I'm going to mostly leave the discussion to the nation, but I'll start it with this thesis:
I'm going to say no because of the alternatives. We gave up the 17th pick in 2011 for Seymour, who will likely be gone after this season. That is only 4 years of inconsistent, injury-plagued play for a first rounder that could have been a cornerstone. Some of you will say leadership, but at what cost? The penalties, the too dirty hits (believe me, as a Raider fan, I love a bell ringer), and more. Yes, the defense does reflect Seymour, and it really would be much better if it reflected Tyvon Branch instead, a guy who works hard, grinds, and plays to the whistle.
I wish if Al decided to do this, he threw away more picks too, to grab Vince Wilfork instead. The defense would look way different with #75 out there. Of course, more picks would have likely costed us Stefan Wisnewski too, and the better alternative looking back would have been to keep #17 and select Phil Taylor, the nose tackle from Baylor.
Hindsight is 20/20 though, so discuss nation...Was the Seymour deal worth it?
Was the Richard Seymour deal worth it?
Yes (21 votes)
No (37 votes)
58 total votes