2000's Patriots All-Decade Team released

[Patsrock]

He produced more. He got open.

I mean, invisible in 50% of playoff games? Can you really use that criteria?

Randy Moss has 12 receptions for 132 yards in 4 playoff games for the Patriots.

Deion Branch was 41 receptions for 629 yards in 8 playoff games for the Patriots.

Branch has twice as much production in the playoffs.

And when you look at the 4 out 7 playoff games that he had big numbers in, Branch played great against Carolina in the SB, Pitt in the 04 CG, Philly in the SB, and Denver in the 05 loss. His non-factor performances all came early in the playoffs against teams the Patriots beat. In other words, Branch produced in the big games.

Branch was outstanding in playoff games, but you seem to be ignoring the regular season.

 

[emoney_33]

He produced more. He got open.

Sigh, every NFL team past or present is better with Moss or Welker in place of Branch.

I mean, invisible in 50% of playoff games? Can you really use that criteria?

Yes easily, he played in 8 playoff games. 50% = 4 games.

03 DIV: 3 Rec, 10 Yds
03 AFCC: 2 Rec, 23 Yds
04 DIV: 1 Rec, 15 Yds
05 WC: 2 Rec, 36 Yds

Randy Moss has 12 receptions for 132 yards in 4 playoff games for the Patriots.

Deion Branch was 41 receptions for 629 yards in 8 playoff games for the Patriots.

Different teams, different situations, different defensive focus, different game plans, different play calling, different running game, different just about everything. Do you really think if you replace Branch with Moss or Welker on the 03/04 teams you do worse? That's absurd.

Branch has twice as much production in the playoffs.

And when you look at the 4 out 7 playoff games that he had big numbers in, Branch played great against Carolina in the SB, Pitt in the 04 CG, Philly in the SB, and Denver in the 05 loss.

He produced in half his playoff games, past tense, a mere fact in what we call history. 0 coaches would take Branch over Welker or Moss.

His non-factor performances all came early in the playoffs against teams the Patriots beat. In other words, Branch produced in the big games.

This is probably one of the most ridiculous lines I have heard. If they LOSE in those earlier games, they don't get further, so why the heck didn't magical Branch help them win in those other games? In that case, why even play him at all, just rest him all year until the SB.

 

[emoney_33]

Happenstance my foot. Thats a silly distortion, emoney.

Joe Cool and Young were great, but their numbers and stature were equally aided by Rice's greatness in getting open. Just as Rice rumbers were aided by receiving passes from HoF QBs.

Uhhh what? You probably misread what I wrote...

 

[PatsFans.com Article]

Patriots 2000's All Decade Team Announced

Ian's Daily Blog - Here is the press release that just came through regarding this for anyone interested: NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 2000s ALL-DECADE TEAM ANNOUNCED FOXBOROUGH, Mass. – The New England Patriots Hall of Fame Nomination Committee, a 22-person panel made up of reporters, alumni and staff, gathered at The Hall at Patriot Place presented by Raytheon yesterday to nominate three [...]

Click Here To Read This Blog Entry​

 

[RobertWeathers]

Jerry Rice was the best, but his SB receptions were happenstance in the sense that he also happened to play with great QBs and great teams.

Uhhh what? You probably misread what I wrote...

Am I missing the sarcasm?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

:singing: different...different...different...different... :singing:

When it comes to emoney and Randy we need a new emoticon :I can't hear you:

Givens had 7 TD's in 8 playoff games...He and Branch between 'em must have been doing something right. I have no qualms about Welker's playoff performance, 3 games and 2 TD's and one 100+ 11 reception performance. Still his impact on the decade is effected since we didn't win. Vrabel had more playoff TD's than Moss and Welker combined...

Team of the decade should be about impact. I think here we still pick 'em like we did when we didn't win anything.

 

[emoney_33]

Am I missing the sarcasm?

Let me clarify. Superbowl receptions are a meaningless stat to show one's greatness or stature. If Rice was on a different team and never made it to the SB, he wouldn't be any less amazing. He was the best, but not because of the totality of his team.

