Disingenuous BS

[Grizzafted]

I hate hearing speculation about how we would have gone 14-2 and won the Super Bowl with him on the team. The Patriots lost to the Colts because of weakness at the linebacker position. With Junior Seau and Adalius Thomas on the field there is no Indy comeback in last year's AFCCG.

There's always more than one reason why you lose a game. Even if its a last minute heartbreaker you can look back and find multiple areas of a team's performance that could have changed the outcome. While I agree with you that linebacker play was the major factor in the Patriots' defeat, part of the reason for that was because the Pats couldn't get off the field in the second half. Not to mention, three crucial drives in the 4th quarter were killed through the air. Does Deion drop that wide open sideline pass? What about that 3rd down after the 12-men penalty. You wouldn't have liked Deion on the field, considering his past playoff performances in that kind of situation? And then, of course, there's the final drive. One could also say that if Seau hadn't gotten hurt, we wouldn't have given up 120+ yards on the ground, but the discussion is about Branch.

And you look at our four losses. Brady tosses 5 INTs against the Colts and only scores one garbage time TD against the Broncos, in a game that, despite his overall poor play, was only the second week he had to get adjusted to new wideouts. Even if we took that game against the Broncos, where we lost only by 10, the AFC game is in Foxboro, it's cold as f*ck and our LB corps isn't getting heatstroke on the sidelines.

Sure, hindsight 20/20, and I agree Branch wasn't the best WR in the league, but if you go through his game by game stats, the guy caught lots of balls and he made HUGE plays in the playoffs, consistently.

PS 2005's 10-6 record was not due to the passing game. That was an issue of interior LB play and a hurt Corey Dillon. Look at Deion's stats that year. If he's not in town, maybe we go 8-8.

 

[Seven Nation Army]

You wouldn't have liked Deion on the field, considering his past playoff performances in that kind of situation?

I totally agree it would have been ideal to have Branch on the field in the AFCCG, but that wasn't the point. The argument was whether he would have been a difference maker. And considering how close the Patriots were to winning the game I don't think having Branch on the team would have been worth throwing aside fiscal discipline and compromising the Belichick blueprint. New England scored a bunch of points against the Colts anyway, so what was really needed wasn't another offensive player. It was defensive help to stifle the furious rally Peyton Manning led in the second half.

Please don't shed tears or wring hands for Deion Branch. The situation really worked out ideally for him and New England. They were champions together in 2003-04 and then afterwards one got a fat contract and the other one a first-round draft pick. The real losers here are the Seattle Seahawks, who got absolutely robbed by both Branch and Belichick.

 

[Oswlek]

The Pats lost 2 OL. Light and Koppen. True about the RBs. However, that is the point. Branch isn't a player who can carry a team. He's a cog not a driver.


You talk about being disingenuous and the don't provide the appropriate facts. Hasselbeck missed 4 games. That is not a majority of the season. Alexander missed 6 games. Still not a majority of the season. There were 3 games that both Alexander and Hasselbeck missed. Seattle went 2-1 in those games.

1) My mistake. For whatever reason, I just transformed "Logan Mankins was a rookie and both Koppen and Light missed much of the season" in my mind to "Three OL missed much of the season". Although, it really doesn't change the fact that OL turbulance was a major factor.

2) You aren't reading between the lines. Alexander played several games with a broken foot before they sat him down. Hasselbeck was still not himself when he first came back. Just because they were in the lineup does not mean that they were unaffected by injuries. On top of that, you didn't even touch on the OL play dropping off the cliff.

I really don't know why anyone feels the need to contest my statement. It is clear as day that CHFF is throwing around numbers without their true context.

 

[jczxohn1]

" I wasn’t too short when I was catching X amount of balls and we were winning games. "--Deion

Went on to comment on the 4-5 WR's signed, but no mention that they were all 6'+ except Welker. After all the negative comments a yr or two ago about our "smurf" WR corps, BB & co. seem to be restructuring for the long term. While they probably wanted Deion for '06, moving up for Jackson in the draft indicates the direction they wanted to go. Recent signings underscore this. Had Deion played out the last yr of his contract, odds were iffy that he would have been re-signed unless it were a very Patriot-friendly deal, IMO.

