Pete Carroll: Without Stokley we would have kept Branch

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Stokely and his continued great slot play from Indy days along with an aggressive Patriots F.O. trying to relentless pursue Branch pushed the deal over the edge.

I bet that NE offered a 6th but Carroll was a tough negotiator

Seahawks Blog | Carroll on Branch: 'New England came after him aggressively' | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[RayClay]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

They're lucky they got him for a fourth. People don't understand free enterprise. When someone has something that is more valuable to you than it is to someone else, they know you'll pay more for it.

The reason we got a deal IMO, is that Branch knows our system and has good chemistry with our QB. Why would you use that pick as a lottery ticket, when you have a sure thing? Of course a team Branch had not been on, with a different system and QB, would likely drive a hard bargain and maybe poodle Pete would decide to keep him.

I actually think BB and Pete have a good relationship and he did us a solid not demanding a third or something and BB will return the favor someday.

If you're stuck in the Sahara desert, a mink coat may not be worth anything to you, but you'd pay $500 for a pitcher of water. Draft picks are not fungible. We can't wave a magic wand and create an available receiver who knows our system and our QB. There was one and we got him. That's like getting the fking Mona Lisa for your wall. Much as I'll always hate the weasel, picking up the only receiver in football that can be ready to go after a bye when we had to ditch our best WR is priceless, it's ridiculous to ***** that it's a fourth instead of a fifth, we got a car that drives for a lottery ticket with a 99% chance of being worth less to our team or worth zero.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I wonder if Josh Wilson will be covering Branch on Sunday....that might be a first in terms of former teammates from the same team traded away to 2 different teams meeting head to head just within 2 months or less of both leaving the same team they were in camp together with

 

[unoriginal]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

Much as I'll always hate the weasel, picking up the only receiver in football that can be ready to go after a bye when we had to ditch our best WR is priceless, it's ridiculous to ***** that it's a fourth instead of a fifth, we got a car that drives for a lottery ticket with a 99% chance of being worth less to our team or worth zero.

I think the odds of a fourth rounder turning into a valuable player are a little higher than that, but I agree with the sentiment. How many wide receivers who (a) had experience in our offense and (b) were leading their team in receptions at the position were available for trade this week? (rhetorical question)

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I think the odds of a fourth rounder turning into a valuable player are a little higher than that, but I agree with the sentiment. How many wide receivers who (a) had experience in our offense and (b) were leading their team in receptions at the position were available for trade this week? (rhetorical question)

Another thing worth noting is that Branch still has one more year on his deal; granted, it is at a higher price tag than we'd like at the moment, but it's not the same as Moss, who is guaranteed to be a FA at season's end.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I think the odds of a fourth rounder turning into a valuable player are a little higher than that, but I agree with the sentiment. How many wide receivers who (a) had experience in our offense and (b) were leading their team in receptions at the position were available for trade this week? (rhetorical question)

I wasn't going for precision, but let's look at it this way. You can get exactly what you need, exactly when you need it and there's only one player in football that fits with experience in the system, with the QB.

Or you could wait six months and use it to try to fill out a bingo card where you already have doubles of practically every spot, including those higher than a fourth.

Should you say a fifth and no higher?

 

[RayClay]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

Another thing worth noting is that Branch still has one more year on his deal; granted, it is at a higher price tag than we'd like at the moment, but it's not the same as Moss, who is guaranteed to be a FA at season's end.

You make an excellent point, except we are talking about Meion. Deal? what deal? contract? obligation?

You know i really and truly have contempt for the guy, but i don't have to look at him in the locker room, so if they're OK with it, you really can't argue with the value for our team at this time IMO.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

They're lucky they got him for a fourth. People don't understand free enterprise. When someone has something that is more valuable to you than it is to someone else, they know you'll pay more for it.

This is why I think the front office should have pulled the trigger on the move before Moss was traded so Seattle couldn't snuff out our desperation.

 

[Mainefan]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I'm a little tired of the ragging Branch gets about leaving the Patriots for more money. I wonder which of us, in the same situation he was, wouldn't try to maximize his income? These guys have only so many earning years, but they live as long as anyone else and have to support themselves and their families for decades after their playing days are over.

I think Ray Clay's little lecture on supply-and-demand is smart stuff. But it applies to individuals as well as to teams. Why should any player sell his services to his team at a discount? Because they like him? Because the fans demand it? Because of team spirit?

The only team spirit I care about is what happens in the locker room and on the field, not in the bank. No player should honor his team more than he honors himself and his family. That's asking too much, and I think none of us would do it.

And let's face it, players owe only so much to the fans, who have no financial interest in their welfare with the team or beyond it. We get to root and enjoy. They perform to the best of their ability. Frankly, they all give more than we do. And yet we feel the right to be pissed if they look after themselves financially? Please.

 

[sarge]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

They're lucky they got him for a fourth. People don't understand free enterprise. When someone has something that is more valuable to you than it is to someone else, they know you'll pay more for it.

The reason we got a deal IMO, is that Branch knows our system and has good chemistry with our QB. Why would you use that pick as a lottery ticket, when you have a sure thing? Of course a team Branch had not been on, with a different system and QB, would likely drive a hard bargain and maybe poodle Pete would decide to keep him.

I actually think BB and Pete have a good relationship and he did us a solid not demanding a third or something and BB will return the favor someday.

