Branch is a true #1

[onegameatatime]

I'd love the see a more detailed analysis of receivers. Like many areas of football, receiving stats can be misleading. Do we really know how good Boldin is, for example? How many of his catches have been with a 20-point deficit against prevent coverage? When has Joe Horn had to do it when it counted?

The Pats have had a lot of leads over the past 3 years, and have a tendency to value time over yards later in games.

I tend to think he is a #1, but not a Top 10 #1 -- perhaps in the high part of 10-20. Consider even among the receivers who are "better" are you sure you'd rather have Owens or R. Moss? And what about Harrison being a no-show when it counts, while Branch was big time against Pitt and Philly?

 

[PonyExpress]

Joyner wrote Scientific Football 2005. You can read more about Joyner and his methods at: thefootballscientist.com. It isn't a fantasy football book, just to avoid easy criticism.

 

[PonyExpress]

I'd love the see a more detailed analysis of receivers. Like many areas of football, receiving stats can be misleading. Do we really know how good Boldin is, for example? How many of his catches have been with a 20-point deficit against prevent coverage? When has Joe Horn had to do it when it counted?

The Pats have had a lot of leads over the past 3 years, and have a tendency to value time over yards later in games.

I tend to think he is a #1, but not a Top 10 #1 -- perhaps in the high part of 10-20. Consider even among the receivers who are "better" are you sure you'd rather have Owens or R. Moss? And what about Harrison being a no-show when it counts, while Branch was big time against Pitt and Philly?

Joyner attempts to answer all of these questions. He reviews tape of every game and every play; How many yards were soft yards into prevent D's, like Arizona played against because they were always losing? etc. It is truly a fascinating analysis and beyond my expectations. This year's version is supposedly even more thorough in separating the wheat from the chaff.

 

[PonyExpress]

So what specifically in the Joyner book helps you support that opinion?? Just looking to see WHY you think that way?? Given Remix's 18 receivers...why is Branch better than ha;f of them??? I agree with Miguel on this one...totally!!!

If you read my original reply to Miguel you would have seen my reason's for supporting Branch...

 

[VJCPatriot]

Ok hold up here. Are you getting paid to advertise his book? Because I'm not paying 30 bucks for this book to try to understand a theory that proves Branch is a top #1 when you don't even summarize the main point.

Basically this is like arguing with a phantom because you are referring to a periodical most people have never read, and won't read at that price (30 bucks!)

Let's just summarize real quick what Branch has accomplished thus far:

RECEIVING

Year Team G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD
2002 New England Patriots 13 7 43 489 11.4 49 2 6 2 22
2003 New England Patriots 15 11 57 803 14.1 66 3 9 2 40
2004 New England Patriots 9 9 35 454 13.0 26 4 6 0 27
2005 New England Patriots 16 15 78 998 12.8 51 5 13 1 51
TOTAL 53 42 213 2744 12.9 66 14 34 5 140

So in short Branch has had 2 seasons with under 500 yards receiving, and 2 seasons with under 1,000 yards receiving.
And his best catching season was last year with 78, but he's never had the 90-100 catch season unlike say Troy Brown.

Brown's 3 most productive years were 2000-2002. And the Pats gave him a deserved raise for his performance. But when his performance dropped they cut his salary.

RECEIVING

Year Team G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD
2000 New England Patriots 16 15 83 944 11.4 44 4 12 1 45
2001 New England Patriots 16 13 101 1199 11.9 60 5 11 3 59
2002 New England Patriots 14 13 97 890 9.2 38 3 3 0 48

I'm sorry but in his best year so far Branch has not topped Troy.
I don't see the Pats committing 6M+ per year and a 12M signing bonus to Branch.
His numbers just don't merit it.
And if you want to talk about offenses diluting production just look at what Troy managed with probably not as much raw athletic talent as Branch.

Now Branch is a top 10 #1 WR how again?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Maybe they viewed Mason as a #2. The presumption the Pats wanted Mason as a #1 is pure speculation. Also, the attempt to acquire Mason seems to me to be a direct reflection of dissatisfaction with Givens, as I suggested earlier.

