Catching up with Branch: interesting audio

[rabthepat]

LOL...Losers get mad and winners win. Three losers with a microphone.

 

[RobertWeathers]

WHO? Why do you just assume that anyone was willing to trade a #1 or #2? Who the heck was available? Did BB shop him around? Did he attempt to get any other receivers for him? No but you would have traded him before or during the draft because you don't have to deal with specifics and it's easy to just throw that out there.

Its easy based on this teams track record of making deals. Plenty of examples. Dillon, Hobbs. I have complete confidence that they could have done something. Just as you have confidence in Maroney not fumbling every 28 times...Based on long history, right?

Second of all you do realize that by doing this, you are in effect trading Brandon Meriweather as well right since that's who we got with Seattle's pick.

Another dumb hypothetical on your part. Sequence of picks could have gone differently. BM could have dropped or moved up depending on who wanted him. BB may have moved up/down. Maybe they make the deal w/ SEA on draft day and get the same pick? C'mon.

So you hurt the future team's defense so that you can replace Branch early because you determine he is at risk for NOT honoring his contract? Trading Branch that early for less than they got from Seattle would be STUPID, period.

You don't know that. SEA could have offered #1 and #3 for Branch on draft day and maybe the Pats miscalculated the demand. You demand facts from me, show me evidence that the Pats rejected a #1 and #3 from a team for Branch.

But it's the kind of short-sighted now-now-now attitude that is far too common around here.

Everytime you engage me in a debate (which I enjoy to be honest), you bring that up. You act like you are on this great crusade to rid patsfans.com of "knee-jerk" future is now posters. I admit that there are a few here, there are also many who actually put thought into their posts and with good judgement and reasoning which is what I have done. Starting to think that you are some kind of elitist.

no argument with the Pats spending? You have to spend differently in 06 and 07 and 08 and 09 if you go out and replace Branch. You are arguing they should have gotten a #1 and/or a #2 in 06 prior to or during the draft. A #1/#2 COSTS MONEY. Thus you don't get the same result as you have today and the money has to be adjusted and taken away from SOMEONE to pay for those guys on 2006. But again your hindsight argument is just really strong here, where's the specifics again?

It isn't about what would robertweathers do. It's about what BB didn't do. He did not manage the teams roster properly and left the HoF QB and his team with substandard WRs to start the year. maybe they did have a deal on the table for a #1 or #2 WR that was better than Branch, but didn't want to assume the risk.

Who knows how rare or how often they actually make mistakes,

I almost fell outta my chair on this one. Lets level-set with an understanding. What do you consider a mistake? (Can't wait to jump all over this one.)

hell they probably make a lot more than we know. If you want to declare a specific situation a mistake you better be prepared to back it up, which you aren't.

They made a mistake by having Caldwell and Gabriel as starters for the team when they lost Givens and miscalculated the Branch contract negotiations. They didn't replace the talent or come close to acquiring the talent hat Brady could take advantage of. I'd say that a pretty glaring one.

 

[emoney_33]

Its easy based on this teams track record of making deals. Plenty of examples. Dillon, Hobbs. I have complete confidence that they could have done something. Just as you have confidence in Maroney not fumbling every 28 times...Based on long history, right?

That's horrendous, just because they have been able to make deals (I don't like the Hobbs trade BTW) doesn't mean they've made every deal they've tried for or wanted to make. What kind of logic are you using here.

Another dumb hypothetical on your part. Sequence of picks could have gone differently. BM could have dropped or moved up depending on who wanted him. BB may have moved up/down. Maybe they make the deal w/ SEA on draft day and get the same pick? C'mon.

Really? So it's just guaranteed that SEA would have given their pick on draft day right? Bottom line is by doing things differently you alter the course of events, and you can't EXPECT to get BM.

First you say you would have traded Branch for a #1/#2 receiver, now you say trade him on draft day for the same pick they got. OK so they do that trade earlier. Then we still get BM and all that stays the same. BUT now who do you get as a #1/#2...? You just traded Branch. You continue to spout nonsense saying they could have gotten a #1/#2 but yet have no idea who and have no idea the ramifications on the future.

You don't know that. SEA could have offered #1 and #3 for Branch on draft day and maybe the Pats miscalculated the demand. You demand facts from me, show me evidence that the Pats rejected a #1 and #3 from a team for Branch.

Oh now it's MAYBE teams were throwing out diamonds for Branch and the Pats just miscalculated. I highly highly doubt that anyone offered close to that #1 they got for Branch prior to the draft, during the draft or immediately following the draft. Branch does just NOT warrant that kind of value. We lucked out that SEA got stupid.

And wtf kind of statement is "show me evidence the Pats rejected a #1 and #3". YOU are claiming they rejected better offers, not me...

Everytime you engage me in a debate (which I enjoy to be honest), you bring that up. You act like you are on this great crusade to rid patsfans.com of "knee-jerk" future is now posters. I admit that there are a few here, there are also many who actually put thought into their posts and with good judgement and reasoning which is what I have done. Starting to think that you are some kind of elitist.

Hey I've only brought it up twice (I think, and if more let's pretend it's 2).

