This homer is gonna criticize the coach.

[reflexblue]

Right, what does that have to do with Branch's playoff stats? The 2007 team was much better than the 2006 team, so clearly it was a smart move to make

Not.....Different year, and how many championships did we win with RM.......ZERO. But it was Entertaining.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

The Patriots had the best offense in NFL history in 2007 without Branch. That doesnt happen with Branch. If you think we would have won the SB in 2007 with Branch I think you're mistaken. Many media members/players, including Tom Brady have said that the team was better with Moss. Branch is a solid player, but he definitely isnt that big of a game changer that you are saying he is.

We probably win that SB with Ty Law and McGinest, but Branch would have made no difference

 

[upstater1]

I think Branch may have well cost us a SB that year. The defense would most likely not been on the field nearly as much if Branch was in that game, so they wouldn't have gotten worn down.

BINGO.

3 and outs after building a big halftime lead, well they don't help the defense.

Put Reche Caldwell in there for Deion yesterday, what are we talking about this morning?

 

[upstater1]

heres a question:

would u rather have kept branch, and say won the SB in 2006

OR

done what we did, and go 18-1 in 2007???

back in 07 i would choose the first option, as time passes though the 16-0 accomplishment is growing on me...that was not just a SB, that was SPECIAL

my answer? i would take the latter

Wow, that's kinda crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[upstater1]

One player isnt going to make a difference in that game or not. So, what maybe the Pats would have got one more first down in that game. If you look at Branch's playoff stats, the only good games that he has in have came in the SB games that he was apart of. In 2 career playoff games vs. the Colts he had 1 and 2 catches. Also, something to consider is how injury prone Branch was, he would have very well been injured at some point in the 2006 season and potentially been out for some time. Branch not being here in 2006 did not cost the Pats a SB

One more first down could have won that game.

Now, tell me, do you believe that Branch is worth more than one first down to the Patriots if you substitute him for Caldwell?

 

[mgteich]

We likely would have won in 2006 with Branch on the team.

The offense this year and next should be better than in the Super Bowl years. The defense, even with the improvments, is not likely to be close to that of 2003 and 2004.

 

[DarrylS]

After a really great win, hard to believe that there is so much whining and bytching about how things might have been...

 

[The Dynasty]

Not.....Different year, and how many championships did we win with RM.......ZERO. But it was Entertaining.

Randy Moss was not the difference in winning a championship or not. People constantly bring up this point, and it is completely false. The Patriots are a better team with Moss on it.

The Pats won Super Bowls with their defenses. All the offense had to do was manage games and not make mistakes, the defense took care of the rest. Once the big names on defense left/retired the Pats brought Moss in and now the focus shifted to offense. The offense was now responsible for winning games. The Pats defense the past few years hasnt been that great at all. Pats fans minds have changed ever since the SB years, and fans expect SB's all the time now. Realistically, that just isnt going to happen in the NFL. Because the Pats didnt win it in 2007 the blame is automatically thrown to Randy Moss and he is the reason why the Pats didnt win. That just isnt the case. Without Moss the Pats dont even make the SB in 2007. Now, that Moss has been traded I think BB is changing his philosophy and realizing that defenses is what really wins championships and he is putting much more emphasis on the defense. Offensively, he is changing back to the offense that won the SBs, a more physical offense, not a "sexy" offense. I guess my point is that Moss is getting accused of preventing the Pats from winning a SB and that certainly isnt the case, he is a great player a sure HOF'er and he is not the reason why the Pats didnt win the 2007 SB.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The Patriots had the best offense in NFL history in 2007 without Branch. That doesnt happen with Branch. If you think we would have won the SB in 2007 with Branch I think you're mistaken. Many media members/players, including Tom Brady have said that the team was better with Moss. Branch is a solid player, but he definitely isnt that big of a game changer that you are saying he is.

I don't think 2007 is what most folks think about when they think of the impact of Deion's absence. It's usually 2006, where there are a lot of us who think another Lombardi would be shining brightly in Foxboro if he had been on the team.

 

[The Dynasty]

I don't think 2007 is what most folks think about when they think of the impact of Deion's absence. It's usually 2006, where there are a lot of us who think another Lombardi would be shining brightly in Foxboro if he had been on the team.

This discussion has already been discussed in the thread. I dont think one player can be the difference between winning a SB or not. I guess the big game that is in focus in the AFCCG against the Colts and if Branch was on the team the Pats would have won. I dont think he would have made that much of a difference to change the result of the game. First, Branch struggled in the playoffs against the Colts having a total of 3 catches in 2 playoff games against them. Secondly, in the game the Pats have up 32 2nd half points, the defense was the unit that should be blamed for that loss, not the offense. I just cant believe that one player (Branch) is the difference between winning a SB or not winning

 

[upstater1]

Randy Moss was not the difference in winning a championship or not. People constantly bring up this point, and it is completely false. The Patriots are a better team with Moss on it.

The Pats won Super Bowls with their defenses. All the offense had to do was manage games and not make mistakes, the defense took care of the rest. Once the big names on defense left/retired the Pats brought Moss in and now the focus shifted to offense. The offense was now responsible for winning games. The Pats defense the past few years hasnt been that great at all. Pats fans minds have changed ever since the SB years, and fans expect SB's all the time now. Realistically, that just isnt going to happen in the NFL. Because the Pats didnt win it in 2007 the blame is automatically thrown to Randy Moss and he is the reason why the Pats didnt win. That just isnt the case. Without Moss the Pats dont even make the SB in 2007. Now, that Moss has been traded I think BB is changing his philosophy and realizing that defenses is what really wins championships and he is putting much more emphasis on the defense. Offensively, he is changing back to the offense that won the SBs, a more physical offense, not a "sexy" offense. I guess my point is that Moss is getting accused of preventing the Pats from winning a SB and that certainly isnt the case, he is a great player a sure HOF'er and he is not the reason why the Pats didnt win the 2007 SB.

Without Branch, there's a question whether the team even wins the 2003 Super Bowl. The defense gave up 30 points in 30 minutes. Brady set Super Bowl records that day, multiple records passing.