Gasper article on Brady and WRs

[DaBruinz]

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...w_parts_together_quickly_is_bradys_challenge/

I started reading this article and almost right away Gasper is disingenuous regarding the Pats last season.

After being unwilling to open their wallets last season to keep wide receivers Deion Branch and David Givens, who fit Brady like an Armani suit, and watching him struggle to dress up a group of bargain-basement targets, the Patriots went upscale this year, acquiring Randy Moss from Oakland and Wes Welker from Miami and signing free agents Donte' Stallworth and Kelley Washington.

Sorry, Mr. Gasper, but you are wrong. The Pats were more than willing to open their wallets last year. They offered Givens $4 million a year. They offered Branch over $6 million a year. Givens chose to go play for almost $5 million. Branch? He felt he was better than Tom Brady, Richard Seymour and even Dan Koppen. Branch refused to sign his deal because he didn't want to have to honor the remaining year of his contract.

The rest of his article is decent, but the swipe at the front office wasn't needed.

 

[patchick]

I guess so. But the fact is, the Patriots were "unwilling to open their wallets" wide enough to keep those guys. Not saying they should have done differently, since it would have had to be one gaping wide wallet!

No matter how you look at it, last year's WR lineup has to count as one of the biggest personnel fiascoes of the BB/SP era. There's plenty of fault to go around, but it was u-g-l-y and they went out of their way to make sure this year would be very, very different.

 

[mgteich]

The FO made the right decisions. I guess the writer ruffled you sesitivities. He might have said that the patriot refused to meet the market price for Givens and Branch, or refused to pay what others would pay, or refused to make exceptions to their salary structure for Givens and Branch, or they refused to open their wallets wide enough for Givens and Branch, or that they refused to be blackmailed in the middle of a contract by anyone not named Seymour or Brady. But, I don't think that the tone or wording changes the reality.

Arguably, if we had better wide receivers, we would have been much more likely to have had home field advantage and perhaps a bye (consider the team with Givens and Branch instead of Caldwell and Gabriel).

The FO replaced Givens with Caldwell early, certainly a reasonable and timely move. They counted on Brown and Jackson for a bit of production. And they were totally unprepared for the Branch situation, not replacing him (or having a Plan B) until the season started, when we finally picked up Gabriel and then Gaffney. We arguably needed more help from the beginning at the wide receiver position.

The greatness of our FO is that we don't make the same mistake three times in a row. Curiously, the issue of depth at a critical position was an issue twice, first a linebacker, then at wide receiver.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...w_parts_together_quickly_is_bradys_challenge/

I started reading this article and almost right away Gasper is disingenuous regarding the Pats last season.



Sorry, Mr. Gasper, but you are wrong. The Pats were more than willing to open their wallets last year. They offered Givens $4 million a year. They offered Branch over $6 million a year. Givens chose to go play for almost $5 million. Branch? He felt he was better than Tom Brady, Richard Seymour and even Dan Koppen. Branch refused to sign his deal because he didn't want to have to honor the remaining year of his contract.

The rest of his article is decent, but the swipe at the front office wasn't needed.

 

[mgteich]

The FO made the right decisions. I guess the writer ruffled you sesitivities. He might have said that the patriot refused to meet the market price for Givens and Branch, or refused to pay what others would pay, or refused to make exceptions to their salary structure for Givens and Branch, or they refused to open their wallets wide enough for Givens and Branch, or that they refused to be blackmailed in the middle of a contract by anyone not named Seymour or Brady. But, I don't think that the tone or wording changes the reality.

Arguably, if we had better wide receivers, we would have been much more likely to have had home field advantage and perhaps a bye (consider the team with Givens and Branch instead of Caldwell and Gabriel).

The FO replaced Givens with Caldwell early, certainly a reasonable and timely move. They counted on Brown and Jackson for a bit of production. And they were totally unprepared for the Branch situation, not replacing him (or having a Plan B) until the season started, when we finally picked up Gabriel and then Gaffney. We arguably needed more help from the beginning at the wide receiver position.

