2 1st Rnd picks for Deion

[Ring 6]

Boldin - 102/171= 59.6 we'll say 60%

Branch - 78/125= 62.4 we'll say 62%

I don't think that's a big difference

A 3% difference in completion percentage is huge. Especially when the difference is one guy catches fewer passes thrown to him than the team completes throwing to everyone else (sure WRs will be lower than TEs and RBs) and the other guy catches the same % as eveyone else. Thats a pretty big difference.

Nonetheless, saying the difference is small is a far cry from saying the guy with worse % is BETTER.

 

[Ring 6]

2005
-----

Pats top receptions
_____________

78
59
39
29
19
16
9
8
4

Cards top receptions:
-------------------

103
102
40
28
12
10
6
3

which offense had better depth of receiver weapons, and which offense could a D be more apt to key on the top 2? This is even greater since 2005 was a HORRIBLE year for the Patriots losing RB's to injury! Those games without a running attack forced Brady to throw for more attempts than ever except perhaps 2002. This year, and the forseeable future, do you expect Brady to have to throw it as often?

Deion never had it so good.....and he may just find that out.

Your argument supports theopposite conclusion.

The Patriot offense by its nature reduced Branchs receptions. The Cardinal offense by its nature increased Boldins.

You realy cannot be telling me that a temas #1 receivers prodiuction is dependent on the quality of his teams #3 or 4 recevier can you?





39
29
19
16
9
8
4

40
28
12
10
6
3

Which team had better depth? These are the numbers you posted with the top 2 taken uot. They look pretty idential to me, other than the fact that Brady has a penchant to get the ball more to the guys who only catch 10-20 passes.

What are you pointing to in order to diminish the Cardinal depth?

 

[shakadave]

Wow, no good is going to come from this.

Husker, I think you just said it all in one line. Nice.

To the earlier poster who said Branch isn't going anywhere, I would add "including onto our field before Week 10."

 

[Alk]

A 3% difference in completion percentage is huge. Especially when the difference is one guy catches fewer passes thrown to him than the team completes throwing to everyone else (sure WRs will be lower than TEs and RBs) and the other guy catches the same % as eveyone else. Thats a pretty big difference.

Nonetheless, saying the difference is small is a far cry from saying the guy with worse % is BETTER.

Another thing you're not accounting for is the fact that Boldin has had the likes of an injured Kurt Warner and Cade McCown throwing him passes while Branch has had the luxury of a pretty good QB. I would be curious how many of those passes that he didn't catch were even catchable in the first place. Of course we'll never know but I'll bet there were more than a couple.

 

[DrewWho?]

very good posts here
on branch vs. boldin, the way i look at WR is who will have a better chance to make a reception out of double team. both WRs are not very good at it (most WR are not), but i'll have to give a nod to boldin bc of his physical body. how many times we've seen branch catch a ball out of a double team? very few... though someone may make an argument Brady is too smart to throw into double teams....

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Wow, a minefield. Okay, a couple of points:

You give the traded-to team compensation to buy the rights to negotiate with the trade-bait himself. The Pats "own" the rights to Deion by virtue of his contract. The Pats will agree Team X to "buy" those rights for 2 first round picks.

This is set up to fail, and it's not surprising. If somebody comes up with the 2 1s, and then come down to a single #1 pick, I would still be shocked. I wouldn't give a 1 for Branch.

Other side of the coin - to whoever asked "why 2 1s for a single wide receiver you don't claim is a 1?" Well, first of all, picks are prospects, and nothing more. Branch is a proven player. And yes, to take Branch at his word, that he is a #1, that's primo compensation for a primo receiver. Branch and the Pats both know he's not that.

I don't think anybody in Foxborough believes this will lead to a deal, but it does quite clearly make the point that Branch is not a #1.

As regards the Boldin/Branch debate, I agree with the Boldin-backers. Beyond the single year comparison you have to look at his 1402 yards and 7 touchdowns in his 14-start rookie year (03) and his "down" year of 04, in which he put up 623/1 in 10 games. In 05 he put up 1377 yards and 8 TDs. You can see what's happening here - 2 out of 3 seasons, he put up huge yardage totals and better than Branch's "career year" TD total.

You can say what you want about the systems - in the same time span, Branch was putting up yardage of 803/454/998 respectively, and TD totals of 3/4/5 respectively. Add to that that Bolden has to deal with Larry Fitzgerald opposite him putting up identical numbers (Brady throws to everybody, so you expect lower numbers - but Branch therefore cannot be the standout he needs to be to Boldin's equal.)

I think Boldin has the talent advantage - regardless, the exercise shows something else: that the Pats cannot pay for an Anquan Boldin, if we really believe Branch to be that, because in NE's system there isn't room for Boldin production. Too many other hands are in the pot for big contracts for a single receiver. Ditto Givens. You lose any given "cog," you lose 4 or 5 TDs, not 7-8, and 500-1000 yards, not 1400.

