One of the players not there was DE Richard Seymour.
Seymour is not thrilled about being given the franchise tag and wants a long term contract.
Tom Cable said at mini-camp, that negotiations were ongoing, and I guess that they still are.
This story sounds all too familiar. A very good defensive end comes to a dispute with the team because of his contract.
He (the player) wants more money and years while the front office worries he is aging and won't be as productive and not live up to his new contract.
Anybody remember this?
Derrick Burgess spent four seasons in Oakland (2005-2008.) In that time he compiled 170 tackles with 38.5 sacks.
In 2005-06, he totaled 27 sacks (16 in 2005, 11 in 2006) and after those two years he began to regress.
Despite slumping stats, Burgess felt he deserved a better contract. He was traded after the 2008 season.
Now, I am aware of the differences between Seymour and Burgess.
Seymour was acquired in a trade for a first round draft pick, while Burgess was a free agent pick up.
Seymour has three Super Bowl rings, Burgess has none.
And I'm sure many of you will agree that Seymour is a better player than Burgess.
But the situation is almost the exact same.
Both players want long term contracts and are both aging and unattractive for a long term deal.
Seymour was not as dominant in Oakland as he was in New England. He only had four sacks with the Raiders in 2009.
That stat is most likely Oakland's bargaining chip in these negotiations.
Will the Raiders release Seymour? I hope not, he is a valuable leader and after sacrific...
Article Source: Bleacher Report - Oakland Raiders
