Caldwell vs. Givens

[patsox23]

Let's give Brady the last word.

The story about Caldwell in today's Herald confirms that Caldwell was running incorrect routes and that Brady personally had to show him exactly where he wanted Caldwell to be by running the routes for him to demonstrate.

This is an incredibly disingenuous thing to say. Brady was helping Caldwell get on board and adjusted to the system - AND going out of his way to help THEIR MUTUAL COMMUNICATION, verbal and otherwise, develop as fast as possible. The article did not suggest, nor did it imply, say outright, or anything close, that it was due to Caldwell being a poor route-runner. The fact of the matter is, if Brady DID actually think Caldwell was a poor route-runner, the LAST thing he'd do is tell that story to prove his point. You are now fighting for victory in an argument you seem to have lost PAGES ago. Just stop.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I find it perfectly appropriate that you have MISQUOTED Shawshank here. "How can you be so obtuse?" is the line. And Givens was rarely effective as a #1. And 50/50 doesn't mean "most." Ever.

This is an incredibly disingenuous thing to say. Brady was helping Caldwell get on board and adjusted to the system - AND going out of his way to help THEIR MUTUAL COMMUNICATION, verbal and otherwise, develop as fast as possible. The article did not suggest, nor did it imply, say outright, or anything close, that it was due to Caldwell being a poor route-runner. The fact of the matter is, if Brady DID actually think Caldwell was a poor route-runner, the LAST thing he'd do is tell that story to prove his point. You are now fighting for victory in an argument you seem to have lost PAGES ago. Just stop.

"How can you be so obtuse" too?

We're not comparing Givens and Caldwell from a salary perspective. Just from a football perspective.

I asserted that if their salaries were the same, most GMs would opt for Givens. DaBruinz conceded that even at 5x Caldwell's salary 50% of GMs would still opt for Givens.

But apparently neither DaBruinz nor anyone else is willing to concede that many MORE than 50% would opt for Givens over Caldwell if his salary were the same as Caldwell's. That's the point.

DaBruinz and others also challenged my contention that Caldwell's route running was poor early on in the season... my opinon was that a good portion of the undrethrown, overthrown, and missed balls were not Brady's fault - as he's throwing to a point on the field where he expects the receiver to be.

No one would concede that Caldwell had some route running issues - yet today, we hear that Brady personally had to walk Caldwell through his routes to show him where he needed to be.

Why would he be doing that if Caldwell didn't need help?

What is it with everyone - I understand how everyone see's things through Patriots tinted glasses - but you can still be a fan and admit that Caldwell was not playing up to par for a good portion of the season thus far.

Nor should it hurt anyone to admit that with 4 good games under his belt, all things being equal we'd prefer to have Givens over Caldwell if their salaries were the same. Heck - most would have probably be willing to pay Givens MORE than Caldwell is getting.

I know I would have - but apparently I'm alone in that.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Well I have enjoyed this thread -- but in view of the fact that Givens salary was too high -- I'm willing to bet that Caldwell isn't going to sign a 2 year 2 million dollar contract that requires incentives in order for him to make the first million in the first year. If Caldwell posts in both years of his contract somewhere 50-59 catches, 650-750 yards, 2-6 TDs per year -- what exactly do you guys project his salary in FA to be?

As far I'm concerned, its going to be a 4 year contract [Joe Jurvicious (sp?) got a 4 year deal I believe, so did Brian Finneran (sp?) as well as Josh Reed]. Givens got 4.8 million per.

So, I'd say in '08 that Caldwell will be worth somewhere between 3-4 million, maybe even Given's deal if the market is low on WRs that year. NE will probably want to give 2.5 or so. Thoughts?

 

[DaBruinz]

To quote a line from the movie "Shawshank Redemption" -

"Are you guys obtuse?"

DaBruinz - I didn't say 50% of GMs would still pick Givens over a Caldwell with a contract 5-7 times as high as Caldwell even today - YOU did.