Why would we pay for a Boldin, if we don't need a Boldin, assuming that's what Branch is?

You always want the best players you can field. But in the passing game I think the Pats' strategy is for someone to get open every play, not for one guy to always be open. Sure, if that guy wants to play for the money you attach to "one of the gang." No, if that guy wants to be paid like he is "the man" on the Pats' offense.

More "Pats 101" type of reasoning here. Evidently they're trying to make this point by throwing Chayut's estimation of Branch back at him. I don't know that much will come of the whole conversation, unless it was a face-saving move to "allow" Branch to come down to earth and talk to the Pats again, or, conversely, a simple slap in the face to Chayut (although pissy little moves like that don't seem to jibe with what we know of the Pats' FO.)

All that to say, I'm just plain baffled.

Now if somebody actually pays Branch like a 1A, AND ponies up 2 first-rounders (or even a first and a third,) I'll just pick my jaw up off the floor and call BB/SP geniuses one more time.

PFnV

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

The kool-aid is getting pretty strong I guess. I can't imagine any GM but Matt Millen who'd take Branch over Boldin. The 6'1", 220lb Boldin, playing on crappy teams, with second tier QB's, has exceeded Branch in virtually every category. Notably, he has more TD's/game and more catches for first downs/game, while averaging a whole yard more for YAC. Uh, that's not to mention two of three seasons at 1377 and 1402 total yards.

In BB's dreams he wakes up to discover he actually has Boldin on the team instead of Branch. Brady would be so excited he might never leave the practice fields even to go Bridgette.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Not to try and second guess which is better - but the question that needs to be asked, which is a better "fit" for the Weis/McDaniels system? I have no doubt Tommy can throw to anyone given fair protection and a work-up period to develop rapport, I just always run into this glass pane whenever evaluating a player - is he a good fit for New England?

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

Here's my reply to that-

When we talk about the success of our players we swear up and down it's not the 'system'.

When we talk about players from other teams we doubt their ability in our system.

It's called being a homer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

BB wants players who fit his ideal for any given position. but just because we've had a guy of a certain size/shape/speed who does well at one spot, that doesn't automatically mean a guy of different proportions wouldn't work there also.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Here's my reply to that-

When we talk about the success of our players we swear up and down it's not the 'system'.

When we talk about players from other teams we doubt their ability in our system.

It's called being a homer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

BB wants players who fit his ideal for any given position. but just because we've had a guy of a certain size/shape/speed who does well at one spot, that doesn't automatically mean a guy of different proportions wouldn't work there also.

Which still doesn't answer this specific question, is Boldin a "good fit" in our system? He can be built like Vince Wilfork for all I care (wasn't there a report of Klecko taking WR reps in practice - wait that was Andrews, I get them confused).

 

[Bostonian1962]

According to Hugh Douglas out of Phili am610 radio, the Pats are asking for 2 first round picks for Branch.

I've felt all along, that he's worth two number 1's. That just means that he'll be a Patriot. Teams will most likely be leary about giving that up. I think that's what they should get though, but I am a little biased.

 

[Bostonian1962]

If the Pats asked Deion to NEGOTIATE his own trade, how can THEY be asking for 2 draft picks?

Their statement said:

“The New England Patriots have given Deion Branch permission to seek a trade and negotiate a contract with other clubs. This permission will extend until September 1, 2006.â€

SEEK a trade and NEGOTIATE a contract. NOT NEGOTIATE his own trade. Are you kidding me? I can see Branch's agent now: O.K. Bill, we made a trade with Minnesota for a mop and a box of donuts. Thanks see ya later.".

 

[Bostonian1962]

Funny, for all the bickering on this forum, you'd think there'd be more folks familiar with basic di'c'kering. :help:

Right on Box O'!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Here's my reply to that-

When we talk about the success of our players we swear up and down it's not the 'system'.

When we talk about players from other teams we doubt their ability in our system.

It's called being a homer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

BB wants players who fit his ideal for any given position. but just because we've had a guy of a certain size/shape/speed who does well at one spot, that doesn't automatically mean a guy of different proportions wouldn't work there also.

I'm the first to say I am rooting for laundry. Basically, my loyalty is to the uniform - I learned that one when Drew was traded. Maybe it's got to do with getting older... I am starting to see it all from the POVs of coaches and owners, not players.

So YEAH, unless you are talking Brady and Seymour, a LOT of what Pats players do is the system. Buy in and you're PART of something special... don't, and you can have the lead role in the cage (as Floyd put it,) or be back home watching the playoffs on TV, to get more to the point. You CAN NOT BE "THE MAN" in New England - and that is part of the value of Brady and Seymour as well... even they understand they are pivotal pieces, but not THE franchise (everybody watching "legend" Brett Favre showing how important it was he didn't retire, by the way?)

Vive la system!

