ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The problem is not in Givens not being here. It is not that Branch is not here. Both moves looked at as isolated cases are no brainers to let them go.
The problem is when looked at as a whole, our WR moves this off-season came up short. They tried to make some moves like expressing interest in Walker but couldn't pull them off. The result of that was the Pats weren't prepared for Branch to sit out. Then they misjudged Gabriel. As a result, we have a weak WR corp which has a couple solid #3 Wrs and a promising talented rookie who is not ready to contribute.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
You cannot measure Givens' value by the number of catches he had any more than you can measure Daniel Graham that way. Givens was a stud and FAR and away our best blocker on DBs. Nobody on the roster even comes close. They do miss Branch's speed and quickness. Frankly, the receiver with the best chance of creating a vertical presence out there now is Gaffney. I think he has the best chance of developing going into the playoffs. I would love to see Jackson, but I'm afraid it's wait till next year for him.
Givens played very well when he was called on to be the #1 receiver when Branch was out with injuries. Branch did not play well when Givens was not in the lineup. Givens could have been that #1 guy, but the price was high. The fault I have with the Patriots is that they played this all wrong and wound up letting both guys walk with nothing to show for it. Would Caldwell be better receiver with Givens as the #1? The Patriots had the money but wouldn't spend it is the bottom line.
When Branch was out, Givens became like Caldwell, based on the stats. Now, a truly fair comparison can't be made unless you take a look at the differences in the offenses in 2004 to 2006. One had Weis, the other McDaniels.
Now, as for this claim that the Patriots played it all wrong and "LET" both guys go, that is a crock of garbage. The Patriots made MORE THAN FAIR attempts to re-sign both Givens and Branch on several occasions. And both chose the routes they did. Givens did negotiate in good faith, its just that the Titans offered him the possibilty to be something that he's not. And that is a #1 receiver.
As for Branch, Sorry, but they attempted to treat Branch the SAME way they treated Brady and Seymour. Branch felt that he deserved better than Brady and Seymour and didn't want to honor the last year of his rookie contract. Branch refused to negotiate and laid an ultimatum at the feet of the Patriots AFTER the draft. Its my belief that Branch PURPOSELY waited until after the draft to prevent the Pats from trading him at the draft.
I'll make this short and very likely not-so-sweet:
The Patriots offense misses Deion Branch. It does not miss David Givens. I liked Givens. I was happy he got his pay-day - he put in a lot of hard work and he got the $$$ he deserves. But he was what he was - the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR. He's solid. He's a good solid #2/#3 WR. I mean, I guess you can argue that we miss him in the sense that we would miss ANY WR who knows the system (like we miss, I suppose, David Patten), but that is so clearly not the thrust of the posts, articles, punditry that's out there right now. Bottom line: Reche Caldwell has replaced Givens - and that's WITHOUT the benefit of having Branch double-teamed, leaving him open, which is the world Givens operated in.
So let's please stop the LIE that is the coupling of Branch with Givens. It's ridiculous, baseless and silly. Branch was a terrific player, who got an outsized contract - but is CERTAINLY missed. His absence clearly hurts the Patriots in 2006. (We'll leave out the solid compensation we got, which will help in 2007 and beyond.)
I love David Givens, but his absence isn't why the O is struggling. And that contract he got is insane. It's the LAST thing the Pats should've agreed to.
I'll make this even shorter and even less sweet.
You're the one that's delusional, perhaps from drinking too much Koolaid.
You're position that Givens was somehow less valuable because he was the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR is ridiculous. He's exactly the type of player that the F.O. looks for, and what they hope they are getting in Caldwell. A SYSTEM player.
Givens and Branch are coupled together because its rare that a team loses its #1 and #2 receiver in the same offseason, as well as its #4 and #5 receivers. What hasn't changed is that it is clear that the F.O. did not make this association, and that Givens is playing for another team for perfectly good reasons - he's not worth the $$ he's being paid.
I'm not sure where the DELUSIONS and LIES are except in the statement that
a hard working, solid #2 ( not #3) receiver who knows the system is not missed this season. Put him across the field from Caldwell and I guarantee you he'd be leading the team in receptions. Not the tight end.
CAPITALIZING your words does not change this, either. Just trying to help.
.... Branch refused to negotiate and laid an ultimatum at the feet of the Patriots AFTER the draft. Its my belief that Branch PURPOSELY waited until after the draft to prevent the Pats from trading him at the draft.
Hmmm ... that packs a wallop.
Hadn't thought of the chronology like that.
I'll make this short and very likely not-so-sweet:
The Patriots offense misses Deion Branch. It does not miss David Givens. I liked Givens. I was happy he got his pay-day - he put in a lot of hard work and he got the $$$ he deserves. But he was what he was - the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR. He's solid. He's a good solid #2/#3 WR. I mean, I guess you can argue that we miss him in the sense that we would miss ANY WR who knows the system (like we miss, I suppose, David Patten), but that is so clearly not the thrust of the posts, articles, punditry that's out there right now. Bottom line: Reche Caldwell has replaced Givens - and that's WITHOUT the benefit of having Branch double-teamed, leaving him open, which is the world Givens operated in.
So let's please stop the LIE that is the coupling of Branch with Givens. It's ridiculous, baseless and silly. Branch was a terrific player, who got an outsized contract - but is CERTAINLY missed. His absence clearly hurts the Patriots in 2006. (We'll leave out the solid compensation we got, which will help in 2007 and beyond.)
I love David Givens, but his absence isn't why the O is struggling. And that contract he got is insane. It's the LAST thing the Pats should've agreed to.
I pretty much agree with this completely.
The Pats would have liked to sign both of them, but were forced to scramble when Givens got about twice what he's worth, (good for him, he always worked hard).
Branch chose to force his way out of his contract and that hurt because he was a great for for the system and a good receiver all around.
They were not replaceable for one reason.
You can't trade for guys with 4 years experience. That's all.
So we have a little lack of rhythm on offense.
I'll still take that over what's passing for a defense over in Indy.
Its my belief that Branch PURPOSELY waited until after the draft to prevent the Pats from trading him at the draft.
Not buying it.
If the Pats trade for Javon Walker on draft day like they tried to, Branch had zero leverage for his holdout.
A much more likely scenario was that as camp approached, Branch and his agent looked at the state of the Pats WR position and thought (correctly) that his leverage to get a big $ deal from the Pats or a trade to a team that would pay that kind of $ would never be greater.
I'm just glad we had a chance to clear the air and get this all sorted out.
__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me." To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: The David Givens Delusion
Linear Mode