The greatness of our FO is that we don't make the same mistake three times in a row. Curiously, the issue of depth at a critical position was an issue twice, first a linebacker, then at wide receiver.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...w_parts_together_quickly_is_bradys_challenge/

I started reading this article and almost right away Gasper is disingenuous regarding the Pats last season.



Sorry, Mr. Gasper, but you are wrong. The Pats were more than willing to open their wallets last year. They offered Givens $4 million a year. They offered Branch over $6 million a year. Givens chose to go play for almost $5 million. Branch? He felt he was better than Tom Brady, Richard Seymour and even Dan Koppen. Branch refused to sign his deal because he didn't want to have to honor the remaining year of his contract.

The rest of his article is decent, but the swipe at the front office wasn't needed.

 

[Pats726]

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...w_parts_together_quickly_is_bradys_challenge/

I started reading this article and almost right away Gasper is disingenuous regarding the Pats last season.



Sorry, Mr. Gasper, but you are wrong. The Pats were more than willing to open their wallets last year. They offered Givens $4 million a year. They offered Branch over $6 million a year. Givens chose to go play for almost $5 million. Branch? He felt he was better than Tom Brady, Richard Seymour and even Dan Koppen. Branch refused to sign his deal because he didn't want to have to honor the remaining year of his contract.

The rest of his article is decent, but the swipe at the front office wasn't needed.

I agree...I think they WERE quite willing to be reasonable...Givens went got the big green..Branch wanted the same even though he was not at the end of his contract, whined and wanted out and got a big deal in Seattle.

 

[rabthepat]

We are now better off without both of them. Givens hardly played last year for Tenn and is on the PUP this year. Branch is paid #1 receiver money but plays like a #2 receiver.

 

[old 55]

Arguably, if we had better wide receivers, we would have been much more likely to have had home field advantage and perhaps a bye (consider the team with Givens and Branch instead of Caldwell and Gabriel).

-------------------------------------------------------
In reality, we would have been worse off if we had kept Givens since he got injured immediately last year and hasn't seen the field since. We would have overpaid him and wouldn't have had his services and still needed to replace him.

Branch's situation would have involved ripping up the old contract after he had said he would honor it. I think I would have had my back up on that one too. I don't see that he's shown himself to be the caliber of WR that his new contract is paying. He certainly didn't put Seattle in the Super Bowl.

IMO, the Stallworth, Moss and Welker signings/contracts reflect that Branch and Givens were overpaid by Seattle and Tennessee.

 

[363839]

I guess so. But the fact is, the Patriots were "unwilling to open their wallets" wide enough to keep those guys. Not saying they should have done differently, since it would have had to be one gaping wide wallet!

No matter how you look at it, last year's WR lineup has to count as one of the biggest personnel fiascoes of the BB/SP era. There's plenty of fault to go around, but it was u-g-l-y and they went out of their way to make sure this year would be very, very different.

I wonder how many teams would love to have an FO fiasco that results in, what 1 or 2 plays from the Super Bowl.

 

[patchick]

I wonder how many teams would love to have an FO fiasco that results in, what 1 or 2 plays from the Super Bowl.

Of course. It's a great organization and a great team. But when the #1 receiver from 2006 can't even crack the 53 in 2007, you realize how astonishingly weak that position was last year.

I think the many discussions on this topic (including some posts in this thread) tend to conflate two questions:

1. Should the FO have given Branch & Givens whatever they wanted to stay? Were they worth it?

2. Was the WR corps a personnel fiasco?

It's perfectly reasonable to answer 1. No and 2. Yes. It took a long series of wrong turns to reach the messy end result. Branch turned his back on a signed contract. The FO didn't see it coming and plan accordingly. A high draft pick on a receiver yielded nothing (for that season, anyway). Doug Gabriel was a stunning disappointment. So as I said, plenty of blame to go around.

But now, I'm just going to sit back and luxuriate:
Moss. Welker. Stallworth. Gaffney. Washington.
Ahhhhhhh.

 

[DaBruinz]

Arguably, if we had better wide receivers, we would have been much more likely to have had home field advantage and perhaps a bye (consider the team with Givens and Branch instead of Caldwell and Gabriel).

-------------------------------------------------------
In reality, we would have been worse off if we had kept Givens since he got injured immediately last year and hasn't seen the field since. We would have overpaid him and wouldn't have had his services and still needed to replace him.

