Pats steal a draft pick from Al Davis in his sleep - Page 5

Cap Ologist · 09-09-2009, 02:08 PM

I just traded an old overhead projector I found in a closet at my school for the Raider's 2012 1st round pick. Unfortunately, the overhead projector is refusing to report and keeps burning out it's light bulb so it can't pass it's physical.

JAG · 09-09-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

I just traded an old overhead projector I found in a closet at my school for the Raider's 2012 1st round pick. Unfortunately, the overhead projector is refusing to report and keeps burning out it's light bulb so it can't pass it's physical.

See if you can throw in some fluorescent bulbs.

Atocep · 09-09-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

I just traded an old overhead projector I found in a closet at my school for the Raider's 2012 1st round pick. Unfortunately, the overhead projector is refusing to report and keeps burning out it's light bulb so it can't pass it's physical.

I'll give you a .5 credit here but I'll need to see a larger body of work before I assign you an actual percentage.

Lathum · 09-09-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

I just traded an old overhead projector I found in a closet at my school for the Raider's 2012 1st round pick. Unfortunately, the overhead projector is refusing to report and keeps burning out it's light bulb so it can't pass it's physical.

that bulb burning out is just bad luck.

The past 50 years that projector has worked great.

stevew · 09-09-2009, 07:06 PM

I don't believe that "failure to report for a physical" doesn't void a trade. But "failing a physical" may. Not that I'm sad to see the Faiders get ripped off and humiliated simultaneously.

jeff061 · 09-09-2009, 07:36 PM

I read failing to report does void a trade, but gives the Pats the often to bench him for the year and have it not count against his contract. So he'd be in the same situation next year. Just older and without a year of pay.

JediKooter · 09-09-2009, 07:57 PM

I think this version of the Raiders is better than the real one...

stevew · 09-09-2009, 08:03 PM

People with more credibility than Florio are reporting this is the Raiders problem. Most likely the morons in their front office didn't attach any stipulations to the deal.

I don't even think they can recoup bonus money since it was option/roster type.

More important than anything is that NE has recycled their front 7 now and not lost very much.

Munkie · 10-02-2009, 12:07 AM

Sorry for the necro-dredging of the post, however I am new to the forums, and this came up in a search for an NFL roster.

While the Raiders have struggled on offense, fast forward approx. 4 weeks and Seymour has been far from a bust. He is tied for 7th in the league for sacks, and has been a force to contend with.

Where he lands after seasons end is another question, however right now he has been a strong contributor to the Raiders 10th ranked defense.

Just some post start of the season perspective.

Munkie!

TroyF · 10-02-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munkie

Sorry for the necro-dredging of the post, however I am new to the forums, and this came up in a search for an NFL roster.

While the Raiders have struggled on offense, fast forward approx. 4 weeks and Seymour has been far from a bust. He is tied for 7th in the league for sacks, and has been a force to contend with.

Where he lands after seasons end is another question, however right now he has been a strong contributor to the Raiders 10th ranked defense.

Just some post start of the season perspective.

Munkie!

What statistics are you looking at?

The Raiders are tied for 15th in scoring defense. They are 14th in passing yards per game allowed and 28th in rush defense allowed for an overall 23rd in yards allowed. They are 24th in first downs given up and 15th in third downs against.

I'm struggling to find where the 10th based D is.

The trade is bad now and will be bad two years from now. If anyone should have given up a first round pick for him, it should have been a contending team looking for that one guy who could lift them over the edge. The Raiders need a QB, offensive line, WR, ownership, DL, and LB core. At least the kicking and DB's are ok, right?

RainMaker · 10-02-2009, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munkie

Sorry for the necro-dredging of the post, however I am new to the forums, and this came up in a search for an NFL roster.

While the Raiders have struggled on offense, fast forward approx. 4 weeks and Seymour has been far from a bust. He is tied for 7th in the league for sacks, and has been a force to contend with.

Where he lands after seasons end is another question, however right now he has been a strong contributor to the Raiders 10th ranked defense.

Just some post start of the season perspective.

Munkie!

The trade is bad because the Raiders are rebuilding and weren't going to win anything with or without Seymour. The first round pick has much more value than an aging lineman who will be washed up by the time the Raiders are ready to compete.

Danny · 10-02-2009, 12:49 AM

Yes, a contending team trading that 1st to help make deep playoff/superbowl run would have been a fine trade. But for the Raiders, terrible trade.

bhlloy · 10-02-2009, 12:52 AM

I think if the organization/Davis was smart enough to bench Russell and keep a veteran around this could still be a playoff team on the strength of the defense. Not convinced about anyone else in the West.

Jeff Garcia is available I think. Wonder if he will come back

09-09-2009, 07:36 PM	#206
jeff061 Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: MA	I read failing to report does void a trade, but gives the Pats the often to bench him for the year and have it not count against his contract. So he'd be in the same situation next year. Just older and without a year of pay. __________________

09-09-2009, 02:08 PM	#201
Cap Ologist College Prospect Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Flower Mound, TX	I just traded an old overhead projector I found in a closet at my school for the Raider's 2012 1st round pick. Unfortunately, the overhead projector is refusing to report and keeps burning out it's light bulb so it can't pass it's physical.

09-09-2009, 07:06 PM	#205
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	I don't believe that "failure to report for a physical" doesn't void a trade. But "failing a physical" may. Not that I'm sad to see the Faiders get ripped off and humiliated simultaneously.

09-09-2009, 08:03 PM	#208
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	People with more credibility than Florio are reporting this is the Raiders problem. Most likely the morons in their front office didn't attach any stipulations to the deal. I don't even think they can recoup bonus money since it was option/roster type. More important than anything is that NE has recycled their front 7 now and not lost very much.

10-02-2009, 12:07 AM	#209
Munkie n00b Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Connecitcut, USA	Sorry for the necro-dredging of the post, however I am new to the forums, and this came up in a search for an NFL roster. While the Raiders have struggled on offense, fast forward approx. 4 weeks and Seymour has been far from a bust. He is tied for 7th in the league for sacks, and has been a force to contend with. Where he lands after seasons end is another question, however right now he has been a strong contributor to the Raiders 10th ranked defense. Just some post start of the season perspective. Munkie!

10-02-2009, 12:49 AM	#212
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	Yes, a contending team trading that 1st to help make deep playoff/superbowl run would have been a fine trade. But for the Raiders, terrible trade.

10-02-2009, 12:52 AM	#213
bhlloy Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003	I think if the organization/Davis was smart enough to bench Russell and keep a veteran around this could still be a playoff team on the strength of the defense. Not convinced about anyone else in the West. Jeff Garcia is available I think. Wonder if he will come back

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)