If Rice never made it to the SB, you'd still want him on any team you were creating and he'd still give you better odds to win than any other receiver in any game, including superbowls.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Let me clarify. Superbowl receptions are a meaningless stat to show one's greatness or stature. If Rice was on a different team and never made it to the SB, he wouldn't be any less amazing. He was the best, but not because of the totality of his team.

If Rice never made it to the SB, you'd still want him on any team you were creating and he'd still give you better odds to win than any other receiver in any game, including superbowls.

Ok. I follow...

 

[Fencer]

Welker has played 3 more games in a Pats uniform and has 133 more catches. Moss has played 5 more games and has 37 more catched but has 33 more TD's.

Really?

Time flies!

 

[emoney_33]

Givens had 7 TD's in 8 playoff games...He and Branch between 'em must have been doing something right. I have no qualms about Welker's playoff performance, 3 games and 2 TD's and one 100+ 11 reception performance. Still his impact on the decade is effected since we didn't win. Vrabel had more playoff TD's than Moss and Welker combined...

This type of "only matters if you win" analysis is ridiculous, first of all. Using Vrabel's TDs, well that's bordering on insanity.

Let's go back to Givens. He was double teamed 0 times. If Moss was double teamed 0 times, he'd probably have 3-4 TDs per playoff game. That's only ONE example of "different different different"...

Team of the decade should be about impact. I think here we still pick 'em like we did when we didn't win anything.

Not only is your opinion of impact wrong regarding the receivers, but team of the decade should be made based on who gives the best at his position. Both Moss and Welker add more to a team than Branch and Givens. To argue otherwise is to use end-result to prove the means. Just because I flipped a coin heads 5 times in a row doesn't mean I have an ability to flip heads or that the next flip is anything but 50% likely to be heads.

It's like the silly QB debate of ranking QBs only by rings. If this were tennis, or golf, or any other individual sport it would be one thing.

 

[Fencer]

On PFW in Progress. There will be a full release at 1:30. The Patriots Hall of Fame committee, which includes local writers as well as Ernie Adams, voted a few days ago.

Light - Kaczur
Andruzzi - Mankins
Koppen
Graham
Moss - Welker - Brown
Brady
Dillon

Seymour - Warren - Wilfork
McGinest - Vrabel - Bruschi - Phifer
Law - Samuel
Harrison - Milloy

Vinatieri
Miller
Faulk
Izzo

Belichick

It's a total oversight not to have a long snapper. Otherwise, who's left out who was a lot better than a JAG?

Branch
Ted Washington
Faulk as shotgun RB
Gostowski

With all due respect to David Givens and Stephen Neal, I'm already straining ...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Let me clarify. Superbowl receptions are a meaningless stat to show one's greatness or stature. If Rice was on a different team and never made it to the SB, he wouldn't be any less amazing. He was the best, but not because of the totality of his team.

If Rice never made it to the SB, you'd still want him on any team you were creating and he'd still give you better odds to win than any other receiver in any game, including superbowls.

I disagree. While a player can't be held responsible for his team not reaching the superbowl in a team sport, the fact that some excell while others don't isn't without meaning. Marvin Harrison disappeared in the postseason. And for much of his career that killed his team. Of course his QB was inconsistent as well at times.

As for the contention that you would always want the best WR in the game based on talent on your team, Pioli and BB would argue that is not necessarily the case because the most talented player isn't always a system fit. Pioli is also on record that the early teams in NE proved that winning championships has more to do with execution than talent. This isn't Madden.

 

[Patsrock]

Really?

Time flies!

Sorry meant to say 5 Less games for Moss and 7 less games for Welker.

 

[Seels]

I would have put in Ted Washington over Wilfork.

Why? He played one year with the Pats.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This type of "only matters if you win" analysis is ridiculous, first of all. Using Vrabel's TDs, well that's bordering on insanity.