Branch's situation would have involved ripping up the old contract after he had said he would honor it. I think I would have had my back up on that one too. I don't see that he's shown himself to be the caliber of WR that his new contract is paying. He certainly didn't put Seattle in the Super Bowl.

IMO, the Stallworth, Moss and Welker signings/contracts reflect that Branch and Givens were overpaid by Seattle and Tennessee.

If Givens had stayed, there is no guarantee that he would have gotten hurt. The circumstances that led to his getting hurt wouldn't have happened.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...w_parts_together_quickly_is_bradys_challenge/

I started reading this article and almost right away Gasper is disingenuous regarding the Pats last season.



Sorry, Mr. Gasper, but you are wrong. The Pats were more than willing to open their wallets last year. They offered Givens $4 million a year. They offered Branch over $6 million a year. Givens chose to go play for almost $5 million. Branch? He felt he was better than Tom Brady, Richard Seymour and even Dan Koppen. Branch refused to sign his deal because he didn't want to have to honor the remaining year of his contract.

The rest of his article is decent, but the swipe at the front office wasn't needed.

I hate to break the news to you, but BB seemed more willing that his fan base to acknowledge that mistakes were made in constructing the 2006 team. Mistakes he regretted even more when the resulting unit managed to claw it's way to the AFCC anyway, only to come up short.

They never offered Givens $4M. Their best offer, made only after he was on the market and fielding offers from Houston and Tennessee, was reportedly 5 years and $18M. If Branch honored the remaining year of his contract the 5 year deal we were offering him dropped to just over $5M per over 6 years. In the end we reportedly offered him the deal he wanted, but again that was too little too late since two others had already made that offer and were willing to trade for the chance to sign him to it. That's the respect these players often crave, wishing to feel wanted and even persued. We lost AV for much the same reason. All were apparently players we wanted or hoped or even intended to retain.

This season was about the lesson learned. We agressively persued any player we were interested in this off season and low and behold, we signed everyone we hoped to (including one we franchise tagged). They make mistakes DB, and learn from them - which is all that really matters, and if they can acknowledge that there is no reason why fans should fear acknowledging it.

 

[363839]

Of course. It's a great organization and a great team. But when the #1 receiver from 2006 can't even crack the 53 in 2007, you realize how astonishingly weak that position was last year.

That's a little unfair when you consider the players in front of him.
Besides, Gaffney did make it.

I think the many discussions on this topic (including some posts in this thread) tend to conflate two questions:

1. Should the FO have given Branch & Givens whatever they wanted to stay? Were they worth it?

It was my understanding that Branch was looking for more than T. Brady.
In any case he did not honor his contract. I'm glad the Pats did not cave to Deion.
You might have a case for Givens, though.

2. Was the WR corps a personnel fiasco?

The Pats did the best they could, given the circumstances.
They may have chalked Givens up as a loss but expected Branch to honor the contract.
If there was a personnel fiasco, it was initiated by greedy agents and misguided players.

It's perfectly reasonable to answer 1. No and 2. Yes. It took a long series of wrong turns to reach the messy end result. Branch turned his back on a signed contract. The FO didn't see it coming and plan accordingly. A high draft pick on a receiver yielded nothing (for that season, anyway). Doug Gabriel was a stunning disappointment. So as I said, plenty of blame to go around.

I disagree that it's reasonable to answer yes. But you're entitled to yours as I am to mine.

But now, I'm just going to sit back and luxuriate:
Moss. Welker. Stallworth. Gaffney. Washington.
Ahhhhhhh.

I'll drink to that.

 

[PatsFan37]

I think the many discussions on this topic (including some posts in this thread) tend to conflate two questions.

C'mon Patchick, I'd like to read this website with a beer in my hand, not a dictionary.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Givens is on the PUP, so he is out for the first six games.

So that will be a total of AT LEAST 17 games his has missed in a row. He only played in 5 last year.

Not saying that this could have been predicted, but it is hard to kill BB for not signing him now, kinda like letting Mo Vaughn to go Anaheim, it seemed bad at the time, but once the injuries hit, it didn't seem like such a bad thing.