It isn't about what would robertweathers do. It's about what BB didn't do. He did not manage the teams roster properly and left the HoF QB and his team with substandard WRs to start the year. maybe they did have a deal on the table for a #1 or #2 WR that was better than Branch, but didn't want to assume the risk.

Your argument that they did a bad job in 2006 is predicated on MAYBE there was deals they could have made. That's a poor argument. I mean yea maybe they missed some stuff, maybe there was good value out there that wouldn't have negatively effected the future rosters and cap space etc... But to make your argument based on that assumption is foolish IMO.

If you believe the Patriots usually do their due diligence no matter who the player is or what the need is, then you should also believe they did a good job attempting to replace him. They just flat out couldn't get the right value, and you know damn well they will never (and should never) go get an obvious bad-value deal just to fill an immediate hole.

The next year they were able to afford Moss and Welker and broke all kinds of offensive records. Alter the course of history, and replace Branch in 2006 by overpaying or trading the wrong piece and maybe you don't get the same 2007 and beyond.

I almost fell outta my chair on this one. Lets level-set with an understanding. What do you consider a mistake? (Can't wait to jump all over this one.)

What do you want me to give you? A mistake in general? An example of a recent mistake?

There are many mistakes that happen behind closed doors, some of those mistakes can lead to crappy deals, trades, signings and some can lead to lucky diamond in the roughs, and some can be meaningless in the grand scope of things.

They made a mistake by having Caldwell and Gabriel as starters for the team when they lost Givens and miscalculated the Branch contract negotiations. They didn't replace the talent or come close to acquiring the talent hat Brady could take advantage of. I'd say that a pretty glaring one.

Having Caldwell and Gabriel as starters is the result of many decisions and circumstances. I disagree that their handling of the 2006 offseason with regard to Branch was poor, especially when you look at what they were able to do in 2007. The bottom line is that there weren't any good options in 2006, and Branch being a big baby was a circumstance out of their complete control. Bottom line is they didn't have the time to find a replacement for Branch and there just wasn't anything out there. The next year they had enough time and resources to replace them and that much more.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That's horrendous, just because they have been able to make deals (I don't like the Hobbs trade BTW) doesn't mean they've made every deal they've tried for or wanted to make. What kind of logic are you using here.

Pats make trades. It a viable option than FA.

Really? So it's just guaranteed that SEA would have given their pick on draft day right? Bottom line is by doing things differently you alter the course of events, and you can't EXPECT to get BM.

Never expected to get BM. Its as possible as what you just said in your previous post.

First you say you would have traded Branch for a #1/#2 receiver, now you say trade him on draft day for the same pick they got.

No your getting confused. Combo or picks, players. See the Moss deal as an example.

OK so they do that trade earlier. Then we still get BM and all that stays the same. BUT now who do you get as a #1/#2...? You just traded Branch. You continue to spout nonsense saying they could have gotten a #1/#2 but yet have no idea who and have no idea the ramifications on the future.

The don't do anything to crush the cap. like pay someone 6/$40 w/ 23m in guarantees. Thats how. Follow?

Oh now it's MAYBE teams were throwing out diamonds for Branch and the Pats just miscalculated.

There is no maybe. That is fact.

I highly highly doubt that anyone offered close to that #1 they got for Branch prior to the draft, during the draft or immediately following the draft. Branch does just NOT warrant that kind of value. We lucked out that SEA got stupid.

The market in 2006 says you are wrong. With their backs up against the wall, the Pats got a #1 pick. They got a steal for Hobbs b/c there was no situational leverage against the Pats. There was w/ Branch. Were you a NFL GM in a past life too?

And wtf kind of statement is "show me evidence the Pats rejected a #1 and #3". YOU are claiming they rejected better offers, not me...

I am not claiming anything. I am saying that it/way very possible. Understand the difference?

Hey I've only brought it up twice (I think, and if more let's pretend it's 2).

Your argument that they did a bad job in 2006 is predicated on MAYBE there was deals they could have made. That's a poor argument. I mean yea maybe they missed some stuff, maybe there was good value out there that wouldn't have negatively effected the future rosters and cap space etc... But to make your argument based on that assumption is foolish IMO.

This is the thing. I dont think that they missed some stuff. I think that they chose not to do some things to improve their WR situation. I have a very high level of confidence in this team's FO. I just think that they were way too conservative and miscalulated the Branch situation.

If you believe the Patriots usually do their due diligence no matter who the player is or what the need is, then you should also believe they did a good job attempting to replace him.

Why would I do that? You drown with too much Kool-aide.

They just flat out couldn't get the right value, and you know damn well they will never (and should never) go get an obvious bad-value deal just to fill an immediate hole.

Pats played a shell game w/ Branch. Internally, they said he wasn't worth the big $. Externally, they boosted him up (as indicated by landing a 1st for him)

The next year they were able to afford Moss and Welker and broke all kinds of offensive records. Alter the course of history, and replace Branch in 2006 by overpaying or trading the wrong piece and maybe you don't get the same 2007 and beyond.

Who said that they would have overpaid? The essentially gave Donte Stallworth a 1 yr deal w/o a long-term cap hit. He would have been a #1 on the 06 team (but was a #2 in actuallity). I would have been very pleased with that.

