Branch to Seahawks for 2007 First Round Pick
Branch to Seahawks for 2007 First-Round Pick Football Outsiders Founder of Football Outsiders
Editor-in-Chief
Creator of DVOA and DYAR
Worcester, MA
Nah, he knows that won't happen as long as he's the #2 QB in Seattle, since he needs to stay healthy just in case the worst happens. Honestly I think it might have been better to bring in a legit backup QB so that Wallace can be moved to WR but those are few and far between, so we'll just have to wait for David Greene to progress in his development, and maybe next year Seneca will get on the field regularly at WR-slash. It's still a great deal for the Seahawks though, I'm not sold on Burleson as a starting WR, he seems more like a situational deep threat, but Branch is proven and Engram really needs to stay in the slot to be effective while D-Jack's health is still questionable. Now if only the offensive line can remember how to block. the Patriots Kool Aid has become waaaay too strong lately. This seems like a highly, highly questionable move... Their recievers now are 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a rookie who has been hurt, 3) Reche Caldwell, and 4) the 52 year old Troy Brown. I can't think of one other team that has worse talent at the WR position. I think what it comes down to is the Pats just didn't feel that Branch was worth Reggie Wayne money - and Branch and the 'hawks do. As a Pats homer I will miss him, but I also think the 'hawks will find that $39mil is a lot to spend on a part-time #1 receiver. Kibbles, they'll use that money to pay Seymour's guaranteed money, so he'll count as basically vet minimum for the rest of his contract, which is huge. They'll use any left to get an extension out of someone else on that defensive line. For those of you who think getting a #26-32 pick in the draft is not worth much, IMO, its better than getting the #1. The patriots dont need $10m a year rookie, they need more players who are a high value/cost ratio. Players who they can get 4 good years out of for $2m total. FO did a draft analysis on the value of picks last year, and the end of the first round, and the beginning of the second were by far the most valuable, because of the good talent available, and the negligible cap hit. 9- What am I wrong about? And how can you say this: Both sides got pretty much exactly what they wanted once it became clear that Branch was gone. After saying this in the previous thread: THeyre going to want either multiple firsts, or a young player with TONS of potential, for very low money. Rich No 1st round pick gives you 4 years at $2 mil total. The study showed that the best value was around the 10th pick of the 2nd round. However, quality fell off fairly steadily from top to bottom. The pick at the end of the 1st isn't better, its just cheaper per average production. Its also the case that the average production is dragged down by busts. If you have a team who always makes good early round draft picks, the value issue would probably be much different. Ergo, if you have faith that the Pats would draft the best players at the beginning of the round, then you'd rather have an earlier pick most likely. If you think that the Pats are only average, then you want to be as close as possible to #42 overall. At this point this was the only move that made sense for the Patriots. I think it was clear that Branch wanted out. he got what he wanted. As a pats fan im really sad to see him go because he and Brady had something special that was bound to get even more impressive as both moved throught the primes of their careers. Where the Pats really messed was not signing him earlier. Everyone could see what a connection he and Brady had. Kal #1: But they still have to play him, because seriously - who do the Pats have at WR right now? Inanimate Carbon Rod and his friends? The Eagles went deep into the playoffs 4 years straight with Inanimate Carbon Rod and friends at wide receiver. The Patriots did this twice - 2001 and 2003 and won the Super Bowl. Inanimate Carbon Rod isn't going to light up your fantasy team, but he's adequate for a relatively unimportant position on a football team. Look at how many playoff games Randy Moss (8 in 8 years) and Terrell Owens (10 in 10 years) and Marvin Harrison (10 in 10 years) played in compared to Troy Brown (17 in 13 years), Todd Pinkston (12 in 5 years) and James Thrash (11 in 7 years)? If top shelf wideout is so important, why haven't those first three guys hauled their teams to more playoff games? Seattle has pursued a very bizzrro world personnel strategy since relieving Holmgren as GM - letting Hutchinson go, and paying way too much for Burleson and Branch (and Peterson and Ponder). "The pick at the end of the 1st isnâ€t better, its just cheaper per average production." If you think thats not a better pick, then you dont understand salary cap football. Look at this year, Reggie Bush at $51m for 6 years, or Laurence Maroney at $8m for 5 years. I'm sure theres some dropoff in talent there, but its not enough to justify the extra amount of cash, and salary cap space. I'd rather have Maroney for $1.6m/year of cap space, than Bush for $8.5m/year of cap space. Thats pretty typical for the difference in cash between a high first rounder, and a late first rounder. To me, it's astounding to see how mercenary the Pats are. Still. Getting a first round pick is good (and thank you, Rich Conley, for saying the same thing essentially twice - especially since it was incorrect both times), but this guy was the MVP of the superbowl two years ago and had a better regular-season performance last year. And he was traded for a first round draft pick. If the Patriots pick a receiver with that, I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh. To me, getting a first round pick for a guy who has shown talent in a position that often gets the best years in the midrange years is just...it's kind of shocking. Especially when the hit on the cap could be taken. But it's the Patriots - they can do no wrong, right? kevin, I think the comments around Chayut were that his tactics were the worst way to get Branch something FROM THE PATRIOTS, because of how they negotiate. We'll never know now the true max money that might have been extracted from the Pats by an agent willing to negotiate with them. What most of us missed was that as far back as May, Branch simply didn't want to be a Patriot anymore (in hindsight, his desire to just get to UFA makes sense). But a first round pick is FAR more valuable to the Patriots than one year of Deion Branch at 1M and him then departing for nothing in UFA. All 7 Pats first rounders are starters. Most are still on their ridiculously low rookie contracts. That's how you beat the cap long term. Disco Stu #13: Their recievers now are 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a rookie who has been hurt, 3) Reche Caldwell, and 4) the 52 year old Troy Brown. I canâ€t think of one other team that has worse talent at the WR position. The Eagles have: 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a second year guy who was hurt a few weeks ago, 3) a 4th round rookie, 4) an undrafted free agent rookie, 5) the immortal Greg Lewis. It does seem to be working out okay though here. #19: The Eagles did do well with this strategy, but never made it as far without a top-notch receiver. The Pats in 2003 and 2004 had Branch, Givens, Patten, and Brown. Of those four, 3 are gone into lucrative free agency picks. How you can say that it was the same thing 4 years ago when the Patriots seemingly had a ton of talent at the position is beyond me. Of course, it could be that the Pats and those receivers have hoodwinked everyone into thinking they're better than they are. #20: was drafting Manning as the #1 pick a better or worse choice than drafting Rodgers at #18? In some drafts, the #1 pick is going to be a slam-dunk. In others, it's going to be kind of meh. There are some positions where paying a lot early is not the worst thing ever. There are other positions where it's not as important. I don't know if Maroney will be as valuable as Bush, and time will tell - but saying that Maroney is much better because he's later and thus costs less? That seems a spurious argument at best. Put it this way - do you think that the Pats would even blink at trading a #24 pick for a #2 pick, straight up? Re #19- The Patriots (2001 version) had Troy Brown (2001 version) catching passes. And in 2003 they had Branch, Givens, and Brown. Def not carbon rods. I can't understand the "Position X isn't valuable" theory... every position is valuable. RBs are fungible, a QB just needs to be a game manager, and now WRs are unimportant. So let's forget "skill" position players and just invest in the line- wait, no- just the left tackle. The last good team to disregard the WR position like this was the Eagles, and they never became truly dangerous until they got a playmaker in Owens (and maybe now Stallworth). Maybe the Pats will compile a good regular season, but I can't see them being dangerous with this group of recievers, unless Gabriel breaks out in a big way. 22- Chayut *did* negotiate with the Patriots, but from all reports the Pats refused to come off their insistence that Branch play for $1 M in 2006. Now he'll be playing for a lot more than that. The Eagles have: 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a second year guy who was hurt a few weeks ago, 3) a 4th round rookie, 4) an undrafted free agent rookie, 5) the immortal Greg Lewis. It does seem to be working out okay though here. The Eagles have played Houston. Remember Houston - the team that literally broke the DVOA system last year because they were so terrible? Might wait a bit before seeing how incredible Donte Stallworth et al are. Vern #22: Most are still on their ridiculously low rookie contracts. Thatâ€s how you beat the cap long term. No, no, no. You don't beat the cap by playing young guys for cheap. You beat the cap by extending good young guys for cheap early and cutting them when they are older and about to begin their inevitible decline, and not overpaying and overcontracting in years for free agents on the wrong side of their career productivity. In this sense, letting a guy like Branch go was not smart. But getting high compensation for a disgruntled player who would have been gone the next season was. So this transaction is a mized bag. If you think thats not a better pick, then you dont understand salary cap football. I do- I've been playing in an auction-style fantasy baseball league for over 20 years. We each have $265 imaginary dollars to spend on 23 players, which we have an open auction for. The best values are always the players you can get for $1. Two $1 players can sometimes equal the production of a $20 player. HOWEVER- you're never going to win by only having $1 players, despite the fact that those players provide the best per-dollar value. If you don't spend money on stars, you're simply not going to win. Before someone says "it's not the same thing"...actually, it's exactly the same thing. The Patriots lost, unless they have some hidden knowledge or maybe a voodoo doll of Branch. A #1 seems like a little on the overpayment side, given what the Broncos gave the Packers for Javon Walker, but not ridiculously so and in line with the Jets' reported offer of a #2 and a player. Still, it's FAR below their reported demands. Congrats to Walker and Chayut, who got what they wanted. Re #16
Once it became clear that Branch wasn't going to play a full season for the Pats' this year at $1.05M, and moreover that he would be traded, getting a #1, even a #1 likely at the bottom of the round like Seattle's, is pretty good value. Compare to the Packers getting a #2 for Walker from Denver. Re: #22 Citation, please? Kal, if performance between Bush and Maroney is similar, than Maroney is absolutely a MUCH better pick than Bush. Because Bush means you cant spend money somewhere else. Building a franchise is not about getting the absolute best players at a couple positions, its about having the most possible talent. You can't do that by overpaying players. So yes, if you want to consistently win, and Bush and Maroney end up being similar players, Maroney was absolutey, positively, the better pick becaues he opens up EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR of salary cap space to improve another position. I'd stick the Eagles above the Pats, just because Stallworth has shown more career to date than Gabriel, and Brown is a year older than Jackson, but I agree w Kal. A play fake left Stallworth open by 30 yards yest- let's not get too excited about beating the Texans. Wowza. The Pats had their hands tied somewhat with Branch, but this leaves them with very little at WR apart from the immortal Troy Brown. Chad Jackson may be good eventually, but rookie WRs typically don't pan out their first year. Sure the Pats can use Watson/Graham more often, but that removes some offense flexibility. All the WR trades in the wings have been made - there's not much else for the Pats to do but wait till the draft and address the loss of Branch there, if the current corps doesn't show up. Once it became clear that Branch wasnâ€t going to play a full season for the Pats†this year at $1.05M, and moreover that he would be traded, getting a #1, even a #1 likely at the bottom of the round like Seattleâ€s, is pretty good value. I don't disagree, but I thought it was apparent on 9/1 (when the original offer and "multiple picks" claim was made) that Branch wasn't going to play for that figure. Re: #31 Argh! I meant Re: #26 Citation, please? Rich- while I agree w you that salaries for top picks are out of whack, it's a pretty big leap at this point in their careers to say that Bush and Maroney are similar players. Well you can say what you want, Branch got out. And While the price is okish, its investment in the future and it hurts now. I think Branch prooved again, like others before him, that you can get out, if you are willing to pay the price. Especially if helped by some screwed up team communications. But the worst thing about this, that now Branch will surely not drop through the waiver wire to me. Could have at least have the decency to wait 3 more days. > And how can you say this... after saying this... It's called pathological denial. Ten days ago Rich started with the ridiculous proposition (no ifs or buts) that Deion Branch would be on the field in Week 1, playing for the New England Patriots, as Branch had absolutely no other options. He and others then gradually reconciled themselves to each compromising shift in position by the Patriots, no matter how much this contradicted earlier statements. In the end, whatever the Patriots eventually chose to do, the decision would validate both the intelligence of Patriots' management as well as the prior arguments of Patriots' supporters. They weren't wrong, because as they'd said all along, the Patriots would come away with value by maintaining the hard line of their bargaining position, blah blah blah. Re 37 nobody does that. But you can almost buy Seymore for the difference in their salary. And I rather have Seymore and Marooney. 29, no, its not the same. Why? Because fantasy football is based on stats, and its based on a short term view. In an auction league, you can afford to pay $95 for larry johnson, but its no longer the same if you have to agree that you'll pay larry johnson $95 every year for the next 6 years, even after he breaks his leg and can't walk. Look at 2001, Look at 2003. There were about 5 players on the team who anyone outside of New England had ever even heard of. They won superbowls. They win by using stars before anyone else knows they are stars. They win by using vets who everyone thinks are washed up. They do re-sign their stars early too, they signed Brady to a long term deal early. Same with Seymour. Same thing they'll do with Warren and Wilfork. Its pretty obvious that the patriots dont feel that wide recievers are worth much money. You can disagree with their view, but its pretty obvious thats how they feel, as year after year they field late round picks at WR. I think the last time the Pats picked a WR in the first round was Terry Glenn. Allow me to quote myself from last week:
# Iâ€m guessing Deion will be a Seahawk by Wednesday… :: Dan Riley — 9/2/2006 @ 7:32 pm Take that ESPN NFL Expert John "Mr. Peepers" Clayton. And I did say that was this Wednesday (9/13), didn't I, Aaron? Well, I meant to. Kevin11 (#29 )-- Spend money on stars like Seymour and Brady, maybe? The Patriots' brain trust apparently thinks Branch isn't in the same class as those two. Okay. Apparently, you do. Again, okay. Reasonable people can disagree over Branch's value. 39 GlennW No, I said he'd be on the field playing by week 1. Whether it was for the Pats, or someone else. I was off by 18 hours. SO sue me. #32 - well, sure. If it's 'similar', whatever that means, yeah, it's a better deal. What if it isn't? Or what if that pick gives you something totally unrelated or unobtainable? If Bush is the next superstar running back, the kind of guy that can singlehandedly change a team or a game, and Maroney is similar to him - well, Maroney was a steal. If Bush turns out to be just another good back, and Maroney is okay, it's also likely a steal of some kind. If Bush turns out to be far better than Maroney, though - is it still a good deal for the Patriots, especially when they're lacking so much at WR? Overpaying for talent is one thing, but not having any talent is quite the other. One thing that this will likely do for future Patriot draft picks is make it harder to sign simple rookie contracts without escalators. Because they've shown themselves to not value homegrown talent, it'll mean players will not be as likely to negotiate with them. This kind of problem is the same thing that the Eagles faced, and it'll be a similar problem. Or...Belichick and Brady can do no wrong!!!1! 37. And its silly at this point in their careers that theyre very different players. We've got 1 game to go on here. College doesnt count for crap in the NFL. The Patriots are the best team in the league making people decisions, and they've never gone wrong before. Branch sucked anyway. Just wait until the end of the season when Brady's MVP, the Pats win another Super Bowl, and Jackson has gotten over 1400 yards recieving /Pats fan mode Re Kulko- that's exactly what he was doing- starting w a supposition- that Bush and Maroney will be similar players- and concluding that "Maroney was absolutey, positively, the better pick". Now Maroney may end up being a comparable player, but the point is flimsy because it rests on a supposition that a late first round pick is similar in talent to the next Gale Sayers. 43- I agree that if Team A doesn't want to pay a player what Team B will, it's smart to make a trade. If the Patriots did not think Branch is worth the Seattle contract, they did the right thing. The problem here is that the Patriots DID offer Branch an extension for $6 M a year, but it wouldn't have kicked in until 2007. why can't pats fans comprehend that belichick and pioli can make mistakes...unless this is part of belichick's master plan to unveil a 1rb 4te offense that will completely change the way the NFL is run ushering in a new pats dynasty, and totally crushing all who oppose him.