With 95 receptions in 2003, its pretty safe to say that the Pats did not project Mason as a #2 and Branch, with 43 and 57 catches in his two years in the league at #1.

I'd say that the strong push for Mason might have reflected dissatisfacton with the entire WR corps, but when you can add a guy who you deem as consistently good for 80 - 95 receptions, your existing WR corps better be pretty damn good already for you to take a pass.

I don't think they would have been disappointed with Branch's 43 & 57 catches however - those are great numbers for a #2 WR... the team just needed a #1.

 

[Miguel]

Maybe they viewed Mason as a #2. The presumption the Pats wanted Mason as a #1 is pure speculation. Also, the attempt to acquire Mason seems to me to be a direct reflection of dissatisfaction with Givens, as I suggested earlier.

You are correct that I am purely speculating that the Pats wanted Mason as a #1. You are speculating that the Pats wanted Mason as a #2. I think that it is far more likely that the Pats considered Mason as a #1. Mason accepted a 5 year, $20 million deal from the Ravens. He turned down more money from the Pats. If the Pats wanted Mason as a #2, then they would have to pay their #1 more money.

I do not see anything in Beioli's history with contracts that suggests that they would be so willing to have one of the highest paid #2s and one of the highest paid 1s.

 

[PonyExpress]

Ok hold up here. Are you getting paid to advertise his book? Because I'm not paying 30 bucks for this book to try to understand a theory that proves Branch is a top #1 when you don't even summarize the main point.

Basically this is like arguing with a phantom because you are referring to a periodical most people have never read, and won't read at that price (30 bucks!)

Let's just summarize real quick what Branch has accomplished thus far:

RECEIVING

Year Team G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD
2002 New England Patriots 13 7 43 489 11.4 49 2 6 2 22
2003 New England Patriots 15 11 57 803 14.1 66 3 9 2 40
2004 New England Patriots 9 9 35 454 13.0 26 4 6 0 27
2005 New England Patriots 16 15 78 998 12.8 51 5 13 1 51
TOTAL 53 42 213 2744 12.9 66 14 34 5 140

So in short Branch has had 2 seasons with under 500 yards receiving, and 2 seasons with under 1,000 yards receiving.
And his best catching season was last year with 78, but he's never had the 90-100 catch season unlike say Troy Brown.

Brown's 3 most productive years were 2000-2002. And the Pats gave him a deserved raise for his performance. But when his performance dropped they cut his salary.

RECEIVING

Year Team G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD
2000 New England Patriots 16 15 83 944 11.4 44 4 12 1 45
2001 New England Patriots 16 13 101 1199 11.9 60 5 11 3 59
2002 New England Patriots 14 13 97 890 9.2 38 3 3 0 48

I'm sorry but in his best year so far Branch has not topped Troy.
I don't see the Pats committing 6M+ per year and a 12M signing bonus to Branch.
His numbers just don't merit it.
And if you want to talk about offenses diluting production just look at what Troy managed with probably not as much raw athletic talent as Branch.

Now Branch is a top 10 #1 WR how again?

Did you read my first reply to Miguel with the red highlights? No, I am not being paid. I bought his book and I like it. It opens a gold mine of previously unreported info, and I was using it to help me form my opinions.

 

[Miguel]

Does KC Joyner says this??

"Combining all this info, Deion was the best receiver in the league in 2004"

or is that your take on his work???

If it is your take, who did KC Joyner say was the best receiver in the league in 2004.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

I was a Twig backer from day one but once again Miguel posted the Cold Hard Football Facts and tells us that The Twig is a 2nd tier #1. Bummah.

In this instance there is a true gap between the perceptions of the Pats' camps and The Twig's, unlike with Brady & Big Sey's camps. Not good.

...and all that REALLY matters...is what Belichick decides. NOT this Miguel person you speak of.

 

[shakadave]

Given Remix's 18 receivers...why is Branch better than half of them??? I agree with Miguel on this one...totally!!!

Remix's 18 receivers are absolutely not a given! Just to pick one, do you really believe Plaxico is better than Branch?

