As kptmorgan pointed out, the whole premise of your sarcastic post is blown up by the fact that this discussion was happening - IN MARCH. Before the "he who shall not be named" decided to screw the Pats and us fans over.
This is the classic "let me post my opinion without bothering to read the thread" post. Waaaaay too common on this board. Even NEM reads the posts on the thread before posting (not that it helps in his case).
Your other premises make no sense either. Replacing Givens with Caldwell and drafting a WR high isn't addressing the position ? For the temporally challenged, the mini-camp injury to Jackson happened AFTER March. Would you rather pay $6M a year for Givens ?
Avoiding the semantics arguments that surround the term "#1 receiver", as well as the obvious fallacy that the Pats ever have anything like a "true #1", your argument that Givens would do much better this year holds no water either. It is obvious that the closest thing to a "#1" this year is Ben Watson, who will put up much bigger numbers this year than the Twig ever did (and perhaps will ever do). Givens had plenty of quality "#1" time over the last few years during the perennial Twig injuries and the injuries to our TEs last year. If anything, your argument actually supports the opposite premise - that Caldwell is doing better in a more competitive situation.
I love when someone digs up these old threads, as the blow hard/Red Sox whiner type fans, no matter how they come down on an issue, always come out looking stupid. Perhaps if we did this more, more people would actually read and think about the issues in the thread before posting.
R
Of course, as what's apparently now termed a "veteran" member I can tell you that it's just a tad bit rare that a 9 month old thread is posted on the first page.
So excuuuusee me for not being quite as perceptive as you and noting the exact date and time of every thread... I'd be willing to be that most people also probaby would think 1st page threads are somewhat new.
My hat's also off to you in reading every post in a 6 page thread or more before forumlating your own opnion.
I think its perfectly fine to read the first post of a thread, posing a question and offering one's own response. If someone has made a similar response before, so be it.
I hope you can live with that because many of us don't always have time to read 6 pages of posts before offering our $.02.
Beyond that, I stand by my comments. The receiving corps we have today is not part of a master front office plan. It's making the best of a bad situation - and furthermore, as one of the lone "Draft Chad Jackson" proponents here pre-draft (if you have time, see how many folks jumped on that bandwagon after it left) I've always said that placing expections on rookie WRs is just wrong and foolhardy.
So that left the WR corps, even before Branch's trade - relying on Branch, an aging Brown, and a bunch of guys who really had no proven positive track record - including Caldwell.
Who around here has disagreed with not paying Given's ransom? No one I think so hopefully one doesn't have to make such an assertion to support their own contentions that the front office proved themselves geniuses by crafting this WR lineup.
Nor has anyone said - or could say - that Givens would have done better or worse than Caldwell. The point I made was simply that Caldwell has become the #1 WR option - thanks in part to the lack of other WRs - and that Givens had never been the #1 WR option - so its difficult if not impossible to compare them given the different roles.
If we're not talking about salary and just comparing the players, I'd pick Givens every time over Caldwell - and I suspect most others would as well, regardless of statistics showing percentages of catches made in 2004, 2005.
None of those stats do that much for me - heck I could go back and give you stats from Troy Brown in 2002, 2003 and assert that he's a #1 WR - but we all know he's not.
By the way - I love it when people try to assert that our TE is the #1 WR - it just shows a lack of understanding about football. The fact that a RB catches passes makes him no more an WR than a TE catching passes. But what can't be denied is having stronger deep threats at WR help open the field to give the TEs and RBs both more room to do more with all their plays - runs or passes - and I continue to lament that WR remains a weak point for this team.
