2000's Patriots All-Decade Team released

[emoney_33]

You're making stuff up now since I didn't do either. I counted his bad games. I showed his stats from all 8 games. You're making stuff up. I said I put more emphasis on playoffs, and then I counted all 8 games. His stats from 8 games are better than Moss's from four on a per game average basis. MUCH BETTER.

He had 4 TERRIBLE games and 4 GREAT games (receiving stats wise). Average all you want, but it amounts to you using FOUR friggin games to claim he was better. You explain away all his bad games, and discount the entire regular season. Yeah you aren't nitpicking anything.

If only the regular season counts, then yes. If playoffs, then Branch is the best.

EVERYTHING counts, not just regular season, not just playoffs, not just receptions, not just yards, not just wins.

Brady went 32 for 48 in the Super Bowl and broke all kinds of records. On the biggest stage against a tough defense, he slung the ball around the field at a rate never before seen in the Super Bowl. That Super Bowl victory belonged to Brady even more than Branch, and Brady deserved the MVP. Yes, that was a fantastic year for Brady. In 2007, Brady had a not so hot playoff game against the Chargers. Once again you're deemphasizing playoffs. Of course Brady was better in the 2003 playoffs. How can you dispute that? Jeez.

I'm not de-emphasizing anything, you are over-emphasizing things. I will re-iterate, 2006 Brady > 2003 Brady. (Yes I'm talking 2006, the entire year, NOT 2007). Argue it all you want, talk about the playoffs all you want, nitpick one game (superbowl) all you want. You are doing nothing more than handpicking stats you want to use to prove your pre-determined idea. Stats are useless when you nitpick and hunt down only the ones that agree with you. Not to mention when you can't understand the flaws or contributing factors.

Again, this is a TEAM sport. Individual statistics help analyze things over the long term, but don't do much to tell you anything about a single game. The OL also blocked much better for Brady in that SB btw, but I guess that's meaningless too.

4 good games? Are you serious? Good? He got Super Bowl MVP for just being good? Ridiculous. They were in much more danger of losing the games he gave a GREAT performance in than in the games he "disappeared." in fact, they LOST one of those games. Other than the Titans game, the games he disappeared in were well in hand. All four of the games he was great in--Denver, Pitt, Philly, Carolina--his contribution was sorely needed, or else the game could've been a loss. As for gameplans, Pitt was definitely doubling Branch, and the video doesn't lie on that. He had two guys on him most of the game.

4 games, yes that is what you are friggin doing. Brady was MVP of that SB, I don't care who they gave it to. The 2007 Patriots weren't in danger of losing many games because Moss was so F'ing good. They won 18 in a row in one season, in huge part to MOSS being so F'ing good. You put Moss on the 2003 team instead of Branch, with that defense they probably go undefeated. Branch was absolutely not the focus of any gameplan like Moss was and has been. You don't think Dillon impacted gameplans any? This is absolutely amazing that a sane person is trying to argue Branch over Moss in any way shape or form.

How is your argument a fact? Do you even know what the word fact means?

Are you serious? Moss has never been anything but the best receiver on every team he's been on. Aside from Oakland, he's pretty much been the best WR every year he's been in the league. If Moss went to Seattle he wouldn't fall behind Burleson on the depth char like branch did. Funny how good Branch supposedly is but yet he couldn't even be the #1 on Seattle when he was traded. Listen to yourself.

Since I didn't make any definition, I'll chalk this up to more spewing from you.

Of course you will . You explained away Branch's bad playoff games by stating he wasn't needed because it wasn't a "close game". Yet all of those games were close until at least late in the 3rd. I'm not spewing, you can choose to ignore reality all you want.

You're the only one I have come across who thinks the 20-3 win over the Colts with two 90 yard drives and 16 minutes of possession interspersed with one minute of Colts possession, was somehow a close game.

Maybe I didn't type it in clear English for you to understand. It was SIX to THREE at the end of the first half. It was THIRTEEN to THREE in the fourth. The game WAS CLOSE UNTIL THE END. Again, you use final score (20-3) to claim a game wasn't close completely ignoring the FACT that it was close for the majority of the game.

It was a domination.

It was friggin 6-3 after an entire half of play. I'm the one spewing?? Good grief.

Boy, you really hate Branch. Now I know the level of objectivity and bias that I'm dealing with. Branch doesn't need "defending" as you put it. His record speaks for itself. Easily the best playoff performer at WR in Patriots history. That's indisputable. Brown and Given had 12 catches, right? And your point is? 12 throws makes the Patriots a passing team that can't rely on a failing Branch? Really?