That's 50%, in your opinion, picking based on football talent, performance, upside - and a MUCH higher salary. (and by the way, you're just not going to convince me that Caldwell was running his routes well and Brady was the problem early on in the season - Caldwell was running crappy routes - anyone could see it, including most importantly Brady)

Actually, JSP, I did NOT say that. Here is my original quote.

"If the choice was 4.8 million for the production that Givens put up last year vs. 1 million for what Caldwell is putting up this year, I think you'd have a 50-50 split."

While YOU are obtuse and read it as me damning Caldwell, what it is really saying is that I think that 50% of the GMs in the league are stupid enough to pay 4.8 million for mediocre talent. But, you just go right on assuming otherwise.

Reality is, JSP, that Givens salary is NOT the same as Caldwell. And Caldwell is producing almost identical numbers as Givens put up in 2004 when Givens was the "#1 receiver". I proved that to you and you ignored it.

Also, since when did Brady say that Caldwell ran crappy routes early in the season? Now you are just making up garbage because you have failed miserably to prove your point.

We're only talking about football performance, talent etc. - You completely missed the point about Ortiz. Salary doesn't equate talent. Givens is not better or worse a football player than Caldwell simply because his salary is higher. Nor is Caldwell a better player than Givens because his salary is lower. What is it about this you don't understand?

Do you actually think FEWER GMs would pick Givens if his salary were the same as Caldwell? So all things being equal - if the majority of unbiased NFL GMs would pick Givens over Caldwell if their salaries are the same what do you think this means about their opinion of David Givens compared to Reche Caldwell in terms of football skills/talent/performance?

What I don't understand is how you go on and on about the same unfounded idea putting in a caveat that you can't prove nor is realistic.

Let me try to illustrate this with another analogy:

Do you think Tom Brady is the best QB in the game? (Let's assume "yes")

Would 50% of the GMs take a pass on him if his salary were $50million a year? - At least that many - maybe all.

Does that mean that Brady is not the best QB in the game because his salary is prohibitive? - of course not.

So, if Givens and Caldwell both had $1 million salaries, Do you or Don't you think that more GMs would pick Givens over Caldwell?

I think it would be a 50-50 split either way.

Why are you both trying to twist my opinion to think I'm asserting Caldwell isn't a better value than Givens? I'm not. I'd never sign Givens for that amount. But the truth is Caldwell's route running DID suck early on in the sesaon. Let's hope he's turned the corner, because we need him.

Sorry, JSP, your opinion isn't necessarily the truth no matter how hard you sit there and act like NEM stomping your feet with your hands over your ears saying "My opinion is the truth".

The TRUTH is that YOU don't have a clue whether it was Caldwell's route-running, the timing between Caldwell and Brady or just Brady having issues. THAT is the only truth.

But if I'm honest and unbiased like most GMs would be, and simply comparing Caldwell and Givens as football players - upside and all (and of course, within that one must factor Caldwell's history as well) I'm taking Givens every time.

You've already shown yourself to be biased so your claim of taking Givens every time is meaningless.

I'm just baffled that you guys would look at Givens stats over time and Caldwell's stats over time and declare him the better football player than Givens - that you'd compare their injury history, performance, 100 yard games (or the lack thereof) to this date in time, and based on 3 games in which Caldwell has gone over 70 yards this season, and pronounce him the better football player. And you suggest that I'M the one cherrypicking stats?

You are baffled because you have absolutely refused to look at the entire picture and have cherry picked stats to suit your argument.

The REAL truth is that in 2004, when Givens was receiving top coverage, his stats are nearly identical to what Caldwell is putting up. But in 2004, the offense didn't have the quality of receiver at TE that the 2006 team has. Nor did it have the quality of RBs.

You also have downright refused to acknowledge that the offenses are different (Weis vs. McDaniels) and that the routes the two players are running are not the same. That will have a major affect on their yards per catch. You've also refused to acknowledge that Caldwell has only been in the system for 11 games and 4 pre-season ones, while Givens, in 2004, was in his 3rd season in the Weis offense.