 

[Oswlek]

" I wasn’t too short when I was catching X amount of balls and we were winning games. "--Deion

Went on to comment on the 4-5 WR's signed, but no mention that they were all 6'+ except Welker. After all the negative comments a yr or two ago about our "smurf" WR corps, BB & co. seem to be restructuring for the long term. While they probably wanted Deion for '06, moving up for Jackson in the draft indicates the direction they wanted to go. Recent signings underscore this. Had Deion played out the last yr of his contract, odds were iffy that he would have been re-signed unless it were a very Patriot-friendly deal, IMO.

Considering that NE was actively trying to extend Deion's contract, I'm not sure where you get that idea.

 

[Patjew]

If Deion really wanted to stay here, he could have gotten much of what Seattle gave him by just countering. NE even offered him the same contract if he would just fire Chayut.[/QUOTE]

I have never heard that. Is it true?

 

[RayClay]

If Deion really wanted to stay here, he could have gotten much of what Seattle gave him by just countering. NE even offered him the same contract if he would just fire Chayut.[/QUOTE]

I have never heard that. Is it true?

There is always a problem when you say the "same" contract.

We had him under contract at a year for 5 million less than if he started with a new contract.

I don't believe we offered to rip up a valid contract and give 6.5 per year.

So getting the same contract from us means 5 mil+ less in the first year.

 

[Pats726]

Considering that NE was actively trying to extend Deion's contract, I'm not sure where you get that idea.

I agree..the team wanted Deion to sign...I think the only question was how much and even then, in teh end, the team I think was willing to pay him a great deal of money..(maybe close to overpaying him..) but it was that 5th year that the Twig did not wish to play for. I think they had doubts about his durability..not his size...

 

[Oswlek]

If Deion really wanted to stay here, he could have gotten much of what Seattle gave him by just countering. NE even offered him the same contract if he would just fire Chayut.[/QUOTE]

I have never heard that. Is it true?

It was reported that BB was speaking directly to Branch and said just this. And I am not talking about a Felger "pump up the guy who left" type article. I'm pretty sure it was reported by Mike Reiss.

If you want to look it up, the article I read also discussed the {not "complaint" but I can't think of the right word} that Branch and Chayut filed against NE. Negotiating with a player that was represented by an agent was the main theme, but NE was able to get out of it because Branch had called BB. Had it been the other way around, NE would have been in trouble.

There is always a problem when you say the "same" contract.

We had him under contract at a year for 5 million less than if he started with a new contract.

I don't believe we offered to rip up a valid contract and give 6.5 per year.

So getting the same contract from us means 5 mil+ less in the first year.

I can't recall if there were quotes, but I remember the wording of the article. It said, "We will give you what you want, just fire your agent." NE was prepared to give Deion a lot more than people think.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

So let me get this straight. NE offered Branch the same deal, except for the small matter of a few million dollars.

Regardless of how you see the deal (I know I know, it really was the same deal, because every discerning fan knows the insignificance of the final year of the rookie deal (????) ), NE conditioned it on Branch's firing of Chayut.

Now, does this sound like Branch was running the show to you? Why would NE put that condition in the offer? Do you really think the front office saw Branch as the cancer he was becoming, in Chayut's hands?

Yes, yes, every discerning fan knows how much deeper our understanding is than, say, the national media, which Branch can so deftly manipulate. The wonder is that he'd waste his time in football at all, rather than take up a career as an actor.

Finally: I support the right of the player to sit out when under contract. It is not against the rules or the law, and is one of the tools at his disposal. I don't like it, when it happens to my team. It pisses me off. And no, I don't think they should have caved.

I do think he got the trade that gave him the money that he, and of course Chayut, wanted. I also think he was unhappy once the deal was done, based on the premise of having the cake and eating it too. He wanted the money. He wanted to stay in New England. He ended up having to choose, or more accurately, forcing the decision on the Pats -- they're the ones that traded the rights to Branch.

I don't hate him, Law, Milloy, Givens, Vinatieri, Ted Johnson, or any other player that put in good seasons at New England. It's idiotic to go running around misspelling his name in all caps to make your point; screaming "MEION" isn't a mark of discernment.

He played the game like everybody else (the business side I mean.) I love the guys that give their all for very little.. Tedy's the perfect example. But I don't hate the guys trying to make their best deal.