I don't hate Branch at all and have the same fond memories of his time here as you do. I just understand how to take my feelings out of the equation and think rationally. "playoff performer". This sounds like the little leprechaun argument of clutch that has been thoroughly debunked.

I was talking about the 2003 IND game when referencing Branch/Givens receptions. They only combined for 6 in the 04 game. But again, you explain it away (even though the first 2 playoff games in 2007 you can use the EXACT same arguments you use for Branch: Oh the running game was working, we won).

I have no idea what this even means. It should be basic logic, which you apparently lack. if you're running the ball down the other teams throat, you're not passing it. I should hope ANY football fan could easily understand that.

So, kinda like 2007 first 2 rounds of the playoffs in which you use to claim Branch > Moss lol. DOUBLE standard.

Playoff games are more important to me. You can keep your regular season stats. You probably prefer Peyton Manning too.

Playoff games are important to winning championships. However individuals do not possess leprechaun magic that makes them better players in the playoffs than they are overall. It doesn't exist, it's been studied and studied and studied. Do some research on disproving the stupid clutch argument.

I prefer Peyton Manning to most SB winning QBs aside from Brady and Montana. He is one of the best QBs to EVER play the game. He just happens to also be in a situation that doesn't lend itself to high probabilities of playoff success. Put Peyton on the Patriots from 01 to 09 instead of Brady and he probably has 2-3 SB rings as well.

The 2007 team was supposed to be a team for all-time. in crunch time though, Brady to Moss wasn't working. You can say it's because Moss had two defenders on him, but the fact is, Branch was doubled as well. if you think he wasn't, you were not watching.

Did you even watch the game? In crunch time Moss caught the go ahead TD in that Superbowl. And then you accuse me of not watching Branch when he NEVER got the attention Moss gets... SERIOUSLY?

 

[emoney_33]

PS: Randy Moss had better numbers with Matt Cassel than Branch has EVER had with any QB including HOF Tom Brady.

Moss had 3 less TDs in one year with Matt Cassel than Branch had in four years with Tom Brady.

 

[BradyFTW!]

At some point you just have to accept that anyone who thinks that Branch > Moss has abandoned all pretense of logic. There is no rational debate to be had.

 

[patsfan-1982]

moss, is 3rd all time in receiving TD's in pats history in only 3 season. i don't care how many rings Deion Branch, has moss, is a better WR. and that why he is on that list.

 

[Bring Back Antowain!]

Here's a full 53 man team of the decade:

Patriots 53 Man Team Of the Decade | PatsBlog: A Patriots Blog

Kind of looks like he was grasping at straws to finish the 53. Lot of players on there. Junior Seau... Je'Rod Cherry and Izzo as special teamers.

 

[upstater1]

What's the point of bringing the other WRs into the discussion if you're going to conveniently ignore the running game gap (Dillon in an MVP-caliber performance vs. Maroney- as much as I like the guy, he's not even in the same ballpark as Dillon was that year).

Well, then, I guess we're saying the 2007 offense did not have as many weapons as the 2004 offense. I didn't conveniently ignore anything, by the way. It's a good argument to say the running game loosened up the passing game BUT...

Branch won the Super Bowl MVP against Carolina in 2003.

 

[upstater1]

What's the point of bringing the other WRs into the discussion if you're going to conveniently ignore the running game gap (Dillon in an MVP-caliber performance vs. Maroney- as much as I like the guy, he's not even in the same ballpark as Dillon was that year).

And the Giants' defense, on that day, was FAR better than Pitt or Philly when we played them. They were generating pressure at will.

What of the Chargers game?

 

[emoney_33]

Branch won the Super Bowl MVP against Carolina in 2003.

No he didn't

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't like the Milloy inclusion, am not sure about Pfifer, Kaczur or Andruzzi being on the list, and I think that Branch would have been WR4.


Just my $.02

 

[Rob0729]

Branch was certainly the best Patriots WR of the decade.

In the playoffs, he was excellent.

Really? The guy never had a 1,000 yard season (ok, he had a 998 yard season) or 5 TDs in a season. Troy held the team's single reception record for the Pats until Welker broke it and then broke his own record. Moss holds the league single season TD record.

I really like Branch, but it is really hard to argue him over Moss, Welker, or Troy and I am not the biggest Moss fan in the world.

 

[Rob0729]

I would have put in Ted Washington over Wilfork.

