Raymond

Branch has 12 td's and 132 catches in three years with the hawks.

Sure, I'll be glad to have him back..............if he doesn't mind a contract paying him 30% of what they pay Welker.

Yehoodi

I am not so sure about that, my guess is that both Brady's & Seymour's rookie contracts were 4 year deals as was with David Givens who was Deion's contemporary. I think the problem lies with the fact that both Givens and Branch came in the same year 2002 - Branch received a 5 year rookie deal while Givens only a 4 year rookie deal (it was Branch contention in '06 that he was promised a 4 year deal by the Pats only to find out that when it came time to sign the contract it was 5 yr deal and as a rookie really had no barginning power and had to eat the contract) So when '06 came along, Givens rookie contract was up and was allowed to cash in on the Pats success, whilst Branch was stuck having to play out his 5th rookie year at rookie pay. All Deion wanted was to be treated like Givens, and essentially have a 4 year rookie contract.

Indeed, after '06 the NFL made is a rule that a team CANNOT have a rookie contract longer that 4 years unless the rookie is a first round draft pick. Had deion signed after this rule been in place, he would of had a 4 yr contract and could of left with Givens having giving the same about of time under his rookie contract . . .

Pats726

Why do I keep hearing excuses for scumbags like Branch??? Do you wish to make all rules retroactive?? IF???? I am SURE Branch got money up front in bonus money and OTHER percs that Givens didn't get a sniff out of because he was a late round pick...I think he wanted his cake and eat it too..

Zeus

I always thought Deion was bascially a good guy who took bad advice from a scumbag agent (sorry, I know I'm being redundant there).

But I can pretty well guarantee that if Belichick though Deion could still play and the Patriots could sign Deion on their terms, they would sign him in a heartbeat. What happened in the past is over and done with and there's no point in bearing a grudge when what you are really trying to do is win football games.

I also agree with PatJew that Moss-Branch-Welker (if Deion still has it physically) would be awfully difficult to defend. And I would imagine that Tom Brady feels the same way.

TruthSeeker

So where do you draw the line, i.e. what's acceptable behavior in your mind as far as getting money goes? Is it murder? How about kidnapping? Perhaps you draw it at embezzling? Clearly you find breaking a legal contract acceptable if it means more bucks.

Don't be surprised that there are a lot of fans out there that think it is both legally and morally wrong to break your contract (particularly the way that Deion did it). No, not everyone would do it. There are lots of people who believe that their word and their honor are more important than more money (particularly when they're already going to be set for life).

DaBruinz

First of all, Brady had a 3 year deal and Seymour a 6 year deal. In Both cases, the last year of the rookie contract stayed in place. In other words, they got the salary that their rookie contracts called for. They got the signing bonus of the extension, but no new salary. Its fact. I know what Branch's "contention" is and I believe it was a lie. Just like he lied about the fact that he would honor his contract.

Branch was not "stuck" having to play out the 5th year of his contract at "rookie pay". Branch's contract would have paid him very decently. Also, the Patriots had sent him several contract offers in an attempt to bargain in good faith. Branch would have gotten his signing bonus money from the Pats had he signed an extension.

Why should Branch be treated like David Givens? Givens had only received a 4 year deal because he was a 7th round pick. Not a 2nd round pick like Branch. To have torn up the last year of his rookie contract would have upset Brady and Seymour. Two players who meant more to the Patriots than Branch did.

As you so conveniently pointed out, it didn't go into affect until AFTER the 2006 season. So, its a moot point and has no bearing on the Branch situation.