It's sad when the best deal and the emotional baggage don't line up, however. I do believe, naive old fart that I am, that this is Branch's situation.

PFnV

 

[Seven Nation Army]

It's sad when the best deal and the emotional baggage don't line up, however. I do believe, naive old fart that I am, that this is Branch's situation.

I think you're completely correct. Does anyone really think that Branch wanted to move to Washington and join up with a less competitive team? You're right to think he wanted to stay in New England. But he didn't want it above all other things.

From ESPN:

Instead, he essentially forced his way into free agency seven months early.

''I wouldn't wish that on anyone,'' Branch said of the holdout. ''But I had to remember my purposes.''

Those purposes were wearing sun dresses out in the hallway as Branch was speaking.

The sun dresses reference is to his wife and young daughter.

 

[Pats726]

So let me get this straight. NE offered Branch the same deal, except for the small matter of a few million dollars.

It ALSO hinged on that 5th year rookie contract being torn up..the Pats would NOT do that (as they had not done that for seymour and Brady) yet Deion wanted that done..and would NOT give in an inch on this. If he had, he might still be here.

Regardless of how you see the deal (I know I know, it really was the same deal, because every discerning fan knows the insignificance of the final year of the rookie deal (????) ), NE conditioned it on Branch's firing of Chayut..

I don't know if that is true...Firstly, if that last year was SO insignificant...why did Branch want that year to be ignored? The Pats would not budge on this one and Branch seeing Givens as a FA ahead of him wanted THAT for him then and like a stubboen two year old would not give in. I am not sure the timing of the Pats FO not wanting Chayat in negptiations was at that point in the negotiations. I believe the Pats did not want Chayat to be included because after 3 months of his NON negotiations, the team saw him as a real impediment to getting a deal done. At that point, I feel the team thought without Chayat, that Branch would have signed. you make it sound like the deal was close and that the Pats would not do it at that point because of Chayat..THAT never happened. The deal was far apart when the Patriots wanted Chayat gone. ALl along it was Deion who would not give in to anything.

I do think he got the trade that gave him the money that he, and of course Chayut, wanted. I also think he was unhappy once the deal was done, based on the premise of having the cake and eating it too. He wanted the money. He wanted to stay in New England. He ended up having to choose, or more accurately, forcing the decision on the Pats -- they're the ones that traded the rights to Branch...

If you believe he wished to stay in New England...What actions did he take to indicate to the team that he wished to stay? I find this is where the Disingenuous BS is at its highest...and deepest.. 1----For 3 months or so there was NO counter offers at all..Do you think if he REALLY wished to be with the team he might not have tried to make a decent counter offer?? THAT IS what negotiations are about..If he was in anyway serious about staying in NE I think getting to a win-win situation as Seymour did would have been done. Instead it was a "win" situation for him and he was not going to give in AT ALL!! 2---The demand that if he showed up at camp he wanted the franchise tag not used on him. Given that Deion was all about money do you think he wanted to turn down THAT amount which would have been so large?? OR was it the other part of it..having to stay in NE?? 3---Not showing up at all for Training camp and threatening to hold out Again, no real desire at all to have ANYTHING to do with the team. If you believe that Deion wanted to stay in NE..it's hard pressed to find any action by him in synch with that thought. Yes..he wanted his cake and eating it too..but the GREEN was all important..more so than the latter. the latter wasn't thought about in ANY of his actions. Deion's choice was all about the money..if he REALLY wanted to be here with the team it would have been done. His choice all along was to NOT stay in NE..unless NE gave in on all points..it was that simple. THAT is hardly negotiations..and from someone under a contract, I find that more like that of a hostage taker. ..more where teh BS is piled high and deep. If you look at the sitiuation and find ANY action he did in ynch to his wanting to be in NE please tell me..that is more than mouthing something that you wish others to believe...even though the fact point to the opposite in large neon letters.
I

don't hate him, Law, Milloy, Givens, Vinatieri, Ted Johnson, or any other player that put in good seasons at New England.
He played the game like everybody else (the business side I mean.)

