Losing Branch is not the end of the world

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by shatch62, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. shatch62

    shatch62 Practice Squad Player

    All the people that think this is the end of the Patriots need to lighten up a little bit. Branch was a good player that had some very good/great playoff games but he was not worth the money he was paid. We are talking about a player that NEVER had a 1,000 yard season or scored more than 5 TDs in a single season. He was good but hardly irreplaceable. To put his contributions into perspective, here are the numbers for Branch, Givens and Patten during their 4 year tenures with the team.

    Year G Rec Yards Y/R TD
    Branch 02-05 53 213 2,744 12.9 14
    Givens 02-05 52 158 2,214 14.0 12
    Patten 01-04 54 165 2,513 15.2 16

    I don’t remember anyone flipping out when Patten left and his numbers stack up nicely to Branch and Givens.

    The one problem with this situation is that it leaves the Pats thin at WR this year but they have been thin there before.

    Below is a list of WR, TE and RBs on the Pats. Next to them are their Stats for last year (Graham’s is from 2003). For Childress I gave him Tim Dwight’s stats, Jackson got Bethel Johnson rookie stats, Thomas got Graham’s rookie #s and Maroney was a conservative estimate. I gave Watson conservative numbers.

    RE Yrd Avg TDs
    Troy Brown 39 466 11.9 2 (Brown’s 2005 #s)
    Reche Caldwell 28 352 12.6 1 (Caldwell’s 2005 #s)
    Doug Gabriel 37 554 15.0 3 (Gabriel’s 2005 #’s)
    Chad Jackson 16 209 13.1 2 (Bethel’s rookie #s)
    Bam Childress 19 332 17.5 3 (Tim Dwight’s 2005 #s)

    Dan Graham 38 409 10.8 4 (Graham’s 2003 #s)
    Ben Watson 48 525 10.9 7 (Just an estimate)
    Dave Thomas 15 150 10.0 1 (Graham’s rookie #s)

    Kevin Faulk 29 260 9.0 0 (Faulk’s 2005 #s)
    Corey Dillon 22 181 8.2 1 (Dillon’s 2005 #s)
    L. Maroney 16 128 8.0 0 (estimate)

    None of these expectations are out of line. The end result would be 307 receptions for 3,566 yards and 24 TDs. Compare these numbers to Brady’s average season in 5 years of starting:

    Average- 315.2 comp 3,605.8 yards 24.6 TDs
    Projections- 307 comp 3,566 yards 24 TDs

    Would I have wanted Branch to stay? Yes. Would I have paid him what Seattle paid him? No way. Good for him. He got the money he wanted and went to a team that should win 10-13 games and make the play-offs but this is hardly the end of the world.
  2. RAWKY

    RAWKY On the Roster

    I agree with you.

    No one has ever really put Branch's numbers in context....he never had a 1000 yd season and that includes last yr when he was healthly all yr and TB threw for over 4,000 YDS.

    How is that possible when he was the NUMBER ONE reciever?

    So Branch not getting a thousand yd season was not just a function of the system.

    A big part of the answer is that Branch could never beat double coverage.
  3. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    It has to be the end of the world, all I see are people running around with yellow stains on the front of their trousers, it must be a pandemic!
  4. 5 Rings for Brady!!

    5 Rings for Brady!! In the Starting Line-Up

    Box: I thought I told you to not spend so much time in front of the mirror, it's bad for your self-image.

    What people need to realize about Branch is that we weren't gonna have him for this year because he said he was going to miss ten games.

    He would not have made a difference if he was on the team. By game ten, we will have at least one quasi-#1 WR, just like Branch was.

    He wasn't gonna contribute and this would have been a distraction all year. I bet Borges wishes Branch stuck around so Borges would have something to write about now that he is perpetually out of the Pats loop.
  5. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Pro Bowl Player

    We didn't lose Branch yesterday.

    He hasn't been here through camp, didn't report for Game one and wasn't going to report until Game 11 - at which point one would question his ability to be effective.

    You can't lose what you don't have.

    What we lost yesterday was a distraction that would have hurt the team on a weekly basis - and by removing that distraction we picked up a #1 draft pick.

    None of that addresses what common sense tells you is a need at WR - but nor should it be viewed as a "loss".

    Our need at WR goes beyond the numbers

    It comes down to whether we have a credible deep threat that can stretch the field consistently enough so that Defenses do not collapse on the short to mid game where shatch62's excellent breakdown can become a reality.

    None of those receptions happened in a vacuum. The short to mid game receptions that they represent happened thanks in large part to Defenses worried about the long ball - if there is no credible threat look for double teams against Watson and others, and increased pressure on Brady.

    Statistics mean nothing without the proper context. 90% of all people know that! ;)
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2006
  6. Ceresco

    Ceresco Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    I can't wait until Sunday, Gabriel will have a huge game and then I hopefully won't see the name Deion Branch on this site ever again.
  7. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Everyone hopes that this will happen.

  8. lobster

    lobster On the Game Day Roster

    Brady all but said last week that losing Branch was a huge loss for the Pat's passing game. He said he and Branch had spent 4 years perfecting their game together, clearly implying that cannot be replaced by a couple weeks practice with Gabriel or Jackson - no matter how good they might be eventually.
  9. Garbanza

    Garbanza In the Starting Line-Up

    You guys are nuts! It will take at least five to six weeks for the recievers to get comfy with Brady and the system - and vice versa. Thinking otherwise is foolhardy. The Pats run one of the most complicated systems in the league. Are we good enough to win most of our games until the comfort level is established (and assuming these receivers are any good)? That is a more appropriate question.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2006
  10. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract


    You are correct. But the Pats are going to the playoffs baring a season ending injury to Tom Brady, with the schedule they have. For the next four or five games the Pats will make do; the roster is not barren at WR. But it won't be smooth.

    By the time the playoffs come about, however, the WR corps might actually be better than a first line of Branch and Givens.

    The scheduel for the first six weeks:

    Buffalo W
    @ Jets
    @ Cinn

    The Jets arer weak enough to beat w/o any WRs.

    The other three do not have secondaries as good as Buffalo's IMHO. With Branch they might go 5-0 to 3-2. It will be interesting to see how they finish this stretch. But 3-2 or better will indicate little long range problems, IMHO.

Share This Page