Catching up with Branch: interesting audio

[emoney_33]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

BB got lucky that he worked out so well.

lucky that Gaffney worked out and stupid for gambling on Branch playing out his contract... nice.

The contract, no. Branch was not worth the cash he wanted and getting a #1 for him was excellent. They were not proactive enough in addressing the talent level at the WR position. See Moss and Welker in 2007. That was proactive. They learned.

Of course you just sit there and assume that a Moss or Welker was available in 2006. So what should they have done EXACTLY in 2006? Would your plan have hindered them from getting/paying Moss/Welker in 2007. Would your smarter-than-BB plan have made the 2006 team better while making the 07, 08, 09, etc.. teams worse?

 

[sg14]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

The word on the street in Seattle is none of these WRs can get open, maybe Burleson, so Branch is definitely a goner.

Haselback has had alot of interceptions, but folks like Millen don't lay too much blame at his feet.

What an awful interview on the radio. Houshmandzadeh, Branch, and Burleson were all unprofessional, defensive and ****y about their 5-10 team. They shouldn't have aired their argument with Hugh Millen about arguing with Houshmandzadeh about how Millen said he can't beat man to man coverage, while Houshmandzadeh says he was double-teamed, and Branch telling everyone he's the only one on the team that has had success and won 2 super bowls. Imagine if that happened here... on WEEI or 98.5... if the Pats were having a sub-.500 team, Zolak was criticizing the team, and Moss and Welker going a radio show defending and arguing with Zolak that he doesn't understand the plays being called. What a joke.

They might have well called out their coaches and Hasselbeck while they were at it.

 

[klinefan]

Interesting that they were talking to Hugh Millen. He's a former Pats QB back in the early 90s. I thought he was pretty good, but he didn't play long.

His wife was the head cheerleader or something.

Age has apparently caught up with Branch-aroo. So much for getting him here for that old chemistry as someone wanted to do. Age and injuries are merciless.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

lucky that Gaffney worked out and stupid for gambling on Branch playing out his contract... nice.

Huh? Gaffney was out of football after being cut by Houston. It's wasn't like he was a blue-chip, 12:01AM signing.

Never said BB was stupid. He miscalculated Branch's resolve and wasn't proactive enough in replacing the talent at WR.

Of course you just sit there and assume that a Moss or Welker was available in 2006.

And you can sit there and safely assume that quality, veteran WRs wern't available for reasonable dollars via trade or FA from February to the start of TC in 06? C'mon.

So what should they have done EXACTLY in 2006? Would your plan have hindered them from getting/paying Moss/Welker in 2007. Would your smarter-than-BB plan have made the 2006 team better while making the 07, 08, 09, etc.. teams worse?

Would have dumped Branch around the draft and been more proactive in getting a quality WR to augment the loss of Branch and Givens. That way you have a full off-season of passing camp, MTAs and a full training camp to get the new WR integrated into the offense.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

And you can sit there and safely assume that quality, veteran WRs wern't available for reasonable dollars via trade or FA from February to the start of TC in 06? C'mon.

I can safely sit here and say that the exact circumstances led us to getting Moss and Welker. I don't know who or what was available exactly, and I don't know how much they tried. I'm not the one assuming they didn't do or try enough. Who knows if they tried to get a ton of other guys but there just simply was nothing worth it at the time. You just assume that because 06 ended up as it was that in hindsight they screwed something up.

Would have dumped Branch around the draft and been more proactive in getting a quality WR to augment the loss of Branch and Givens. That way you have a full off-season of passing camp, MTAs and a full training camp to get the new WR integrated into the offense.

So you know for a fact that

A) They didn't shop Branch around draft time
B) YOU could have gotten better than a 1st rounder for him around draft time
C) They sat back and weren't proactive in attempting to look at WR talent in multiple places
D) YOU would have been able to find something, but you can't say what

 

[batbl18]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

Huh? Gaffney was out of football after being cut by Houston. It's wasn't like he was a blue-chip, 12:01AM signing.

I thought Houston never re-signed Jabar after his contract ran out following the 05 season. The Eagles signed him in March 06, the day after they got rid of TO, and then cut him in September. The Patriots then signed him in October.

 

[sg14]

Millen is a University of Washington guy,, pretty sure he is from the local area, local to Seattle. In the Seattle area we have Millen and Huards for the football talk shows,,

Have been wondering if Millen was still married to that cheerleader,,

Interesting that they were talking to Hugh Millen. He's a former Pats QB back in the early 90s. I thought he was pretty good, but he didn't play long.

His wife was the head cheerleader or something.

Age has apparently caught up with Branch-aroo. So much for getting him here for that old chemistry as someone wanted to do. Age and injuries are merciless.

