Catching up with Branch: interesting audio

[emoney_33]

meh, forget it. You enjoy your fantasy world where they can do whatever they want whenever they want. If they could have gotten a #1 for Branch around the draft, they would have. End of discussion.

I'm tired of debunking your points only for you to give the run around and reiterate the same flawed logic and failure to put things together. So forget it, we'll just agree to disagree. I'll trust BB and you trust yourself.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'll trust BB.

You were doing great until you said this.

True colors shining through.

 

[emoney_33]

You were doing great until you said this.

True colors shining through.

Ahh your arrogance in which you think you can even come close to a better decision than BB with your limited knowledge. Tell me how many conversations with the Saints FO have you had over the years.

ignorance is bliss

 

[RobertWeathers]

Ahh your arrogance in which you think you can even come close to a better decision than BB with your limited knowledge. Tell me how many conversations with the Saints FO have you had over the years.

ignorance is bliss

Happy New Year, emoney_33...

Not about me. It's about BB fielding the worst combo of starting Patriot receivers this past decade has seen. If you can't admit that, then it is pointless to have a discussion with a kool-aide drinkin', blind-faith, pom-pom waiving pink hat like yourself.

Enjoy your convos with RhodyPat. Seems you and he are on the same level anyway...

 

[emoney_33]

Happy New Year, emoney_33...

Not about me. It's about BB fielding the worst combo of starting Patriot receivers this past decade has seen. If you can't admit that, then it is pointless to have a discussion with a kool-aide drinkin', blind-faith, pom-pom waiving pink hat like yourself.

Enjoy your convos with RhodyPat. Seems you and he are on the same level anyway...

The discussion was the Branch situation, not the culmination of all events leading up to the terrible receiving combo in 2006. But nice try, and you can leave out the Happy New Year the next time if you are going to follow it up with that rubbish.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The discussion was the Branch situation, not the culmination of all events leading up to the terrible receiving combo in 2006. But nice try, and you can leave out the Happy New Year the next time if you are going to follow it up with that rubbish.

Wrong. Read my opening statement.

In case you missed it, this is a fan board. You can mix it up, take digs at each other and move on. Thats what you do when arguing about sports.

You are taking this way too personal.

 

[emoney_33]

Wrong. Read my opening statement.

I'm wrong? Your opening statement was...

BBs decision to send Branch packing backfired in 06. After that is was a masterstroke.

The entire argument started by me pointing out to you that sending Branch packing did NOT backfire.

Just makes me realize that you weren't actually following the conversation and had other motives.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm wrong? Your opening statement was..

Sorry, 1st statement after you came along when I added more meat to my "backfire" statement.

In the 06 off-season, BB/Pioli gambled/assumed that Branch would play out his contract or agree to terms on a new deal. The result was a miscalculation when Deion decided to hold the Pats hostage and shoot his way out of town. Because of this outcome, the team was left with a starting tandem of Doug Gabriel and Reche Caldwell. Sometimes playing hardball works out. Sometimes it doesn't.

 

[emoney_33]

Sorry, 1st statement after you came along when I added more meat to my "backfire" statement.

And once again, it's all about the handling of Branch... Honestly, do you just look for arguments? Are you just that bored?

You did two things. First you claimed that the handling of Branch situation was wrong or "miscalculated", which given all the facts at the time you are wrong. Second you insinuated that first assumption (mishandling Branch) was the only reason for the bad receiving group in 2006.

The second insinuation becomes moot when you realize that your first assumption was pretty terribly inaccurate. Now move the goal post, but I'm done with this one.

 

[RobertWeathers]

And once again, it's all about the handling of Branch... Honestly, do you just look for arguments? Are you just that bored?

You did two things. First you claimed that the handling of Branch situation was wrong or "miscalculated", which given all the facts at the time you are wrong.

Wrong. History shows Branch got dumped, there was a market for him, a viable receiver was available. Nice try to safe face though.

Second you insinuated that first assumption (mishandling Branch) was the only reason for the bad receiving group in 2006.

The second insinuation becomes moot when you realize that your first assumption was pretty terribly inaccurate. Now move the goal post, but I'm done with this one.

They are cause and effect. Pats didn't do their job. Tough to swallow I know. It happens and won't be the last time.

 

[emoney_33]

I lied, your bad logic and determination to suggest you know more than BB makes we want to keep going

Wrong. History shows Branch got dumped, there was a market for him, a viable receiver was available. Nice try to safe face though.

Your argument is filled with hindsight, and wild assumptions based on limited data. Your logic is terrible, just absolutely terrible.

With or without Branch, if a Stallworth type was attainable at good value they would have tried to get it done. They may even have actually tried many different trade scenarios, we don't know everything they attempted. Of course you can sit there with your limited knowledge and demand that they could have had a better receiver, but that's just stupid when you take their track record into account. You are in effect saying that no matter what they could have gotten a better receiver and they just didn't try hard enough.

The truth is likely that they explored many options of upgrading the #2 WR slot while Branch was there and not holding out. The truth is also likely that they explored many #1 receivers to play with or without Branch, before during and after the draft.

The truth is likely that the best value they could get in 2006 were Caldwell and Gabriel, regardless of Branch's status on the team.

The truth is likely that there was nothing of value offered for Branch until the Seattle offer.

History doesn't show a "market for Branch". History shows that Seattle was willing to offer a #1 pick for Branch in September. It does not show that they were willing to offer that pick at any other point in time.

History actually shows that Branch was traded for great value, and Seattle overpaid for him.

They are cause and effect. Pats didn't do their job. Tough to swallow I know. It happens and won't be the last time.

