Do we owe Brady better receivers?

[DaBruinz]

He had pretty good wide receivers (Branch, Givens, Patten plus Brown)

in 2003 and 2004.

Just a friendly reminder. In 2003, Patten was the #2 receiver, Branch the #3 and Givens the #4. That's right. Branch couldn't beat out Patten. Then , Patten went onto the IR and Branch and Givens moved up.

In 2004, Branch had finally gained the #1 spot, only to miss 7 games. Givens moved to the #1 slot and did OK, but not spectacular with only Troy and Patten opposite him. (sound familiar???)

In 2005, Branch had his "break-out" year. He was healthy all season, had a career high in TDs (wow 5) and nearly hit 1000 yards on 78 receptions.

 

[DaBruinz]

Are you telling me we can't have a great team and a great WR at the same time?

Who is the great WR that is available? Owens? Moss? Mason? Stallworth?

 

[DaBruinz]

My plan for shoring up our defense and getting a stud WR:

Sign Adalious Thomas, sign London Fletcher, trade 2 #1s for WR Calvin Johnson, trade a 3rd rounder and move up early into the second round, draft LB Paul Posluszny or S Michael Griffin.

BTW, I'm not being very serious. But this is just one example of how we could have our cake and eat it too. The only possibility here that I seriously doubt is that someone in the top 5 would trade Calvin Johnson for two lower round #1s. They'd have to be wary of that big contract to do it. Otherwise I do think there's a decent chance Paul Poz and Michael Griffin are drafted in the second round, and that the Patriots have the money to sign impact FAs like Thomas and Fletcher.

If I had the opportunity to grab all 4 of these players in exactly this fashion, would I do it? Heck YES!

So, BB is going to go totally against his VALUE philosophy and draft a WR in the 1st round by trading two #1 picks for Calvin Johnson? As if the Pats could move up to get Johnson with ONLY their #1 picks.

The Pats are going to be "uncharacteristic" in this free agency and be players early, though still use their own philosophy.

 

[patsfan55]

But none of them was a "stud."

Brady is great with an average-to-decent group of WRs to spread the ball around to.

Thank you for proving my point.

yeah and everyone beats this sentiment to death
so, wouldnt he be even better with a stud?
i believe so
thing is, we're not gonna go out and acquire one via trade, and almost def not via fa (well def not this yr-there are none)
but we would more than welcome one via draft if a guy fell to us we felt was worth the value (i mean this is pretty much what happened with chad jack, we are just in the wait and see time to see if he pans out)

 

[upstater1]

So, BB is going to go totally against his VALUE philosophy and draft a WR in the 1st round by trading two #1 picks for Calvin Johnson? As if the Pats could move up to get Johnson with ONLY their #1 picks.

The Pats are going to be "uncharacteristic" in this free agency and be players early, though still use their own philosophy.

That's basically what i said in my post. It's not going to happen, AND you couldn't do it anyway. It's redundant.

I was answering the fellows question however as to wehther it was possible to shore up our defense AND land a stud receiver. yes, it is possible. we could do it by signing two LB FAs and trading a abasket of picks for a WR.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Unless BB/SP pull another Tom Brady like pick... I can't see it happening.

The Pats never had a great wide out for awhile.

Branch? No. Patten? No. Givens? No. Johnson? No. Jackson? No (at least not yet...).

I wish the Pats drafted better at wide out, but...

 

[pats1]

Unless BB/SP pull another Tom Brady like pick... I can't see it happening.

The Pats never had a great wide out for awhile.

Branch? No. Patten? No. Givens? No. Johnson? No. Jackson? No (at least not yet...).

I wish the Pats drafted better at wide out, but...

I'll take Johnson, but that's it.

Patten wasn't a draft pick, and revived his career in Foxboro. That was a great FA signing in 2001.

Branch was a 2nd round pick who became a Super Bowl MVP.

Givens was a 7th round pick who became a legit NFL starting WR.

Jackson has been here 1 injury-filled year.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Unless BB/SP pull another Tom Brady like pick... I can't see it happening.

The Pats never had a great wide out for awhile.

Branch? No. Patten? No. Givens? No. Johnson? No. Jackson? No (at least not yet...).

I wish the Pats drafted better at wide out, but...

You cant blame them for trying to always have the best guys though for Tom they have brought in tons of people and tried to aquire tons of Free agents but it hasnt worked.
People forget quickly that they tried working out guys like Hayes and David Terrell and Charles Rogers was even brought in but they dont keep guys that dont help the team and dont help make Brady a better player.

 

[mikey]

He has won 3 SB's without great WR's and just goes out and plays. Wouldn't you like to see him have a Stud WR just once to throw too?
Image if we did.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

We've finally gotten the "Joe Montana" of our generation and it perplexes me why we are diminishing his impact by surrounding him with mediocre WR's.

In contrast to the Colts who were able to retain all 3 of their WR's, we could not even keep one.

We won the 3 SB's on Brady's arm and not the running game.