Washington played eight games for the Pats. No way is he over Wilfork. This is the All Patriots decade team, not all NFL.

 

[upstater1]

He had 4 TERRIBLE games and 4 GREAT games (receiving stats wise). Average all you want, but it amounts to you using FOUR friggin games to claim he was better. You explain away all his bad games, and discount the entire regular season. Yeah you aren't nitpicking anything.

Boy, don't get angry now. I included all his bad games in the stats I'm comparing. I never once knocked Moss for playing badly, while you clearly have an agenda against Branch. You're the one lacking objectivity.

EVERYTHING counts, not just regular season, not just playoffs, not just receptions, not just yards, not just wins.

Playoffs count more. This is why Montana > Marino and Brady > Manning.

I'm not de-emphasizing anything, you are over-emphasizing things. I will re-iterate, 2006 Brady > 2003 Brady. (Yes I'm talking 2006, the entire year, NOT 2007).

Brady 2003 gave one of the best performances in history in leading his team to a Super Bowl championship. One could easily argue that Brady has never been better.

Argue it all you want, talk about the playoffs all you want, nitpick one game (superbowl) all you want. You are doing nothing more than handpicking stats you want to use to prove your pre-determined idea. Stats are useless when you nitpick and hunt down only the ones that agree with you. Not to mention when you can't understand the flaws or contributing factors.

I'll say it again: playoff performances are so much more improtant than regular season performances, because the good players step it up another level.

The 2007 Patriots weren't in danger of losing many games because Moss was so F'ing good. They won 18 in a row in one season, in huge part to MOSS being so F'ing good. You put Moss on the 2003 team instead of Branch, with that defense they probably go undefeated. Branch was absolutely not the focus of any gameplan like Moss was and has been. You don't think Dillon impacted gameplans any? This is absolutely amazing that a sane person is trying to argue Branch over Moss in any way shape or form.

What is really amazing is that you're not even aware that Dillon was not on the 2003 team. I mean, I'm arguing with a person who doesn't have basic facts straight. What am I supposed to do? I can only laugh at you.

Are you serious? Moss has never been anything but the best receiver on every team he's been on. Aside from Oakland, he's pretty much been the best WR every year he's been in the league. If Moss went to Seattle he wouldn't fall behind Burleson on the depth char like branch did. Funny how good Branch supposedly is but yet he couldn't even be the #1 on Seattle when he was traded. Listen to yourself.

Yes, and Branch was never injured in Seattle either. Thanks for your strawman argument. The really funny thing is that
you claimed that ANY team would have rather have had Moss in 2007 than the Branch of the Patriot years, and yet the Patriots grabbed Moss for a 4th rounder, while the Patriots got a 1st rounder in exchange for Branch. In terms of their value, clearly teams thought more of Branch. You're the one that asked the question, not me. Personally, if the season started tomorrow, I'd rather have Moss. But teams but that doesn't change the fact that NFL execs preferred Branch, and it wasn't only Seattle that valued him that highly. other teams offered more than a 4th. and even if I think Moss is a better WR, I don't think Moss outperformed Branch where it counts, and that's in the playoffs. 4 games should be plenty enough for Randy to show us what he can do.

You explained away Branch's bad playoff games by stating he wasn't needed because it wasn't a "close game". Yet all of those games were close until at least late in the 3rd. I'm not spewing, you can choose to ignore reality all you want.

They weren't close games. Jags game, the Patriots dominated. Colts game, they dominated. In crunch time, Branch was always there. What more proof do you want about the colts game? The Patriots hardly threw the ball. They crammed the ball down the Colts throats. Would you have passed the ball in that situation?

Maybe I didn't type it in clear English for you to understand. It was SIX to THREE at the end of the first half. It was THIRTEEN to THREE in the fourth. The game WAS CLOSE UNTIL THE END. Again, you use final score (20-3) to claim a game wasn't close completely ignoring the FACT that it was close for the majority of the game.

It wasn't close at all. The Colts never got the ball to score. The Patriots totally deflated the ball and sat on it. In a game like that, where one offense doesn't get the ball, a 10 point lead is like a 20 point lead. The game looked and felt like a blowout because the Patriots dominated. It looked like 1995 Nebraska out there just sucking the air out of the room. That game was a huge butt-kicking, and there was absolutely NO ROOM for the Patriots to throw to Branch. Again, why would you throw to him. You're running the ball for 210+ yards, your top receiver is your RB, you control the clock for almost the entirety of the second half, and you would really call that a terrible job by the WR? Why? That's ludicrous.