You are a "fan". You sit on your chair and watch them on TV. You have absolutely no idea what goes on behind closed doors. You have absolutely no intimate knowledge of any NFL team, nor how even the simplest tasks are run within the Patriots front office. You have absolutely 0 credibility to judge where/how they "failed" at their "job".

The fact that you believe even that Branch/Caldwell was a starting lineup that they refused to upgrade, or didn't look into upgrading properly is ridiculous. Even if Branch honored his contract and played the whole year and never held out, they were still likely exploring many options of upgrading the receivers.

Just like 2007 of getting Moss and Welker wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to the bad 2006 receiving group, neither was the bad receiving group a case of miscalculating one single receiver's likely behavior.

Good grief, get over yourself.

 

[patman52]

Wrong. Pats and Branch played tough and the Pats thought Branch would cave and when he didn't they had caldwell and gabriel starting.



Of course. We all would have. Problem is Branch wouldn't have been happy.



Thats the effect. The cause was that they were about $15m apart in guranteed $ and neither budged.



MAKE A TRADE DURING THE DRAFT for players better than Reche Caldwell and Doug Gabriel. Read much?



Of course it is. Hes the GM. They are not #1 and #2 WRs.



It's all documented. Pats position. Branch's position. Salary requirements. When the negotiations took place and what the Pats had for WRs and how the scrambled for 3 months looking for someone who could play.

What your forgetting was that Branch at the time of the draft said he was going to honor his contract. The pats took him at his word. If he said at the draft that he was going to sit out, the patswould have approached the draft differently. Branch's dishonesty is saying that he would honor the contract and then reneging after the draft and FA left the pats exposed.

Good negotiating by him.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I lied, your bad logic and determination to suggest you know more than BB makes we want to keep going

Your argument is filled with hindsight, and wild assumptions based on limited data. Your logic is terrible, just absolutely terrible.

With or without Branch, if a Stallworth type was attainable at good value they would have tried to get it done. They may even have actually tried many different trade scenarios, we don't know everything they attempted. Of course you can sit there with your limited knowledge and demand that they could have had a better receiver, but that's just stupid when you take their track record into account. You are in effect saying that no matter what they could have gotten a better receiver and they just didn't try hard enough.

The truth is likely that they explored many options of upgrading the #2 WR slot while Branch was there and not holding out. The truth is also likely that they explored many #1 receivers to play with or without Branch, before during and after the draft.

The truth is likely that the best value they could get in 2006 were Caldwell and Gabriel, regardless of Branch's status on the team.

The truth is likely that there was nothing of value offered for Branch until the Seattle offer.

History doesn't show a "market for Branch". History shows that Seattle was willing to offer a #1 pick for Branch in September. It does not show that they were willing to offer that pick at any other point in time.

History actually shows that Branch was traded for great value, and Seattle overpaid for him.




You are a "fan". You sit on your chair and watch them on TV. You have absolutely no idea what goes on behind closed doors. You have absolutely no intimate knowledge of any NFL team, nor how even the simplest tasks are run within the Patriots front office. You have absolutely 0 credibility to judge where/how they "failed" at their "job".

The fact that you believe even that Branch/Caldwell was a starting lineup that they refused to upgrade, or didn't look into upgrading properly is ridiculous. Even if Branch honored his contract and played the whole year and never held out, they were still likely exploring many options of upgrading the receivers.

Just like 2007 of getting Moss and Welker wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to the bad 2006 receiving group, neither was the bad receiving group a case of miscalculating one single receiver's likely behavior.

Ok. Lets couch the Branch situation out for a second. The fact that in the 2006 off-season, with Branch digging in his heels, Stallworth was available for a 4th and a 4th/5th. If that isn't good value for a fmr 1st rounder that averaged 46 catches, 702 yrds and abotu 5 tds a year, I don't know what is. Pats may have kicked the tires. But they didn't do it for whatever reason. You trust them. Thats fine. I trust them too- to a point.

Coupled with the fact that the lost Givens and saw a $15m delta in talks with Branch when the knew he would take a hard-line left them vulnerable. They thought that they could recover. They miscalculated. Is it hindsight-yes.

Good grief, get over yourself.

Pot, meet kettle. Look at everything you wrote. And I'm the one that likes to argue, am board and belabor a point? Get over yourself and your righteousness.

You just can't admit the Pats either didn't do enough or go far enough to improve the WR core, give TB the weapons and protect themselves if Branch left.

 

[RobertWeathers]

What your forgetting was that Branch at the time of the draft said he was going to honor his contract.

The pats took him at his word.

Thats the problem. In March of 06 before the draft, Deion saw Givens get big money from Tenn. It is written that Branch got ripped when he saw that. He skipped the camp in June. Gotta think they spoke from March to June about a contract and seeing that they were $15m apart, I tend think that the Pats must have had an incling of where things stood. Stallworth was traded to the Eagles in Aug 06. Plenty time to beef up the WR corps.

If he said at the draft that he was going to sit out, the patswould have approached the draft differently. Branch's dishonesty is saying that he would honor the contract and then reneging after the draft and FA left the pats exposed.

Good negotiating by him.

Thats not negotiating. Thats being a scumbag. Which is what he and and Chayut were.

It doesn't exonerate the Pats from not doing more and doing it sooner. My opinion.

 

[shmessy]

Wow. Great move by BB/Pioli getting rid of that cancer/loser.

Branch has been a huge waste of money for Seattle and, judging by the 223 comments from the Seahawks fans after the second link/story recap, they think even worse of him.