Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PATRIOTS-80, Feb 17, 2007.
Telling, predictable and deep as usual.. keep looking for the hidden message, even played it backward.. nothing is popping up.
I am glad
Ah, you need to get yourself a BB code decipherer. I got mine in a box of Crackerjax and it works like a charm. Here is what he really said:
"We couldn't reach agreement on a long-term contract with Samuel so we franchised him. We will continue to negotiate toward a long-term deal. We've learned from past mistakes regarding players like Deion Branch and Ty Law, and are doing all we can within certain parameters to maintain young talent on this team. We also are hoping to work out a long-term deal with Daniel Graham, but if that doesn't happen we'll pick up a blocking tight-end in the latter rounds of the upcoming draft."
I got my belichick decoder at Radio Shack and it picks up a litte more when he mumbles than those cracker jack models.
No wonder I was using my Little Orphan Annie DeCoder and kept coming out something about Daddy Warbucks, a dog named Sandy and some terrorist named Punjab.
Since I'm pretty sure that BB wouldn't regard the Ty Law moves as mistakes, and I'm confident that the franchise tag had nothing to do with any "mistakes" allegedly made regarding Branch, I'd suggest you get your decoder repaired or replaced with a better model.
You pickin' a fight, boy? That's all a matter of opinion. Branch could've been locked up long before last year's fiasco and the Law situation could have been resolved as well. The Patriots simply chose not to, to mixed results. In either case, there was no suggestion in BB's deciphered quote regarding the franchise tag being applied to either Branch or Law, just that the team is now moving earlier on contracts before things get out of hand (re., learning from past mistakes).
While there is a tiny smidge of truth in this statement it ignores many facts, such as:
1) 2005 was the first season in Branch's career that he did not miss any time due to injuries. While he was the SB MVP in 2004 he missed more than half the season. Do you want to throw big money at a guy who will only give you 3/4 of a season?
2) NE was up against the cap to within a couple hundred thousand, tops for the years 2004 and 2005. In order for them to sign Branch they would have had to rework other contacts.
3) There is no way that Branch would have been silly enough to sign an extension in 2003. He had proven that he was a capable player as a rookie and would only get better.
4) Branch obviously had issues with NE's contract long before 2006. Who is to say that he would have agreed to anything?
I apologize for how this might come across, but to say that NE could have locked up Branch long before this past season reeks of ignorance. Like my mom always said, "It takes two to tango." Based on your definition of "mistake" is every single high profile FA a mistake?
Gjaj15, I believe Punjab was one of the good guys. But it's been a very very long time since I've seen his name in print.
There will always be room for valid argument in cases like this; re., the many Branch threads this forum had early last season. I think when it involves a young player of proven worth, it's USUALLY incumbent upon the team to do whatever it takes within reason to sign him. We've come to know that "within reason" can mean different things to Belipioli vs. the rest of the league, which is fine. However, I believe they were caught with their pants down in the Branch matter and made the best of a bad situation that had unnecessarily spun out of control.
1.) This is obviously about the franchise tag, and you mentioned it in your decoding. And, as far as "learning", most players get hostile about that tag, so any "learning" is clearly in the future if we use your logic.
2.) I notice you didn't cite to Vinatieri. Good call, but that 800 pound gorilla still kills your argument.
3.) Branch was under contract and acted like an ass. New England got a #1 pick out of the deal, found a receiver it can use going forward (Gaffney) and played well enough offensively to get to the AFC Championship Game, even without Branch. What you call a fiasco, I call a pretty good job of making chicken salad out of chicken leavings.
4.) Law was already being paid a ridiculous amount of money and wanted to continue that even as he aged. New England tried to work something out, but couldn't satisfy Law, so they did the right thing and balked at his asking price. The Jets, who signed him for big cash, didn't hang onto him after that, which should tell you something. When New England made another offer to him after that, he again went after the cash. That's his right to do so, but it's by no means a New England 'mistake'.
NE made a mistake in not realizing how badly Branch wanted out of his final year. Beyond that, though, there is not much to criticize.
Perhaps, but that's a pretty serious miscalculation considering what's at stake, don't you think?
That a pretty vast hypothetical. Remember, Branch was under contract -- he was demanding that the team rip up an existing deal and refused to consider any extension. There is no indication whatsoever that he was willing to be "locked up" long before the final year of his contract.
As for Samuel, I've been assuming that the team would franchise him with the intention of seeing him on the field in 2007. I'm surprised by the eagerness for a tag-and-trade deal I've seen on this board. If Samuel is traded for a draft pick and some magic beans, who is supposed to play CB this season? The FA market is lousy and the draft pool at CB not much better. And even with Samuel, it's one of the Pats' thinner positions.
No, I wasn't referring to the franchise tag regarding either Branch or Law, that is your inference. I was referring to the simple fact of securing the guy's services for the coming year long ahead of time instead of letting things drag out and spin out of control.
They tried to secure Law's services for years because of the big cap hit. He didn't want to redo his deal. As for Branch, New England approached him about an extension, while he was still under contract, and he refused to discuss it. Now you are saying that they are learning from their mistakes by franchising a player after his contract has expired. Your argument about securing services "long ahead of time" is made completely invalid by that entire "expired contract" portion of Samuels' situation.
Again, you say that NE "let things drag out and get out of control" but that is not the case with Branch. NE would not have made as large of an offer to a player that couldn't stay helathy and Branch would have been foolish to sign considering his talent. So, because of that no agreement would have been likely prior to the 2005 season. From there, NE gave Branch the same treatment they have for all of their players. It wasn't like they played hardball with him.
Once NE's initial offer did not wipe out the final year, Branch never again made any effort to stay with NE. If anything, everything was calculated to get out of NE.
NE's mistake was minor. It was Branch that drove the seperation. It isn't always the team's fault that a player leaves.
Branch drove the divorce as he insisted on getting "his" after he and his agent flubbed the original 5th year of his rookie contract. He refused to work with NE as Brady & Seymour did.
There was NO WAY the Patriots could have given into his demands of tearing up that last year while he was under contract without facing a line about 52 players deep of other players looking for the same.
In the end, Branch was offered about the same as he got by the Shehawks, but it was too late for his agents liking. Don't forget, his agent REFUSED to negotiate along the way.
It sucks for the Pats, it sucks for Branch, it even sucks for the Shehawks (at this point, i bet they wish they hadn't done it). I hope Deion is happy with his money, because he ruined his relationship with a city, the fans around here, a QB (that could have gone down in history sort of like Rice/Montana) and more Superbowl rings as well.
Separate names with a comma.