also, why give up a very good player at the position you are weakest at for a late first when you have 13 million in cap space? what are the pats saving their money for? eventually some of this is going to be spent on good players, right? over-under on posts:330 RE: #29 Wow. You've been playing in an auction-style FANTASY BASEBALL league for over 20 years. You must REALLY know alot about the NFL salary cap. Re: #29 If you donâ€t spend money on stars, youâ€re simply not going to win. Your statement is rather incomplete (ironically so, given what this website is all about). If you had said "if you don't spend money on stars at the positions where having stars is shown to matter, you're simply not going to win" you would have been on to something. 45, again Kal, they've shown themselves to not value homegrown talent at Wide Reciever. Not homegrown talent in general. They've shown that they very much value home grown talent on the defensive side of the ball. Is that so wrong, that they think Richard Seymour is vastly more valuable than Deion Branch? I, honestly, have to agree with them on that one. 48 Disco Stu, your whole argument agaisnt mine is that Reggie Bush is going to be a game changing superstar. I dont believe he will. Hes going to be good, but RUNNING BACKS ARE FUNGIBLE. Disco Stu #25: The Patriots (2001 version) had Troy Brown (2001 version) catching passes. And in 2003 they had Branch, Givens, and Brown. Def not carbon rods. That is the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. You are looking back from 2005/2006 at these guys and assessing them based on subsequent performance for who they were in 2003, which was an okay guy with Branch @ 57 for 803 with 3 TDs, two marginal guys with around 500 yards each (not exactly lighting it up) Johnson with 209 yards and Patten with 140 yards. Troy Brown 2001 is what is called a statistical outlier. He accomplished something that he ordinarily would not due to the circumstances of the team. I can't escape the feeling that all these guys are system guys produced by Brady and the Weis offense. David Patten's production in 2000 and 2005 seem to confirm this pretty directly. We'll see this year with Givens and Branch. I canâ€t understand the “Position X isnâ€t valuableâ€? theory… every position is valuable. RBs are fungible, a QB just needs to be a game manager, and now WRs are unimportant. So letâ€s forget “skillâ€? position players and just invest in the line The marginal value of a few hundred yards of additional production from the wideout or running back position is not worth the marginal cost against the cap. A good QB will compensate for a lack of talent in one area by creating it in another (i.e. in the running backs or tight ends if the wideouts are deficient). I don't think QB is fungible. Running Back, Kicker, and to some extent Wideout are. Otherwise, the Samkon Gado's of the world and undrafted kicking wonders like Akers and Vinateri wouldn't pop out of nowhere every year. Without good lines, good skill play is irrelevant because the skill players won't get a chance to really show it. Ask Archie Manning. That's why O and D-Tackles, and D-Ends make so much money. Football games are won and lost on the lines, not by wideouts. If great wideouts guaranteed victory, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Arizona would win every year. The last good team to disregard the WR position like this was the Eagles, and they never became truly dangerous until they got a playmaker in Owens Define dangerous. Because to me, 4 Championship games in a row is pretty dangerous. The Eagles scored their most points for a season ever in 2002 (415) with Pinkston leading the charge. The 2004 team with Owens ended up 29 points back from that mark at 386, and was only marginally better than 2003 with James Thrash at 374 points scored. People perceive a major difference in the team with and without Owens, but it never showed up in the scores achieved in 2002 and 2003. Re:#53
because we have all seen that richard seymour can play every position, win super bowls single handedly, and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Richard Seymour is a great player, but you need many good players to win in the NFL, and the Patriots have lost lots of wr talent during the offseason. maybe chad jackson is the next jerry rice, but if he's not the pats are in trouble "Richard Seymour is a great player, but you need many good players to win in the NFL" Exactly, which is why you dont overpay a decent wideout when you've repeatedly shown you can get good production out of guys like Troy Brown, and David Patten. 41- Rich, no offense, but you keep moving the goalposts. You start out by saying that the Patriots need to spend money judiciously in a salary cap league. I agree with you, but that you I also point out that a team needs stars to win, and at some point you have to pay a star like a star. Then you move the goal posts by essentially saying that it's the long term nature of the contract that the team finds unappealing. Maybe the Patriots really don't think Branch is worth $6 M a year. Putting aside the fact that they OFFERED HIM A $6 M A YEAR DEAL... Again, if the Patriots really didn't think Branch was worth the money and they wanted to spend that money elsewhere, they did well getting a first for him. But the fact that they accepted today what they turned down ten days ago tells me that wasn't really what they wanted. Phil, You're commenting on an internet message board--YOU are obviously the true NFL salary cap expert Dicso Stu, Pardon me but the Eags were successful before and after terrell owens. The Eags got off to a ravishing start yesterday and they will win the NFc east division. They got to the NFC Championship Game before Owens joined the team. They'll get back there without him. re 41 Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The Eags and Pats realize wrs are not as important as other players. If the Pats were demanding that Branch take the full injury risk in 2006 for a million dollars, he had no choice but to get out of there by any means necessary, and good for him that he did. As to whether the Pats should have offered more, I'd need to be certain what their final offer was, and what they intend to do with the mony not paid to Branch. If it allows them to front-load the guaranteed cash that Seymour will get, so Seymour's cash doesn't impinge cap flexibility in future years, then getting a middle to low first round pick (much as we pretend otherwise, nobody knows for sure where Seattle will finish) may end up being a good deal. As to whether it is a good deal for Seattle, ya' got me. If the offensive line continues to get whipped like leased horse/donkey hybrids, as the Lions did to them, then it won't make much difference who is lining up wide. What I wonder about is what the Seahawks would do if Hasselbeck went down with a season-ender in the next couple of weeks, which he might, if he keeps getting pounded like he was yesterday. Would they try to make it work with Seneca Wallace, or would they decide that the future is now, and try to open up talks with the Packers, who, by the end of the month, should be fully cognizant of their blunder in not trying to stock some draft picks for their anemic roster. Now that Favre has wised up and grasped that