Let's go back to Givens. He was double teamed 0 times. If Moss was double teamed 0 times, he'd probably have 3-4 TDs per playoff game. That's only ONE example of "different different different"...



Not only is your opinion of impact wrong regarding the receivers, but team of the decade should be made based on who gives the best at his position. Both Moss and Welker add more to a team than Branch and Givens. To argue otherwise is to use end-result to prove the means. Just because I flipped a coin heads 5 times in a row doesn't mean I have an ability to flip heads or that the next flip is anything but 50% likely to be heads.

It's like the silly QB debate of ranking QBs only by rings. If this were tennis, or golf, or any other individual sport it would be one thing.

Branch was double teamed, but we didn't think he was worth $6M because he couldn't beat them. Givens wasn't double teamed but he also wasn't pulling down top three compensation... At the end of the day what is best or what matters is what wins...or at least that's what that guy the trophy is named after claimed...

 

[upstater1]

Branch was outstanding in playoff games, but you seem to be ignoring the regular season.

As I stated, for me playoffs count more.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I disagree. While a player can't be held responsible for his team not reaching the superbowl in a team sport, the fact that some excell while others don't isn't without meaning. Marvin Harrison disappeared in the postseason. And for much of his career that killed his team. Of course his QB was inconsistent as well at times.

As for the contention that you would always want the best WR in the game based on talent on your team, Pioli and BB would argue that is not necessarily the case because the most talented player isn't always a system fit. Pioli is also on record that the early teams in NE proved that winning championships has more to do with execution than talent. This isn't Madden.

Certainly if you know of a player who has bombed in the psot-season, but excelled in the regular season, that needs to be considered.

Cris Carter and Steve Largent never played in the SB. I'd take either one of those players in a SB over Deion Branch or David Givens.

Either way, I'd still take Marvin Harrison over Branch or Givens. According to his playoff numbers, 65 catches, almost 900 yds is not shabby. 2 TDs is light but I'd contend that playing the Pats D and other playoff-caliber Ds didn't help.

 

[emoney_33]

I disagree. While a player can't be held responsible for his team not reaching the superbowl in a team sport, the fact that some excell while others don't isn't without meaning.

By and large yes it is completely without meaning. It has been studied, and aside from a few outlier cases, the numbers simply do not sway in favor of "clutch" being a talent. It reminds me of the whole "Jeter is clutch" crap in baseball. Look at the numbers and Jeter is the exact same player throughout the year as he is in the playoffs.

Marvin Harrison disappeared in the postseason. And for much of his career that killed his team. Of course his QB was inconsistent as well at times.

Well this is just a lie, he only "disappeared" against the 03 NE defense and the last 2 years of his career. I'll take Marvin Harrison over Branch all day every day, and twice on Sunday.

As for the contention that you would always want the best WR in the game based on talent on your team, Pioli and BB would argue that is not necessarily the case because the most talented player isn't always a system fit. Pioli is also on record that the early teams in NE proved that winning championships has more to do with execution than talent. This isn't Madden.

Neither BB nor Pioli would argue against Welker/Moss, and in fact both of them (as well as every single other coach) would take Welker and Moss and Marvin over Branch, all else being equal (i.e. ignoring financials).

Talent MINUS execution is obviously useless, but talent gives a higher chance of proper execution. Which is what they mean, you can't JUST rely on your talent and not execute.

This isn't Madden, but neither is it fantasy land of nostalgic stories fit for TV and not the real world. All this will to win, and overcoming lack of talent stuff is all well and good for TV not for building teams.

 

[emoney_33]

Branch was double teamed, but we didn't think he was worth $6M because he couldn't beat them. Givens wasn't double teamed but he also wasn't pulling down top three compensation... At the end of the day what is best or what matters is what wins...or at least that's what that guy the trophy is named after claimed...

What matters is what gives you the best CHANCE to win. There is no magical formula or player that is guaranteed to win.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I would put Neal and Faulk in over Andruzzi and Dillon, but other than that it all looks right to me.