The David Givens Delusion

[dhamz]

The problem is not in Givens not being here. It is not that Branch is not here. Both moves looked at as isolated cases are no brainers to let them go.

The problem is when looked at as a whole, our WR moves this off-season came up short. They tried to make some moves like expressing interest in Walker but couldn't pull them off. The result of that was the Pats weren't prepared for Branch to sit out. Then they misjudged Gabriel. As a result, we have a weak WR corp which has a couple solid #3 Wrs and a promising talented rookie who is not ready to contribute.

 

[Mack Herron]

You cannot measure Givens' value by the number of catches he had any more than you can measure Daniel Graham that way. Givens was a stud and FAR and away our best blocker on DBs. Nobody on the roster even comes close. They do miss Branch's speed and quickness. Frankly, the receiver with the best chance of creating a vertical presence out there now is Gaffney. I think he has the best chance of developing going into the playoffs. I would love to see Jackson, but I'm afraid it's wait till next year for him.

 

[DaBruinz]

Givens played very well when he was called on to be the #1 receiver when Branch was out with injuries. Branch did not play well when Givens was not in the lineup. Givens could have been that #1 guy, but the price was high. The fault I have with the Patriots is that they played this all wrong and wound up letting both guys walk with nothing to show for it. Would Caldwell be better receiver with Givens as the #1? The Patriots had the money but wouldn't spend it is the bottom line.

When Branch was out, Givens became like Caldwell, based on the stats. Now, a truly fair comparison can't be made unless you take a look at the differences in the offenses in 2004 to 2006. One had Weis, the other McDaniels.

Now, as for this claim that the Patriots played it all wrong and "LET" both guys go, that is a crock of garbage. The Patriots made MORE THAN FAIR attempts to re-sign both Givens and Branch on several occasions. And both chose the routes they did. Givens did negotiate in good faith, its just that the Titans offered him the possibilty to be something that he's not. And that is a #1 receiver.

As for Branch, Sorry, but they attempted to treat Branch the SAME way they treated Brady and Seymour. Branch felt that he deserved better than Brady and Seymour and didn't want to honor the last year of his rookie contract. Branch refused to negotiate and laid an ultimatum at the feet of the Patriots AFTER the draft. Its my belief that Branch PURPOSELY waited until after the draft to prevent the Pats from trading him at the draft.

 

[D-cleater]

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.

I'll make this even shorter and even less sweet.

You're the one that's delusional, perhaps from drinking too much Koolaid.

You're position that Givens was somehow less valuable because he was the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR is ridiculous. He's exactly the type of player that the F.O. looks for, and what they hope they are getting in Caldwell. A SYSTEM player.

Givens and Branch are coupled together because its rare that a team loses its #1 and #2 receiver in the same offseason, as well as its #4 and #5 receivers. What hasn't changed is that it is clear that the F.O. did not make this association, and that Givens is playing for another team for perfectly good reasons - he's not worth the $$ he's being paid.

I'm not sure where the DELUSIONS and LIES are except in the statement that
a hard working, solid #2 ( not #3) receiver who knows the system is not missed this season. Put him across the field from Caldwell and I guarantee you he'd be leading the team in receptions. Not the tight end.

CAPITALIZING your words does not change this, either. Just trying to help.

 

[psychoPat]

.... Branch refused to negotiate and laid an ultimatum at the feet of the Patriots AFTER the draft. Its my belief that Branch PURPOSELY waited until after the draft to prevent the Pats from trading him at the draft.

Hmmm ... that packs a wallop.
Hadn't thought of the chronology like that.

DOUBLE stinker, Leion!

 

[RayClay]

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.

That trade would be nuts.

 

[RayClay]

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.

I pretty much agree with this completely.

The Pats would have liked to sign both of them, but were forced to scramble when Givens got about twice what he's worth, (good for him, he always worked hard).

Branch chose to force his way out of his contract and that hurt because he was a great for for the system and a good receiver all around.

They were not replaceable for one reason.

You can't trade for guys with 4 years experience. That's all.

So we have a little lack of rhythm on offense.

I'll still take that over what's passing for a defense over in Indy.

 

[dhamz]

Its my belief that Branch PURPOSELY waited until after the draft to prevent the Pats from trading him at the draft.

Not buying it.

If the Pats trade for Javon Walker on draft day like they tried to, Branch had zero leverage for his holdout.

A much more likely scenario was that as camp approached, Branch and his agent looked at the state of the Pats WR position and thought (correctly) that his leverage to get a big $ deal from the Pats or a trade to a team that would pay that kind of $ would never be greater.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

So we have a little lack of rhythm on offense.

I'd say the offense is totally out of sync.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm just glad we had a chance to clear the air and get this all sorted out.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Branch wanted in the neighborhood of 7M per year. Instead of caving in we got a 2007 1st rounder.

Caldwell balances out Givens. In fact he is outproducing him this year. Givens signs his big payday then goes and gets hurt. Anyways Caldwell's numbers = Givens' 2005 production.

Not having Branch does hurt us in the short term. Wish we had gotten a Donte Stallworth or something. Still would have cost quite a bit to sign whoever we traded for to an extension.

 

[patsox23]

Givens played very well when he was called on to be the #1 receiver when Branch was out with injuries. Branch did not play well when Givens was not in the lineup. Givens could have been that #1 guy, but the price was high. The fault I have with the Patriots is that they played this all wrong and wound up letting both guys walk with nothing to show for it. Would Caldwell be better receiver with Givens as the #1? The Patriots had the money but wouldn't spend it is the bottom line.

This is wrong on many levels, but it's worth pointing out ESPECIALLY the idea that "Givens played well when he was called on to be the #1 receiver when Branch was out with injuries." He absolutely DID NOT. This is a ludicrous claim.

Almost as ludicrous as the idea that the Pats "have nothing to show" for Givens and Branch walking. They have at least a #1 pick, and should've had at LEAST a 4th round compensation pick had Givens not succumbed to a season-ending injury.

 

[patsox23]

Givens is missed. He was able read opposing defenses..had a great raport with Brady and was a very good WR. Please stop with the "we don't miss anyone bs" Anyone that has watched this team realizes that we miss Branch and Givens.

When exactly did I say "we don't miss anyone?" Please read the post before writing this nonsense. We DO miss Branch. I said so. We miss Givens in the sense that we'd miss anyone who knew the system - like Patten. I said that, too.

Givens has been replaced by Caldwell. He's not one of the real playmaking weapons the Pats "took away" from Brady, as many posters, columnists and pundits have claimed. That is short-sighted and ignorant. I'd ask you to please comprehend what you've read before responding next time.

 

[patsox23]

Actually, i remember when deion branch was hurt, givens was extremely productive and helped the pats win games.

You remember wrong. He had one game, maybe two, where he really came up big. Otherwise, he was generally frustratingly absent.

 

[patsox23]

I'll make this even shorter and even less sweet.

You're the one that's delusional, perhaps from drinking too much Koolaid.

You're position that Givens was somehow less valuable because he was the ULTIMATE example of a system-WR is ridiculous. He's exactly the type of player that the F.O. looks for, and what they hope they are getting in Caldwell. A SYSTEM player.

Givens and Branch are coupled together because its rare that a team loses its #1 and #2 receiver in the same offseason, as well as its #4 and #5 receivers. What hasn't changed is that it is clear that the F.O. did not make this association, and that Givens is playing for another team for perfectly good reasons - he's not worth the $$ he's being paid.

I'm not sure where the DELUSIONS and LIES are except in the statement that
a hard working, solid #2 ( not #3) receiver who knows the system is not missed this season. Put him across the field from Caldwell and I guarantee you he'd be leading the team in receptions. Not the tight end.

CAPITALIZING your words does not change this, either. Just trying to help.

I have posted here for YEARS and the last thing people who actually post here regularly would accuse me of is "drinking the koolaid." In fact, in my initial thread I cite Branch leaving as a bad thing. It's ridiculous, in my view, to equate Givens and Branch the way many people are doing. This does not make me a koolaid drinker. It makes me, among other things, objective and - oh yeah - accurate.

 

[patsox23]

Not having Branch does hurt us in the short term. Wish we had gotten a Donte Stallworth or something. Still would have cost quite a bit to sign whoever we traded for to an extension.

Agree, vjc. Although he has continued his pattern of getting hurt, Donte Stallworth would've been a good guy to bring in, and we could've gotten him. A lot of people talk about Moulds and Walker, but who's to say Buffalo wanted to deal Moulds inside the division and, as far as I know, we DID try to get Walker but he kept not getting on the plane to N.E.

 

[BelichickFan]

If the Pats trade for Javon Walker on draft day like they tried to, Branch had zero leverage for his holdout.

Of course, then there's the story that Branch discouraged Walker from visiting New England by telling him they wouldn't pay him.

 

[patsox23]

Branch really crapped his way out of town. Such a disappointment to me (in a personal, lame, "fan boy" way). He always seemed like such a good, humble person. In some ways I'm sure he still is, but all that stuff really tainted him in my eyes. I will never root for him to win anything for the rest of his career. (That'll show him!)

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I have posted here for YEARS and the last thing people who actually post here regularly would accuse me of is "drinking the koolaid." In fact, in my initial thread I cite Branch leaving as a bad thing. It's ridiculous, in my view, to equate Givens and Branch the way many people are doing. This does not make me a koolaid drinker. It makes me, among other things, objective and - oh yeah - accurate.

Well, except for the fact that in Branch's absence Givens averaged just under 5 receptions per game for an insane 19+ yards per average (38 catches for 739 yards) and put up 4 100+ yard games. In 14 games this year Reche is averaging just under 4 receptions per game for 11.5 yards per average (53 catches for 611 yards) and he's had 1 100+ yard game. In fact in the last two weeks he's only managed a total of 7 receptions for 34 yards.

And then there were Givens playoff performances. Maybe you should just review his Pat's bio - and then we can all hope he didn't set the post season bar too high for Reche.

"Career Highlights

Givens enjoyed a successful 2004 season, leading the Patriots with career-high 56 receptions and 874 yards. He was also able to stretch the field, with 14 receptions of 20 yards or more, including a season-best 50-yard catch against St. Louis (11/07/04).

Givens caught a touchdown pass in each of the Patriots’ three postseason games in 2004, including a 4-yard touchdown grab in Super Bowl XXXIX.

Givens exceeded 100 receiving yards in four games in 2004, the most by a Patriot in a single season in six years, dating back to when Terry Glenn also did it four times in 1999.

Givens became the Patriots’ all-time postseason leader for touchdown receptions (5) in 2004, surpassing Stanley Morgan (3).

Givens was a key part of the Patriots offense in the 2003 postseason, tying Troy Brown for the team lead with 17 receptions and leading the squad with two touchdowns.

Givens enjoyed a solid 2003 season in his second year as a pro. He led the team with seven touchdowns and finished second on the squad with 510 receiving yards. He was also a deep threat, catching nine passes of 20 yards or more.

Givens made a big impact in the Patriots’ victory in Super Bowl XXXVIII. He caught a 5-yard touchdown pass to give New England a 14-7 lead just before halftime, then grabbed two passes for a total of 43 yards on the Patriots’ key fourth-quarter touchdown drive that erased a one-point deficit and gave them a 29-22 lead late in the game.

Givens led the team in receptions in New England’s first two postseason games in 2003 – against Tennessee (4 catches) in the divisional playoffs and against Indianapolis (8 catches) in the AFC Championship Game."

 

[DarrylS]

As much as I liked both of these guys, Deion soured me on the way out of town... to not respect the last year of his contract, shows me where his heart is. He is not exactly flourishing in Seattle, and has made a couple of mistakes there.

Givens on the other hand was a great blue collar player, but was worth more to the Titans than he was to the Pats.. like Andruzzi and McGinnest was to the Browns, Hochstein to the Seahawks on and on.

What amazes me is we are to this point of the season, 14 games, and still the talk shows are inundated with the Deion Branch thing.. not sure who feeds it or if there is something delusional out there, it is to the point that after the Red Sox it is the second most popular thread on the radio. One thing obvious is the Deion leaving was not planned for by the team, and this is one time they were caught short.. I do not think it will happen again. I do not think that they realized that this great team player, positive locker room player and great role model would not honor his last year of the contract. To me he is scum, the way this played and the timing of his actions turns him into a bottom feeder.