he's got zero chance to be competitive in Green Bay, he may even allow himself to be coached again. If you had said “if you donâ€t spend money on stars at the positions where having stars is shown to matter, youâ€re simply not going to winâ€? you would have been on to something. Are you saying WRs don't matter? I acknowledge that some positions in the NFL are more valuable than others. It's a rarity to see a center or a guard go high in the draft, and even more of a rarity for a fullback or a kicker. But WRs? They are routinely drafted very high. Top WRS are COVETED by NFL teams. "Then you move the goal posts by essentially saying that itâ€s the long term nature of the contract that the team finds unappealing." Um, kevin, no i didnt. I was using that to say why your auction style draft comparison has absolutely nothing to do with football salary cap management. The risks are completely different, so they can't be compared to each other. Don't be a weasel, Rich-- you made that "he'll be playing next week" statement in the context of Branch's holdout, after explicitly making the point that he had no leverage and wouldn't dare sit out until Week 10. Then later you wrote that Branch is a premier receiver who is worth more than a first-rounder, and that someone like Tatupu or Vilma would have to be included in trade to make it worthwhile for the Patriots. You either really believed that or were just blowing smoke, but the fact is that it didn't happen. I never said that I know more about something than the next guy because of my fantasy league experience. Do you play Dungeons and Dragons much? maybe chad jackson is the next jerry rice, but if heâ€s not the pats are in trouble Unless Ben Watson is the next Shannon Sharpe. I seem to recall that Sharpe got a ring or two on teams with iffy wideouts. In any case,we'll see how this all works out. Like I said, I'm much more concerned about the awful pass blocking from yesterday than about trading Branch to another conference. Branch wasn't going to help against the Jets this week, anyway. Better pass blocking will. Kal #45: Because theyâ€ve shown themselves to not value homegrown talent, itâ€ll mean players will not be as likely to negotiate with them. This kind of problem is the same thing that the Eagles faced, and itâ€ll be a similar problem. Huh? Do you really know what you are talking about? The Eagles have resigned more of their own players for extension over the past few years than any other team in the league. Something like 66% of the talent (meaning players who weren't busts like Freddie Mitchell and Quinton Caver) out of rounds 1-3 eligible for resigning during the Andy Reid era has been resigned. The Eagles have shown they don't value talent on the decline (Duce Staley, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor, Hugh Douglas, Jermane Mayberry, John Welbourn, Corey Simon, etc.), not that they don't resign their players. A lot of this argument is boiling down to the camps of Pats are s00per geni0uses!@!#!@ vs. let's see those nerds get some comeuppance. Let's look to that quote machine, no not Yogi Bera but Mark Twain: It is not best that we should all think alike; it's the difference of opinion that makes horse races. Two successful organizations are trading based on a difference in perception of the value of a player. What's the big whup. It's definitely premature to declare one side a winner and the other side a loser. The clear winner at this point is the player. He goes from sitting out 10 games and facing some uncertainty in his last 6 (hello new special teamer) to having a new contract at an apparently agreeable salary. He also doesn't have to go to siberia or have Craig Krenzel's less coordinated cousin sail passes over his head. As for the Pats, I think they did what they could. They didn't want to pay the guy this year, they got compensation rather than having a season long distraction and watching the guy go for nothing as an UFA. The Seahawks motivations are a little opaque to me now but I'm pretty sure I'm not operating with their complete set of information. If D-Jax has ongoing health concerns this could be a very savvy move on their part. And who knows, maybe they'll stuff seneca wallace and nate burleson in an oversized jersey (ala alvin and the chipmunks) and make them play guard. 64- Rich, it was a valid comparison. The enire point of my post is that you need to get good value, but you also need production. In other words, sometimes you have to pay a six million dollar player...wait for it...six million dollars. Look, I'm a Pats fan. I had no problem when the Pats let Adam Vinitieri or David Givens walk. And I agree that it's better to let a player leave than to overpay him. But is Branch overpaid at $6.5 M a year? I'd have to say no. And given the fact that New England is SO thin at WR, I'd have worked something out with him. 63, Yeah, theyre coveted by teams like Detroit. Teams who consistenly are bad. Teams that win consistently draft Defensive lineman, quarterbacks, etc. Positions that are huge impacts. NOT wide recievers. Tried to post this earlier, but the server ate it. Figure it should go around post #30 or so... Three points, 1). Kevin, why do you and other people keep saying that Chayut did negotiate, and the Pats didn't? Do you have a source on that? Everything I read said that the Pats *DID* try to negotiate and that it was CHAYUT who REFUSED to negotiate with the Pats unless they offered Reggie Wayne money--in fact, he wouldn't even take their calls. I never heard anything (other than here on FO from people like you) about the Pats sticking on the salary this year, and that's why negotiations broke down. 2). I think the point is not that every position is unimportant, but rather than any position can be made unimportant (except perhaps for O-line). In addition to the O-line, which affects all aspects of the offense, you have five other basic elements to an offense--the running game, the RB's as recievers, the TE's, the QB, and the WR's. No team has pro-bowlers in all five categories. But as long as you're strong in four of the five, you can game plan around the fifth, especially on offense. E.g. wonderful supporting cast at every other position can make average QB's look good. Or, the Pats have been covering a bad running game every year since Curtis Martin, except for 2004. Now their running game looks like it will be near the top of the league, their RB's are all decent in the passing game, they have a great stable of TE's, and a HOF QB. As long as you only have one weakness, that weakness is not that important. I think I calculated that the average starting WR only touches the ball 3-5 times per game. That's no more important than a pass catching TE or a good 3rd down back, and probably less important than a good running game. Would Branch have made this offense amazingly potent? Yes. But they probably can still get it done with less than average WR's, like the Eagles or KC a number of years back. 3). I still think Chayut was a bad agent. If I made you play Russian Roulette, and offered you $100 if you survived, and you survive and collect your $100, does that mean that I operated in your best interest? Just because Branch got what he wanted does not mean that it was a sure thing. What if the Seattle recievers in Week 1 had performed much better, and Seattle had pulled back their trade offer, rather than boosting it to a 1st? Branch would have been stuck holding out, making no money this year, and then probably getting a much less good deal in FA next year, even if he wasn't franchised. What if he had come in, out of shape, in week 10 and had a nasty injury that killed his marketability next year? For that matter, what if he had taken the Pats offer and then gone on to become a HOF reciever (not saying he will or won't now, but you can certainly do worse than playing with Tom Brady). I still maintain that it would have been in Branch's best interest for Chayut to negotiate with the Pats and see what their best offer would have been before risking Branch's whole future on a toss of the dice. Going to the hard line crap so early forced Branch and the Patriots into mutually untenable positions. Just becuase Chayut got lucky and it worked out for Branch doesn't mean he's a good agent, just a lucky one. All that being said, I wish Deion the best in Seattle, and hope the Pats defeat the Seahawks in SB XLI. Hey Rich! 1. What team was smart enough to win the Super Bowl last year? 2. What did that team spend it's first round draft pick on? Sometimes you make it too easy. :) Glenn, like I said, branch couldnt afford to sit 10, he didnt. I said He'd be playing week 1, and thats exactly what I meant. GO back and read my post, I'm pretty sure I said "whether its for the patriots or not". I never said Branch was worth a first+, I said Branch plus cap space was. They got a first, thats close. Kevin, I guess this is where I disagree with you, and why we can't see eye to eye. I dont think ANY reciever, is worth $6m to the patriots system. Brady has repeatedly got good performance out of low grade recievers. Theres no reason to pay big money for a good reciever. > The problem here is that the Patriots DID offer Branch an extension for $6 M a year, but it wouldnâ€t have kicked in until 2007. And that's the long and the short of it. The salary-cap ramifications are something of a red herring; the difference between what Branch was asking for (and eventually received from the Seahawks) amounts to about $1m per year of the contract. This was more about the principle of strictly holding a player to his full contractual obligations as well as dealing with a holdout, than affordability. I believe that if Branch had originally signed only a 4-year rookie contract, the Patriots would have been willing to give him close to what he's been asking for. So given that, the decisions made in this matter should be evaluated based on the Patriots' team (offensive) performance over the next few years. This was NOT a case where the Patriots simply couldn't reasonably afford the player given his talent level, such as with David Givens. "Hey Rich! 1. What team was smart enough to win the Super Bowl last year? 2. What did that team spend itâ€s first round draft pick on? Sometimes you make it too easy. :) " Which proves that you can win while having a weakness at WR. (and dont tell me that ARE isnt a weakness) Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of all time, and it's not even close. [Note to fans of the "other 31" who may happen to stumble upon this thread: we have a tremendous opportunity here to isolate all the angry, obnoxious New England fans (are there any other kind?) in this thread and keep them here forever. Kind of like an FO leper colony, or the spinning glass dimensional prison holding the three Kryptonians from Superman 1 and 2. You see, experience has shown that any thread even remotely related to the Patriots will generate upwards of 400 comments within a few days, no matter how insignificant the matter may be. They just can't get enough of - well, not hearing themselves talk, more like watching themselves type, although given the quality of many of their comments they're probably actually dictating to their helper monkeys. Anyway, these threads related to Branch combine so many passions of New England fans. For example: 1) The ability to vastly overstate the importance of one of their pretty good players while he's with the team, then pretend that he always sucked when he's gone. Branch is somewhere between the 10th and 18th best receivers in the NFL - pretty good, but to hear NE fans talk about him, he's better than Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, and Jessica Alba combined. But now that he's gone? Oh, he sucked, it was amazing they ever won a single game with him, just like those idiots Bledsoe, Johnny Damon, Antoine Walker, Nomar... We don't f***in' need him, you could throw an equipment manager out there and he'd catch 1200 yards, that's how good Brady is!!! 2) The ability to lick Belichick's and Pioli's respective crotches. Nothing they do is ever wrong. Ever. EVER!!! They could trade Brady for a random McCown, sign him to a 6-year, $96-million contract, and you'd have 800 posts saying what a brilliant move it is, how the deal is really cap-friendly (better than Manning's, anyway!!1!), and how QB McCown is actually brilliant, he's just never gotten a good opportunity. 3) the chance to pretend that, no matter which draft pick New England gets, he's guaranteed to be a Hall of Famer - in fact, he'll be so good, they'll induct him while he's still playing. Not only that, he'll sign for $300K a year, because the chance to be close to Belichick and to win (because no other teams ever win, ever!) is worth more than the millions he'd leave on the table. Everybody who plays for the Patriots signs for at least 60% below market value, don't ya know... Anyway, these things will keep them yapping back and forth for hundreds of comments. But eventually even this will get old for them, and they'll migrate back to other threads to ruin all the fun we were having while they were busy here. So here's the plan - every hundred comments or so, someone drop by here and post something that's guaranteed to get them going again, then just leave. Don't bother reading anything here, it'll all be a bunch of New England fanboi garbage. Suggested topics that are virtually assured of keeping them trapped here for a few more hours and hundreds more comments, unable to pull themselves away, instinctively drawn here like the Salmon of Capistrano: 1) the incomparable greatness of Peyton Manning
2) Eli Manning
3) the 2001 Rams were actually better than the Patriots, the Pats just got lucky (repeatedly throughout the season and playoffs). Oh, that reminds me...
4) TUCK RULE!
5) the fact that New England gets the most favorable officiating of anyone, ever. Between the tuck rule, the allowed mugging of Colts receivers in 03 (and even when the rules were supposedly being enforced in 04), the fact that they haven't had a hold called against them since the 90's...
6) Pete Carroll is a brilliant coach. He was significantly more successful in his tenure there than "genius" Belichick was in Cleveland. If he returned to the NFL, he'd win four or five Super Bowls, easy. The fact that New England couldn't even win one while he was there is evidence of the complete suckitude of that entire region.
7) Tom Brady + that goat he likes to pose for pictures with = performance of an unnatural act
8) Roethlisberger is better than Brady. After all, he's a bigger winner earlier in his career!
9) Did I mention Manning is better than Brady? See, if we play this right, we can enjoy days, maybe even months, of having comment threads without any Patriot fans! Oh, what a wonderful day that will be. So to get back to it...] Bill Belichick's feces has a foul odor. GO back and read Okay- using the "find" feature on my browser, I've come up with: "It does NOTHING good for him to hold out" "NYJ/SEA arent†going to be willing to pay the price in picks, so the pats have proven their point" "Heâ€ll play, or heâ€ll ride the pine. Hes not going anywhere…" "But theres nothing he can do about it this year, except hold out. Him holding out will guarantee that the offers to him will be lower, and much less guaranteed." I'm not trying to pick on you, but GEEZ! Admit that you were wrong and move on. I can be wrong too- I thought Charles Rogers would be a star in the NFL, and that Donovan McNabb would suck. I thought USC was going to crush Texas in last year's Rose Bowl. I said those things, I was proven wrong, and I don't bother trying to deny any of it. #68:Huh? Do you really know what you are talking about? The Eagles have resigned more of their own players for extension over the past few years than any other team in the league. I remember a lot of problem with Westbrook, Corey Simon, and some other high-end talent on the Eagles grousing about precisely this. That the Eagles weren't willing to spend things. It took TO to get the Eagles to resign a lot of players - notably Westbrook. What will it take in New England? #71: Bill Parcells and Andy Reid seem to think that top-quality receivers are fairly good investments. It's probably better to look at FA than draft, since draft gets occluded by the inevitable disability to evaluate talent. Denver went after Javon Walker, TO got moved around twice despite his character flaws, Randy Moss got big deals.(yeah, I know) Harrison and CJ both got big deals before they were FAs, as did Reggie Wayne. ...receivers have at least the impression that they are not fungible by most of the league save the Patriots. Hmm. That'd be a good study - how impactful a big-name receiver is on a team's overall improvement. I think that everyone arguing about Branch's market value, relative leverage and the Patriots negotiating strategies is missing the critical point of the dispute. At the end of the day the Patriots were not going to pretend that the final year of Branch's rookie contract didn't exist. That has always been the core issue. I'd bet that even if the Patriots made an offer that was the long term economic equivalent of the Seattle offer but held him to the final year of his rookie deal he would have refused it.
This concept is critical to the Patriots system not only for players who might be in similar situations in the future (Koppen, Hobbes, et. al.) but for players who have toed the line and waited for theirs (Bruschi, Vrable, et. al.).
If you must call out a winner and a loser, then clearly Branch won from a financial perspective. Time will tell if he wins in all aspects of the deal. But I don't think that the Patriots "lost" because on the most important point, protecting their business model, they did not buckle. Their biggest mistake was not realizing sooner that Branch was as steadfast as he was. But to me, adhering to the principles of a system that the organization believes in and that has been hugely successful is worth the difference between Deion Branch & a 5th round choice and Doug Gabriel & a first round choice. > I think the point is not that every position is unimportant, but rather than any position can be made unimportant (except perhaps for O-line). Yes, that's right. The Patriots may be pushing the envelope though in declining to pay the market rate for all but top superstar talent, which is the crux of this debate. Yesterday for example, against a weak team, the Patriots had a great rushing attack but a sputtering, mediocre offense on the whole. I have no issue with the pro-Patriots argument in theory-- all I would ask though is that it be fairly evaluated going forward, based on the on-field results. I have serious doubts right now though as once again the Patriots are treading new ground, this time in attempting to turn over almost their entire WR corps in one off-season. Can we agree at least that this matter is hardly settled, and judge the Branch decision based on what happens next? I can understand the Pats point of view on this. They don't think the guy was worth what he was asking and so they made a great deal and unloaded Branch. I cannot understand why the Seahawks gave up a first round pick for him. He has never finished in the top 10 of any major receiving category. Javon Walker and Terrell Owens were both traded for 2nd round picks, and they had much greater value than Branch. How is Branch worth a first? New England should sign a guy like Quincy Morgan or even take a chance on Charles Rogers. Over the long run they will be much better off, but this deal leaves them a bit shorthanded for now. I thought you were supposed the sign the Super Bowl MVP to a ridiculous contract that offseason, not wait another year. Maybe the Seahawks know something that we don't? is there any person more obnoxious in their posting than Kevin11. relax man. Re #67
ISTR Shannon Sharpe's rings came with (a) the Denver Broncos, with a RB having some of the greatest RB years in history, one of the best QBs in NFL history, and two WRs who made All-Pro teams and (b) the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, featuring perhaps the best defense in the past two decades (non-adjusted D-DVOA -40.0%). As to 1) No, DVOA does not show that Deion Branch is between the 10th and 18th best reciever in the NFL. It shows that Tom Brady, and Deion Branch, in the Patriots system are between the 10th and 18th best combination. NOthing more. Dvoa put David Patten/Tom Brady at about replacement level IIRC, but in wAshington he was significantly worse. Again, we'll see how well Branch and Givens do this year, but I'm willing to bet they dont do as well now that theyre not being thrown to by Brady. Hasselbeck isnt a huge dropoff, so Branch will do ok, but Givens wont. Thats my whole point, I believe that Tom Brady (as well as peyton manning, and a couple of other quarterbacks) inflate reciever DVOA numbers. Its pretty simple, and its part of the reason all these stud recievers go into Atlanta, and suddenly suck. Good quarterbacks make recievers look better than they are, bad quarterbacks make recievers look worse than they are. How many players have left newengland for bigger contracts in the last two or 3 years, and actually played well? I cant think of any 80- You're forgetting that this Patriots regime has ROUTINELY re-done contracts, tearing up old ones and replacing them with new ones. Using one example, they disregarded Tom Brady's contract and gave him a new one- effective immediately- soon after the 2001 season. All Pat's fans had better start praying that they take no injuries at WR or TE all year. With Branch gone, this team is REALLY thin at those positions. RE 81: Agreed, the only way to evaluate this situation is