 

[satz]

what would people supporting branch think if vince ,mankins ,brady to name a few playing the last year of their contract decide to hold out.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

I can safely sit here and say that the exact circumstances led us to getting Moss and Welker. I don't know who or what was available exactly, and I don't know how much they tried. I'm not the one assuming they didn't do or try enough. Who knows if they tried to get a ton of other guys but there just simply was nothing worth it at the time. You just assume that because 06 ended up as it was that in hindsight they screwed something up.

I have never integrated the outcome of 06 or have said, "if they had Branch they would have won" - You said that. My contention is that they did not do enough to replace Branch. End of story.

I can also safely say that at the start of the season BB did not intend his top 3 WRs to be Reche Caldwell, Doug Gabriel, a declining Troy Brown. If you don't believe that you are a fool.

So you know for a fact that

A) They didn't shop Branch around draft time

I'm certain that after they rejected the 6yr/$18m/8m bonus over two years, they thought about it and even perhaps even listened to teams. If you recall, at the start of the bidding for Branch, they wanted 2 #1s. Entirely possible that the Pats overplayed their hand during the draft thus not consummating a deal/trade.

B) YOU could have gotten better than a 1st rounder for him around draft time

Who knows. Could you have done better? My point is that they were substandard at the WR position to start the season b/c the Pats miscalculated the Branch situation and left themselves very little room to improve the roster before TC.

C) They sat back and weren't proactive in attempting to look at WR talent in multiple places

The did not do enough or go far enough to replace the talent at the position from the previous year.

D) YOU would have been able to find something, but you can't say what

Like I said, the team got stuck with Caldwell and Gabriel as their starting WRs. I'd be willing to bet you a beer that BB would do that one over if he knew Branch was going to play hardball.

99% of the time, BB is proactive. He wasn't in this case, but was fortunate that he could pick up Gaffney, get him to know the offense just enough so that he could help the team in the playoffs-which he did.

 

[emoney_33]

Forget it, it's hopeless. You can sit there and say they miscalculated it all you want, but that's just pure armchair hindsight. If you believe they should expect a player who is under contract to refuse to play then that is your problem. I think they would have been perfectly happy going with Branch for 2006. You accuse them of gambling and miscalculating because BRANCH acted like a whiny baby and refused to play.

You give 0 examples of what they should have done, and sit there with your 20-20 hindsight claiming they did SOMETHING wrong. I never said BB wanted to go with Caldwell/Gabriel, but it is YOU who is claiming it is BB's fault they did. You still can't see that your point is all predicated around your 20-20 hindsight of Branch holding out.

We would all do things differently if we had a crystal ball and knew the future.

 

[MaxVonDoom]

Re: Catching up with Branch:interesting audio

No matter what anyone thinks about Branch and how the Pats fared in the deal you have got to admit Seattle got burned bad! A first round draft pick a huge contract and they get an underproductive injury prone showboat.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

No matter what anyone thinks about Branch and how the Pats fared in the deal you have got to admit Seattle got burned bad! A first round draft pick a huge contract and they get an underproductive injury prone showboat.

Ouch! that is a very strong comment. Will Holgrem do us another favor similar to that now that he is in Cleveland?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Forget it, it's hopeless. You can sit there and say they miscalculated it all you want, but that's just pure armchair hindsight. If you believe they should expect a player who is under contract to refuse to play then that is your problem.

Wrong. Pats and Branch played tough and the Pats thought Branch would cave and when he didn't they had caldwell and gabriel starting.

I think they would have been perfectly happy going with Branch for 2006.

Of course. We all would have. Problem is Branch wouldn't have been happy.

You accuse them of gambling and miscalculating because BRANCH acted like a whiny baby and refused to play.

Thats the effect. The cause was that they were about $15m apart in guranteed $ and neither budged.

You give 0 examples of what they should have done, and sit there with your 20-20 hindsight claiming they did SOMETHING wrong.

MAKE A TRADE DURING THE DRAFT for players better than Reche Caldwell and Doug Gabriel. Read much?

I never said BB wanted to go with Caldwell/Gabriel, but it is YOU who is claiming it is BB's fault they did.

Of course it is. Hes the GM. They are not #1 and #2 WRs.

You still can't see that your point is all predicated around your 20-20 hindsight of Branch holding out.

It's all documented. Pats position. Branch's position. Salary requirements. When the negotiations took place and what the Pats had for WRs and how the scrambled for 3 months looking for someone who could play.

 

[MaxVonDoom]

Ouch! that is a very strong comment. Will Holgrem do us another favor similar to that now that he is in Cleveland?

