Good possiblitly we lose Givens and Branch

[shmessy]

Why the comparisons to one of the least talented SB champtions?? to a team that BB has said that he was surprised to win a SB with???

I can't believe you just answered your own question.

Maybe because they WON A SB with such a dearth of talent??????

Because all the hand wringing today is about the "lack of talent" at WR. "Talent" is not a problem for this team. This team is far more talented than that which won in 2001.......and that team won!

If that team can go 11-5 and beat an extremely "talented" team in the SB, this team (which has far more "talent") sure can.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I can't believe you just answered your own question.

Because talent is not the end-all. If that team can go 11-5 and beat an extremely "talented" team in the SB, this team (which has far more "talent") sure can.

Triplett.

 

[DarthICE]

I dont really give a damn if Bam Childress is the "starter". Brady spreads the ball unlike no other. Can you cram it into your brain somehow or another?

All together now... Who's Tom Bradys favorite receiver? :bricks:

Don't forget, As Sharpe pointed out during last weeks Cardinals game, Tom Brady has that "Dan Marino 'Phone Booth' ability while sliding around in the pocket"... I'm still trying to figure out what he meant by that one lol.

But in all seriousness, I think the team will be fine without Branch...

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the guy back, he does have talent, and it would be a shame to see him go ...But the longer this thing drags on, the more convinced I become that the team should simply move on without him.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

All together now... Who's Tom Bradys favorite receiver?

Don't forget, As Sharpe pointed out during last weeks Cardinals game, Tom Brady has that "Dan Marino 'Phone Booth' ability while sliding around in the pocket"... I'm still trying to figure out what he meant by that one lol.

But in all seriousness, I think the team will be fine without Branch...

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the guy back, he does have talent, and it would be a shame to see him go ...But the longer this thing drags on, the more convinced I become that the team should simply move on without him.

Sharpe pointed something out "on the field?" I must have missed that game, wow!

 

[holyredeemer]

I am sorry, but I find the idea that many are spreading "Pats dont need Branch, he wont make a difference, Bradys the best." to be completely stupid. I mean c'mon guys, your better than that. Losing Branch WILL impact this team. Saying no WR talent matters cuz Brady will hit them all makes no sense. If that was true, than BB wouldnt have been drafting so many TE's during his tenure here, and he sure as hell wouldnt have draft C. Jackson in the upper 2nd round. Talent does matter. Maybe not as much with us, but it still does. In the clutch moment that Brady would normally look towards Branch on a slant, instead hes gonna thread it to Reche, and we all know how that went.
If you dont care that Branch is traded, then fine. That's your opinion. However, don't say losing him for a full season wont matter. Cause it will. How the O will adjust will be the big focal point. And depth will be an even bigger issue. If we do trade him, what would u want? Id like to get a solid starter and maybe a 3-5 rd. pick.

 

[shmessy]

I am sorry, but I find the idea that many are spreading "Pats dont need Branch, he wont make a difference, Bradys the best." to be completely stupid. I mean c'mon guys, your better than that. Losing Branch WILL impact this team. Saying no WR talent matters cuz Brady will hit them all makes no sense. If that was true, than BB wouldnt have been drafting so many TE's during his tenure here, and he sure as hell wouldnt have draft C. Jackson in the upper 2nd round. Talent does matter. Maybe not as much with us, but it still does. In the clutch moment that Brady would normally look towards Branch on a slant, instead hes gonna thread it to Reche, and we all know how that went.
If you dont care that Branch is traded, then fine. That's your opinion. However, don't say losing him for a full season wont matter. Cause it will. How the O will adjust will be the big focal point. And depth will be an even bigger issue. If we do trade him, what would u want? Id like to get a solid starter and maybe a 3-5 rd. pick.

Never said losing Branch wouldn't matter. Just that it doesn't necessarily mean we are doomed. Big difference. This team has won before with lesser WR units and far lesser TE and RB units. I'd love to keep Branch, but if it means giving him top-5 money, that will hurt other parts of the T-E-A-M.

 

[pats1]

Never said losing Branch wouldn't matter. Just that it doesn't necessarily mean we are doomed. Big difference. This team has won before with lesser WR units and far lesser TE and RB units. I'd love to keep Branch, but if it means giving him top-5 money, that will hurt other parts of the T-E-A-M.

Right on.

This team has been perfect at working around these "obstacles" with alternate approaches.

 

[RayClay]

Don't forget Jackson. They won three Super Bowls negotiations are just starting to get tough.

Most teams fold after one SB for these reasons.

They made good offers to both receivers. They signed Seymour, that was the only irreplaceable part.

They're going to run a short passing, rushing offense until they sign reinforcements and Jackson get comfortable.

 

[holyredeemer]

Don't forget Jackson. They won three Super Bowls negotiations are just starting to get tough.

Most teams fold after one SB for these reasons.

They made good offers to both receivers. They signed Seymour, that was the only irreplaceable part.

They're going to run a short passing, rushing offense until they sign reinforcements and Jackson get comfortable.

He has to step on the field before we can ever talk about him getting comfortable.:eat2:

 

[R_T26]

in 2001, troy brown was a 1,000 yard pro bowl reciever, and David patten was solid. Just becaue you do it once doesnt mean it works out the same. Its gettinga bit ridiculous. Not every scrub LB will turn into vrabel and not every scrub reciever will turn into Patten. Even BB has said, the 2001 team was not expected to compete.

 

[arrellbee]

It's not all that complicated. Without Branch, the team is not as strong. But it certainly doesn't mean in any way that it wouldn't be possible to win a superbowl - and if you have followed other threads, the team as a whole seems to have some significant new strengths. It does seem awfully certain that this team has a better chance to win a superbowl than the 2001 team, doesn't it ? Not that it necessarily has for sure as much of a chance as, say, 2004.

So - completely agreed - while there doesn't seem to be any basis YET to be more optimistic than 2004, some folks seem to be disregarding the very real POSSIBILITY that the team could be as good as 2004. Really. It actually doesn't take much of a stretch. If Banta-Cain and Caldwell can play solidly and if Jackson shows solid talent and productivity by mid-season, doesn't that actually do it ? Sure seems like it might.