What is also amazing is how you make claims about what people have said that are downright false. No one is basing it JUST on 3 games where Caldwell has gone over 70 yards. But you are so quick to jump to conclusions you can't be bothered to look at everything. And you've shown that JSP.

 

[DaBruinz]

Let's give Brady the last word.

The story about Caldwell in today's Herald confirms that Caldwell was running incorrect routes and that Brady personally had to show him exactly where he wanted Caldwell to be by running the routes for him to demonstrate.

WOW. Pretty friggin amazing that you think that Karen Guerigan knows anything about football.

The story also correctly indicates that Caldwell is improving - and is the defacto #1 WR - a point that some won't concede for some reason.

Really? That's funny because it starts off with saying that Caldwell was brought in to replace Givens. To replace Givens, Caldwell would have had to be the #2.

And of course DaBruinz, in pointing out that Givens "only" had 3 games with more than 100 yards as a #1 WR in 2004 continues to overlook the point that Caldwell has had only 1 100 yard game in his entire career.

And no where was it mentioned about Caldwell's previous production. All that was pointed out to you was that Givens production as the "#1 receiver" is very similar to what Caldwell has done so far.

I'm hopeful Caldwell can continue to perform at the level he has for the last 4 games.

But if people want to convince themselves that 4 good games for Caldwell make him a better football player than 4 years for Givens, I think they are kidding themselves.

Note how everyone wants to ignore the question of whether they'd take Givens over Caldwell for even money.

Its ignored because its not a valid question. Its a fantasy that hasn't happened nor can happen.

I do give DaBruinz credit for admitting that even at 5x the salary of Caldwell 50% of the GMs would take Givens - though he doesn't seem to think any more would take Givens at a salary comparable to Caldwell for some reason.

Too bad that isn't what I said. That is just how you decided to interpret what I said.

 

[patsox23]

"How can you be so obtuse" too?

We're not comparing Givens and Caldwell from a salary perspective. Just from a football perspective.

WE ARE, at this point, COMPARING THEM FROM A FOOTBALL PERSPECTIVE. Good Lord. Many of us see more potential from Caldwell than we did from Givens. I LIKE Givens. I was hoping we'd keep him, 'though not at the ridiculous $$$ he got.

OVERALL, genius, SALARY ASIDE, I and many others here PREFER Caldwell. He is more naturally gifted and seems to work pretty darn hard, as well. And, for the most part, when Givens was asked to step up and BE the #1 target for Brady, he failed to do so adequately. Doesn't mean we hate him. Doesn't mean we don't think he's good. It just means we see more in Caldwell than we do/did in Givens.

 

[DaBruinz]

WE ARE, at this point, COMPARING THEM FROM A FOOTBALL PERSPECTIVE. Good Lord. Many of us see more potential from Caldwell than we did from Givens. I LIKE Givens. I was hoping we'd keep him, 'though not at the ridiculous $$$ he got.

OVERALL, genius, SALARY ASIDE, I and many others here PREFER Caldwell. He is more naturally gifted and seems to work pretty darn hard, as well. And, for the most part, when Givens was asked to step up and BE the #1 target for Brady, he failed to do so adequately. Doesn't mean we hate him. Doesn't mean we don't think he's good. It just means we see more in Caldwell than we do/did in Givens.

Givens is what he is. A solid, but not spectacular, #2 who is hard-pressed to be a #1 receiver. But, Tom Brady had a LOT to do with it and the Titans really over-paid for Givens.

In my estimation, Caldwell will be a better #2 than Givens and a better fill in as a #1 than Givens was. Caldwell DID earn a starting role in San Diego before his injury. A catastrophic injury that he seems to be fully recovered from. He's earned Brady's confidence quicker than Givens did and I think that his taking the initiative to work with Brady to find out how Brady was expecting the routes to be run is a very good thing. (read, players learning how the other will do things, not one player is playing crappy)

Anyways, my final thoughts on this. Givens produced well as a number two and was able to get open pretty regularly when not going against the top coverage guy on the opposing team. When Givens had to go against the top corners, he's producing the way that Caldwell is producing.