I don't hate Branch at all and have the same fond memories of his time here as you do. I just understand how to take my feelings out of the equation and think rationally. "playoff performer". This sounds like the little leprechaun argument of clutch that has been thoroughly debunked.

Saying I'm defending the guy shows bias. Defending what? What do I need to defend? Also, you called his MVP performances good games, and you called his other performances terrible. A lot of Patriots fans don't like Branch. I honestly don't know your feelings about him, but the way you say, "defending" and "good" and "terrible" sure made it seem like you don't like the guy.

As for playoff performer, yes, I like guys who have big games in the most crucial points. I do like them better, so sue me!

I was talking about the 2003 IND game when referencing Branch/Givens receptions. They only combined for 6 in the 04 game. But again, you explain it away (even though the first 2 playoff games in 2007 you can use the EXACT same arguments you use for Branch: Oh the running game was working, we won).

Right, I never knocked Moss for his performance those games. I fully understand that those games weren't TERRIBLE for Moss, as you would characterize them (I think you would call those games terrible, right? Right? Moss was terrible?). Actually, from my vantage at the game against the Chargers, he had some trouble. Be that as it may, the whole point here is that Branch has outperformed Moss in the playoffs, not that Moss was a playoff choker.

So, kinda like 2007 first 2 rounds of the playoffs in which you use to claim Branch > Moss lol. DOUBLE standard.

What? Make some sense man. I never looked at those two games to claim Branch is better than Moss. It should be obvious to all people reading this thread (except you) that I'm making the argument based on ALL the games they have played.

Playoff games are important to winning championships. However individuals do not possess leprechaun magic that makes them better players in the playoffs than they are overall. It doesn't exist, it's been studied and studied and studied. Do some research on disproving the stupid clutch argument.

And yet Branch was a better playoff performer than regular season performer, as shown by the evidence. And those facts are irrefutable. His averages are better in the playoffs. And some players CHOKE in the playoffs because the level of play is higher and the pressure gets to them (Peyton Manning). I googled "clutch argument." I have car advice for you now.

I prefer Peyton Manning to most SB winning QBs aside from Brady and Montana. He is one of the best QBs to EVER play the game. He just happens to also be in a situation that doesn't lend itself to high probabilities of playoff success. Put Peyton on the Patriots from 01 to 09 instead of Brady and he probably has 2-3 SB rings as well.

Nope. He loses in 2003. That was all Brady. He maybe wins 2, but then I bet with Reche as his top WR in 2006, he doesn't win a championship. So, Brady in Indy would have 2 or 3 championship and Peyton in New England would have maybe 2 (2001 and 2004).

Did you even watch the game? In crunch time Moss caught the go ahead TD in that Superbowl. And then you accuse me of not watching Branch when he NEVER got the attention Moss gets... SERIOUSLY?[/QUOTE]

The whole Super Bowl is crunch time. It's the biggest game of the year. He did not play as well as Branch did in his Super Bowls (and before you bring up Corey Dillon, the 2003 running back was Antowain Smith who was on his way out, and Antowain had 80 yards).

 

[upstater1]

PS: Randy Moss had better numbers with Matt Cassel than Branch has EVER had with any QB including HOF Tom Brady.

Moss had 3 less TDs in one year with Matt Cassel than Branch had in four years with Tom Brady.

How many times do I have to say this? Branch gets the nod because he is a great playoff performer.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What of the Chargers game?

What of it? Moss didn't have a great game, so what? Branch has had plenty of quiet games himself

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well, then, I guess we're saying the 2007 offense did not have as many weapons as the 2004 offense. I didn't conveniently ignore anything, by the way. It's a good argument to say the running game loosened up the passing game BUT...

Branch won the Super Bowl MVP against Carolina in 2003.

If you take Moss and Branch out of the equation for their respective teams, then yes, I would argue exactly that. Leaving out WR1, the 07 offense was superior at WR2 and almost nothing else.

Given that, the reason why the '07 Pats had a historic offense, which was far more productive than the '04 version? Because Moss is that much better than Branch.

And no, Branch didn't win the SB MVP in 2003.

 

[The Dynasty]

How many times do I have to say this? Branch gets the nod because he is a great playoff performer.

