PatsOwl

Was just wondering now that the season is done, what do you think was the best and the worst piece of business the Pats did in '06. Draft picks, trades, players released etc. Just like always, Belichick/Pioli have clearly made some awesome decisions this season (love Gostowski and Caldwell), but perhaps there were some mistakes with hindsight.
So, which 1 piece of business do you think was brilliant, and which do you think was an error?

Halifax_Pats_Fan

Dudes, I am sorry I keep coming back to this crap, but I truely think letting Branch go was a bad call, Reche's numbers were good and he made some nice plays, I just think Brady-Branch had a real good chemistry....

satz

I think the dein branch handling is a good from a FO.Even though everyone acts like their is no cap and i think the handling was a bright spot . Also , no one is talking about the residual effect , alot of other teams were keying in on Dan Koppen and it would have been a ugly bidding war the FO would have lost.Now we are all set.
Can you imagine if they broke the bank and dan gone w/ another position taking a financial cut ?.So i look at dieon incident a bright spot as once the numbers made no sense we salvaged .Instead of the above scenario with a rookie center and inconsitent OL in 07 we got cap / money from paying the seymour+brady bonus and 1 extra No1 . win win win .

__________________
NFL - A perfect american business model .
HarleyDavidson-Turning gas into noise for more than 100 yrs without the side effects of power and still making a tonne of money a great american business model.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PATRIOTS-80

We are in the drivers seat because we re-signed Koppen (starting C). We already have a 1st in the bank for Branch. The team will franchise Samuel. Then things get interesting. Either way the Patriots will come out okay because either we re-sign Samuel to a long-term contract, or we get a 1st round pick.

Hopefully we re-sign Graham, but mark my words, Mike Holmgren wants him bad (and he has Mike Allen's money {co-founder of Microsoft}) to dangle. That Jeremy Stevens guy they got was a bust. Holmgren wanted Graham in '02, but BB traded ahead of him and stole him. Seattle will offer more $$$$$$ than is normal because Holmgren's offense is designed around the TE. The question is what will Graham do?

RayClay

I think the branch situation turned out as well as could be expected. We were 12-4 with gaffney rounding into shape in time for the playoffs.

We've got the 24th pick and a boatload less to pay for the next 5-6 years.

Looks like we might have overpaid for Branch if he'd let us.

My regret is not signing or drafting some young LBs. I don't know if there is a full time starter among TBC and the young FA LBs and neither does anyone else.

If we need 2-3 years to train a starter, we lost one year.

DBs were weak, but Eugene, Tebucky and Gay going down couldn't have been foreseen.

We were stocked at DB preseason, while we had no depth even though the desperation Seau move was better than anyone expected.

__________________

pats60

Just watched america game of pats on nfl greatest team.
What a player Branch was in Pitt championship game.
Two great end of round runs.
Nice 60 yard catch.Gladly give up our #1 for him.
Funny i can`t remember him making a key drop.

Oswlek

While NE certainly may have made an error in not realizing how passionate Branch was in wanting to void the last year on his rookie deal, your key mistake in the above post is the phrasing.

NE did not "let go" of Branch. He was never, ever going to come back to NE unless the final year was voided on the initial offer. Once NE's initial offer kept the final year (which is par for the course, btw, even for guys better than Branch) Branch was gone. The one and only way that Branch might have come back was if NE forced his had by keeping his rights until the 10th game. But that would have been far more destructive.

Again, NE is not without some blame, but they made much bigger errors in the past few years than the Branch fiasco. That is almost entirely on him.

Oswlek

He dropped an easy first down while the Carolina game in 2005 was close.

He dropped an easy TD in the playoff game against the Jags.

He was amazing in 2003 and 2004 as far as catching the ball. 2005 and 2006 were completely different stories, however.

wdkantro2

The problem with the Branch situation is I agree, the team would be a lot better off with him than without him. However, he is NOT worth the money he got, no matter how you put it. We gave him a very good contract offer because we wanted to keep him, but his agent (mainly because Branch is his first major client) turned it down because he wanted to prove that he is a top tier agent. I think without this particular agent, Deion might have taken that offer and still been here. But they both thought (incorrectly) that he should be paid as much as Reggie Wayne, and fortunately for them, one team out there was dumb enough to agree.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

patriotspride

The best move was trading branch.you never let a guy under contract hold a team hostage like he was trying to do.If the pats caved in to branch every player nearing the end of his contract would be pulling the same crap.then you a get a first rounder that's just iceing on the cake good move .worst move was drafting Jackson .hes obviously got some maturity issues.