 

[PonyExpress]

You are correct that I am purely speculating that the Pats wanted Mason as a #1. You are speculating that the Pats wanted Mason as a #2. I think that it is far more likely that the Pats considered Mason as a #1. Mason accepted a 5 year, $20 million deal from the Ravens. He turned down more money from the Pats. If the Pats wanted Mason as a #2, then they would have to pay their #1 more money.

I do not see anything in Beioli's history with contracts that suggests that they would be so willing to have one of the highest paid #2s and one of the highest paid 1s.

That is approximately the same money you said earlier that they offered Givens to be their #2. Maybe they were being prescient with Mason.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Did you read my first reply to Miguel with the red highlights?

Went back and reread it. So the theory that Deion is a top 10 WR is based on the number of drops he had? I think that's... umm a misleading statistic. Yes drop percentage indicates hands. I'll agree with that. But it is so hard to keep track of which catches were off target, which passes were the QB's fault, or throwing into zone coverage. That I don't find that stat meaningful.

I also question how this guy compiled statistics that allowed him to determine how many times Branch got open by 2 steps or more. It would require him to go over every offensive play of every game that Branch took part in in the film room. And even then those statistics can be misleading if for example the defense is playing zone or the DB is providing too big of a cushion. Hard to determine the quality of routes. Was Branch wide open due to running a great route, or did the DB just slip that play, or was the defense just playing a soft zone, trying to induce the QB to throw a pick?

Yes I know overall production numbers don't tell the whole story either, but they are the easiest to use in a comparison of WRs, because one can assume that defenses tried equally hard to stop the WR, although if you really want to dig deep you could go into strength of schedule analysis and see what ranked pass defenses the WR played against.

Going by overall career stats thus far, Branch doesn't look like a top 10 WR in the NFL.

 

[PonyExpress]

Does KC Joyner says this??

"Combining all this info, Deion was the best receiver in the league in 2004"

or is that your take on his work???

If it is your take, who did KC Joyner say was the best receiver in the league in 2004.

This is the exact quote from Joyner, pg 309. "Do you know what two things Deion Branch did better than any other WR in the league last year (2004)? He got open and caught passes."

As I mentioned earlier, Joyner believes Tory Holt is the best receiver in the NFL.

 

[PonyExpress]

Went back and reread it. So the theory that Deion is a top 10 WR is based on the number of drops he had? I think that's... umm a misleading statistic. Yes drop percentage indicates hands. I'll agree with that. But it is so hard to keep track of which catches were off target, which passes were the QB's fault, or throwing into zone coverage. That I don't find that stat meaningful.

I also question how this guy compiled statistics that allowed him to determine how many times Branch got open by 2 steps or more. It would require him to go over every offensive play of every game that Branch took part in in the film room. And even then those statistics can be misleading if for example the defense is playing zone or the DB is providing too big of a cushion. Hard to determine the quality of routes. Was Branch wide open due to running a great route, or did the DB just slip that play, or was the defense just playing a soft zone, trying to induce the QB to throw a pick?

Yes I know overall production numbers don't tell the whole story either, but they are the easiest to use in a comparison of WRs, because one can assume that defenses tried equally hard to stop the WR, although if you really want to dig deep you could go into strength of schedule analysis and see what ranked pass defenses the WR played against.

Going by overall career stats thus far, Branch doesn't look like a top 10 WR in the NFL.

Actually that's not what I said at all. And Joyner actually did do what you suggest. But I don't want to be accused of pimping his book for money, which any honest person would find very insulting.

 

[JoeSixPat]

That is approximately the same money you said earlier that they offered Givens to be their #2. Maybe they were being prescient with Mason.

When you say they offered $20 million to Givens I assume you mean THIS year.

Surely we don't need to explain to you the difference between $20 million in 2004 and $20 million in the post New CBA Salary Cap boost mania seen this past year, do we?

$20 mil for Mason was #1 money in 2004... the only prescience demonstrated by the Pats was that even going up to a $25 million 2 years ago would be a bargain following a new CBA.

