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?
Poll
Was the Richard Seymour deal worth it?
Yes (21 votes)
No (37 votes)
58 total votes


There are 16 Comments. Add yours. Load Now.
Shortcuts to mastering the comment thread. Use wisely.
C - Next Comment
X - Mark as Read
R - Reply
Z - Mark Read & Next
Shift + C - Previous
Shift + A - Mark All Read
Comment Settings
Live comment alert: Hide it!
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.