What do you want me to give you? A mistake in general? An example of a recent mistake? There are many mistakes that happen behind closed doors, some of those mistakes can lead to crappy deals, trades, signings and some can lead to lucky diamond in the roughs, and some can be meaningless in the grand scope of things.

My point is that you having a mental block acknowledging that this team/players/coaches make mistakes. You just don't do it. Admirable actually...

Having Caldwell and Gabriel as starters is the result of many decisions and circumstances. I disagree that their handling of the 2006 offseason with regard to Branch was poor, especially when you look at what they were able to do in 2007. The bottom line is that there weren't any good options in 2006, and Branch being a big baby was a circumstance out of their complete control. Bottom line is they didn't have the time to find a replacement for Branch and there just wasn't anything out there. The next year they had enough time and resources to replace them and that much more.

The LB situation in 05 was an example of no time for planning. The Givens/Branch situation left the team in a bad spot and they overplayed their hand in a number of ways....

 

[emoney_33]

There is no maybe. That is fact.

Prove to me there were offers better than SEA's 2007 #1 draft pick. Or quit

I am not claiming anything. I am saying that it/way very possible. Understand the difference?

You are losing all credibility. "It was very possible" is not a damn argument. You can't say the Patriots made a mistake based on the pretense that a better offer possibly was offered in your expert opinion. Seriously, wtf is your issue here, are you just arguing to argue.

This is the thing. I dont think that they missed some stuff. I think that they chose not to do some things to improve their WR situation. I have a very high level of confidence in this team's FO. I just think that they were way too conservative and miscalulated the Branch situation.

Again with the general statements that are meaningless. Is there even ONE example of them CHOOSING not to better their WR staff in 2006?

Why would I do that? You drown with too much Kool-aide.

Honestly now, are you simply trying to be an ass or does it come naturally? You stated that YOU believe the Patriots do their due diligence. If you believe that, it LOGICALLY follows that it is likely they made a good attempt to get a good WR group in 2006.

Pats played a shell game w/ Branch. Internally, they said he wasn't worth the big $. Externally, they boosted him up (as indicated by landing a 1st for him)

You just said they could have gotten more from him pre-draft, and now you are saying they only got the #1 because they boosted him up. I'm now convinced you don't really know what you are talking about and just want to argue. They handled the Branch situation just fine. They fined him for holding out, they gave him chances, and when he forced their hand they found a great deal for him. It could not have turned out any better for the Patriots. It simply could not have turned out any better for the Patriots.

Sure maybe they could have sold him low early on and maybe got a better replacement for him in 2006, but that means not getting the #1, that means probably not getting BM, that means slightly better 2006 WRs for a higher future cost. And there was no one out that was absolutely worth getting to replace Branch.

Who said that they would have overpaid? The essentially gave Donte Stallworth a 1 yr deal w/o a long-term cap hit. He would have been a #1 on the 06 team (but was a #2 in actuallity). I would have been very pleased with that.

Honest to goodness, do you not understand that each offseason contains DIFFERENT players and circumstances? Take this offseason, they tried to fill Gaffney's shoes with guys like Lewis and Galloway but none of them worked out. There was no Stallworth this year and there was no Stallworth in 2006. Just because we got a good deal in Stallworth in 2007 doesn't mean that same type of deal was available in 2006. This is where you have a massive misunderstanding and just assume that the patriots had better options. They didn't

My point is that you having a mental block acknowledging that this team/players/coaches make mistakes. You just don't do it. Admirable actually...

No you have a mental block in acknowledging that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. You can't even give me one friggin example of who BB could/should have gotten in 2006. You just give a bunch of general crap assuming there was stuff out there.

The LB situation in 05 was an example of no time for planning. The Givens/Branch situation left the team in a bad spot and they overplayed their hand in a number of ways....

You are wrong, and you don't know what they did internally to try to replace those 2 in 2006. It was the SMART move to not go crazy in 2006 when in 2007 they assembled the greatest offense in the history of the game.

You just can't understand the fact that they stick to their philosophies and you can't understand the butterfly effect. You sit there on your soapbox and act as if they just didn't try hard enough to replace them. No offense, but I think I'll trust BB and the Patriots staff for doing what's best for the Patriots, over an armchair analyst like yourself.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Prove to me there were offers better than SEA's 2007 #1 draft pick. Or quit

I don't need to prove anything to you. You like to argue about sports just as much as I do. Don't respond. I'll let the other posters see how wrong you are.

You are losing all credibility. "It was very possible" is not a damn argument. You can't say the Patriots made a mistake based on the pretense that a better offer possibly was offered in your expert opinion. Seriously, wtf is your issue here, are you just arguing to argue.

You know what my position is. You just don't agree with it.

Moving Branch around draft time gives the FO more time and roster flexibility to get players. Do you understand that? Pats chose not to go that route early in the offseason. They made the choice and were stuck with it.

Again with the general statements that are meaningless. Is there even ONE example of them CHOOSING not to better their WR staff in 2006?

I don't like to give examples as it can stray the argument but here is one. NO was willing to dump Stallworth after the 05 season. Eagles got him for Simoneau and a 4th.....IMO the Pats should have done that deal.

Honestly now, are you simply trying to be an ass or does it come naturally? You stated that YOU believe the Patriots do their due diligence. If you believe that, it LOGICALLY follows that it is likely they made a good attempt to get a good WR group in 2006.

