hometown NFL team (Atlanta)  just tried to sign him and he didn't like the $$$ being offered and so he turned down his hometown teach which is a legitimate Super Bowl contender!

 

To me that says he's much more dollar driven than he is looking for a shot at another Super Bowl.   If a SB was important to him, then signing with Atlanta was the move to make.    He passed.   He turned down Atlanta,  they didn't turn him down.

 

I don't see Seymour as a 'fit' for our culture and what we're trying to build.

 

Sorry,  but I like him and would be interested in him at the right price, but it feels like that ship was never in our harbor to begin with and isn't ever going to dock there....    (if you follow the metaphor...)

[mvbighead]

I'm late to this party, but I have several thoughts to share....

 

Why the interest in Seymour now?     Why the need for him in late June when we didn't seem to clamor for him in March when he became a free agent?

 

So....

 

Let's say in March,  that Grigson called and enquired (not likely, too old)  and was told how much $$$ Seymour wanted and we passed.

 

We haven't lost any DL of any type to an injury or other reason since then,  and we have less money to spend,  why should we have greater interest in him now?

 

And if your argument is that it's late in the off-season and maybe his price has come down,  I'd say the odds are that is just not true.  He's from Georgia.   He went to school there.    His hometown NFL team (Atlanta)  just tried to sign him and he didn't like the $$$ being offered and so he turned down his hometown teach which is a legitimate Super Bowl contender!

 

To me that says he's much more dollar driven than he is looking for a shot at another Super Bowl.   If a SB was important to him, then signing with Atlanta was the move to make.    He passed.   He turned down Atlanta,  they didn't turn him down.

 

I don't see Seymour as a 'fit' for our culture and what we're trying to build.

 

Sorry,  but I like him and would be interested in him at the right price, but it feels like that ship was never in our harbor to begin with and isn't ever going to dock there....    (if you follow the metaphor...)

 

Again, if Seymour is too old, that means we're cutting ties with Redding next year.  Personally, I don't see that.  Redding is still one of our figure heads on defense, and even the Ravens have gone on to say that we was sorely missed after he came up to Indy.  I think Redding has at least a few years left.  Which would mean Seymour has at least two.  I swear, people see a number over 30 and all of a sudden the guy is a lost cause.  No 3-4 DE is a speed guy.  Strength doesn't diminish that quickly.  It simply doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

As for why the interest now?  Because it's late enough in the game that maybe his price tag dropped enough to make it feasible.

 

As for being a fit?  Seymour has been a winner with the Patriots.  He was a leader with the Raiders.  How that doesn't fit our culture, I simply don't know.

 

The only question is the $$$.  If he wants too much, no sir.  But the way these deals have gone out lately, I'd like to think we find a way to get him for a year or two.

 

My only point here, is that a 3-4 team is largely impacted by the DE position.  Having 4-5 quality DEs makes a world of difference:

Redding

Seymour

RJF

Hughes

AND?

 

There is no question in my mind that Seymour would make this team better.  The only issue is $$$.

[Dustin]

The problem with Seymour is that not only would he have to agree to a small contract, but he'd have to agree to be a 2nd string player who only got rotational snaps. Though he could definitely start over Redding, I just don't see it happening if he were to be signed. 

[NewColtsFan]

 

 

As for why the interest now?  Because it's late enough in the game that maybe his price tag dropped enough to make it feasible.

 

As for being a fit?  Seymour has been a winner with the Patriots.  He was a leader with the Raiders.  How that doesn't fit our culture, I simply don't know.

 

The only question is the $$$.  If he wants too much, no sir.  But the way these deals have gone out lately, I'd like to think we find a way to get him for a year or two.

 

My only point here, is that a 3-4 team is largely impacted by the DE position.  Having 4-5 quality DEs makes a world of difference:

Redding

Seymour

RJF

Hughes

AND?

 

There is no question in my mind that Seymour would make this team better.  The only issue is $$$.

 

He just turned down Atlanta.   His hometown team who wanted to sign him.

 

Clearly not enough money.   So, it doesn't look like he's dropping his asking price.    I don't see Seymour -- who I like, by the way -- as someone who's going to give the Colts a discount when he didn't give the Falcons a discount.

 

Sorry,  I don't see it.

 

One last thought.....   as to your comment about over 30....  I think we've signed roughly 10-12 players this off-season,  and off the top of my head the only one who was over 30 was Matt Hasselbeck.   So, clearly Grigson has an aversion to it if he has a choice.    He didn't last year, so he signed guys like Redding, who is playing very well for us and is clearly a team leader.

 

But when he has options,  Grigson rarely pays for over-30.   Just an observation.

[Superman]

 

One last thought.....   as to your comment about over 30....  I think we've signed roughly 10-12 players this off-season,  and off the top of my head the only one who was over 30 was Matt Hasselbeck.   

 

Aubrayo Franklin is 32. But he signed a small one year deal. Sounds like Richard Seymour isn't interested in that.

[NewColtsFan]

Aubrayo Franklin is 32. But he signed a small one year deal. Sounds like Richard Seymour isn't interested in that.

 

Thanks!    Glad your memory is better than mine!!  (not hard to do!)

 

And it does seem like Seymour is not interested in anything like that.

 

I thought signing with the Falcons seemed like a natural fit for him.   And a shot at a possible deep run in the playoffs.....

 

But no.....     Go figure....           

[mvbighead]

He just turned down Atlanta.   His hometown team who wanted to sign him.

 

Clearly not enough money.   So, it doesn't look like he's dropping his asking price.    I don't see Seymour -- who I like, by the way -- as someone who's going to give the Colts a discount when he didn't give the Falcons a discount.

 

Sorry,  I don't see it.

 

One last thought.....   as to your comment about over 30....  I think we've signed roughly 10-12 players this off-season,  and off the top of my head the only one who was over 30 was Matt Hasselbeck.   So, clearly Grigson has an aversion to it if he has a choice.    He didn't last year, so he signed guys like Redding, who is playing very well for us and is clearly a team leader.

 

But when he has options,  Grigson rarely pays for over-30.   Just an observation.

 

Honestly, there is no telling what the objection is.  Money seems likely, but it could be scheme or role.  Some guys want to be a starter.  Perhaps they weren't offering that.  Perhaps they only want to use him for 30% of the snaps.  I dunno, but simply because he didn't sign for a home team, I am not going to say... well, they didn't pay enough.

 

As for age and aversion to it.  Of course you want younger guys to build your system around.  Younger guys give you building blocks for the future.  My plain point is that the DE position already has the younger guys we need, but could still use more talent.  Veteran talent or youthful talent, either way.  RJF should be a solid contributor, but I he hasn't been that much of a player in SF, so it may take time.  Seymour has been at the top, and could definitely help.

 

Grigson signs guys who can help this team.  I see Seymour as that.  The only question, is money and perhaps how he fits with the rest of our guys.  But otherwise, the talent is not really in question, and age isn't a problem, yet.