Yeah, it doesnt mean that Branch is a better player than Moss is. Moss has only been a Patriot 3 years and he hasnt won a Super Bowl. Branch was with the Patriots for 4 years and contributed in 2 of the Super Bowl wins, 1 being the MVP. Pretty hard to argue with that

 

[emoney_33]

Boy, don't get angry now. I included all his bad games in the stats I'm comparing. I never once knocked Moss for playing badly, while you clearly have an agenda against Branch. You're the one lacking objectivity.

You can't honestly believe this.

Playoffs count more. This is why Montana > Marino and Brady > Manning.

Brady > Manning not because of the playoffs. Unless you are arguing Manning 05-09 > Brady 05-09? Because ya know Manning won a SB in that timeframe and Brady did not. Brady > Manning (barely) because of many reasons, not "because playoffs count more".

Brady 2003 gave one of the best performances in history in leading his team to a Super Bowl championship. One could easily argue that Brady has never been better.

one (you) can argue whatever they want but no objective rational human being thinks Brady was at his best in 2003.

I'll say it again: playoff performances are so much more improtant than regular season performances, because the good players step it up another level.

And I'll re-iterate, this made up notion of "stepping up" in the clutch has been thoroughly disproven. Do some research, and use common sense.

What is really amazing is that you're not even aware that Dillon was not on the 2003 team. I mean, I'm arguing with a person who doesn't have basic facts straight. What am I supposed to do? I can only laugh at you.

I am absolutely aware that Dillon wasn't on the 2003 team. It is YOU who are unaware of things (e.g. claiming Branch won SB MVP against Carolina in 2003). I put two thoughts in back to back sentences, so maybe that part was confusing but I was never under the illusion that Dillon was here in 2003.

Yes, and Branch was never injured in Seattle either. Thanks for your strawman argument.

Uhh he hasn't been injured his entire career there and they never intended on him being WR#1. Are you seriously suggesting his injuries lowered him on their depth chart?

The really funny thing is that
you claimed that ANY team would have rather have had Moss in 2007 than the Branch of the Patriot years, and yet the Patriots grabbed Moss for a 4th rounder, while the Patriots got a 1st rounder in exchange for Branch. In terms of their value, clearly teams thought more of Branch.

This is horrendous logic. 2 different situations, 2 different teams, 2 different trades. If the Raiders traded Moss for Branch, then you'd have a point.

You're the one that asked the question, not me. Personally, if the season started tomorrow, I'd rather have Moss. But teams but that doesn't change the fact that NFL execs preferred Branch, and it wasn't only Seattle that valued him that highly. other teams offered more than a 4th. and even if I think Moss is a better WR, I don't think Moss outperformed Branch where it counts, and that's in the playoffs. 4 games should be plenty enough for Randy to show us what he can do.

You make absolutely 0 sense. Seriously, ZERO sense.

They weren't close games. Jags game, the Patriots dominated. Colts game, they dominated. In crunch time, Branch was always there. What more proof do you want about the colts game? The Patriots hardly threw the ball. They crammed the ball down the Colts throats. Would you have passed the ball in that situation?

I've already disproven this. Stop regurgitating easily disproven crap, it only makes you look foolish.

It wasn't close at all. The Colts never got the ball to score. The Patriots totally deflated the ball and sat on it. In a game like that, where one offense doesn't get the ball, a 10 point lead is like a 20 point lead.

The Colts had 6 first half possessions. The patriots had ONE drive of more than 6 plays until the middle of the 3rd quarter. (plays by drive: 4, 3, 16, 6, 3, 3). There was no dominating deflating of any football until late in the 3rd quarter, stop attempting to change history. Facts are easily verified.

Saying I'm defending the guy shows bias. Defending what? What do I need to defend? Also, you called his MVP performances good games, and you called his other performances terrible. A lot of Patriots fans don't like Branch. I honestly don't know your feelings about him, but the way you say, "defending" and "good" and "terrible" sure made it seem like you don't like the guy.

You are "defending" him against Moss, Welker and Brown. There is NO case for him against those 3 as Patriots players. It is YOU with the bias, not me. I LOVE Branch, I loved every moment he was here and look back on all his years with smiles. I'm not dogging on Branch but the fact of the matter is he was not better than either of the 3 aforementioned receivers.

As for playoff performer, yes, I like guys who have big games in the most crucial points. I do like them better, so sue me!

Like them better all you want, it's not a reproducible skill.

Right, I never knocked Moss for his performance those games. I fully understand that those games weren't TERRIBLE for Moss, as you would characterize them (I think you would call those games terrible, right? Right? Moss was terrible?). Actually, from my vantage at the game against the Chargers, he had some trouble. Be that as it may, the whole point here is that Branch has outperformed Moss in the playoffs, not that Moss was a playoff choker.