I'm sure they made a good attempt only after they limited their roster flexibility and options w/ Branch

You just said they could have gotten more from him pre-draft, and now you are saying they only got the #1 because they boosted him up. I'm now convinced you don't really know what you are talking about and just want to argue. They handled the Branch situation just fine. They fined him for holding out, they gave him chances, and when he forced their hand they found a great deal for him. It could not have turned out any better for the Patriots. It simply could not have turned out any better for the Patriots.

Not what I said. I believe that their chances were better in trading him in the draft. Never said they would.

Besides, Branch never paid the fine. Do your homework.

Sure maybe they could have sold him low early on and maybe got a better replacement for him in 2006, but that means not getting the #1, that means probably not getting BM, that means slightly better 2006 WRs for a higher future cost.

There is always maybe. Any you are bustin' my chops when I say maybe or could be? Sheesh.

Honest to goodness, do you not understand that each offseason contains DIFFERENT players and circumstances? Take this offseason, they tried to fill Gaffney's shoes with guys like Lewis and Galloway but none of them worked out.

Are you admitting that the Pats made a mistake? I'm......speechless.

There was no Stallworth this year and there was no Stallworth in 2006. Just because we got a good deal in Stallworth in 2007 doesn't mean that same type of deal was available in 2006. This is where you have a massive misunderstanding and just assume that the patriots had better options. They didn't

Actually I proved you wrong with Stallworth being available in the 06 offseason. Nice 1 yr player too. Perfect stop-gap.

All you do is argue and don't back it up with facts. You are a complete blowhard.

No you have a mental block in acknowledging that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. You can't even give me one friggin example of who BB could/should have gotten in 2006. You just give a bunch of general crap assuming there was stuff out there.

See above. happy? But i'm sure you'll punch holes in that too b/c thats your thing and offer no original thoughts of your own..

You are wrong, and you don't know what they did internally to try to replace those 2 in 2006. It was the SMART move to not go crazy in 2006 when in 2007 they assembled the greatest offense in the history of the game.

Stallworth.

You just can't understand the fact that they stick to their philosophies and you can't understand the butterfly effect. You sit there on your soapbox and act as if they just didn't try hard enough to replace them.

Oh yea. in the 2006 of season Pats knew Merriweather was going to sit at #24. You are a clown.

No offense, but I think I'll trust BB and the Patriots staff for doing what's best for the Patriots, over an armchair analyst like yourself.

If you were coach and not BB, we'd still let players under-perform and fumble on end-zone runs because we idolize them too much.

What else ya got? Quit?

 

[emoney_33]

Moving Branch around draft time gives the FO more time and roster flexibility to get players. Do you understand that? Pats chose not to go that route early in the offseason. They made the choice and were stuck with it.

You are blinded by hindsight. There was NOTHING of value offered for Branch "around draft time". There was also NO logical reason to think that Branch would be so damn stubborn as to cause such a ruckus and refuse to play. If SEA didn't offer the #1 pick, Branch probably doesn't get traded and probably eventually plays for NE in 2006. The #1 pick was an offer they couldn't refuse, if the offer came in earlier it would have been accepted earlier. BUT IT WAS NOT.

Besides, Branch never paid the fine. Do your homework.

If they didn't trade him, he would have paid the fines. Don't tell me to do my homework when it is you who obviously needs to do some research.

Actually I proved you wrong with Stallworth being available in the 06 offseason. Nice 1 yr player too. Perfect stop-gap.

What LB on the patriots was NO going to accept along with our 4th to get Stallworth. Your example FAILS because we didn't have Simoneau. You can't give an example of ANOTHER team making a trade that you like the value of, and then say the Patriots should have done something like that. There was nothing out there that was WORTH it for the New England Patriots, at least nothing they could find. And there was no problem whatsoever with keeping Branch under contract rather than trading him away early for MUCH LESS just to get rid of an outside chance of him causing a huge scene.

All you do is argue and don't back it up with facts. You are a complete blowhard.

No what I do is point out the obvious flaws in your arguments and ask you to give facts backing up ridiculous wild assertions that you make.

Oh yea. in the 2006 of season Pats knew Merriweather was going to sit at #24. You are a clown.

This comment makes no sense. Never once did I insinuate they were planning and expecting to get BM in 2006. I simply stated the fact that if we don't get SEA's pick, we likely don't have him today. It's an example of hurting the FUTURE of the team to fill a stopgap need for a year.

If you were coach and not BB, we'd still let players under-perform and fumble on end-zone runs because we idolize them too much.

What else ya got? Quit?

You truly are an assclown. If you were coach you'd overpay for the top 5% of the roster, trade low all your players you hated and fight the Lions for last place every year.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You are blinded by hindsight. There was NOTHING of value offered for Branch "around draft time". ..

And you know this how?

There was also NO logical reason to think that Branch would be so damn stubborn as to cause such a ruckus and refuse to play. ..

$15m in guarantees is a pretty big reason. Plenty pf precidents out there.

If SEA didn't offer the #1 pick, Branch probably doesn't get traded and probably eventually plays for NE in 2006. The #1 pick was an offer they couldn't refuse, ..

