David Givens, David Patten, Troy Brown, Deion Branch

[NEPettyOfficer72]

How do you all think our present group of recievers compare to the Championship core of David Givens, David Patten, Troy Brown and Deion Branch. And what made this group so good. Some say this is the best group we've ever had, even better than the 07 core. Any thoughts?

Givens, Branch, Patten, Brown 01, 03, 04 3 SB Rings

 

[bagwell368]

FYI and for the information of others that wonder:

Givens wasn't on the '01 team, a bit part of the '02 team, and a moderate part of the '03 team (5th in rec, 3rd for WR at 34). His prime years here was '04 and '05.

Brown's '01 was maybe the greatest year a WR ever had on the Pats (if you include his special teams play AND the timing of his big plays). He was a secondary target by '03, and not a factor in '04.

Patten didn't do much in '03, was quite useful in '01 and '04.

Branch was in college in '01, was useful in '03, and hurt but obviously useful in '04, and then held out.

I love these teams, but in any given year these guys as a group were not great, but did milk the most out of what they had.

This year? Because of Welker, Brady's maturity, and the need to score points, I expect the overall WR numbers to outsrip '01, '03, and '04. However if they fail (as a unit or individually) in the playoffs then it would be hard to take them over the proven winners.

 

[xmarkd400x]

How do you all think our present group of recievers compare to the Championship core of David Givens, David Patten, Troy Brown and Deion Branch. And what made this group so good. Some say this is the best group we've ever had, even better than the 07 core. Any thoughts?

Givens, Branch, Patten, Brown 01, 03, 04 3 SB Rings

1) Branch was drafted in 2002.
2) Givens was not on the 2001 team.
3) "And what made this group so good" - Precision route running & chemistry with Brady
4) "Some say this is the best group we've ever had" - Who, exactly, says this? Most accomplished, maybe. Most talented? Certainly not.
5) 2007 was one of, if not the, best receiving/QB groupings of all time. Look at the sheer volume of records they set. We all prefer rings over records, but there's no comparison.

EDIT: Does 'this' mean the 'core' or does 'this' mean the current group? I fail at words.

 

[Sparetire]

The main thing you two forgot about those teams was our D, it was much better than the current one (not by potential) - and you cant win SB's without a good D, even when you have TFB, WW and others on your offense.

 

[Patjew]

What I really liked about the 2003/2004 group was the 1a/1b of Branch and Givens. Both guys were tought and clutch and could carry the team for a while if necessary.

Givens may be my favorite Patriot that ever left the team.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

The main thing you two forgot about those teams was our D, it was much better than the current one (not by potential) - and you cant win SB's without a good D, even when you have TFB, WW and others on your offense.

This...........

 

[Froob]

What I really liked about the 2003/2004 group was the 1a/1b of Branch and Givens. Both guys were tought and clutch and could carry the team for a while if necessary.

Givens may be my favorite Patriot that ever left the team.

Same, loved givens. Had they kept branch or givens they would of won in '06. Hope price becomes the next givens.

 

[Rob0729]

In 2001, the Pats had basically Brown and Patten and nothing else. Guys like Charles Johnson, Bert Emmanuel, and Torrance Small were useless. Terry Glenn made an impact in one game but spent most of the season suspended. It was basically a two man receiving corp with no depth whatsoever.

In 2003, the receiving corp was crap. Brown was injured for part of the season which killed his production. Branch had a good season, but hadn't completely emerged. Patten was injured and out for most of the year. Givens emerged close to the end of the season, but wasn't much for most of the year. Guys like Bethel Johnson and JJ Stokes had minimum impact.

In 2004, Branch missed nearly half the season. Patten and Branch both had good years. Troy had a bad season. Bethel was Bethel.

This year, Welker is better than any of the WRs of the 2001, 2003, or 2004 seasons assuming he is back to pre-injury form. Branch has clearly lost a step, but if he can repeat his 2010 performance; he could get 900-1000 yards (he had 706 yards and 5 TDs in the 12 games he played with the Pats last year which would project to 941 yards and 6.7 TDs over a 16 game season if his production was consistent). Ochocinco had over 800 yards last year and could potentially repeat that production if he gets up to speed soon. The rest of the roster is an X-factor.