Actually he DID NOT play the game like everyone else..he had a contract and refused to play or negotiate in good faith...SORRY that point is TOTALLY wrong. Everyone else was a free agent or was cut due to a large salary demand..Deion was the ONLY one of those that refused to come into camp..OR megotiate. I think that is a bit different. IF he wasn't lazy and played the last year of his contract, I agree he WOULD HAVE been like all others..but he refused to do that. If you can't see why what he did as different than..that is the way you see it. MOST Patriot fans I believe DO see a difference..to me he showed what a phony he was in all he did...NOTHING close to one of good character...like the rotten apple among the many...

It's sad when the best deal and the emotional baggage don't line up, however. I do believe, naive old fart that I am, that this is Branch's situation.

Not sure what you mean by HIS situation...the emotional baggage and the best deal?? It's sad when a player is SO GREEDY...that he can turn his back on a team like he did..THAt is very sad..

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Pats726, I was using irony when I said "every discerning fan knows how insignificant that last year of the rookie deal is." Tongue was firmly in cheek.

I understand your point that Branch's gambit was while he was under contract. He signed it, he agreed to it, he had the option of playing under it or rolling the dice. He rolled the dice, putting the Pats in the position of letting him fester all season, or as long as he took the holdout. The Pats chose to go the trade route.

I agree he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to win the negotiation, basically, and he did not completely win. He is in Seattle.

The same course of action is open to all players, and the same options are available to all teams if the player takes that option.

Waving the contract in an emotionally charged, moralistic display changes nothing. The terms of the contract do not define sins or crimes. The contract is an agreement under which the player must play if he is to play in the NFL at all, unless the player's negotiating rights are transferred to another club.

Deion was willing to not play at all in the NFL. He won that part of the negotiation... I think the Pats brass saw how dug in Branch/Chayut got, and decided it was simply best to cut ties. Were this a violation of the league's rules, simply because Deion was under contract, they could have stepped in and nixed the trade. This was not a violation of league rules; teams can trade players -- i.e., the right to come to a deal with a specific player -- while players are under contract. Of course it's a bad move if the player opposes the trade, and will be a difficult negotiating partner in his new setting. But that was not the deal with Branch.

I'm not in the "just give players what they want" contingent. That's not what built 3 championship teams. But I also can't get bent out of shape, whatever happens on the business side. This seems to be a case where the rights of the player were not the same thing as what would be the player's decision, if he decided from his heart.

I don't have a quote but Brady actually made a comment during the drama, to the effect that it was different losing Deion, from losing a lot of the other guys. He was saying how Deion basically lived and breathed the Patriots ethic, and how losing him would be a huge setback.

So his heart was on one side, and his business sense (or Chayut's) said something else entirely. I understand the reasoning... don't wait 1 more year, when the MVP patina has worn even thinner. Strike while the iron is hot.

Well, he did. He's now a wealthy young man. But everything I read tells me his business decision came with an emotional price.

By the way... being the good guy in New England? What's that worth to him now? I may not be a "discerning fan," but my gut says nada, zilch, bupkes. If he wanted to "say the right thing," he'd be falling all over himself about how classy the Seahawks are and were through the whole deal, and how he's gone somewhere way better.

PFnV

 

[Oswlek]

For the record, the article that I read that has been the basis of this recent barage of posting insinuated that NE was willing tear up the final year.

They were willing to give him "what he wanted".

 

[Pats726]

Pats726, I was using irony when I said "every discerning fan knows how insignificant that last year of the rookie deal is." Tongue was firmly in cheek.

I understand..but THAT last year might have been the reason Deion is not here..more ironic??

I understand your point that Branch's gambit was while he was under contract. He signed it, he agreed to it, he had the option of playing under it or rolling the dice. He rolled the dice, putting the Pats in the position of letting him fester all season, or as long as he took the holdout. The Pats chose to go the trade route. I agree he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to win the negotiation, basically, and he did not completely win. He is in Seattle. The same course of action is open to all players, and the same options are available to all teams if the player takes that option.

Actually he got what was important to him..the GREEN!! That was all he cared about...and as I figured, there's nothing at all mentioned about ANYTHING that Branch did to indicate he wished to stay in NE. I wish there was something TO indicate that..some uncovered story or fact...instead its disingenuous BS about how he wanted to...What BS!!! Not a great analogy but like one who wishes to give up drinking and continues to drink day after day and refuses to enter any rehab program or do anthing. Does one REALLY believe their words?? Of course not...the words do not go along with any of the actions...NONE!! Deion's words of wishing to be with the club are the same....laughable...and not going along with any of his actions... It might be easier for him to just say he was greedy then to say generate so much BS..the facts do NOT support it at all...HIS actions spoke quite loudly. And yes those actions are open to all players..why do you think others have not done that?