And you were part of the Branch camp? How do you he would play in 06? All indications were that he wouldn't unless he got his $$- which is why he was traded.

if the offer came in earlier it would have been accepted earlier. BUT IT WAS NOT..

And you know this how?

If they didn't trade him, he would have paid the fines. Don't tell me to do my homework when it is you who obviously needs to do some research. ..

You are simply wrong. NFLPA was all over this before the trade went through.

What LB on the patriots was NO going to accept along with our 4th to get Stallworth. Your example FAILS because we didn't have Simoneau. You can't give an example of ANOTHER team making a trade that you like the value of, and then say the Patriots should have done something like that. There was nothing out there that was WORTH it for the New England Patriots, at least nothing they could find. And there was no problem whatsoever with keeping Branch under contract rather than trading him away early for MUCH LESS just to get rid of an outside chance of him causing a huge scene.

Typical. You ask for an example of a #1 or #2 WR who was available and you dismiss it just because it doesn't fit YOUR argument. You are totally incapable of thinking out of the box. Trades can be facilitated any number of ways. Could have been Branch-for-Stallworth. Could have been Stallworth and a pick and the send Branch somewhere for X and Y.

No what I do is point out the obvious flaws in your arguments and ask you to give facts backing up ridiculous wild assertions that you make.

Plenty of facts have been given. You just don't like them b/c it punches holes into your argument which iof the opinion that the Pats are perfect and couldn't have possibly made a mistake with the Branch situation.

This comment makes no sense. Never once did I insinuate they were planning and expecting to get BM in 2006. I simply stated the fact that if we don't get SEA's pick, we likely don't have him today. It's an example of hurting the FUTURE of the team to fill a stopgap need for a year.

You have zero data to support this claim.

You truly are an assclown. If you were coach you'd overpay for the top 5% of the roster, trade low all your players you hated and fight the Lions for last place every year.

You have no statements from me that suggest that I would have a top-heavy cap structure. I do have evidence on you that you believe anything Patriots is perfect and they do no wrong.

Are you Jonathan Kraft? Can you upgrade my playoff tix if I suck up and say you are perfect and do no wrong?

 

[emoney_33]

Congratulations you completely miss every single point, talk a bunch of nonsense and live in a fantasy world where any time you want to make a trade there's one available.

You continue to live in that fantasy bubble of yours that completely ignores all the actual facts. I'm through with arguing with someone so completely incapable of stringing together a logical discussion. You continuously go off on tangents.

You base your entire argument on wild assumptions like the Pats MUST have gotten good offers for Branch during the draft. It's pointless to argue with such foolish conjecture.

It's incredibly naive to believe that the following year's #24 overall pick wasn't the BEST the Patriots could have gotten for him. I don't know anyone in their right mind who thought Branch was worth that in 2006.

Pardon me if I trust the judgement of BB and the front office over a fan with less than 1% of the total data to go on.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Back again for more?

Congratulations you completely miss every single point, talk a bunch of nonsense and live in a fantasy world where any time you want to make a trade there's one available.

You continue to live in that fantasy bubble of yours that completely ignores all the actual facts. I'm through with arguing with someone so completely incapable of stringing together a logical discussion. You continuously go off on tangents..

I've always stayed on point. Your problem is that you can't accept that the Pats miscalculated the contact negotiations w/ Branch. History has proven that. Talk about living in a fantasy world. Years from now when they go 6-10, you'll be the one that say, "the did all that they could do"...Cut back on the kool-aide guy. Bad for your eyes.

You base your entire argument on wild assumptions like the Pats MUST have gotten good offers for Branch during the draft. It's pointless to argue with such foolish conjecture. ..

Wrong. Nothing wild about it. Very possible to think that they could have had Stallworth in the 06 off-season. he was there for reasonable dollars in the last year of his rookie deal. pats liked him as they signed him a year later. History has proven that. But go ahead and ignore it b/c it destroys your entire position.

It's incredibly naive to believe that the following year's #24 overall pick wasn't the BEST the Patriots could have gotten for him. I don't know anyone in their right mind who thought Branch was worth that in 2006. ..

Seattle did. They set the market and the market determines value and worth.

Pardon me if I trust the judgement of BB and the front office over a fan with less than 1% of the total data to go on.

BB and the FO are human and makes mistakes. Obviously you don't think so.

 

[emoney_33]

Wrong. Nothing wild about it. Very possible to think that they could have had Stallworth in the 06 off-season. he was there for reasonable dollars in the last year of his rookie deal. pats liked him as they signed him a year later. History has proven that. But go ahead and ignore it b/c it destroys your entire position.

Ignore what? Your stupid assumption that the Saints would have accepted a good value deal for him? So if we traded Branch for him, as in your fantasy land. That means you are saying Stallworth for ONE year is worth a #1 draft pick? REALLLLY?

Remember it is YOU who suggested trading Branch for Stallworth perhaps. And it is YOU suggesting that the Patriots COULD have made a fair deal for ONE year of Stallworth. There is nothing to even suggest NO wanted Branch first of all and second of all, that kind of knee-jerk trade is what would make you a terrible GM. I'll take the #24 overall pick over Stallworth any day of the week. Thanks, come again.

Quit your hypotheticals, you can't come up with one good value trade that would have actually been likely to appease both teams involved. You have no argument, you just like to argue.