I can say that this year's WR corp is easily better than 2001 and 2003. It is yet to be seen if it is as good as 2004. One thing this offense has that they didn't in any of those years is two consistent receiving TEs and a receving RB at least compared to 2001 (well, Faulk wasn't doing it very much in 2001, but was in 2003 and 2004).

 

[Dessalines]

Well, Branch is a Patriot again, so let's say he's still here and part of the receiver mix. Troy Brown was one of toughest and most sticky handed receivers I've ever seen. He could burn it long or go over the middle and it was the same result, a catch. I loved that guy. I admired what Patten did for us in his time but the receivers on the team now are as good and probably better than he was when he was here. As for David Givens, that guy was a stud. That guy caught so many first downs when they were needed. He was tough and dependable. What happened to him in Tennessee was a tragedy.

 

[bagwell368]

The main thing you two forgot about those teams was our D, it was much better than the current one (not by potential) - and you cant win SB's without a good D, even when you have TFB, WW and others on your offense.

I don't think anyone forgot about the D, I think they focused on the question, not the TE's, RB's, defense, special teams and the rest.

Obviously the need for the WR to be as productive as say 2007 wasn't there, and the makeup of the unit in '01-'04 didn't allow for that in any case.

BTW you CAN win a SB without a good defense. I've read this sentiment here before and the facts don't bear it out. Historicall you are better with a team that is #1 in D and middling in offense vs the other way around. Let's start with your theory - and please expound on the 2008 Saints and the 2006 Colts.

 

[Sparetire]

BTW you CAN win a SB without a good defense. I've read this sentiment here before and the facts don't bear it out. Historicall you are better with a team that is #1 in D and middling in offense vs the other way around. Let's start with your theory - and please expound on the 2008 Saints and the 2006 Colts.

I stand correct, you can win a SB without a good D, but its alot harder.

"my" theory dont need to be expunded because: you named 2 SB champs out of 10 in the past decade, that won the SB with not the best D in the world. what about the other 8 champs? didnt they have good enough D's? yes they did. if ALL or MOST of champs along the years were with bad defenses i wont say a word cause there's nothing to say. those were exceptional teams.

My main point is, focusing on offense alone is not what a real contendor should look like, you need a good D most of the time, i dont want my pats to be a champs cause they had a louzy team facing them, i want my pats to be champs cause they are best both on O and D. im not sure i made my point that clear, but im guessing you got it.

 

[jmt57]

I think if you are going to debate whether an offense or a defense is more important to winning a championship, then you really need to focus on how the game is played today. To me that specifically means looking at teams after the rules change - excuse me, 'change in point of emphasis' - instituted by the competition committee a few years ago.

Defense may have been much more important to winning a championship for the Patriots, Ravens and Bucs in their Super Bowl years, but that was before those changes in how an NFL game is officiated; how those teams were constructed is almost irrelevant to today's game. Look at the teams that have won or played in the SB the last few years; offense has been at least just as important, if not more important to their success.

 

[Sparetire]

I agree. Bagwell368 made a whole different interpretation of what i ment.

 

[bagwell368]

I stand correct, you can win a SB without a good D, but its alot harder.

"my" theory dont need to be expunded because: you named 2 SB champs out of 10 in the past decade

I didn't know I had to name them all. I was going for the count since the rule changes the Colts instigated. 2 out of 5 would be the count, and if the Giants didn't work out the Pats offensive line calls, it would have been 3 out of 5. If we toss in the 1999 Rams there is another one, if there D was too good, there is always the 2001 Pats who were 6th in D.

what about the other 8 champs? didnt they have good enough D's? yes they did. if ALL or MOST of champs along the years were with bad defenses i wont say a word cause there's nothing to say. those were exceptional teams.

Like I said before 2006 is a different era. Toss in the 1999 Rams or the 2001 Pats, and it's 3 out of 10. 1994 and 1983 winners could also fit into the average defense group.

