Why didn't we do a different type trade with Seattle?

[PATRIOT64]

I was wondering why the Patriots just didn't do a deal this way with Seattle...Take Nate Burleson or Darrell Jackson and a 3rd round draft pick for Deion,Instead of a First rounder and losing a WR...It makes a world of sense to me and I wonder why it was not though over.... Probably because Darrell or Nate would NEVER play for what NE FO wants to pay them and the FO knew that beforehand which is why it was a non partial player/draft pick deal

 

[RayClay]

I was wondering why the Patriots just didn't do a deal this way with Seattle...Take Nate Burleson or Darrell Jackson and a 3rd round draft pick for Deion,Instead of a First rounder and losing a WR...It makes a world of sense to me and I wonder why it was not though over.... Probably because Darrell or Nate would NEVER play for what NE FO wants to pay them and the FO knew that beforehand which is why it was a non partial player/draft pick deal

Like why would they overpay for Burleson instead of Branch?

You're probably right.

 

[outhere]

Well first, the seahawks are trying to build offensive talent and that doesn't happen by giving away WR's.
2nd Burleson just signed a deal in the offseason, so the cap hit would be a lot and they obviously like him.
3rd Jackson is their number 1 and trading their top WR and a draft pick for a new top WR seems like backpeddling.

Basically they aren't part of the deal b/c the seahawks don't want them to be, not because the players themselves are unwilling. That's the it will always be, as most players have no say in what happens during a trade.

 

[SamBam39]

Well first, the seahawks are trying to build offensive talent and that doesn't happen by giving away WR's.
2nd Burleson just signed a deal in the offseason, so the cap hit would be a lot and they obviously like him.
3rd Jackson is their number 1 and trading their top WR and a draft pick for a new top WR seems like backpeddling.

Basically they aren't part of the deal b/c the seahawks don't want them to be, not because the players themselves are unwilling. That's the it will always be, as most players have no say in what happens during a trade.

pats had traded for gabriel before dealing branch.
they were then happy with their receivers.
they got what they wanted - another first round pick!

 

[patsfan55]

engram and a pick would make more sense, however he too will be a fa next yr

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Well first, the seahawks are trying to build offensive talent and that doesn't happen by giving away WR's.
2nd Burleson just signed a deal in the offseason, so the cap hit would be a lot and they obviously like him.
3rd Jackson is their number 1 and trading their top WR and a draft pick for a new top WR seems like backpeddling.

Basically they aren't part of the deal b/c the seahawks don't want them to be, not because the players themselves are unwilling. That's the it will always be, as most players have no say in what happens during a trade.

A voice of reason, at last!

The Twig is dead, long live the Twig. And the idiocy he has spawned.

 

[Clonamery]

A voice of reason, at last!

The Twig is dead, long live the Twig. And the idiocy he has spawned.

Charles ****ens?

 

[Digger44]

why in the world would you want to trade for a veteran receiver who just had both knees operated on and has health issues (jackson)? what am i missing?

 

[BelichickFan]

Belichick wouldn't pick up Jackson if he were released IMO. Remember the 2004 Pats-Hawks game when we almost shut Jackson out because he was talking sh!t before the game. I think Belichick would sign/trade for him right before he would for Freddy Mitchell.

Anyway, we don't have a WR talent issue we have a WR not knowing the offense being in synch with Brady issue.

 

[PatsFan37]

Charles ****ens?

Shakespeare on one thread, ****ens in another? What are you up to? Is it not the media guide you've been reading? Have Felger and Borges pushed you from your literary edge?

But soft. What team through yonder window breaks? It is the Patriots, and Brady is the son.

 

[Clonamery]

Shakespeare on one thread, ****ens in another? What are you up to? Is it not the media guide you've been reading? Have Felger and Borges pushed you from your literary edge?

But soft. What team through yonder window breaks? It is the Patriots, and Brady is the son.

More Shakespeare? 'Tis an ill cook that cannot lick his own fingers: therefore he that cannot lick his fingers goes not with me....

Actually, I'm tweaking the more learned and far, far superior posters who cleverly disguise their Pats observations with classic author's references.

I don't read Borges & Felger unless posters are frothing at the mouth due to some daily diatribe that diabolically destroys their morning dump.

 

[The Gr8est]

http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/pick_value_chart.htm

Using this commonly available NFL Draft Value Chart, worst case scenario, if the Seahawks win the SB, then the #1 we acquired is worth 660 points. Seattle's #3 pick, (pick #96) would be worth 116 points. The difference is 544 points. The #36 pick is worth 540 points. So if Seattle doesn't win the SB, then the difference is probably going to be worth a late #1 pick. Would you trade a #1 to Seattle for jackson, or any of their other receivers? I wouldn't, and doing so would virtually nullify what we got for Branch. The Pats FO got great value for Branch, and we're going to love this trade later, if we don't love it already.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Charles ****ens?

No, just a fervent prayer that Princess "Di"eion's demise won't lead to another bought of hysteria. I'm still having saccharin reactions from the other one and her idiocy.

 

[dryheat44]

I think, in hindsight, the best course of action would be to give the promise, in writing, that we wouldn't franchise Deion in 2007, conditional on confidentiality.

We'd have had our best receiver here through the season, he would have left next offseason, and we would have gotten a #3 comp pick for him in 2008.

 

[BelichickFan]

I think, in hindsight, the best course of action would be to give the promise, in writing, that we wouldn't franchise Deion in 2007, conditional on confidentiality.

We'd have had our best receiver here through the season, he would have left next offseason, and we would have gotten a #3 comp pick for him in 2008.

Blah, I'd prefer a 2007 #1 pick than a 2008 #3 and Branch for one year.