Lets play, which one doesn't belong....

[patfanken]

....Steve Smith
Terrell Owen
Javon Walker
Deion Branch
Marvin Harrison

According to PFT, Steve Smith just got a new contract befitting his standing among WRs in the league. Now these are now the 5 highest paid WRs in the league, and all I could think of when I saw it, was "what is Deion Branch doing in that company?" The more stuff like this comes out the more I believe the Pats made the right decision in letting him go.

Here is a guy who has never had a 1000 yd season, and by his own admission can be taken out of a game by scheme. A very good little WR, who maximized his potential in the Pats system and with the Pats QB. I wish we could have signed him, but not at a contract that makes him one of the 5 highest paid WRs in the league. When you look at the stats that the OTHER 4 guys have put up, I'm pretty sure Seahawk fans are shaking their heads in shame.

BTW- I am among those who DO NOT believe that having Branch on the team last season would have made the difference in the Pats season. The passing numbers might have been better, but I can't think of a game where his presence would have likely made a difference. It was an injury ridden defense, especially the DBs, that was the straw that broke our backs in Indy. Thinking that the Pats signing of Branch would have made the difference is a real stretch.

The only mistake the Pats FO made was the fact that they lost a player that they didn't have a replacement for in place. Up to this time the Pats FO had prepared well when it looked like they would lose a player. I believe they truly believed Branch would sign. They just misread how much a team would overpay in order to pick up "the final piece" to a superbowl run.

 

[patsox23]

Not sure I agree with "he wouldn't have made a difference" - mainly due to how much can change with the slightest of tweaks, and Deion's presence may not have been a "slight" tweak. Having said that, I concur generally with your thesis that the Patriots, while being a bit cuaght with their pants down, were smart to have handled it as they did. And they came out of it with:

1) the freedom to deal their OWN #1 for a better one next year.

2) Randy Moss

3) Donte Stallworth

One could also argue that, along with Stallworth, the money freed up by NOT investing it in #83 helped bring in - or establish a better financial environment in WHICH to bring in - other impact players.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

Agreed on the Pats' being unprepared for Twig's payday but I too like what it's gotten us.
This season should be a truer test for him,barring another injury of course. He's basically had a year to recover, learn the plays,learn the system,etc so I'll reserve my judgement on him until then but you're point is well-made nonetheless.
How much of Deion's success here was due to our system,our coaching,and our QB remains to be seen. How do we (or can we) determine which players would likely succeed elsewhere and which likely would not? Length of time with the Pats? Draftees vs FA's? Age? Position played? Just throwing it out there. Obviously Benedictieri is in the best position to succeed due to the nature of his position so he's probably an exception,but by and large most teams hold very high expectations for ex-Patriot players and not all have fulfilled these expectations.
TO has had success with 3 teams so he's proven he can play no matter where he is (personality aside). Can't say the same for Deion yet.

 

[questionman]

Whe you look at that group, I'd have to say Branch is the only one you don't really need to scheme for. He is a good receiver, but won't beat you single handedly.

 

[theONLYJerseypatsfan]

How long until the seahawks dump him to save some money

By the way Patfranken, you win the award for biggest "wow" moment Ive had when reading the beginning of a thread......awesome point

 

[spacecrime]

Whe you look at that group, I'd have to say Branch is the only one you don't really need to scheme for. He is a good receiver, but won't beat you single handedly.

That's what we all say now, but there were a lot of people who said he was one of the top 5 WRs back before he was traded.

Just recently we had a similar thread in which a lot of people claimed Asante was a top 5 CB. In a year, when a list of the 5 highest paid CBS is listed, we will be saying, "Why is Samuel being paid as one of the top 5 Cbs?"

I like Asante, I hope we keep him, he is good, but he isn't worth being paid top 5 money.

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

BTW- I am among those who DO NOT believe that having Branch on the team last season would have made the difference in the Pats season.

I hate to say it but in the championship game Branch could have helped get that first down to win the game instead of punting. But we will never know.

 

[zippo59]

....Steve Smith
Terrell Owen
Javon Walker
Deion Branch
Marvin Harrison

According to PFT, Steve Smith just got a new contract befitting his standing among WRs in the league. Now these are now the 5 highest paid WRs in the league, and all I could think of when I saw it, was "what is Deion Branch doing in that company?" The more stuff like this comes out the more I believe the Pats made the right decision in letting him go.

Here is a guy who has never had a 1000 yd season, and by his own admission can be taken out of a game by scheme. A very good little WR, who maximized his potential in the Pats system and with the Pats QB. I wish we could have signed him, but not at a contract that makes him one of the 5 highest paid WRs in the league. When you look at the stats that the OTHER 4 guys have put up, I'm pretty sure Seahawk fans are shaking their heads in shame.

BTW- I am among those who DO NOT believe that having Branch on the team last season would have made the difference in the Pats season. The passing numbers might have been better, but I can't think of a game where his presence would have likely made a difference. It was an injury ridden defense, especially the DBs, that was the straw that broke our backs in Indy. Thinking that the Pats signing of Branch would have made the difference is a real stretch.

The only mistake the Pats FO made was the fact that they lost a player that they didn't have a replacement for in place. Up to this time the Pats FO had prepared well when it looked like they would lose a player. I believe they truly believed Branch would sign. They just misread how much a team would overpay in order to pick up "the final piece" to a superbowl run.

I read that too and had the exact same reaction. The other four are ELITE receivers and Deion is a lower tier number one receiver (he wasn't even that in Seattle last year). I thought that when he was here, and I still think it now that he is gone. He did play big in big games when he was here but look who his quarterback was and how he raised his game in big games also. David Givens shares the record for most consecutive playoff games with a touchdown catch. Tom Brady makes all these receivers better in the playoffs, and both receivers fit our system very well. I agree that the Patriots were caught off guard by the hold out and the trade, but they made out well and made the right decision IMO.

 

[He Ban Me]

....Steve Smith
Terrell Owen
Javon Walker
Deion Branch
Marvin Harrison

According to PFT, Steve Smith just got a new contract befitting his standing among WRs in the league. Now these are now the 5 highest paid WRs in the league, and all I could think of when I saw it, was "what is Deion Branch doing in that company?" The more stuff like this comes out the more I believe the Pats made the right decision in letting him go.

Here is a guy who has never had a 1000 yd season, and by his own admission can be taken out of a game by scheme. A very good little WR, who maximized his potential in the Pats system and with the Pats QB. I wish we could have signed him, but not at a contract that makes him one of the 5 highest paid WRs in the league. When you look at the stats that the OTHER 4 guys have put up, I'm pretty sure Seahawk fans are shaking their heads in shame.

BTW- I am among those who DO NOT believe that having Branch on the team last season would have made the difference in the Pats season. The passing numbers might have been better, but I can't think of a game where his presence would have likely made a difference. It was an injury ridden defense, especially the DBs, that was the straw that broke our backs in Indy. Thinking that the Pats signing of Branch would have made the difference is a real stretch.

The only mistake the Pats FO made was the fact that they lost a player that they didn't have a replacement for in place. Up to this time the Pats FO had prepared well when it looked like they would lose a player. I believe they truly believed Branch would sign. They just misread how much a team would overpay in order to pick up "the final piece" to a superbowl run.

You may be right, but of course, no one can blame the guy for wanting to get paid. Look out, you have some other guys that might just say, screw the system, I want paid too!

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

You may be right, but of course, no one can blame the guy for wanting to get paid. Look out, you have some other guys that might just say, screw the system, I want paid too!

Yes you can blame him, because he was still under contract. A contract he signed.

 

[He Ban Me]

Yes you can blame him, because he was still under contract. A contract he signed.

I agree, I am one of those types that feel like you should live up to what you signed. However, isn't the NFL a little different in that contracts are not guaranteed? If you can get cut at any time, then WTF?

 

[patfanken]

it is only normal that a fan will always overvalue their own players. That is to be expected. I think the Pats recovered well from the Misstep. But its my contention that Branch's presence MOST LIKELY wouldn't have made a difference in the Denver, Colt, Jet, and Dolphin losses. In the last 2 the Pats played like SH!T. On those 2 days they could have had Moss and Stallworth as WRs and it wouldn't have made a difference (please be accepting of the small hyperbole made to make my point ). and I don't think Deion would have been the difference in the Colt or Denver losses. In fact none of the 4 losses the Pats had in 2006 were truly close games in a real sense.

Now you could always make the point that a great route at a key time would have made the difference, but that is even more speculative than my position. And I understand the would'ves and could'ves of the Indy game. Would we have made that 3rd and five iF Branch was running the route?. Could be, but INDY was still the better team THAT day.

However all that is water over the dam. The Pats have the deepest and most talented WR corp we have EVER HAD. While Seattle has a nice WR who, if healthy, will get them around 1000 yds and 4 TDs, just like about 15 other WRs in the NFL. Only THEY are paying him as if he were among the top 5 receivers in the league.....which his ISN'T/

 

[spacecrime]

You may be right, but of course, no one can blame the guy for wanting to get paid.

Yeah, I can blame him. He had a contract. There is a CBA and he violated it.

Look out, you have some other guys that might just say, screw the system, I want paid too!

Why do you say "you guys?" You think only Pats players will think that violating the CBA will be a good idea. It could just as easily be a Bear or a Colt.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Not sure I agree with "he wouldn't have made a difference" - mainly due to how much can change with the slightest of tweaks, and Deion's presence may not have been a "slight" tweak. Having said that, I concur generally with your thesis that the Patriots, while being a bit cuaght with their pants down, were smart to have handled it as they did. And they came out of it with:

1) the freedom to deal their OWN #1 for a better one next year.

2) Randy Moss

3) Donte Stallworth

One could also argue that, along with Stallworth, the money freed up by NOT investing it in #83 helped bring in - or establish a better financial environment in WHICH to bring in - other impact players.

Seeing that we were one first down from being able to run out the clock to go to the SB and likely whoop Chicago, I don't want to say he wouldn't have made a difference either.

But like you said, there's no sense in spending much time contemplating that - barring hindsight you can't fault the Pats for playing it like they did. And one has to question what type of a distraction Branch would have been sitting out the first 10 games of the season.

But of course, the point at hand is salaries for WRs - and Branch, as a newer contract is going to appear high right now even if he does somehow earn it. I prefer the guys we have to the contracts we have over Branch moving forward though.

 

[spacecrime]

I agree, I am one of those types that feel like you should live up to what you signed. However, isn't the NFL a little different in that contracts are not guaranteed? If you can get cut at any time, then WTF?

Some players want guaranteed contracts, but the players union and smarter players realize that if contracts were guaranteed, they woudl be much smaller. If teams had to eat a five year contract where players got hurt or turned to crap, two things would happen:

Teams that ignored this and signed players as of old would soon have a third or more of their cap as dead money, be unable to sign anything but UDFAs, and would not be competitive, and

Teams that gave out shorter contracts and contracts with much less money would initially not get as many players sign, but in a couple years would be the only teams with money to sign FAs.

Teams are already giving out contracts that are different than a few years ago. There are bigger signing bonuses, which takes the sting out of having a contract not guaranteed (if all contracts were guaranteed, there would be no need for a signing bonus, of course). Also teams are using roster bonuses a lot more. This gives them protection if the palyer turns to crap, but it also puts them in a bind if the player does well.

If Stallworth plays lights out (if Tomlinson will allow me to use that phrase), the Pats must fork over $11 mil or lose his services. This is the price they paid for getting a low contract the first year as a tryout. So if a player thinks he is going to do well, this is a great deal. If he thinks he is over the hill, he'd be better off taking a bit more money up front and not rely on a second year roster bonus.

 

[spacecrime]

Seeing that we were one first down from being able to run out the clock to go to the SB and likely whoop Chicago, I don't want to say he wouldn't have made a difference either.

Unless Deion could play defense, it would have been tough for him to make a difference. Manning was hot, and he was catching the underneath recievers and Addai. Had we scored, who is to say Manning would not come back with another score?

If Deion would have been such a difference maker, how come we lost to Denver the year before? Wasn't he playing then?

2001 was our year. Things aligned for us. Just remember Patten getting knocked out, but having the ball touch his helmet while his foot was out of bound. 2001 was destiny for us.

Apparently last year was destiny for the Colts. They problably would have lost to the Chargers, and we should have, if that safety had just fallen to the deck. Game over.