There can be no question that the Pats viewed Mason as a #1 WR with a 5 year $25 million offer as that was #1 WR money in 2004. Why would they pay #1 money to a #2 WR?

So as of 2004 the Patriots did NOT view Branch as a #1 WR... the question is, with only one season with #1 WR numbers under his belt, do the Pats NOW view Branch as a #1 WR.

My guess is they view him as a #1a - and would attempt to keep him by offering him the going market rate for a 1a player.

Branch may feel that other teams will pay him more, and would opt to look elsewhere. I'm not sure I'd blame him.

 

[Johnny Z]

To me the WR across from him has little to do with it.

I just don't get the thing about true #-1 WRs. Their stats are going to go down on a well-coached team. Look at the Cards. They throw to their X and Z WRs about 170 times each. That's like gifting wins to the opposition.

So the Cards have two "true" #-1 WRs: essentially a curse.

When is the last time that a "true" #-1 WR won a Super Bowl ring?

What Joyner is trying to do is evaluate WRs on the plays that make a team win. In Cheeseheadville, which is where I live, the will say over and over that the Patriots do not win because of Deion Branch. In their minds for Deion Branch to be the cause of the wins he would have to have "true" #-1 WR stats.

Catch 22. He would have to be on a team that consistently fails to have those sorts of stats.

Does anybody here truly believe that Branch would not have amazing traditional stats if some numbskulls actually threw the ball to him 171 times a season?

 

[PonyExpress]

Joe Six Pat,
Let's just agree to disagree at this point. I have reasons which I believe support my argument. As I said earlier, I reserve the right to change my opinion on Branch when I get a chance to review the 2005 season. In the interim it appears many other respectable posters have an entrenched position, including Miguel, whose opinions hold great weight for all of us. So, I respect your various opinions and my position is not that of a troll intending to stir up irrational debate. Also, if any of my replies appeared flippant, i apologize... cornered dog syndrome.

 

[drpatriot]

This is the exact quote from Joyner, pg 309. "Do you know what two things Deion Branch did better than any other WR in the league last year (2004)? He got open and caught passes."

As I mentioned earlier, Joyner believes Tory Holt is the best receiver in the NFL.

Just out of curiosity, what other receivers does Joyner rank above Branch, if he even does so?

To stir the pot a little, I believe that Branch has the potential to produce the numbers of a #1 in any system, even ours. However, I don't think his performance thus far merits an extension to his contract. Belioli will likely resign him at the end of this year, and perhaps even during the season if Branch produces further.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Hey I can admire that you are taking a position that is in the minority. So likewise don't feel offended that I don't agree with your logic thus far. You obviously feel that Deion Branch is a top 10 WR in the NFL. And you feel that you have a scientific backing for that conclusion. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. And right now I just don't think Branch is worth the money he is demanding.

If he had numbers like Torry Holt over the last 2 seasons or so and really 'proven' himself I'd be all for paying the man his money. But it's hard to contemplate paying double million bonus money to a wideout who stands 5'9 and has never attained 1,000 yards or 100 catches in a season. Although he did get pretty close in 2005.

Another thing to consider when trying to decide whether to pay Branch top 10 WR money is the Pats overall team philosophy. Isn't the Pats offense based on the interchangeable parts WRs? That is the Pats try to put together a group of average to above average wideouts, and defeat the other teams with schemes.

Then you don't have to worry about '1 guy getting shut down' so your entire offense is shut down. If that is the case the Pats aim should be spreading out their cash among wideouts as evenly as possible to obtain the best 'above average' though not great wideouts. And clearly sinking 6-8M per year into one wideout would go contrary to that philosophy. What say you to that consideration?

Joe Six Pat,
Let's just agree to disagree at this point. I have reasons which I believe support my argument. As I said earlier, I reserve the right to change my opinion on Branch when I get a chance to review the 2005 season. In the interim it appears many other respectable posters have an entrenched position, including Miguel, whose opinions hold great weight for all of us. So, I respect your various opinions and my position is not that of a troll intending to stir up irrational debate. Also, if any of my replies appeared flippant, i apologize... cornered dog syndrome.