I've been listening to Felger/Massoriti at work and Felger is hellbent on pushing this theory that Deion Branch was a tougher receiver to shutdown than Randy Moss, and that Moss can't perform in big games and against physical receivers. He is also suggesting that the offense was better with Deion Branch as the #1 WR, stats be dammed. His rationale is that all you need to shutdown Moss is jam him at the line, and that the whole "safety help" argument is irrelevant because all good receivers, including Branch, always face safety help and still produce.
There are many holes in his reasoning, beginning with the simple fact that Randy Moss wouldn't have 142 career TDs, second all time, if he was easy to shutdown. Furthermore, since coming to NE, he is statistically several times more productive than Branch was on his best years, so if being shutdown is equated to performance, Branch was an easier guy to shutdown. Lastly, the offense as a whole has been arguably the best offense in football with Brady and Moss, and to suggest they had a better offense in 2004 simply because they won the SB is akin to Yankee fans who, up until this year, thought the offense and team were better with Scott Brosius.
Now, when I heard his reasoning I found it irrational and almost an unwillingness on his part to embrace Moss, he hated the trade from the beginning and was predicting Moss would pull a TO. But the reason why I'm starting this thread is because he has actually been getting support by callers and hasn't been challenged on any of his assumptions ragarding Branch/Moss, so it made me wonder what percentage of the Pats fan base actually suscribes to this theory. This is a typical zero sum game argument when determining championship teams, i.e. 2004 offense was better because they won the SB, even though the difference in those championship runs was ALWAYS the defense's ability to get key stops, something that hasn't been the case since 2005.
