Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by SVN, Sep 18, 2006.
kinda rips BB
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5977718 - at the very end
Terry was never known for his intellect.
He's kind of the Ringo Starr of dynasty quarterbacks.
What a mean thing to say about Ringo Starr
Terry Bradshaw is an idiot.
He couldn't count to 21 with his clothes on.
This seems to suggest that Bradshaw was a "system guy" made famous by his supporting cast. Is that what you're saying?
And sorry, Ringo. You kept the beat, but if it wasn't for those other three guys you would have been a hair dresser.
For a current example, see Daunte Culpepper without Randy Moss.
Disregarding the hall of fame defense and solid running attack, what made Bradshaw "great"?
Well it's no accident the name Lynn Swann and the phrase "Circus catch" are so often found in the same sentence.
Look at the videos yourself and see how many under or overthrown balls were saved by both receivers.
I can imagine Bradshaw without Swann, so maybe that's why he thinks Brady can't live without Branch.
Watching these videos, the phrase "in stride" seldom applies.
:rofl: What an apt analogy Ray! :rofl:
Lets take a closer look at what Ringo had to say:
"There are some players in the New England locker room who thought Deion Branch should have reported to camp and taken the deal.
But let's just gloss over that little tidbit because it really doesn't jive with our conclusion.
Obviously, Branch won out in this deal because he got a lot more than the $6 million annual salary New England had on the table. He's in Seattle for the ton of money.
Ringo had more business sense than Terry. He got the same $6M+ NE had on the table only he got it a year earlier.
But you're also are messing with your quarterback, Tom Brady, and taking away his big weapon. Branch is a big-gamer, always has been. Sometimes, these coaches get to thinking it's about them, that they can get this done. If they don't get to the playoffs and they end up looking for a wide receiver in next year's draft, wouldn't you rather pay Branch his money than hope that kid you draft is going to be the answer?
Well we'll have to see about that Terry. We have a QB who has won without big weapons and last year lost even with Mr. Big Game (who apparently didn't think the SD game constituted a big game because he couldn't get open to save his life in that one which likely cost us home field) because the system does work when these players do their job, and on some level these players know it however bitter a pill that may be for their talent to swallow at contract time. Coming from Pittsburgh you should understand that - did the Rooney's teach you nothing in your run about fiscal responsibility and building value through the draft? And if my alternative is a #1 draft pick rather than overpay a #1 WR elite money when he is as much a product of the system as he is a remotely elite talent, then I'll take the draft pick for the next 5 years thank you. With this year's #1 we got that same QB his franchise RB of the future, and with a #2 we got him arguably the best WR prospect in the 2006 draft. Nevermind we got the QB himself in the 6th round on the eve of our run.
I disagree with Bill Belichick. I think he made a big mistake by unloading this kid, especially a good kid, a high-character guy. Branch has always been known as a good work-ethic guy who produces in big games. I hate to say this, but receivers like Branch aren't out there. They are not easy to find. Then again, Belichick has won three Super Bowls, so obviously he has all the answers.
Well now, I guess we assess high character a little differently. And you are right, there aren't that many WR out their who have the stones to hold out on a HOF QB and HOF HC and a dynastic team that allowed him to be on average a 675 yard #1 WR demanding elite WR money because he was tired of being victimized. Belichick may not have all the answers, but he's the guy who found 2 WR in the 2002 draft that other GM's were willing to overpay for. And he didn't even waste a #1 to accomplish that. Obviously your respect for Deion's prodigious talent has grown in the course of watching him perform in the only two or three Patriots games you have probably actually watched in the last three seasons.
Once you paint yourself into a corner as an organization √Ę‚ā¨‚ÄĚ this player gave a little money back, another player took a little less to stay, we are the New England Patriots and it's an honor to play for us √Ę‚ā¨‚ÄĚ you paint yourself into thinking that you end up living by the sword and dying by the sword. I think this sword will pierce them. This was a mistake. That's what I think. If I'm Tom Brady, I'm real upset because they took away one of my weapons.
Terry, you are no Tom Brady. Get back to doing what you do best - slamming the equally hard nosed dim wit who finally replaced you in the Pittsburgh system.
Let me see if I under stand Terry correctly.
Brady should be upset that he no longer has Branch and Givens. But Brady shouldn't be happy that they added Maroney, Caldwell, Gabriel, Thomas, and Mills.
Terry, you should keep your mouth shut because you are clueless and really don't understand the situation.
Even better. They also got Chad Jackson for "poor Tommy".
This is what I don't understand.
If Deion Branch got the SAME $6M+ except that he got it a YEAR EARLIER, why not MATCH Seattle offer and KEEP Deion??
Let me repeat: Why not MATCH Seattle's offer and keep Deion? As you wrote, there is almost NO DIFFERENCE between Seattle's and NE's offer.
We have the possibly the best QB in the league and we are taking away his favorite receivers?
The reason 'not to match' and give D his money a year earlier is that it ignores the reality that he is already under contract for that year.
Any player under contract...following the precedent would feel it's appropriate to have their contract torn up if they were to outperform it. I think guys like Brushi and Vrabel who agreed to $2-$3M a year deals could potentially take issue with it if D had the last year of his contract ripped up. JMO
Sigh. Just how many times do people have to tell you this? Brady, Seymour, Vrabel, all took less because they realized they had years remaining on their contracts. Simple: you counteroffer, negotiate, and split the difference. Otherwise, what's the point of signing a contract if every player is going to demand a new deal pronto ala TO and Branch? If Branch does badly in Seattle, is he going to give the money back because he doesn't deserve it?
Can someone translate this? How does FOX allow a functional illiterate to write articles?
Because we'd have to tear up the last year of every contract on the team.
And there's no need to repeat it.
I'll try to explain this one more time then I'm done.
Branch owed us oneyear of service a 1.045 million dollars. He was not a free agent.
He didn't owe Seattle anything.
If we paid him 6mil plus for 2006 we would be giving him 5 million dollars for nothing.
If he didn't owe us one year of service Seattle wouldn't have given us a 1st round pick to relinquish our rights to his services for 1 year at 1.045 million.
Therefore, given Branch's contractual obligation to us for 2006 we effectively would have had to pay him approx. 5 million more than any team that didn't have him under contract to match anything that started in 2006, (his last contract year.
"I hate to say this, but receivers like Branch aren't out there. They are not easy to find. Then again, Belichick has won three Super Bowls, so obviously he has all the answers. " SO according ro TB...Branch is a rare wide receiver....TOP FIVE??? Not easy to find??? What an idiot and then to totally mock BB..."he has all the answers.."..Terry u have NONE and are totally an idiot...
Separate names with a comma.