Givens role and Caldwell's role are different so its very hard to compare them by comparing the Yards Per Catch. They are in different offenses and they aren't running the same routes. And the receiving options are different. (read: in 2004, Brady rarely went to the TE because the TE was in as a blocker and not as a receiver).

 

[JoeSixPat]

Too bad that isn't what I said. That is just how you decided to interpret what I said.

Really? Here's exactly what you said about where GMs would come down on the issue of Givens vs. Caldwell.

If the choice was 4.8 million for the production that Givens put up last year vs. 1 million for what Caldwell is putting up this year, I think you'd have a 50-50 split.

Since you clearly stated that half of the teams would take Givens production last year over Caldwell's this year even with Givens earning 5x as much, exactly why do you feel that more GMs wouldn't take Givens over Caldwell if they were both earning only $1 million.

There's nothing to misinterpret in your statement - I give you credit for your candor that even at 5x the salary, half the GMs would take Givens.

That being said, its only logical to assume that if the other GMs could get Givens for 1/5th as much, a good portion of them would probably go for Givens instead, wouldn't they?

So why would the majority of GMs opt to take the lesser football player if the money is the same?

 

[shmessy]

Joe, looking at 2006 so far, one can only come away with this observation:

Caldwell 38 462 3 $906,160
Givens 8 104 0 $4,800,000

Yes, Givens has played 3 less games due to injury.

Could you PLEASE tell us what your argument is here?

 

[shmessy]

Really, the big question would be "Is Givens a product puffed up from the Patriot-Brady system?"

 

[JoeSixPat]

Joe, looking at 2006 so far, one can only come away with this observation:

Caldwell 38 462 3 $906,160
Givens 8 104 0 $4,800,000

Yes, Givens has played 3 less games due to injury.

Could you PLEASE tell us what your argument is here?

The argument, is whether Givens is a better WR than Caldwell.

The argument is NOT whether Caldwell is a better value than Givens. He is.

I'm really not sure why this question is so difficult for everyone to comprehend.

My contention is, that all things being equal - most particuarly salary - that most GMs would take Givens over Caldwell every day of the week.

DaBruinz goes so far to suggest that even at 5x Caldwell's salary, half the GMs would pick Givens over Caldwell.

What he can't seem to admit is, if Givens had a $1 million salary like Caldwell, even more GMs would take Givens over Caldwell.

I think its clear that most GMs would take Givens over Caldwell if both were $1 mil a season, and that alone should tell people that an unbiased view of both players favors Givens as the better WR.

 

[Kdo5]

Well here is how I look at it. Brady had Givens. Givens looked like a pretty good reciever. He took a high paying job with QB's like Young. Young is starting to look good but he is only a rookie QB. Caldwell wasnt a great reciever in San Diego. Brees may be a good QB but neither Brees nor Young can compare to Brady. A lot has to do with Tom.

 

[spacecrime]

DaBruinz goes so far to suggest that even at 5x Caldwell's salary, half the GMs would pick Givens over Caldwell.

What he can't seem to admit is, if Givens had a $1 million salary like Caldwell, even more GMs would take Givens over Caldwell.

I think its clear that most GMs would take Givens over Caldwell if both were $1 mil a season, and that alone should tell people that an unbiased view of both players favors Givens as the better WR.

Pathetic logic. First you guess that most GMs would perfer Givens. Then you say because most GMs prefer Givens, this is proof that Givens is better. And you call it unbiased even though it is totally based on an opinion of your own. The facts are that no GM thought enough of Givens to pony up for him as a RFA, and only 1 of 31 other teams liked him enough to make an offer. That isn't most in my book.

Anyway, the fact GMs prefer one guy to another is NOT proof that he is better! Are you nuts?

