patsox23

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.

Pujo

The only thing I can say about Givens is we would probably trade any of our receivers for him in a hearbeat, so in that sense we miss him. Just because he wasn't as good as Branch doesn't mean he wasn't good.

MDD

Not so fast -

I wouldn't trade Caldwell or C. Jackson for Givens.

Going beyond those two it's an unfair comparison, since Givens is a #2.

Pujo

I'd take Givens over Caldwell. Jackson is a tough call - Givens would be more productive now, but we don't know Jackson's potential yet.

And it doesn't matter whether a receiver is a #1, #2, or #5 in the context of this thread, I'd still take Givens as a #2 over Gaffney as a #4.

Mungo

noway caldwell would have had the game givens had vs. Pitt last year. 2nd givens could stretch extra yards, he had pipes for arms. caldwell, well he just sometimes flat out hits the deck after a reception. This is what I see on tv.

BelichickFan

I'd trade Caldwell & Jackson for Givens if the money weren't an issue. Given their current salaries, I wouldn't trade either one for him.

patsox23

In what way could anyone possibly read my initial post and come out with the idea that I was saying "because he's not as good as Deion, he's not good at all?"

PLEASE READ THE POST and don't muddy the thread with non sequiturs.

patsox23

The point of the thread is that people saying "They let Givens and Branch go and didn't do anything to replace them" is ridiculous. They DID replace Givens, and at a fraction of the cost. Branch is a totally legit "loss," but Givens is not since he's been ably replaced by Caldwell.

Can we please try to stay on point?

AzPatsFan

But nowhere near $5 million a year good...

TeamPats

I think you guys are missing Patsox23's point, a WR must be graded via productivity and the price you pay for that productivity. No one here is going to deny Givens or Branch's production but you MUST take into account that that production will come at an enromous cost. Caldwell is a steal right now and is giving us production at a low cost. Compared to what it would have cost to retain Givens, Caldwell wins hands down.

As for Branch, Patsox is right, he was a great asset but his price got too high and that cannot be ignored.

__________________
In front of his team after a 28-10 loss to the Packers in 2002, Belichick said: "We have a lot of smart guys in this room, but on the football field we play like a bunch of f------- morons. If you are one of the players flinching at the harshness of these words, you might as well begin packing. There is no way you are going to last as a New England Patriot."