We got Brandon Merriweather for Dieon Branch, not a bad trade.

 

[DaBruinz]

I hate to break the news to you, but BB seemed more willing that his fan base to acknowledge that mistakes were made in constructing the 2006 team. Mistakes he regretted even more when the resulting unit managed to claw it's way to the AFCC anyway, only to come up short.

Except that BB never said what those mistakes were, exactly. So, forgive me for not putting a lot of credence into speculation that he was referring to Branch and Givens. The fact remains that the Pats were offering Branch an extension that would have paid him $33 million as long as he honored his current contract. That IS opening the purse strings for a player who had never made it to 1000 yards and had never scored more than 5 TDs in a season.

They never offered Givens $4M. Their best offer, made only after he was on the market and fielding offers from Houston and Tennessee, was reportedly 5 years and $18M. If Branch honored the remaining year of his contract the 5 year deal we were offering him dropped to just over $5M per over 6 years. In the end we reportedly offered him the deal he wanted, but again that was too little too late since two others had already made that offer and were willing to trade for the chance to sign him to it. That's the respect these players often crave, wishing to feel wanted and even persued. We lost AV for much the same reason. All were apparently players we wanted or hoped or even intended to retain.

Mo -
The Pats last offer was 5 for $20 million. Givens got 5 years and $24 million. It doesn't matter when the offer was made. They made it.

As for what the pats offered Branch, please see above.

As for Vinatieri, we lost him because we didn't cowtow to his demands of being paid more than 3 million a year.

It takes two to negotiate, Mo. And everyone knows that Branch and his agent didn't negotiate. We also know that Branch, Givens and Vinatieri all snubbed their noses at potential deals prior to their even hitting the open market.

Nothing you have said supports Gasper's claim that the Pats didn't open the wallet. They did. Just that they didn't open it far enough for lying scumbags like Branch. And, honestly, I am glad Branch is gone.

This season was about the lesson learned. We agressively persued any player we were interested in this off season and low and behold, we signed everyone we hoped to (including one we franchise tagged). They make mistakes DB, and learn from them - which is all that really matters, and if they can acknowledge that there is no reason why fans should fear acknowledging it.

I never claimed that BB & Pioli don't make mistakes. Not sure how you got that from what I said. All I was saying is that Gasper was being disingenous regarding his portrayal of the Pats. He said they didn't open the wallet. They did. Just not to the point of over-paying for a player.

OH, btw, the Pats never gave in to Branch's demand that the last year of the contract be scrapped. That is something they've been steady on. Even with Warren's new deal. His extension does not scrap out the last 2 years of his current contract.

 

[sarge]

The part of the article that should be mandatory reading

"Take Tom and stick him with Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, and Roger Craig . . . how does he do?" said Salisbury. "That's no disrespect to Troy Brown and David Patten. Anybody who says those Patriots teams didn't have talent, that's a crock. Bill Belichick wants smart players and good players, but there is a difference between good players and superstars like Jerry Rice and Randy Moss.


"Nothing against Peyton Manning, but put Tom with [the Colts]. I argue this all the time. I think Tom has done more with less than any Hall of Fame, superstar QB in history. I think the guy is special and now he's going into the season and he doesn't have to worry, 'Do I have to make extra plays?' All Tom has to do is do what he does and New England's situation will take care of itself."

 

[patchick]

C'mon Patchick, I'd like to read this website with a beer in my hand, not a dictionary.

My apologies. It's a family curse...I never realized the extent until I noticed that my second-grader talks like a literature professor.

 

[Mike the Brit]

My apologies. It's a family curse...I never realized the extent until I noticed that my second-grader talks like a literature professor.

No, keep 'em coming. Apostrophize, alliteration, apothegm ... whatever you like. What did we go to college for, anyway?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

No, keep 'em coming. Apostrophize, alliteration, apothegm ... whatever you like. What did we go to college for, anyway?

I know! I know! Babes and booze! Fortunately I had an excellent elementary school education to fall back on.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I know! I know! Babes and booze! Fortunately I had an excellent elementary school education to fall back on.

Speak for yourself. (I had to wait for graduate school for that.)