Waving the contract in an emotionally charged, moralistic display changes nothing. The terms of the contract do not define sins or crimes. The contract is an agreement under which the player must play if he is to play in the NFL at all, unless the player's negotiating rights are transferred to another club. Deion was willing to not play at all in the NFL. He won that part of the negotiation... I think the Pats brass saw how dug in Branch/Chayut got, and decided it was simply best to cut ties. Were this a violation of the league's rules, simply because Deion was under contract, they could have stepped in and nixed the trade. This was not a violation of league rules; teams can trade players -- i.e., the right to come to a deal with a specific player -- while players are under contract. Of course it's a bad move if the player opposes the trade, and will be a difficult negotiating partner in his new setting. But that was not the deal with Branch. I'm not in the "just give players what they want" contingent. That's not what built 3 championship teams. But I also can't get bent out of shape, whatever happens on the business side.

So basically what you are saying is that what happens on the "business side" can not be questioned or looked at at all. What is ethical...what shows character or not...it does not matter an iota..it's business and can not be questioned. I think THAT is what you are saying..correct?? And that is fine if you REALLY believe that. One can make all kinds of excuses for poor behavior, lack of character, lying, being unfair...THAt all does not matter because it's "business". I guess if you wish to stick your head in the ground or just dismiss any criticism of any player saying "whatever goes in business it's OK"..that is all fine...but I think this is where the character counts a great deal..where there is something called ethics. Stomping one's feet like a two year old, saying "I want, I want"....is basically what Deion did. I don't see much character in that or in anything that he did. Do you?? Was his behavior in the negotiations anything to be praised ethically??

This seems to be a case where the rights of the player were not the same thing as what would be the player's decision, if he decided from his heart.I don't have a quote but Brady actually made a comment during the drama, to the effect that it was different losing Deion, from losing a lot of the other guys. He was saying how Deion basically lived and breathed the Patriots ethic, and how losing him would be a huge setback.

It's true that the players did miss him a great deal..THAt is understandable..but "deion basically lived and breathed the Patriot ethic"??? That is the biggest bit of disingenuous BS I have heard in a long time...If you believe that...explain ANY of his actions in the negotiations and how any in any way go in line with the "Patriot ethic"???
Refusing to negotiate in good faith...is that a Patriot ethic?? Lying as he did about whether he would show up for camp if an extension wasn't worked out..is that a Patriot ethic?? Demanding that a franchise tag not be given to him if he showed up for camp...is that a Patriot ethic?? Basically putting the spotlight on himself and not caring at all about his teammates..is that a Patriot ethic?? Not honoting a contract signed...is that a Patriot ethic??
Refusing to come to Training Camp and threatening to hold out..is that a Patriot ethic?? Being lazy and not wishing to play out a final year of a contract and demanding it all then..is that a Patriot ethic?? Not showing up for a team charity event...is that a Patriot ethic?? I do not think
ANY action by Deion in anyway was close to any Patriot ethic that I know.
The notion that he "lived and breathed" Patriot ethics does not hold water at all....I am sure Brady was talking about the "contented Deion....which may have been true..but the "greedy two year old acting Deion" was far from that in every way. So does Deion get to choose when and if he'll go with the Patriot ethics?? Hmmm...sounds like a bit of phonyness here..if contented the "Patriot ethics" are fine..but if it's in regard to a contract..NO WAY!! Sounds like a pile make that a BIG PILE of BS....And now we get to what was in his heart...PLEASE!!! Totally disingenuous..again what actions did he take to indicate in anyway that he wished to remain a Patriot?? IF THAT was in anyway in his heart there would be SOME action..some small iota of evidence that he wanted that...and is there?? Other than a very non believable mouthing of words.

So his heart was on one side, and his business sense (or Chayut's) said something else entirely. I understand the reasoning... don't wait 1 more year, when the MVP patina has worn even thinner. Strike while the iron is hot.

Again...I really do not believe this at all...do you have any facts at all to REALLY indicate that his heart wanted to stay here?? Any actions while negotiations were going on of that fact?? I truly believe that if it WAS in anyway in his heart that the negotiations and outcome would have been different. Again..look at the actions he took...and I just do not believe it was in his heart at all to be with the team. Why did Seymour's negotiations lead to a win-win situation and Branch's didn't?? If Branch's heart was in anyway involved I really believe he'd still be here..but his heart was full of greed and of NOT getting to a win-win situation..but of winning the negotiations...getting HIS way. I wonder what your thoughts are on why they waited a year till a year AFTER his MVP?? Why didn't he stroke when the iron was REALLY hot?? What effect if any do you think the fact that the Patriots went after mason for big money had on him?? Or of the fact that Givens was a free agent after 4 years (not 5)??? ( II really believe that thus fact IRKED him...and was possibly one of the reasons why he acted like a two year old.)

Well, he did. He's now a wealthy young man. But everything I read tells me his business decision came with an emotional price. By the way... being the good guy in New England? What's that worth to him now? I may not be a "discerning fan," but my gut says nada, zilch, bupkes. If he wanted to "say the right thing," he'd be falling all over himself about how classy the Seahawks are and were through the whole deal, and how he's gone somewhere way better. PFnV

I could care less about him "saying the right thing"...If there was an emotional price..that he's paying...well THAT is good. But it's all in hindsight...and it ALL was preventable by him. If he had used his brain more and REALLY wished to stay he could have; there were so so many steps along the way and every path he took was the one of greed, of screwing his team and the players and not of given in to anything and not getting to a situation with an agreement with the team. So if he has regrets now..he can look himself in the mirror..because it was ALL about himself and winning...If he's in pain now over what he did...oh well..I hope it hurts good. He gave his middle finger to the fans of the Patriots and the team and wanted out of the whole situation..so...he got what he wanted. Actually, he did say the right thing and praised the Seahawks a great deal per his first post trade interview on the Troy Brown show. I guess you place all ex-Patriots in the same bowl..and do not discern between them. I just think that Deion is the rotten apple of the bunch.

 

[Pats726]

For the record, the article that I read that has been the basis of this recent barage of posting insinuated that NE was willing tear up the final year.

They were willing to give him "what he wanted".

Can you link to that?? That makes Deion even dumber than i thought..if teh team gave him everything and he still would not sign...he deserves no sympathy at all..But I do find that hard to believe...

 

[Oswlek]

Can you link to that?? That makes Deion even dumber than i thought..if teh team gave him everything and he still would not sign...he deserves no sympathy at all..But I do find that hard to believe...

I tried to google it but I can't find it.

I'm very surprised that I am the only one that seemed to read it. I am quite sure that it was in one of Reiss' Sunday notes.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

726,

The part about Deion being a "team first guy" who was a model Patriot, is paraphrased from Brady. It's not me. Try a google search on Brady's comments on the Branch situation... I am not going hunting for it, but it may be of interest to you.

As for the ethics of the situation -- Branch did not demand that Seattle cut down a rainforest to get him. His holdout was not spent drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge. He did not stipulate that his salary be paid by converting orphans into child prostitutes. He did not steal, kill, injure, or rape someone. As far as business ethics, he straightforwardly said here is what I want, and I will play if I get it. He pushed hard enough that he ended up getting traded. But his ethical breaches escape me. I did not follow the saga as closely as some, but it seems to me that offers go on the table and come off the table from both sides in these negotiations; in other words, as details get ironed out (or not,) yesterday's position is no longer today's. If you are talking about putting out misinformation in the press so that fanboys get their knickers in a wad, I don't think of that as an incredible breach.

Again, it may only be the truly discriminating fan that gets all your points, and I have shown myself to be of the great unwashed, by disagreeing in the first place.

My gut says he is sincere about being emotionally attached to the Pats/NE, and that is all I've ever really argued. He got what he wanted in terms of money. I do not believe that the Pats xeroxed the Seattle offer and gave it to him, and to Chayut, to sign if they wanted. I doubt it very seriously. And as we say to the point of ridiculousness around here, the devil is in the details.

We're fans. We want what's good for the team. The team and the players usually work it so what's good for the team is good for the player and vice versa. In this case they could not.

But this does not mean to me that Branch was evil, and can not have a certain emotional reaction to NE and the fans. I do think it indicates he took Chayut far too seriously, but that is speculation. For all we know Branch has his MBA and was just using Chayut as a mouthpiece.

Regardless, he tried the holdout stunt, and it worked to mixed results. He got his business objective, that is, the kind of terms he wanted, and he did not get at least one emotional objective, which is staying with the Pats.

Sic Transit

PFnV

 

[Pats726]

The part about Deion being a "team first guy" who was a model Patriot, is paraphrased from Brady. It's not me. Try a google search on Brady's comments on the Branch situation... I am not going hunting for it, but it may be of interest to you.

If it was pre spring 06 it was true or if he said it in reference to how he was on the field.
BOTTOM LINE--How Branch negotiated was far from anything close to the "Patriot way".

As for the ethics of the situation -- Branch did not demand that Seattle cut down a rainforest to get him. His holdout was not spent drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge. He did not stipulate that his salary be paid by converting orphans into child prostitutes. He did not steal, kill, injure, or rape someone.

This is a very low bar or standard..in fact I do not think ANY NFL player in history has done anything close to that...even some of the Cinci cons..or Tank or Pacman..so???

As far as business ethics, he straightforwardly said here is what I want, and I will play if I get it. He pushed hard enough that he ended up getting traded. But his ethical breaches escape me.

Does that mean if you have a contract with a company for a product or service and they without warning demand that you pay triple the amount for that service that you would not have a problem with it??

I did not follow the saga as closely as some, but it seems to me that offers go on the table and come off the table from both sides in these negotiations; in other words, as details get ironed out (or not,) yesterday's position is no longer today's. If you are talking about putting out misinformation in the press so that fanboys get their knickers in a wad, I don't think of that as an incredible breach.

Actually, the point was that in early Spring of 06 Deion was asked point blank if he would go to camp if an extension was not worked out and he answered that he would. A public statement is a far cry from misinformation and other leaked things..maybe at that point he believed he would appear...but he answered with a firm "yes". Do athletes (and many others) lie? yes, but it can be taken as part of one's character as well.

Again, it may only be the truly discriminating fan that gets all your points, and I have shown myself to be of the great unwashed, by disagreeing in the first place.

Many I am sure agree with you.

My gut says he is sincere about being emotionally attached to the Pats/NE, and that is all I've ever really argued.

Where are any facts to back up that assertion?? I would like to believe that he was sincere and that he had an attachment to the team...I have looked at all his actions and those of his agent and have found none to support that. If anything, his actions support the opposite. I really believ they were there and they were strong that they would have come out in some way, shape or form. If anything, there was a strong emotion to get out of town away from the team. It's good to believe that he was sincere, but if he really was, it was buried behind a ton of greed and wanting out of town.
I would like to believe that as well.

He got what he wanted in terms of money. I do not believe that the Pats xeroxed the Seattle offer and gave it to him, and to Chayut, to sign if they wanted. I doubt it very seriously. And as we say to the point of ridiculousness around here, the devil is in the details.
We're fans. We want what's good for the team. The team and the players usually work it so what's good for the team is good for the player and vice versa. In this case they could not.

Very true and I trily believe that the Pats thought he would be reasonable throughout all of it and that in the end he woudl sign..(The reason they did not make a move for a wide receiver during these months of a stalemate.) in the end, they put faith in a player that was unreasonable and got burned.

But this does not mean to me that Branch was evil,

see way above and the low standard in play..not he is not "evil" in that low standard at all..

and can not have a certain emotional reaction to NE and the fans. I do think it indicates he took Chayut far too seriously, but that is speculation. For all we know Branch has his MBA and was just using Chayut as a mouthpiece.
Regardless, he tried the holdout stunt, and it worked to mixed results. He got his business objective, that is, the kind of terms he wanted, and he did not get at least one emotional objective, which is staying with the Pats.
Sic Transit PFnV

I think he got what he wanted..what was most important to him..if in any way he wished to meet the emotinal objective (which I totally question WAS any objective of his) he failed miserably on that. And what is sad is that if he had taken small steps in many places THAT could have been acheived with little effort...which is why I do not believe it was ANY objective of his. This latter looking back on things by Deion is just BS because he could have had it all if he really tried. I think he got what was most important to him the money and has realized his loss way too late.