Here's how good GMs are as proof of which WR is the better one:

TJ Houksmanzadeh was drafted in the seventh round of 2001. Not just most, but all GMs preferred almost every other wide receiver to Hous. So by your GM logic, that alone should tell people that that an unbiased view of all WRs drafted in 2001 shows Housmanzadeh as the worst WR drafted that year. Your GMs preferred Freddie Mitchell and David Terrell to Housmanzadeh. So that means that Housmanzadeh is not as good as those two? What kind of logic is that?

Your gold standard GMs preferred the following to Housmanzadeh:

Player School Rd Sel# Team
David Terrell Michigan 1 8 Chicago
Koren Robinson North Carolina State 1 9 Seattle
Rod Gardner Clemson 1 15 Washington
Santana Moss Miami 1 16 N.Y. Jets
Freddie Mitchell UCLA 1 25 Philadelphia
Reggie Wayne Miami 1 30 Indianapolis
Quincy Morgan Kansas State 2 33 Cleveland
Chad Johnson Oregon State 2 36 Cincinnati
Robert Ferguson Texas A&M 2 41 Green Bay
Chris Chambers Wisconsin 2 52 Miami
Steve Smith Utah 3 74 Carolina
Marvin Minnis Florida State 3 77 Kansas City
Milton Wynn Washington State 4 116 St. Louis
Justin McCareins Northern Illinois 4 124 Tennessee
Cedric James Texas Christian 4 131 Minnesota
Vinny Sutherland Purdue 5 136 Atlanta
Alex Bannister Eastern Kentucky 5 140 Seattle
Scotty Anderson Grambling 5 148 Detroit
Onome Ojo Cal-Davis 5 153 New Orleans
Darnerien McCants Delaware State 5 154 Washington
Eddie Berlin Northern Iowa 5 159 Tennessee
Jonathan Carter Troy 5 162 N.Y. Giants
Bobby Newcombe Nebraska 6 166 Arizona
Cedrick Wilson Tennessee 6 169 San Francisco
Kevin Kasper Iowa 6 190 Denver
Francis St. Paul Northern Arizona 6 197 St. Louis

 

[mgcolby]

Pathetic logic. First you guess that most GMs would perfer Givens. Then you say because most GMs prefer Givens, this is proof that Givens is better. And you call it unbiased even though it is totally based on an opinion of your own. The facts are that no GM thought enough of Givens to pony up for him as a RFA, and only 1 of 31 other teams liked him enough to make an offer. That isn't most in my book.

Anyway, the fact GMs prefer one guy to another is NOT proof that he is better! Are you nuts?

Here's how good GMs are as proof of which WR is the better one:

TJ Houksmanzadeh was drafted in the seventh round of 2001. Not just most, but all GMs preferred almost every other wide receiver to Hous. So by your GM logic, that alone should tell people that that an unbiased view of all WRs drafted in 2001 shows Housmanzadeh as the worst WR drafted that year. Your GMs preferred Freddie Mitchell and David Terrell to Housmanzadeh. So that means that Housmanzadeh is not as good as those two? What kind of logic is that?

Your gold standard GMs preferred the following to Housmanzadeh:

Player School Rd Sel# Team
David Terrell Michigan 1 8 Chicago
Koren Robinson North Carolina State 1 9 Seattle
Rod Gardner Clemson 1 15 Washington
Santana Moss Miami 1 16 N.Y. Jets
Freddie Mitchell UCLA 1 25 Philadelphia
Reggie Wayne Miami 1 30 Indianapolis
Quincy Morgan Kansas State 2 33 Cleveland
Chad Johnson Oregon State 2 36 Cincinnati
Robert Ferguson Texas A&M 2 41 Green Bay
Chris Chambers Wisconsin 2 52 Miami
Steve Smith Utah 3 74 Carolina
Marvin Minnis Florida State 3 77 Kansas City
Milton Wynn Washington State 4 116 St. Louis
Justin McCareins Northern Illinois 4 124 Tennessee
Cedric James Texas Christian 4 131 Minnesota
Vinny Sutherland Purdue 5 136 Atlanta
Alex Bannister Eastern Kentucky 5 140 Seattle
Scotty Anderson Grambling 5 148 Detroit
Onome Ojo Cal-Davis 5 153 New Orleans
Darnerien McCants Delaware State 5 154 Washington
Eddie Berlin Northern Iowa 5 159 Tennessee
Jonathan Carter Troy 5 162 N.Y. Giants
Bobby Newcombe Nebraska 6 166 Arizona
Cedrick Wilson Tennessee 6 169 San Francisco
Kevin Kasper Iowa 6 190 Denver
Francis St. Paul Northern Arizona 6 197 St. Louis

