Welcome to PatsFans.com

Walker signs $40M extension with Broncos

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by broadwayjoe, May 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. broadwayjoe

    broadwayjoe Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,563
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Even though I have no idea how we'll use our cap space, I'm glad we didn't put that much into Walker. Maybe we can overpay Branch, Koppen, Graham and Samuel just a little.
  3. stcjones

    stcjones Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,702
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +24 / 11 / -5

    #12 Jersey

    really..........

    This guy better produce BIG TIME for that kind of cash......wow.....I don't think he is worth all that.........
  4. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Walker was a thought and no more than that coming here..yes..he had better or Shannie will be in bif time trouble...that's a load of dough..and if his knee doesn't respond?? Big big gamble...
  5. Brady-To-Branch

    Brady-To-Branch Rookie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3 / 11 / -1

    Walker's deal isn't that good...

    http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

  6. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +59 / 2 / -0


    I think the fact that Walker was willing to take what could be a one year deal indicates his confidence that he is fully healed.

    Aside from the first year, a 3 year $25 mil deal strikes me as better than "not good" - I think that winds up being the parameter Branch looks at, as he doesn't come with any injury or attitude baggage either, and is just slightly less productive than Walker

    Both Walker and Owens' contracts seem to be well suited to the players they pertain to - Branch's likewise will be well tailored to his situation
    Last edited: May 11, 2006
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,563
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    That's $8.3M per year - no way I see us giving that much to Branch. I know someone will ask what I think we would pay - I don't know, but I don't see it being close to that.
  8. Brady-To-Branch

    Brady-To-Branch Rookie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3 / 11 / -1

    It's a series of one year deals with little money guaranteed. Walker didn't have any choice. It was either take what Denver offered or play out the final year of his rookie contract. If Denver is happy with Javon, they will convert his roster bonus into a signing bonus in order to spread the cap hit over 5 years in a new contract. I doubt they could swallow a $10 mil cap hit in '07. If Javon has a bad year, the Broncos will cut him loose without a significant cap hit and Walker hits the FA market. Same would happen if he has a good year and he and the team can't agree on a new deal. In that case, Javon hits the market from a position of strength.

    How is Branch slightly less productive than Walker?

    Branch Regular Season Stats
    HTML:
               
                |        Receiving        |
    ---+-------------------------+-----------+---
    | Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
    +----------+-----+----------------------+----
    | 2002 nwe |  13 |    43    489  11.4    2 |
    | 2003 nwe |  15 |    57    803  14.1    3 |
    | 2004 nwe |   9 |    35    454  13.0    4 |
    | 2005 nwe |  16 |    78    998  12.8    5 |
    +----------+-----------------------------+---
    |  TOTAL   |  53 |   213   2744  12.9   14 |
    +----------+-----+--------------------------+
    Branch Postseason Stats
    HTML:
               
                |        Receiving        |
    ---+-------------------------+-----------+---
    | Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
    +----------+-----+----------------------+----
    | 2003 nwe |   3 |    15    176  11.7    1 |
    | 2004 nwe |   3 |    16    264  16.5    1 |
    | 2005 nwe |   2 |    10    189  18.9    0 |
    +----------+-----------------------------+---
    |  TOTAL   |   8 |    41    629  15.3    2 |
    +----------+-----+--------------------------+
    Branch: TOTAL (RS and Playoffs)

    HTML:
    ---+-------------------------+-----------+---
    | Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
    +----------+-----------------------------+---
    |  TOTAL   |  61 |   254   3373  13.3   16 |
    +----------+-----+--------------------------+
    Walker Regular Season Stats
    HTML:
               
                |        Receiving        |
    ---+-------------------------+-----------+---
    | Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
    +----------+-----+----------------------+----
    | 2002 gnb |  15 |    23    319  13.9    1 |
    | 2003 gnb |  16 |    41    716  17.5    9 |
    | 2004 gnb |  16 |    89   1382  15.5   12 |
    | 2005 gnb |   1 |     4     27   6.8    0 |
    +----------+-----------------------------+---
    |  TOTAL   |  48 |   157   2444  15.6   22 |
    +----------+-----+--------------------------+
    Walker Postseason Stats
    HTML:
               
                |        Receiving        |
    ---+-------------------------+-----------+---
    | Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
    +----------+-----+----------------------+----
    | 2002 gnb |   1 |     5    104  20.8    0 |
    | 2003 gnb |   2 |     6    155  25.8    0 |
    | 2004 gnb |   1 |     2     27  13.5    0 |
    +----------+-----------------------------+---
    |  TOTAL   |   4 |    13    286  22.0    0 |
    +----------+-----+--------------------------+
    Walker: TOTAL (RS and Playoffs)

    HTML:
    ---+-------------------------+-----------+---
    | Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
    +----------+-----------------------------+---
    |  TOTAL   |  52 |   170   2730  16.1   22 |
    +----------+-----+--------------------------+
    REC/G (RS and Playoffs)
    Branch: 4.2
    Walker: 3.3

    Rec Yd/G
    Branch: 55.3
    Walker: 52.5

    Rec TD/G
    Branch: 0.262
    Walker: 0.423

    The only areas where Walker dominates are rec TDs/game and YPR. However, when you consider the disparity of the level of competition between the 2 WRs, Branch clearly stands out. Moreover, I was only using conventional stats rather than performance metrics. In KC Joyner's Scientific Football: 2005 Including playoffs, Branch led all NFL WRs in Overall Comp% and was near the top in C% in Medium, Deep, and Short pass depth levels.

    I'm guessing Branch's agent will try to get a similar contract to those of Reggie Wayne and Antwan Randle El with the floor being a bit more than David Givens' deal. If Branch decides to take a chance by playing out his contract, and has a big year in 2006, he'll be the hottest FA WR on the 2007 FA market.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2005
  9. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +59 / 2 / -0


    I know by your Member name you'rew a big Branch fan, as am I - but when you come right down to it, both Branch and Walker's careers break down to this - the both spent a few seasons posting #2 WR numbers, then both jumped to the next level for one, and only one season

    In Branch's case he posted 78 catches and in Walker's case a slightly more impressive 89 catches

    These guys are both counting on contracts based upon future expectations - not the past - frankly 78 catches for Branch is about the production I'm expecting from him - consistently in the 70s

    Walker, given his size in particular, is someone I think most GMs would expect to see at 90+ receptions

    It'd be nice fi all contracts were determinedbased only on past performance - that's not the case here
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>