If you're stuck in the Sahara desert, a mink coat may not be worth anything to you, but you'd pay $500 for a pitcher of water. Draft picks are not fungible. We can't wave a magic wand and create an available receiver who knows our system and our QB. There was one and we got him. That's like getting the fking Mona Lisa for your wall. Much as I'll always hate the weasel, picking up the only receiver in football that can be ready to go after a bye when we had to ditch our best WR is priceless, it's ridiculous to ***** that it's a fourth instead of a fifth, we got a car that drives for a lottery ticket with a 99% chance of being worth less to our team or worth zero.

Excellent post!

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I wasn't going for precision, but let's look at it this way. You can get exactly what you need, exactly when you need it and there's only one player in football that fits with experience in the system, with the QB.

Or you could wait six months and use it to try to fill out a bingo card where you already have doubles of practically every spot, including those higher than a fourth.

Should you say a fifth and no higher?

I agree but we only get Branch for 12 games, we get a fourth round pick for 80 games at less money. It is not as easy as "supply and demand" IMO.

 

[sarge]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I'm a little tired of the ragging Branch gets about leaving the Patriots for more money.

I ragged him hard and I still stand by it.

It is not that I blame him for leaving for more money. Not in the least. What I blame him for is not being honest about it.

In the offseason prior to the trade, when asked about the possibility of a hold out he said he would honor his contract. I don't have the exact quote, but I remember clearly there was no two way about it. He was clearly stating that he had every intention of showing up and finishing his contract regardless of anything that went on with his contract.

Then when it came time he held out. Don't pretend one thing and do another. If it's about the money, have the guts to say it. Football players have finite careers and have every right to cash in the most they can. But don't pretend to not be all about the money when you are.

But regardless, I've been rooting for the Laundry sense the 70's, so as long as he is earing a Pats jersey I will be rooting for him.

I can't think of another reciever the Pats had a realistic shot of getting I would prefer on the team.

The guy is clutch (or atleast he was) and comes up big at the biggest times in the biggest games.

I can't wait for his first catch

 

[Bella*chick]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I agree Branch behaved poorly and I'm hoping he has grown up a bit. I think the chances of that situation repeating itself are slim to none.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

Draft picks are not fungible. We can't wave a magic wand and create an available receiver who knows our system and our QB. There was one and we got him. That's like getting the fking Mona Lisa for your wall. Much as I'll always hate the weasel, picking up the only receiver in football that can be ready to go after a bye when we had to ditch our best WR is priceless

Well, not sure Branch will be the Mona Lisa, but he has to be better than Joey "Velvet Elvis" Galloway or Chad "Clown with Tears on Cheek" Jackson, so I'll stop griping about the Return of the Weasel and sip the Kool-Aid. Besides, how can can you argue with a guy who uses the word "fungible" in a football forum.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I'm a little tired of the ragging Branch gets about leaving the Patriots for more money.

That's what Matthew said (more or less):

Do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.

I confess to be more of a learned-my-lesson guy:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

or maybe

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I won't gripe any more, but I have no problem with fans saying how they feel about Branch, pro or con. It is a forum, after all.

Now...where's my Kool-Aid. I'm thirsty.

 

[borg]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I agree but we only get Branch for 12 games, we get a fourth round pick for 80 games at less money. It is not as easy as "supply and demand" IMO.

Using past drafts as a reference, BB can slide down a couple slots with any of his 2 #1s or 2 #2 draft picks and recoup this #4 without working up a sweat. No worries at all. In fact, with a roster full of rookies and sophmores now, I fully expect BB to use more picks for trades to fill in holes for the next SB run.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I agree but we only get Branch for 12 games, we get a fourth round pick for 80 games at less money. It is not as easy as "supply and demand" IMO.

4th rounders can't be signed for more than 4 seasons. That's 64 games (if they can get on the field in the first season or two).

We get Branch for 28 games at least if we choose, because he is signed through 2011, and a lot more if we choose since he is willing to restructure and wants to play for at least another 2-3 years. His agent and the team are already working on a restructure. My guess is they add a year and some playing time incentives to stretch his remaining salary over two more seasons...

 

[JSn]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

I agree but we only get Branch for 12 games, we get a fourth round pick for 80 games at less money. It is not as easy as "supply and demand" IMO.

28 games... (not inc'l playoffs).

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

Using past drafts as a reference, BB can slide down a couple slots with any of his 2 #1s or 2 #2 draft picks and recoup this #4 without working up a sweat.

I agree we have plenty of picks, and picks are for the purpose of acquiring players and I have no problem with the level of pick, but what you are proposing is not recouping. Trading up and down in the draft does not affect the Branch trade at all. Might as well say we will recoup it when we get a third round comp pick for Mankins, or say, no worries, we get a new fourth round pick from the NFL next April.

No matter what picks we trade for or acquire, we are still out the fourth we gave for Branch. Done deal.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Pete Carroll: Without Stokely we would have kept Branch

Well, not sure Branch will be the Mona Lisa, but he has to be better than Joey "Velvet Elvis" Galloway or Chad "Clown with Tears on Cheek" Jackson, so I'll stop griping about the Return of the Weasel and sip the Kool-Aid. Besides, how can can you argue with a guy who uses the word "fungible" in a football forum.

And he is a weasel.

But that is precisely the point. Do you want a mystery bag where even the second round picks (Jackson, Bethel) or top veteran recweivers might return zero, or do you take exactly what you need when you need it?

I can't believe people argue against this, but they do.

The only purpose of the NFL draft is to improve your team and the sooner you do, the more valuable a pick is.