You are comparing proven NFL production to the crap shoot that is the draft. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

For the record which I think is stated in this thread I would rather have Givens, but he got overpaid and Caldwell has destroyed my expectations.

I just feel you are comparing apples to oranges with your argument.

Now back to the regulary scheduled program.

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Really, the big question would be "Is Givens a product puffed up from the Patriot-Brady system?"

Was Patten a product? Is Caldwell a product? I say all three are made better by Brady. Now one must not take what I say to mean that we can line anybody out at wideout and it will work (see Donald Hayes), but if you put an "overachiever" out there -- I think Brady makes them better. This and this fact indeed is why kudos is to be given to BB/SP -- Caldwell works hard.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Pathetic logic. First you guess that most GMs would perfer Givens. Then you say because most GMs prefer Givens, this is proof that Givens is better. And you call it unbiased even though it is totally based on an opinion of your own. The facts are that no GM thought enough of Givens to pony up for him as a RFA, and only 1 of 31 other teams liked him enough to make an offer. That isn't most in my book.

Anyway, the fact GMs prefer one guy to another is NOT proof that he is better! Are you nuts?

Here's how good GMs are as proof of which WR is the better one:

TJ Houksmanzadeh was drafted in the seventh round of 2001. Not just most, but all GMs preferred almost every other wide receiver to Hous. So by your GM logic, that alone should tell people that that an unbiased view of all WRs drafted in 2001 shows Housmanzadeh as the worst WR drafted that year. Your GMs preferred Freddie Mitchell and David Terrell to Housmanzadeh. So that means that Housmanzadeh is not as good as those two? What kind of logic is that?

Your gold standard GMs preferred the following to Housmanzadeh:

Player School Rd Sel# Team
David Terrell Michigan 1 8 Chicago
Koren Robinson North Carolina State 1 9 Seattle
Rod Gardner Clemson 1 15 Washington
Santana Moss Miami 1 16 N.Y. Jets
Freddie Mitchell UCLA 1 25 Philadelphia
Reggie Wayne Miami 1 30 Indianapolis
Quincy Morgan Kansas State 2 33 Cleveland
Chad Johnson Oregon State 2 36 Cincinnati
Robert Ferguson Texas A&M 2 41 Green Bay
Chris Chambers Wisconsin 2 52 Miami
Steve Smith Utah 3 74 Carolina
Marvin Minnis Florida State 3 77 Kansas City
Milton Wynn Washington State 4 116 St. Louis
Justin McCareins Northern Illinois 4 124 Tennessee
Cedric James Texas Christian 4 131 Minnesota
Vinny Sutherland Purdue 5 136 Atlanta
Alex Bannister Eastern Kentucky 5 140 Seattle
Scotty Anderson Grambling 5 148 Detroit
Onome Ojo Cal-Davis 5 153 New Orleans
Darnerien McCants Delaware State 5 154 Washington
Eddie Berlin Northern Iowa 5 159 Tennessee
Jonathan Carter Troy 5 162 N.Y. Giants
Bobby Newcombe Nebraska 6 166 Arizona
Cedrick Wilson Tennessee 6 169 San Francisco
Kevin Kasper Iowa 6 190 Denver
Francis St. Paul Northern Arizona 6 197 St. Louis

WOWWWWWWW! You are really reaching here.

First of all, take it up with DaBruinz in that he says 50% of GMs would pick Givens over Caldwell even at 5x the salary.

I wouldn't go that far, but hey, those are his words.