PFnV

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks
Linta got two of his players out of New England and into situations where they can win starting jobs and negotiate new contracts - as starters - next off-season. He did it by helping the Patriots get decent value for players extraneous to the team's needs. He helped his clients and didn't leave a stench in Pioli's office. Which example do you think Graham's and Koppen's agents will see as most helpful with negotiations in the off-season?

Great point.
It's obvious who a rook should hire as his agent.

This article seems to think Linta's move for Gorin will pay off. http://story.scout.com/a.z?s=15&p=2&c=561678

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

I'm the first to say I am rooting for laundry. Basically, my loyalty is to the uniform - I learned that one when Drew was traded. Maybe it's got to do with getting older... I am starting to see it all from the POVs of coaches and owners, not players.

So YEAH, unless you are talking Brady and Seymour, a LOT of what Pats players do is the system. Buy in and you're PART of something special... don't, and you can have the lead role in the cage (as Floyd put it,) or be back home watching the playoffs on TV, to get more to the point. You CAN NOT BE "THE MAN" in New England - and that is part of the value of Brady and Seymour as well... even they understand they are pivotal pieces, but not THE franchise (everybody watching "legend" Brett Favre showing how important it was he didn't retire, by the way?)

Vive la system!

PFnV

Excellent post. Vive la laundry.

 

[Ring 6]

The kool-aid is getting pretty strong I guess. I can't imagine any GM but Matt Millen who'd take Branch over Boldin. The 6'1", 220lb Boldin, playing on crappy teams, with second tier QB's, has exceeded Branch in virtually every category. Notably, he has more TD's/game and more catches for first downs/game, while averaging a whole yard more for YAC. Uh, that's not to mention two of three seasons at 1377 and 1402 total yards.

In BB's dreams he wakes up to discover he actually has Boldin on the team instead of Branch. Brady would be so excited he might never leave the practice fields even to go Bridgette.

So a quality WR is a guy who catches 8 passes in the 2nd half of a 34-10 loss?
You said it yourself, he played for crappy teams. First, that is a NEGATIVE in wanting him on a contender, and second, WRs on bad teams catch a lot of passes because their team throws all the time because they are losing. Someone mentioned catching passes against double teams. How many of Boldins 102 were caught against a prevent defense when his team was already out of the game?

The arguments that Boldin is better because of his numbers are useless, because the entire point is that his numbers would be drastically better if they were equal players.

 

[Ring 6]

Another thing you're not accounting for is the fact that Boldin has had the likes of an injured Kurt Warner and Cade McCown throwing him passes while Branch has had the luxury of a pretty good QB. I would be curious how many of those passes that he didn't catch were even catchable in the first place. Of course we'll never know but I'll bet there were more than a couple.

Both teams had an almost identical completion percentage. In fact the Cardinals was higher when they threw to anyone not named Boldins that the Pats were throwing to anyone other than Branch, so by definition, the number of catches per attempt should be an even playing field.

The fact that Warner is injury prone, takes too many sacks, fumbles too much, etc is irrelevant to the 'catchability' of his passes when you simply look at what % are actually caught. That was why I brought it up. It negates the QB effect.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's my reply to that-

When we talk about the success of our players we swear up and down it's not the 'system'.

When we talk about players from other teams we doubt their ability in our system.

It's called being a homer, and there is nothing wrong with that.

BB wants players who fit his ideal for any given position. but just because we've had a guy of a certain size/shape/speed who does well at one spot, that doesn't automatically mean a guy of different proportions wouldn't work there also.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? If not who exactly is 'we'??

Who says the success of our players isnt the system? I think this board more than any fan group in the NFL understands the success of the Patriots is based on their system, coaching and philosophy. Does it sound familiar that once or twice, or 999,222,245,255,254,632,456 times fans on this board have talked about the Patriots and TEAM?

The question of whether other players could succeed in our system is extremely valid. Our system is DIFFERENT than most teams. At LB for example, since we play a 2gap system LBs must be larger, stronger, and not necessarily as fast as ones that succeed elsewhere. Its ludicrous to say that the 225 lb LBs that are succeeding in other one gap systems could do well here because they would be asked to something totally different than what they succeeded at and to do something they are physical not stout enough to do. Same goes for one gap DEs who run away from OL. Have you watched Freeney come out of his stance spinning and spinning 2-3 times. He would not be allowed to do that in a 2gap system (and he does it on run downs as well). It is incredulous to think that a guy who thinks of nothing but rushing the passer could have even close to as much success playing in a system that dictates him first move would be to ENGAGE a blocker. Now, perhaps Freeney could make it as an OLB here, but he would be no more useful at DE in our 34 than Rodney Harrison would be.

You must have been on some strong cough medicine when you typed this one, because you said 'we' believe 2 things that I have yet to see anyone but you type, then ended with a comment that is just so far from accurate you couldnt have thought before you typed.

 

[3 to be 4]

this is just like the Ty Law situation after 2003. Branch is not going anywhere. And if hes stupid enough to sit out the season then they are just as well off letting him walk.