Besides why am I defending anything, you said that a team can't win w/o a top defense, I proved that was false, you agree. Why do you need to change the scope of the discussion now? Can we move on now?

My main point is, focusing on offense alone is not what a real contendor should look like, you need a good D most of the time, i dont want my pats to be a champs cause they had a louzy team facing them, i want my pats to be champs cause they are best both on O and D. im not sure i made my point that clear, but im guessing you got it.

Sorry, I couldn't get your point because you do not write clearly as to what you now say you were saying. I'm not starting anything, you are a Pats fan, so am I. But the fact is that offensive first teams and defense meh teams have won the SB. You could have left it there.

No team focuses on offense or defense alone. Let's not be silly. The Colts between '01 and '09 spend more money on offense then any other team AFAIK. They got a title during that time.

Your Pats were not #1 on O and #1 on D for any of the 3 titles. In 2003 they were #1 on D. In '01 both O and D were 6th, In '03 they were 12th on offense.

 

[bagwell368]

I agree. Bagwell368 made a whole different interpretation of what i ment.

More wriggling? You called out 1-3 of the first responders to the thread starter for forgetting defense. I responded with a clear comment. You took it from there. "whole different interpretation of what i meant". Yeah, I read your post and responded - what a mistake.

 

[NEPettyOfficer72]

Well I can tell you the difference. These guys in Givens, Brown and Patten really didn't disappear in big games, and were one of the most clutch core of receivers that I've ever seen. Experts say that collectively Branch, Givens, Brown and Patten as a core are in the top 10 as far as groups of "clutch" championship receivers ever. These guys were extremely consistent, polished, knew their job, knew their responsibility and gave 100% effort into every detail and every inch of each route. They simply knew how to give oposing defenses hell on Sundays because of their preparation, route running and underrated hands. On any given day you could not convince me that even some of the best Corners in the league at that time could line up in front of David Patten and lock him down for the entire game, or line up in front of Givens and lock him down for the entire game, or better yet Troy Brown. I mean, I've seen it time and time again where guys like Champ Bailey, Nate Clements, Sheldon Brown, Patrick Surtain, Chris McAllister back then would even get beat one on one by Patten and Givens, and Brown and Branch at some point in the game and yes I've seen it happen . The name had nothing to do with it, not being a Hines Ward, T.O or Marvin Harrison because they didn't have to be yet IN MY OPINION THEY POSED THE SAME THREAT and simply had a Championship mentality at their position for those years, defense or not.

You can't tell me that the 07 defense was not good enough to win a Championship that year or any other years with the exception of last year and 09. As great as we were during the 07 season at that WR position, we were forcing it to Randy because they had three guys on Welker, and Gafney and Stallworth during the Superbowl that simply could not spell and work defenders like Troy, Givens or Pattens could that would've took off of Moss and Welker. That "old" knew how to read defenses, knew how to get open and were extremely smart crafty at beating one on one coverage... and did I mention tough? Just something to think about, but I think this year's group could be our best yet. Especially with Woodhead coming out of the backfield, Chad to distract from Welker, and Branch, Edelman serving as an extra Welker and those freakish talented TightEnds adding on another Year of experience.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Those receivers led the league multiple years in fewest dropped throws didn't they? No one guy was elite, but all 3 or 4 on the field ran good routes and had sure hands, and one would usually get open and be found by Brady.

Our offense the past half dozen years shifted more to getting the ball to ONE guy, or two main guys. It was too easy to stop if a defense truly committed to it.

 

[rookBoston]

Our current receiving corp is infinitely better than that group in terms of talent. Givens had less spark than Price. Patten was a walk-on. Troy Brown was a Wes Welker move the chains guy. Also, they played with no real receiving threats at TE, which we have now in spades.

The difference, as mentioned, is that the SB teams were a Defense-first squad, with a ball control offense that did just enough to win. Those teams were premised around Ted Washington, Mike Vrabel, Ty Law and Willie McGinest, not around the receiving corp.

This group with Ochocinco and Branch are not as dangerous as the 2007 lineup with Moss and Gaffney, but they are pretty damn credible.