Branch outproduced Moss in the playoffs based on many factors, none of which have to do with who is better. In equal conditions Moss outproduces Branch 99 times out of 100. Also it's very hard to put a hard number value on how Moss impacts a game with regards to opening the field for others (e.g. Brady's 2 best statistical seasons are with Moss and Welker). I only classified bad production numbers as TERRIBLE because you are so focused on the production numbers with disregard of anything else including contributing factors.

What? Make some sense man.

You said the Patriots weren't throwing it in the IND game, and I used the first 2 rounds of 2007 (only 6 more pass attempts) to say "same thing".

I never looked at those two games to claim Branch is better than Moss. It should be obvious to all people reading this thread (except you) that I'm making the argument based on ALL the games they have played.

No you are doing exactly one thing: You are using FOUR games to argue Branch is better than Moss. To prove this, take those 4 games away and then try to argue it again. You can take away the entire 2007 season from Moss and he's STILL better than Branch.

And yet Branch was a better playoff performer than regular season performer, as shown by the evidence. And those facts are irrefutable. His averages are better in the playoffs. And some players CHOKE in the playoffs because the level of play is higher and the pressure gets to them (Peyton Manning). I googled "clutch argument." I have car advice for you now.

Small sample sizes. Given enough playoff games, his numbers will mimic his seasonal averages. Just like the "clutch" Jeter in baseball.

Nope. He loses in 2003. That was all Brady. He maybe wins 2, but then I bet with Reche as his top WR in 2006, he doesn't win a championship. So, Brady in Indy would have 2 or 3 championship and Peyton in New England would have maybe 2 (2001 and 2004).

Maybe he loses in 2003 but maybe he wins in 2005 or 2007, who knows. Bottom line 2-3 SBs with the Pats because he's GREAT.

The whole Super Bowl is crunch time. It's the biggest game of the year. He did not play as well as Branch did in his Super Bowls (and before you bring up Corey Dillon, the 2003 running back was Antowain Smith who was on his way out, and Antowain had 80 yards).

LOL, Moss STILL had the go ahead TD in the superbowl. Your argument is flawed and that's being nice.

The Panthers superbowl was a shootout in the 2nd half, Moss on that team would have put up MONSTER numbers. The Eagles did NOT focus on Branch and none of those games saw an OL failure like the 2007 SB.

How many times do I have to say this? Branch gets the nod because he is a great playoff performer.

You can nod all you want but that will never be the case.

Seriously, I can't wrap my mind around how ridiculously warped your argument is. Now I'm done responding to you on this topic. It's obvious that you have thrown out rationality in favor of nostalgia.

 

[emoney_33]

Yeah, it doesnt mean that Branch is a better player than Moss is. Moss has only been a Patriot 3 years and he hasnt won a Super Bowl. Branch was with the Patriots for 4 years and contributed in 2 of the Super Bowl wins, 1 being the MVP. Pretty hard to argue with that

Except for the fact that the 03/04 defense was a **** ton better than any defense the team has fielded during Moss' tenure. Branch can combine his 4 year patriot career and it doesn't match one of Moss' years here.

I was ecstatic then and I am grateful now that Branch was a contributing factor in those playoff runs, but let's not act like it was Branch's greatness that brought the rings. Replace Branch with Moss and those teams still win, just more convincingly.

 

[jmt57]

Branch gets the nod for the Super Bowl performances.
Moss gets the nod for the touchdowns and yardage.
Welker gets the nod for the receptions and first downs.


Sounds like the national rock-paper-scissors championship final.

 

[The Dynasty]

Except for the fact that the 03/04 defense was a **** ton better than any defense the team has fielded during Moss' tenure. Branch can combine his 4 year patriot career and it doesn't match one of Moss' years here.

I was ecstatic then and I am grateful now that Branch was a contributing factor in those playoff runs, but let's not act like it was Branch's greatness that brought the rings. Replace Branch with Moss and those teams still win, just more convincingly.

Not sure what point your trying to make. The all-decade team is for what a player actually did during the decade, not what another player could have done if he had played on the team in certain years.

I never said that it was Branch's "greatest that brought the rings", I even said that Moss is a better player than Branch but when you look at what each player has contributed to the team in the decade Moss has contributed outstanding stats, while Branch has contributed decent stats and 2 rings and an MVP award.