Second, why are you talking about Givens as a RFA? Where the hell did that come from?

Do I have to repeat the question yet again? You have a choice. Givens at $1 million a year or Caldwell at $1 million a year. Who do you take?

I'm going out of my way to try to bring in a less biased perspective than every other Patsfan around here who seems to believe that anyone wearing the laundry is destined for Canton - and as soon as they put on another team's jersey, the magic is gone.

But now we're told that the local Patsfans - and certainly not the GMs of every other football team in the NFL - are not only unbiased, but are better judges of football talent than the GMs for every other team????

I've got to say, this thread has provided some interesting insight into how the minds of a lot of Patsfans work!

Just amazing to me how fickle folks are around here. I'd bet quite a few of the members here were very interested in keeping Givens for reasonable money this past offseason.

Now they say that even for the same measley $1 million a year we're giving to Caldwell, they'd take Caldwell - a guy with proven performance over 4 games - over a guy with proven performance over 4 years.

As I said.... WOWWWWWWW!

 

[shmessy]

WOWWWWWWW! You are really reaching here.

First of all, take it up with DaBruinz in that he says 50% of GMs would pick Givens over Caldwell even at 5x the salary.

I wouldn't go that far, but hey, those are his words.

Second, why are you talking about Givens as a RFA? Where the hell did that come from?

Do I have to repeat the question yet again? You have a choice. Givens at $1 million a year or Caldwell at $1 million a year. Who do you take?

I'm going out of my way to try to bring in a less biased perspective than every other Patsfan around here who seems to believe that anyone wearing the laundry is destined for Canton - and as soon as they put on another team's jersey, the magic is gone.

But now we're told that the local Patsfans - and certainly not the GMs of every other football team in the NFL - are not only unbiased, but are better judges of football talent than the GMs for every other team????

I've got to say, this thread has provided some interesting insight into how the minds of a lot of Patsfans work!

Just amazing to me how fickle folks are around here. I'd bet quite a few of the members here were very interested in keeping Givens for reasonable money this past offseason.

Now they say that even for the same measley $1 million a year we're giving to Caldwell, they'd take Caldwell - a guy with proven performance over 4 games - over a guy with proven performance over 4 years.

As I said.... WOWWWWWWW!

First of all, why waste everyone's time with "If they made the same amount", they don't. If my Aunt Bernice had a moustache she'd be my Uncle Bernie.


1) 38 REC 462 yards 3 TD's vs. 8 REC 104 yards 0 TD's, that's mano a mano, apples to apples this year (albeit with an 11-5 games edge with Caldwell). CATEGORICALLY, Joe, even if they were paid THE SAME, Caldwell has been faaaaarrrrr better in 2006 than Givens. THANK GOD the Pats didn't cave and overpay for Givens - - they were able to get far better value for the money and cap (and were able to extend Koppen with the savings - Caldwell is doing everything, except perhaps the blocking, that Givens did when here - would you rather have the very same level of WR and NOT Koppen and at least a 5th rounder next year in addition?)

2) Letting Givens leave and grabbing Caldwell (whether it was premeditated or not) was a great deal (just ask the poor Tennessee Titans).

3) To sum up:

Here's what the Titans got: 1) 8 Rec 104 Yards 0 TD
Here's what the Pats got: 1) 38 Rec 462 Yards 3 TDs
2) At least a 5th Round Comp next year
3) Dan Koppen extended

Now, please help me understand, what the hell is your point?

 

[fgssand]

First of all, why waste everyone's time with "If they made the same amount", they don't. If my Aunt Bernice had a moustache she'd be my Uncle Bernie.


1) 38 REC 462 yards 3 TD's vs. 8 REC 104 yards 0 TD's, that's mano a mano, apples to apples this year (albeit with an 11-5 games edge with Caldwell). CATEGORICALLY, Joe, even if they were paid THE SAME, Caldwell has been faaaaarrrrr better in 2006 than Givens. THANK GOD the Pats didn't cave and overpay for Givens - - they were able to get far better value for the money and cap (and were able to extend Koppen with the savings - Caldwell is doing everything, except perhaps the blocking, that Givens did when here - would you rather have the very same level of WR and NOT Koppen and at least a 5th rounder next year in addition?)