As I've pointed out time and time again, your entire argument is based on the flawed assumption that something like Stallworth was available for the New England Patriots at proper value to the New England Patriots.

Seattle did. They set the market and the market determines value and worth.

The market does NOT determine value to the Patriots organization, otherwise we'd still have Samuel. And Seattle was stupid to overpay for Branch (which has been proven)

 

[RobertWeathers]

Ignore what? Your stupid assumption that the Saints would have accepted a good value deal for him? So if we traded Branch for him, as in your fantasy land. That means you are saying Stallworth for ONE year is worth a #1 draft pick? REALLLLY? )

Again, you can't think out of the box. The deal for Stallworth was a 4th rounder and an decent LB. Certainly the Pats would not have done that straight up. The dump Branch to team X (lets say Seattle) for a #1 and deal a 4th rounder and maybe something else for Stallworth. You asked for a likely trade scenario and I gave you a very reasonable one that DID happen.

Remember it is YOU who suggested trading Branch for Stallworth perhaps. And it is YOU suggesting that the Patriots COULD have made a fair deal for ONE year of Stallworth. There is nothing to even suggest NO wanted Branch first of all and second of all, that kind of knee-jerk trade is what would make you a terrible GM. I'll take the #24 overall pick over Stallworth any day of the week. Thanks, come again.

Read above and my previous posts. Stallworth to pats for X and Branch to Seattle for #1. You wanted a scenario that was possible. I gave you one. I called you on it and now you are crying about it. Thanks, come again.

Quit your hypotheticals, you can't come up with one good value trade that would have actually been likely to appease both teams involved. You have no argument, you just like to argue.

Ok so earlier you asked for a reasonable, hypothetical trade and I gave you one and now you are telling me to stop? Your head must be spinning by now. I know it tough to keep up but sheesh.

As I've pointed out time and time again, your entire argument is based on the flawed assumption that something like Stallworth was available for the New England Patriots at proper value to the New England Patriots.

Nothing flawed about it. Now if I said the Pats should have gone after Antonio Bryant, that would be flawed as that deal would run counter to the Pats team-building approach.

The market does NOT determine value to the Patriots organization, otherwise we'd still have Samuel. And Seattle was stupid to overpay for Branch (which has been proven)

Of course the market determines value. Agents wisper in their client's ear all the time. Thats why Samuel left. Thats why Asante left. thast why Seymour put up his stink in 05. They knew their worth in the open market.

If Branch was a FA he would have made a killing. Period. End of story.

Stick a fork in yourself. You are done.

 

[emoney_33]

Again, you can't think out of the box. The deal for Stallworth was a 4th rounder and an decent LB. Certainly the Pats would not have done that straight up. The dump Branch to team X (lets say Seattle) for a #1 and deal a 4th rounder and maybe something else for Stallworth. You asked for a likely trade scenario and I gave you a very reasonable one that DID happen.

Again with the assumptions that anyone aside from Seattle wouldn't give a 1st rounder for Branch. You act as if the Patriots just shut their eyes and said "Nope we are banking on Branch playing for us no matter what, leave us alone, we are stubborn!" Which goes against everything they have PROVEN. So it's not about thinking outside the box, you just think inside a fantasy world where the surface of the events are all the information you need.

Read above and my previous posts. Stallworth to pats for X and Branch to Seattle for #1. You wanted a scenario that was possible. I gave you one. I called you on it and now you are crying about it. Thanks, come again.

X? WTF is X? What would NO LIKELY accept from us that we at the same time would LIKELY give up for one year of his services. I'll tell you right now a 4th and a decent LB is not worth 1 year of Stallworth.

Of course the market determines value. Agents wisper in their client's ear all the time. Thats why Samuel left. Thats why Asante left. thast why Seymour put up his stink in 05. They knew their worth in the open market.

You still have no idea what it "value to the Patriots" means do you? I don't give a damn what their market value is, the Patriots do not make deals or signings based on market value. They make them based on THEIR calculated value. Is this really hard for you to understand?

If Branch was a FA he would have made a killing. Period. End of story.

Stick a fork in yourself. You are done.

You have been done from the get go. You make no sense whatsoever. There is no evidence that ANYONE wanted to offer a #1 until SEA did LATE for Branch. If Seattle offers that at the end of 2005, the Patriots make the deal even without all of the holdout crap. The patriots got LUCKY that Seattle made such an offer.

If Seattle wasn't stupid, it's likely that Branch wouldn't have held out for 10 games. It would have been in Branch's best interest to play, however begrudgingly. The trade happened because it was good value not because Branch put a strangle hold on the Patriots.

Your entire argument is stupid and assumes that there was good value trades for WR out there. Stallworth for one year is not something that the Patriots would give up a lot for. And NO got a decent enough deal that was more than we would offer. It's all wishful thinking on your part that for some reason BB went against everything he stands for and shut his eyes.

If things go differently and OAK doesn't offer us a #1, Seymour is likely still here playing right now. You can't stranglehold OAK into offering their #1 for him, but you see what's out there and you get a good one like that you pull the trigger. There is NO sign or logic that dictates that the Patriots were in a coma in 2006 and didn't do what they always do which is exploring multitude of possibilities.