Strong but very true

 

[celticboy04]

Greetings,

It is funny those two would be mouthing off, considering their play this season. Esp T.J., Cincinnati was practically horrible with him last season, now they just one a division championship without him doing anything on the field for them this season. As for Branch, worst season of his career and is so ****y that it has led to a delusion!!
Shalom,
Celticboy04

 

[emoney_33]

Wrong. Pats and Branch played tough and the Pats thought Branch would cave and when he didn't they had caldwell and gabriel starting.

What the heck are you talking about? Branch was under contract, end of story. After Branch refused to honor the contract HE signed, there was no alternative options at WR, so they did the best they could with what was available.

Of course. We all would have. Problem is Branch wouldn't have been happy.

boohoo, don't sign a contract you can't keep. He wouldn't have given the Patriots money back if he had a career ending injury in 2004.

Thats the effect. The cause was that they were about $15m apart in guranteed $ and neither budged.

The effect? Do you still not understand that he was UNDER CONTRACT.

MAKE A TRADE DURING THE DRAFT for players better than Reche Caldwell and Doug Gabriel. Read much?

We still had Branch and he was still under contract. As well you have no idea what moves they TRIED to make during the draft. You can sit there and just give off meaningless "make a trade" suggestions, but for who? With who? At what cost? What do we get back?

Of course it is. Hes the GM. They are not #1 and #2 WRs.

Branch was under contract... again you fail to understand that the GMs hands were tied. And then as a GM you don't go out and trade away the future for a right-now #1 or #2 WR. You don't go overpay someone or pay too much in a trade. And the NEXT YEAR they got Moss and Welker at great values. But yea you know better...

It's all documented. Pats position. Branch's position. Salary requirements. When the negotiations took place and what the Pats had for WRs and how the scrambled for 3 months looking for someone who could play.

We all know it was a bad situation. Your claim is that BB played it POORLY. But your claim is entirely based on your hindsight of how Branch refused to HONOR HIS CONTRACT. Not only that but you assume they didn't do their due diligence prior to, during and after Branch holding out.

 

[RobertWeathers]

What the heck are you talking about? Branch was under contract, end of story. After Branch refused to honor the contract HE signed, there was no alternative options at WR, so they did the best they could with what was available.

Doesn't matter if he had a contract. You can still choose to get out of it if you want to bad enough. What part of that don't you get? Branch wanted an extension badly, the Pats threw some numbers at him and Branch got all pissed.Players shoot their way out of town all the time- and BB knows it. Apparently, you don't.

boohoo, don't sign a contract you can't keep. He wouldn't have given the Patriots money back if he had a career ending injury in 2004. .

Horrible example. If injured, he would have gotten NFLPA insurance, an injury settlement from the team and his contract would have been terminated. Do your homework.

The effect? Do you still not understand that he was UNDER CONTRACT.

And you don't understand how the real world operates. Branch is a slime. We can agree on that. During negotiations, One or two things happened. BB thought that either Branch would keep his word and play in 06 or the Pats had the leverage to make him play 2006. Either way, BB didn't manage his risk properly.

We still had Branch and he was still under contract. As well you have no idea what moves they TRIED to make during the draft. You can sit there and just give off meaningless "make a trade" suggestions, but for who? With who? At what cost? What do we get back?

Again, plenty of options better than Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell were out there as your #1 and #2. They knew Givens was gone and knew the Branch extension would be a war.

Branch was under contract... again you fail to understand that the GMs hands were tied. And then as a GM you don't go out and trade away the future for a right-now #1 or #2 WR. You don't go overpay someone or pay too much in a trade.

Not sure where this is coming from. Never said overpay someone or give up the future...

And the NEXT YEAR they got Moss and Welker at great values. But yea you know better...

B/c they knew their receivers sucked.

We all know it was a bad situation. Your claim is that BB played it POORLY. But your claim is entirely based on your hindsight of how Branch refused to HONOR HIS CONTRACT. Not only that but you assume they didn't do their due diligence prior to, during and after Branch holding out.

never said that they didnt do their due dilligence. Im saying that they didnt do enough to manage the risk that they were starting the 06 season with Caldwell and Gabriel.

 

[emoney_33]

And you don't understand how the real world operates. Branch is a slime. We can agree on that. During negotiations, One or two things happened. BB thought that either Branch would keep his word and play in 06 or the Pats had the leverage to make him play 2006. Either way, BB didn't manage his risk properly.

Why don't you detail all the steps that BB took to "manage his risk". And then detail all the steps how he SHOULD have managed his risk. Specific exact details. None of this general "should have made a trade at draft" mumbo jumbo. You tell me what he should have done differently that would not only have made the 2006 squad better but also wouldn't take away from the 07, 08, 09 and future squads.

Again, plenty of options better than Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell were out there as your #1 and #2. They knew Givens was gone and knew the Branch extension would be a war.