Instead the Colts get to play at home, and our defense had the flu.

Plus look at the Colts defense. Even the stoutest Colts fan has to admit the outright sucked during the regular season. In the playoffs it was like different players were out there. That's how you win. Peak at the right time.

Last year was the Colts year, and Deion wouldn't have made a difference.

Harrison might havemade a difference. Subtract Sanders and add Harrison and there might have been a different result. Probably not, though. It was the Colts year, and on NFL Network we'll have to listen to that ad "Colts fans, your team won the superbowl. Buy the official hat and DVD blah blah blah..." until February.

 

[He Ban Me]

Some players want guaranteed contracts, but the players union and smarter players realize that if contracts were guaranteed, they woudl be much smaller. If teams had to eat a five year contract where players got hurt or turned to crap, two things would happen:

Teams that ignored this and signed players as of old would soon have a third or more of their cap as dead money, be unable to sign anything but UDFAs, and would not be competitive, and

Teams that gave out shorter contracts and contracts with much less money would initially not get as many players sign, but in a couple years would be the only teams with money to sign FAs.

Teams are already giving out contracts that are different than a few years ago. There are bigger signing bonuses, which takes the sting out of having a contract not guaranteed (if all contracts were guaranteed, there would be no need for a signing bonus, of course). Also teams are using roster bonuses a lot more. This gives them protection if the palyer turns to crap, but it also puts them in a bind if the player does well.

If Stallworth plays lights out (if Tomlinson will allow me to use that phrase), the Pats must fork over $11 mil or lose his services. This is the price they paid for getting a low contract the first year as a tryout. So if a player thinks he is going to do well, this is a great deal. If he thinks he is over the hill, he'd be better off taking a bit more money up front and not rely on a second year roster bonus.

I understand your point. I am wondering, if Branch violated the CBA, then how did he "get away" with it? And yes, I realize that situation (whatever it was, I do NOT know the specifics of the Branch deal) could happen elsewhere. My point was that guys like Branch and AV might start to become more of the norm rather than the exception in NE. Obviously, you guys were ablt to continue your ways with signing Moss and Stallworth. I just think maybe that whole "playing for the Patriots" is over played. I mean, isn't playing for BB and Brady a no brainer compared to playing with Favre in Lambeau? I think in the current NFL, it is pretty easy to narrow down a short list of possible SB Champs. Then, someone on that list has to be interested in you. Then, the fewer teams that ARE interested, the less leverage you have. Thanks for your responses, I appreciate it.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

When I saw the title I figured one of the choices would be aqua4ever on patsfans

 

[DaBruinz]

Agreed on the Pats' being unprepared for Twig's payday but I too like what it's gotten us.
This season should be a truer test for him,barring another injury of course. He's basically had a year to recover, learn the plays,learn the system,etc so I'll reserve my judgement on him until then but you're point is well-made nonetheless.
How much of Deion's success here was due to our system,our coaching,and our QB remains to be seen. How do we (or can we) determine which players would likely succeed elsewhere and which likely would not? Length of time with the Pats? Draftees vs FA's? Age? Position played? Just throwing it out there. Obviously Benedictieri is in the best position to succeed due to the nature of his position so he's probably an exception,but by and large most teams hold very high expectations for ex-Patriot players and not all have fulfilled these expectations.
TO has had success with 3 teams so he's proven he can play no matter where he is (personality aside). Can't say the same for Deion yet.

How do you figure that the Pats were "UNPREPARED" for Twig's payday? The Pats offered him a 5 year extension worth $33 million as a base offer. Do you honestly believe that was as high as they were willing to go? Deion sure as hell doesn't know how high the Pats were willing to go because he never sent a counter offer in.

Honestly, I think that the Pats were VERY prepared to pay Branch as long as he was willing to be treated like Brady and Seymour. Branch wasn't. He wanted to be treated BETTER than Brady and Seymour and have the last year of his contract ripped up.

 

[DaBruinz]

I agree, I am one of those types that feel like you should live up to what you signed. However, isn't the NFL a little different in that contracts are not guaranteed? If you can get cut at any time, then WTF?

That is why you have a guaranteed signing bonus in the NFL. That is used in lieu of a full guaranteed contract.