 

[captain insano]

thank god those clowns arent on the patriots.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Again with the assumptions that anyone aside from Seattle wouldn't give a 1st rounder for Branch. You act as if the Patriots just shut their eyes and said "Nope we are banking on Branch playing for us no matter what, leave us alone, we are stubborn!" Which goes against everything they have PROVEN. So it's not about thinking outside the box, you just think inside a fantasy world where the surface of the events are all the information you need..

Pats are tough negotiators- especially with players and their rookie deals. That is proven. See Seymour. See Watson. See Mankins.

X? WTF is X? What would NO LIKELY accept from us that we at the same time would LIKELY give up for one year of his services. I'll tell you right now a 4th and a decent LB is not worth 1 year of Stallworth.

4th and value of Simoneau. Hes was a 4th or 5th at best.

You haven't a clue what Stallworth value is. He was worth essentially two 4th round picks. I do the research and know the facts. You ***** about it and ignore it b/c it compromises your argument.

You still have no idea what it "value to the Patriots" means do you? I don't give a damn what their market value is, the Patriots do not make deals or signings based on market value.
They make them based on THEIR calculated value. Is this really hard for you to understand?

Agreed. Pats didn't think he was worth the cash. But Branch knew his market value and he got it. Thus the reason what he shot his way out of town.

You have been done from the get go. You make no sense whatsoever. There is no evidence that ANYONE wanted to offer a #1 until SEA did LATE for Branch.

Just like there is no evidence that someone didn't.

If Seattle offers that at the end of 2005, the Patriots make the deal even without all of the holdout crap. The patriots got LUCKY that Seattle made such an offer.

Nice hypothetical.

If Seattle wasn't stupid, it's likely that Branch wouldn't have held out for 10 games. It would have been in Branch's best interest to play, however begrudgingly. The trade happened because it was good value not because Branch put a strangle hold on the Patriots.

Branch made it clear he wasn't playing a single down for the team. You are a fool if you don't believe this.

Your entire argument is stupid and assumes that there was good value trades for WR out there. Stallworth for one year is not something that the Patriots would give up a lot for. And NO got a decent enough deal that was more than we would offer. It's all wishful thinking on your part that for some reason BB went against everything he stands for and shut his eyes.

Oh my god. They gave up a 3rd for Starks (1yr) in 05. Washington (1yr) for a 4th rounder in 03. Plenty of history to show their willingness to give up picks for players who can help them for a year or two. Do your homework.

If things go differently and OAK doesn't offer us a #1, Seymour is likely still here playing right now. You can't stranglehold OAK into offering their #1 for him, but you see what's out there and you get a good one like that you pull the trigger. There is NO sign or logic that dictates that the Patriots were in a coma in 2006 and didn't do what they always do which is exploring multitude of possibilities.

Never said that they were in a coma. They just chose not to be proactive and potentially make a deal happen that would have improved a Caldwell and Gabriel scenario as their starting WRs

You are reaching now....Seymour and Branch are two totally different set of circumstances. Seymour didn't hold out. He attended every team activity including TC. Pats wern't going to pay him either.

 

[RobertWeathers]

thank god those clowns arent on the patriots.

at least emoney_33 has the knowledge and the pair to argue the circumstances.

I'm willing to bet you have no idea what we are talking about.

 

[emoney_33]

Agreed. Pats didn't think he was worth the cash. But Branch knew his market value and he got it. Thus the reason what he shot his way out of town.

Branch got lucky that Seattle foolishly offered a #1. The Patriots wouldn't have traded him for nothing.

Nice hypothetical.

Your entire argument is based on one giant flawed hypothetical.

Branch made it clear he wasn't playing a single down for the team. You are a fool if you don't believe this.

Why would he make it seem like he was lying? Obviously he wanted to make it SEEM like he would sit out the year, that's the point of holding out. However there is absolutely NO way he would have sat out the year in 2006 if the Patriots kept him. First of all if he didn't play a down, he'd still belong to the Patriots. Second of all, if he held out long enough to limit his playing time so much he wouldn't have gotten nearly the market value for him the next year in the open market. He would have driven his value way down. He and his agent, while stubborn jackasses, aren't stupid and know this.

Oh my god. They gave up a 3rd for Starks (1yr) in 05. Washington (1yr) for a 4th rounder in 03. Plenty of history to show their willingness to give up picks for players who can help them for a year or two. Do your homework.

Use your head please. Just because they felt Starks was worth a 3rd doesn't mean they would have valued Stallworth at a price that NO demanded. You don't know how high Simoneau was valued by NO. Teams do NOT make trades based on open market value, they make trades based on value to THEIR team. Open market value just means the highest price ANYONE will pay for them. Seriously, your logic is so incredibly warped it boggles the mind. "Do your homework".

I'm not saying Stallworth was definitely out of the patriots value range, but you are just making wild assumptions that they definitely could have had him.

Never said that they were in a coma. They just chose not to be proactive and potentially make a deal happen that would have improved a Caldwell and Gabriel scenario as their starting WRs

You still can't grasp the fact that the END result doesn't mean they weren't TRYING. I'm sure they tried to be proactive in various ways to improve the 2006 WR core.

You are reaching now....Seymour and Branch are two totally different set of circumstances. Seymour didn't hold out. He attended every team activity including TC. Pats wern't going to pay him either.

