sure - go back and see my posts prior to the draft where I was pushing for Jackson because, even with Branch on the roster, I felt we needed a deep threat...mocked by many who said we had no need at WR only to have BB grab him in the 2nd round
Back at the start of FA and up to the draft, the the vast majority of this board (as well as the media) listed WR as a need. We had only 2 of 5 starters returning. It didn't take a genius to predict the Pats would address that position in one or the other. As for all the people "attacking" you for thinking we needed help at WR - I don't see it. Perhaps you could point out some threads. But I doubt it.
... and then see that, even in camp, cautioning that he was a rookie, I advocated for a trade to bring in a veteran to add needed depth - Stallworth from NO would have been perfect for us last year
Whoa whoa whoa. So many errors, so little time. a) Stalllworth was not available as a FA last year. He was traded to Philly for LB Simoneau and a pick. b) at 25, he was not a "veteran", and c) if he had been on the market, he probably would have cost a much larger percentage of our cap last year than this year. What starter would you have cut or traded ? Or the (much needed) depth in the secondary or LB corps ?
This year, Stallworth, a year after another injury and the substance abuse issue, comes to us at a reasonable cap hit at some risk. Can you name a WR last year with this much upside that we could pickup at a reasonable cost ? I doubt it. Walker and Lelie all went for big cash.
Also, by your logic here, you should still be unhappy; if Stallworth is a Branch replacement, shouldn't you be clamoring for another #1a (for lack of a better term) receiver ?
... then note how much flack I took for suggesting that the lack of a deep threat was causing offensive problems for us.
I know this is a favorite canard for some, but I've never seen a very convincing argument for this point of view. It's mostly made by revisionists fans who believe that Branch was the fastest receiver in the league, was double-teamed on every play, and played every game of every season. Certainly the stats alone don't support that point of view - last year or any other year. The Patriots haven't really ever had a competent "burner" ever in the Belichick era - and won consistently without it.
... then note that even once the season was over, a ton of people continued to say that with Caldwell and Gaffney we were set at WR
...then note what BB had to "say" about all of that with his free agency moves.
that's the most amazing thing to me - that even prior to last week, we had so many people deludig themselves that WR wasn't an area that needed to be addressed in free agency.
Well, Bellicheck clearly disagreed
Again, from what I read, most everyone feels that WR again is a position that needed to be addressed this off-season. If these mythical people are "attacking" you, perhaps you could point them out.
The only FA WR controversy that I have seen on this board is between those that think we should have "paid" Branch, or barring that, run out and overpay for the best available "Franchise #1" that we could lay our hands (e.g all the Moss threads), and those that wanted to address it in the offseason with either a quality-but-cheap FA or through the draft.
If you look closely at this acquisition, BB obviously chose the latter, wiser path. Technically, with the issues that Donte has had last year, those of you who were clamoring for the 1st course of action should be unhappy, as he is definitely not a proven commodity.
JSP, perhaps you are confusing those that are against signing huge cash deals for prima-donna WR's for "attacking" you ? Could be.
In any event, as I pointed out earlier, BB's acquisition of Stallworth in NO WAY validates that point of view. Or your desire to get another "#1a". Quite the opposite in fact.
I think that there has been enough revisionist history and self-congratulatory hot air (polite term) already on this thread.
R
:bricks:
