Patriot mistake

[Johnny Handsome]

It would work much better if you said I were a ditch digger,

It should be...It would work much better if you said I WAS a ditch digger.

Heh, define irony.

"Were" used this way is called the subjunctive mood.

This mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true. It's usually used with words like "if" and "wish".

Other examples:

"I wish I were a sea cucumber."

"If I were you, I would eat less bacon."
Why don't you define it for me.

 

[Rob0729]

Wasn't our first offer to Branch 3 years for $18 million? We got two more years of Welker for the same price.

 

[Johnny Handsome]

Wasn't our first offer to Branch 3 years for $18 million? We got two more years of Welker for the same price.

Yes and I hope Welker turns out as good if not better than Branch but we didn't have Branch last year when he could have been the difference. Please don't mistake me here, we were soooo close to winning another Super Bowl last year that I'm making the argument 1 player (but not necessarily just Branch) could have been the difference.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes and I hope Welker turns out as good if not better than Branch but we didn't have Branch last year when he could have been the difference. Please don't mistake me here, we were soooo close to winning another Super Bowl last year that I'm making the argument 1 player (but not necessarily just Branch) could have been the difference.

It wasn't the offense that lost in Indianapolis, it was the defense. Branch wasn't a free agent, restricted or otherwise. The salary cap, with commensurate salaries, wasn't as high last year as it is this year. These are all reasons why your argument is fatally flawed.

 

[patriotspride]

I can't understand why the Pats wouldn't pay Branch $40 mil. last year but will pay Welker $35 mil. this year Especially since we came 1 Caldwell drop/1 first down away from winning another Super Bowl. Either we should have paid Branch last year (for another ring it's worth anything we would have paid him) or We're overpaying Welker this year. I don't see how the Pats could be right about both moves.

your forgetting the obvious fact that branch was under contract and held out.no team should ever let any player under contract hold the team hostage .its sets a bad precedence .under the circumstances the patriots went above and beyond and still tried to sign the guy and offered him a contract one equal to what he got with the seahawks if i'm not mistaken .if branch agreed to have a new contract start this up coming season he would still be here .this falls squarely on branches shoulders.

 

[salty]

The Branch fiasco was a mistake. That little sh*t had a thing or two to do with it himself, but the bottom line is that the Pats FO significantly underestimated his value in the new labor market. Fortunately, they appear to have learned from it. It might've cost us a championship last season, but the only thing you can do now is move on.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Branch fiasco was a mistake. That little sh*t had a thing or two to do with it himself, but the bottom line is that the Pats FO significantly underestimated his value in the new labor market. Fortunately, they appear to have learned from it. It might've cost us a championship last season, but the only thing you can do now is move on.

The issue with Branch was not his value in the "new labor market". The issue was, and always will be, knocking a year off of his rookie contract. No matter how many times people try to spin it otherwise, that's the simple reality. The reality is that, if Branch hadn't been so anxious to get paid last season, this year's market might very well have led to him getting a better deal overall. Had he just played out his contract, New England would have been forced to choose between franchising him and Samuel. One of them would have been a free agent in a year where teams are spending money like RICH sailors on leave, and that player would have made a killing. The other would have gotten top 5 money and time to work out a new contract in this bloated market.

The 'mistakes' were by Branch and Seattle. Branch likely ended up with less money overall, and Seattle lost a #1 pick for a player that didn't take them where they thought they could go. New England, on the other hand, got a #1 pick in a year when a superior receiver, Javon Walker, only netted a #2 pick.

 

[Screw Chowda Heads]

You see, Johnny Handsome ... Pats fans are not the coolest of people, so when you see them trying to dictate who gets to be on the message boards, it's a sign that that particular 'fan' is a 'frickin' idiot. I would rather put a gun to my own head then sit down and have a brew with people like that. Not all of you are fools, but enough to the point where you are looked upon around the country as 'herbs, tools, pricks, ****es, and my favorite -- LOSERS'

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The issue with Branch was not his value in the "new labor market". The issue was, and always will be, knocking a year off of his rookie contract. No matter how many times people try to spin it otherwise, that's the simple reality. The reality is that, if Branch hadn't been so anxious to get paid last season, this year's market might very well have led to him getting a better deal overall. Had he just played out his contract, New England would have been forced to choose between franchising him and Samuel. One of them would have been a free agent in a year where teams are spending money like RICH sailors on leave, and that player would have made a killing. The other would have gotten top 5 money and time to work out a new contract in this bloated market.

The 'mistakes' were by Branch and Seattle. Branch likely ended up with less money overall, and Seattle lost a #1 pick for a player that didn't take them where they thought they could go. New England, on the other hand, got a #1 pick in a year when a superior receiver, Javon Walker, only netted a #2 pick.

You make a great point. Obviously this is hindsight for Branch. However, it seems if he would have played out his contract with the Patriots (and put up 60 to 70 catches like he probably would have), he would have been the cream of the WR FA crop. He got 13 million guaranteed from Seattle. It seems in this year's market (and it being thin at WR), 17 to 20 million would have been very possible.

 

[italia44]

The Branch fiasco was a mistake. That little sh*t had a thing or two to do with it himself, but the bottom line is that the Pats FO significantly underestimated his value in the new labor market. Fortunately, they appear to have learned from it. It might've cost us a championship last season, but the only thing you can do now is move on.

You're so far off base,it's hard to know where to start........Repeat after me.....Branch wanted to renogotiated an existing contract.......Never going to happen...We did the right thing.

If contracts are null and void....all you have is anarchy.The Pats would have given him a huge extension.....but it can never include the year he is still under contract.
This was all about getting a signing bonus,it can never come from your existing team.

If the Pats had caved in,others would have been l.ined up to do the same.

Not just on the Patriots......all thru the league.

Anarchy destroys......Communism is dead.

It cost Seattle,big time....BB did the right thing.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

However, I'm humbled by the dynamic czar of the Patriot messageboard, Wicked Pissah! I kneel at your messageboard altar *applause*

You may rise now

 

[DarrylS]

The issue with Branch was not his value in the "new labor market". The issue was, and always will be, knocking a year off of his rookie contract. No matter how many times people try to spin it otherwise, that's the simple reality. The reality is that, if Branch hadn't been so anxious to get paid last season, this year's market might very well have led to him getting a better deal overall. Had he just played out his contract, New England would have been forced to choose between franchising him and Samuel. One of them would have been a free agent in a year where teams are spending money like RICH sailors on leave, and that player would have made a killing. The other would have gotten top 5 money and time to work out a new contract in this bloated market.

The 'mistakes' were by Branch and Seattle. Branch likely ended up with less money overall, and Seattle lost a #1 pick for a player that didn't take them where they thought they could go. New England, on the other hand, got a #1 pick in a year when a superior receiver, Javon Walker, only netted a #2 pick.

This is the issue with Branch, if you knocked off the last year of his rookie contract, how would that sit with the other guys in the locker room?? When we extended Seymour, did not knock off the last year of the contract. This team has a formula, and not going to deviate from it. They will pay big bucks in the trenches, but probably with the exception of Brady, not overpay anywheres else. Look at how this team is formulated, both lines are under contract so they have stability there. The LB situation is stable and getting deeper. IMO Seattle got screwed in this deal, we have been able to use our #2 pick for someone who will upgrade our offense and ST's. Maybe not as pretty as Deion, but able to do the job nonetheless.