Reaching? Do you really not understand how to follow logic?

Seymour was traded for a #1 because it was good value, regardless of whether he held out or not. Branch would have been traded for that #1 earlier if it were offered earlier because THAT WAS GOOD VALUE. Do you not understand this concept?

The fact that Seymour didn't hold out helps my argument, not yours. You are arguing they were forced into trading Branch and had to settle for a #24 overall pick because they refused offers earlier. I'm arguing that they accepted a trade for Branch because it was good value, and in all likelihood if that deal was on the table before Branch started holding out they would have accepted it.

The Seymour trade just proves their willingness and ability to be proactive. However if Oakland didn't value Seymour for that #1, then Seymour would still be on this team. It's not all that complicated logic.

The bottom line is you have sat their and argued that in 2006 the Patriots turned a blind eye towards the Branch "situation" and didn't do their due diligence. I'm arguing quite simply that they did their due diligence and in the end got AMAZING value for a player who didn't want to play here.

 

[emoney_33]

at least emoney_33 has the knowledge and the pair to argue the circumstances.

I'm willing to bet you have no idea what we are talking about.

I think he was referring to the Seattle receivers yapping their mouths

 

[RobertWeathers]

Why would he make it seem like he was lying? Obviously he wanted to make it SEEM like he would sit out the year, that's the point of holding out. However there is absolutely NO way he would have sat out the year in 2006 if the Patriots kept him. First of all if he didn't play a down, he'd still belong to the Patriots.

Yes, he would still be Pats property and under contract, but it doesn't mean he would have come back. There was real bad blood at the end. Regardless, Pats should have dished him before Sept. 06.

I think we've killed this one.

Second of all, if he held out long enough to limit his playing time so much he wouldn't have gotten nearly the market value for him the next year in the open market.

We don't know that. 07 FA market for receivers was pretty derth of talent.

He would have driven his value way down. He and his agent, while stubborn jackasses, aren't stupid and know this.

Stupid, yes. But we don't know if his value would be lower. all based on the market. It happens with draft picks like Crabtree, Mike Williams sure, but a proven NFL talent and fmr SB MVP....Don't know about that.

Use your head please. Just because they felt Starks was worth a 3rd doesn't mean they would have valued Stallworth at a price that NO demanded. You don't know how high Simoneau was valued by NO. Teams do NOT make trades based on open market value, they make trades based on value to THEIR team.

It is my opinion that they would have seriously thought about dishing a 4th and and a lesser pick for Stallworth as long as they found a suitor ofr branch and got a #1. Stallworth was on his way out of NO and they were desperate to pawn him off..

Open market value just means the highest price ANYONE will pay for them. Seriously, your logic is so incredibly warped it boggles the mind. "Do your homework".

You must know how the stock market works. Sme principle applies when bidding on a player. What we are talking about is not means and median values. It's what a team will pay a player when a bidding war ensues for his services.

I'm not saying Stallworth was definitely out of the patriots value range, but you are just making wild assumptions that they definitely could have had him.

Assumption yes. Not wild.

You still can't grasp the fact that the END result doesn't mean they weren't TRYING. I'm sure they tried to be proactive in various ways to improve the 2006 WR core.

Of course the tried. By trading a 5th for Gabriel is proof of that. I question their decision-making and forsight regarding the Branch situation. Always will. We've killed this one too.

Reaching? Do you really not understand how to follow logic?

Of course it's logical to assume that the Pats tried. It doesn't mean it was right or their decision-making wasn't flawed.

Seymour was traded for a #1 because it was good value, regardless of whether he held out or not. Branch would have been traded for that #1 earlier if it were offered earlier because THAT WAS GOOD VALUE. Do you not understand this concept?

..and as a result both the 06 and 09 teams were weaker at their respective positions because of it. I do have a problem with the Seymour trade. There isn't as much info on the dynamics leading up to it as the Branch situation is but I stand on record that they should have moved Sey on draft-day too.

The fact that Seymour didn't hold out helps my argument, not yours. You are arguing they were forced into trading Branch and had to settle for a #24 overall pick because they refused offers earlier. I'm arguing that they accepted a trade for Branch because it was good value, and in all likelihood if that deal was on the table before Branch started holding out they would have accepted it.

Pats had no idea what the #1 would be from Seattle. Of course it was good value. I dont argue that. I'd bet the farm that the Pats get a #1 for Branch before or on draft day.

The Seymour trade just proves their willingness and ability to be proactive. However if Oakland didn't value Seymour for that #1, then Seymour would still be on this team. It's not all that complicated logic.

Seymour hadn't become a major distraction yet. They knew he was a gonner at season's end. You can't equate the two. One was shooting his way out of town and the other wasn't....

The bottom line is you have sat their and argued that in 2006 the Patriots turned a blind eye towards the Branch "situation" and didn't do their due diligence.

Yes, but I do believe that they did their due-diligence. They just didn't maximize the opportunities that I believe where there.

I'm arguing quite simply that they did their due diligence and in the end got AMAZING value for a player who didn't want to play here.

I never argued against the Pats not getting great value for Branch. The did amazingly well.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think he was referring to the Seattle receivers yapping their mouths

Oh. See what you make me do!