2) Letting Givens leave and grabbing Caldwell (whether it was premeditated or not) was a great deal (just ask the poor Tennessee Titans).

3) To sum up:

Here's what the Titans got: 1) 8 Rec 104 Yards 0 TD
Here's what the Pats got: 1) 38 Rec 462 Yards 3 TDs
2) At least a 5th Round Comp next year
3) Dan Koppen extended

Now, please help me understand, what the hell is your point?

Can you just imagine the outcry here if we had signed Givens at 18 or even 20MM and then have him have the season he had while losing Branch? I submit that not only has Reche made losing Givens a debateable "push" but he also helped keep a lid on the Branch noise by his surprising solid play.

We get a number 5 and a number 1, with Caldwell, Daffney and Gabriel added to last years #2 - Jackson.

Which would you rather have - Branch & Givens (with Jackson) or all of the above?

 

[JoeSixPat]

First of all, why waste everyone's time with "If they made the same amount", they don't. If my Aunt Bernice had a moustache she'd be my Uncle Bernie.


1) 38 REC 462 yards 3 TD's vs. 8 REC 104 yards 0 TD's, that's mano a mano, apples to apples this year (albeit with an 11-5 games edge with Caldwell). CATEGORICALLY, Joe, even if they were paid THE SAME, Caldwell has been faaaaarrrrr better in 2006 than Givens. THANK GOD the Pats didn't cave and overpay for Givens - - they were able to get far better value for the money and cap (and were able to extend Koppen with the savings - Caldwell is doing everything, except perhaps the blocking, that Givens did when here - would you rather have the very same level of WR and NOT Koppen and at least a 5th rounder next year in addition?)

2) Letting Givens leave and grabbing Caldwell (whether it was premeditated or not) was a great deal (just ask the poor Tennessee Titans).

3) To sum up:

Here's what the Titans got: 1) 8 Rec 104 Yards 0 TD
Here's what the Pats got: 1) 38 Rec 462 Yards 3 TDs
2) At least a 5th Round Comp next year
3) Dan Koppen extended

Now, please help me understand, what the hell is your point?

I have to admit, I had no idea that Givens suffered a career-ending injury.

I knew he was out - but he'll never play again? Geeze, I guess the Titans really did get the raw end of that deal.

Yet again - there's two issues here. Value in a football player given his salary, and actual football talent.

If the Patriots signed Brady to a $1 million a year deal and the Bears signed Rex Grossman to a $10 million a year deal - which QB is better? Brady or Grossman?

What's that? You say that their salary has nothing to do with which one is the better QB? EXACTLY.

Now I understand that's not the way football works - but I'm not talking about contract value vs. performance.

Brady is the better QB. Even if he winds up sitting out the remainder of the year with a broken ankle, he's still the better QB long term.

But apparently, given the difficulty everyone seems to be having in understanding my point, when it comes to WRs its impossible to judge talent without talking about salary.

Is that about right?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Which would you rather have - Branch & Givens (with Jackson) or all of the above?

I guess this is what it comes down to. Assuming Givens and Branch are both re-uped for fair $$?

I take Branch, Givens (non-injured) and Jackson every time.

Heck - there's nothing stopping us from picking up Gaffney, Caldwell, or even trading for Gabriel - but for arguments sake, let's say none of that ever happens.

A solid #1, a solid #2 - various free agents + Troy to round out the depth, plus a Chad Jackson, from whom I'm not even expecting a lot out of in his rookie year?

That's a SOLID WR corps for right now and well into the future. Seattle can keep their #1. I'll take that deal every time in terms of the football talent. MUCH better than what we have right now.

Now, before someone goes off about unreasonable salary demands from Branch and Givens - if we're talking about football talent - there is just no question which way you go.