Give an example of a #1 and #2 you would have signed. Then detail whose money you would have taken to get them under the cap. What draft picks would they have cost and what current (or 07/08) players would it have costed.

never said that they didnt do their due dilligence. Im saying that they didnt do enough to manage the risk that they were starting the 06 season with Caldwell and Gabriel.

Doing your due diligence is DOING ENOUGH. Just because the results weren't optimal does not mean there was a better alternative. That's the fact you can't seem to grasp.

They spend to the cap every year, and to get a #1/#2 to replace Branch/Givens you know they have to make changes elsewhere to get those #1/#2 under the cap not only for 2006 but however long their contracts are.

Stop assuming that there actually WERE better alternatives. Maybe there were but you act as if there was just a flood of 2006 receiver talent/value we turned a blind eye towards because they gambled it all away on Branch.

Now I'm done until you can offer up specifics of what BB and the front office should have done instead of this armchair fantasy "should have gotten a replacement" hindsight.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Why don't you detail all the steps that BB took to "manage his risk". And then detail all the steps how he SHOULD have managed his risk. Specific exact details. None of this general "should have made a trade at draft" mumbo jumbo. You tell me what he should have done differently that would not only have made the 2006 squad better but also wouldn't take away from the 07, 08, 09 and future squads. .

Nothing mumbo-jumbo about it. You deal Branch prior to or during the draft for a close to #1 or #2 receiver and over the ensuing months continue to upgrade the position (which they kinda did and got lucky with Gaffney). You are over-complicating this.

Give an example of a #1 and #2 you would have signed. Then detail whose money you would have taken to get them under the cap. What draft picks would they have cost and what current (or 07/08) players would it have costed. .

Quite frankly, I thought Andre Davis and Tim Dwight were better than Caldwell and Gabriel and knew the offense. They didn't sign for big dollars either when the left for NYJ and I think HOU...

Doing your due diligence is DOING ENOUGH. .

Absolutely not.

Just because the results weren't optimal does not mean there was a better alternative. That's the fact you can't seem to grasp..

Huh? Just because the results were what the were, doesn't mean that they could have been improved prior. Your point?

They spend to the cap every year, and to get a #1/#2 to replace Branch/Givens you know they have to make changes elsewhere to get those #1/#2 under the cap not only for 2006 but however long their contracts are..

No argument with the Pats spending. Just with this specific situation. But I see you think that this organization walks on water.... Very typical of you.

Stop assuming that there actually WERE better alternatives. Maybe there were but you act as if there was just a flood of 2006 receiver talent/value we turned a blind eye towards because they gambled it all away on Branch. .

Trades happen in the NFL you know...Well, maybe you didn't..

Now I'm done until you can offer up specifics of what BB and the front office should have done instead of this armchair fantasy "should have gotten a replacement" hindsight.

Good. I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings anymore and actually say that "THE PATRIOTS SOMETIMES MAKE MISTAKES". It happens rarely, but they do.

Pleasure as always, emoney_33.

 

[emoney_33]

Nothing mumbo-jumbo about it. You deal Branch prior to or during the draft for a close to #1 or #2 receiver and over the ensuing months continue to upgrade the position (which they kinda did and got lucky with Gaffney). You are over-complicating this.

WHO? Why do you just assume that anyone was willing to trade a #1 or #2? Who the heck was available? Did BB shop him around? Did he attempt to get any other receivers for him? No but you would have traded him before or during the draft because you don't have to deal with specifics and it's easy to just throw that out there.

Second of all you do realize that by doing this, you are in effect trading Brandon Meriweather as well right since that's who we got with Seattle's pick. So you hurt the future team's defense so that you can replace Branch early because you determine he is at risk for NOT honoring his contract? Trading Branch that early for less than they got from Seattle would be STUPID, period. But it's the kind of short-sighted now-now-now attitude that is far too common around here.

No argument with the Pats spending. Just with this specific situation. But I see you think that this organization walks on water.... Very typical of you.

no argument with the Pats spending? You have to spend differently in 06 and 07 and 08 and 09 if you go out and replace Branch. You are arguing they should have gotten a #1 and/or a #2 in 06 prior to or during the draft. A #1/#2 COSTS MONEY. Thus you don't get the same result as you have today and the money has to be adjusted and taken away from SOMEONE to pay for those guys on 2006. But again your hindsight argument is just really strong here, where's the specifics again?

Good. I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings anymore and actually say that "THE PATRIOTS SOMETIMES MAKE MISTAKES". It happens rarely, but they do.

Who knows how rare or how often they actually make mistakes, hell they probably make a lot more than we know. If you want to declare a specific situation a mistake you better be prepared to back it up, which you aren't.