But instead of maximizing our strength, which is Brady, we decided to dilute his impact by shifting the focus to the running game.

I personally thought we threw away the best opportunity to pick up our 4th Lombardi this past season by getting rid of all the WR's.

At the prime of his career, we took away Brady's "Jerry Rice" and "John Taylor", which doesn't make sense at all.

Now it is going to get harder to go to the SB with the emergence of younger stars like Rivers and Roethlisberger.

.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

We've finally gotten the "Joe Montana" of our generation and it perplexes me why we are diminishing his impact by surrounding him with mediocre WR's.

In contrast to the Colts who were able to retain all 3 of their WR's, we could not even keep one.

We won the 3 SB's on Brady's arm and not the running game.

But instead of maximizing our strength, which is Brady, we decided to dilute his impact by shifting the focus to the running game.

I personally thought we threw away the best opportunity to pick up our 4th Lombardi this past season by getting rid of all the WR's.

At the prime of his career, we took away Brady's "Jerry Rice" and "John Taylor", which doesn't make sense at all.

Now it is going to get harder to go to the SB with the emergence of younger stars like Rivers and Roethlisberger.

.

Saying Roethlisberger is a star is a joke. He's terrible. Everyone knows it.

So you believe we should have paid whatever necesary to keep Branch and Givens like the Colts did, and handicap ourselves in the future?

So we'd have a capable offense but no defense just like the colts.

Thats what you want.

 

[skaIownsIyou]

How do you get a "stud"?

Through the draft? Gaffney was 1st pick in round 2, Jackson the 4th Caldwell the 16th.

Branch was the 33rd!!!!!

We have three guys drafted higher than any receiver that's started for us (except for Glenn who we cut).

Where are the studs!!!!!!

just because they werent drafted in the 1st round doesnt mean that they're not studs, in 04, if brady had gaffney and caldwell (in place of givens and branch), gaffney wouldve signed a deal with the titans only to get injured, and caldwell wouldve been traded to the seahawks because both of them wouldve wanted more money, and BB wouldve replaced gaffney and caldwell with branch and givens, both unproven 2nd and 7th round choices in their respective drafts..

and right now we'd be talking about how we owe brady a go to guy instead of having branch and givens

 

[satz]

I still believe that brady wants a very good team for the cap money spend then a 2 #1WR and a crappy team like the bengals.

 

[mikey]

Saying Roethlisberger is a star is a joke. He's terrible. Everyone knows it.

So you believe we should have paid whatever necesary to keep Branch and Givens like the Colts did, and handicap ourselves in the future?

So we'd have a capable offense but no defense just like the colts.

Thats what you want.

I thought if we had kept only Branch, we would have gotten our 4th Lombardi.

With Branch, I thought we would win the Jets game at Foxboro and get the homefield against the Colts.

Wiith the homefield, I also thought we would beat out Colts and win the SB.

I believe the difference between what Branch wanted and what the team offered was not much and well within the cap space.

Belichick is an Economics major. He understands the concept of "opportunity cost". The team might have saved a few bucks, but I believe it cost them the SB.

.

 

[sieglo]

I thought if we had kept only Branch, we would have gotten our 4th Lombardi.

With Branch, I thought we would win the Jets game at Foxboro and get the homefield against the Colts.

Wiith the homefield, I also thought we would beat out Colts and win the SB.

.

That's an awful lot of "ifs".

We need at least one WR who can create good separation and draw double teams. That will open up spaces in the defensive backfield for a QB like Brady who is incredible at making reads and running through his progressions to throw into. One separation creating receiver will improve the games of all the other receivers, plus make the opoonents safety respect our passing offense, which means the running game will get easier.

This separation-creating receiver is not Watson. It's definitely not Caldwell or Gaffney. It could be Jackson but there's no way to tell and waiting around to find out is too risky.

Therefore, the Pats need to step up and acquire a top quality receiver. It's that simple.

 

[RayClay]

I thought if we had kept only Branch, we would have gotten our 4th Lombardi.

With Branch, I thought we would win the Jets game at Foxboro and get the homefield against the Colts.

Wiith the homefield, I also thought we would beat out Colts and win the SB.

I believe the difference between what Branch wanted and what the team offered was not much and well within the cap space.

Belichick is an Economics major. He understands the concept of "opportunity cost". The team might have saved a few bucks, but I believe it cost them the SB.

.

Would you have played him at linebacker or safety?

 

[RayClay]

I thought if we had kept only Branch, we would have gotten our 4th Lombardi.

With Branch, I thought we would win the Jets game at Foxboro and get the homefield against the Colts.

Wiith the homefield, I also thought we would beat out Colts and win the SB.

I believe the difference between what Branch wanted and what the team offered was not much and well within the cap space.

Belichick is an Economics major. He understands the concept of "opportunity cost". The team might have saved a few bucks, but I believe it cost them the SB.

.

You don't. Might want to brush up on the Econ.