by team success over the next few years. And yes, the offense wasn't clicking yesterday, but as others have pointed out that seemed to be as much about the line play as anything else. (I don't recall many dropped passes, or plays where Brady had time but couldn't find an open man.) Also - Jackson and Gabriel didn't even play. I'm not saying they'll be Swann and Stallworth, but the team should be better with them than it is without them. "Yes, thatâ€s right. The Patriots may be pushing the envelope though in declining to pay the market rate for all but top superstar talent, which is the crux of this debate." Glenn, you keep bringing this up, and its WRONG. They do pay top dollar for superstar talent. JUST NOT AT POSITIONS THEY DONT FEEL ARE IMPORTANT. They pay superstar dollar for players they feel are worth it; Brady, Seymour, Rosey Colvin, etc. Its not a matter of them not paying the money. Every year they spend up to the cap. Its a matter of them feeling that certain positions are more important than others, and spending the money on those. Again, that money will be spent, it'll just be spent somewhere they think is more important. Re #83
Stupid Tom's, never another around except when a little confusion wouldn't be in order. The main problem with free agent signings, and this goes with all sports, is that you are spending money on what the players have done, rather on what they will do. That's why most free agnet signings turn out to be busts. Now it might not be as bad in football as in baseball because the contracts aren't guaranteed. Winning teams are built on young players who are obviously cheaper. And if your front office is great at picking talent, your team can stay strong since you won't be drafting at the beginning of the draft and having to hand out ridiculous contracts. Re #90
Which is why it's so confusing (or maybe telling?) that they won't pay Branch $6M starting this year instead of next year when they have $12M or so in cap room. Re #92
Curse you, Aquascum! 2002 - 13 games, 43 catches for 489 yards & 2 TDs
2003 - 15 games, 57 catches for 803 yards & 3 TDs
2004 - 9 games, 35 catches for 454 yards & 4 TDs
2005 - 16 games, 78 catches for 998 yards & 5 TDs If you were an NFL team, would you pay $6.5 million a year for that kind of production? The Seattle Seahawks just did. The New England Patriots did not. The Seattle Seahawks have won 0 Super Bowls this decade, and in fact have never won the Super Bowl. The New Englands Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls this decade. Aside from the fact that he was still under contract for one more year, the thing that people are ignoring in Deion Branch's situation is the fact that he is outrageously overvaluing his talent, and overpricing his production. Deion Branch has never averaged 15 yards per catch in a regular season, has never scored more than 5 TDs in a regular season, never had 1000 yard receiving in a season, and never even had a multi-touchdown game. Would YOU want to have a significant portion of your team's Salary Cap tied up to pay a player who's only played a full season once, and who's production hasn't matched his agent's mouth? The reality is that while the Patriots offered him a 3 year deal for $6 million per, you usually just don't pony up that kind of dough to someone who you're not positive is an impact player, especially after they ignore the last year of their contract and basically try to make an embarrassing example out of your organization. The Patriots were never going to give Branch the Reggie Wayne type contract he was seeking, because he probably doesn't deserve it. It doesn't matter if he was the Super Bowl MVP. Do you remember how Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, and Dexter Jackson's careers went after they won the SB MVP and tried to cash in?? They do pay top dollar for superstar talent. JUST NOT AT POSITIONS THEY DONT FEEL ARE IMPORTANT. But they *offered* Branch a top dollar contract. They just weren't willing to have it start in 2006. The main problem with free agent signings, and this goes with all sports, is that you are spending money on what the players have done, rather on what they will do. Thatâ€s why most free agnet signings turn out to be busts. I have to disagree here. All teams take a player's age and predicted future performance into consideration before making an offer. Branch just turned 27, so barring injuries he'll have some good years ahead of him. Six years? Maybe not. > They do pay top dollar for superstar talent. JUST NOT AT POSITIONS THEY DONT FEEL ARE IMPORTANT. I said "declining to pay the market rate for ALL BUT top superstar talent", and I stand by that. Brady and Seymour are those superstars who have received top dollar, and the rest of the payroll gets spread around more evenly than on some other teams, perhaps. Maybe that approach will always work, and maybe it won't. But the fact is, currently the Patriots are well under the salary cap, and the only way they'll exhaust that space is by trading this season's deficit for future space. Near-term performance should therefore be judged on that basis. This is NOT a case where you can say, the team had no choice, they had no cap space-- the team certainly does/did have the salary cap flexibility to decide between Deion Branch now, or someone else later. The only caveat which I would add to that is that it would seem sensible to use the cap space in the near term when you KNOW that you are a Super Bowl contender, as the Patriots are now. You have no idea what this team might look like 3-4 years from now. RE: 87 - Other than Seymour and Brady, whose rookie contracts have been re-done with the final year(s) being ignored? That is the valid comparison here. Am I missing something? The Patriots also paid top dollar for multiple years for a RB - you know, one of those fungible positions. Sorry, how good is Dillon now? Was he worth the top money when he was barely a presence last year? Some times the Patriots pay for talent at certain positions, some times they don't. It isn't simply all or nothing. They did it with Seymour and didn't do it with Viniateri. They did it with Brady and Dillon but not Branch. I suspect they'll do it with Bruschi but not Vrabel. Depends on their position - but I do honestly think that this specifically will hurt them more this season. Just to point out--the Patriots DO occasionally pay for top WR talent, or try to at least. They offered Derrick Mason (sp?) a boatload of money last year, but he ended up taking a smaller offer because he wanted to play in Baltimore for some reason... Belichick also mentioned in a press conference once that, given the chance, he would sign Randy Moss in a heartbeat. I don't think it's fair to say that the Patriots didn't value Branch. I think they did, and they would have LOVED to lock him up for three to five years at 5-6 M a year. Rewind to before this mess, and he probably would have been willing to do that. It probably could have happened if it was negotiated last year or earlier. For whatever reasons (salary cap implications, waiting to see how the draft panned out, misreading Branch's intentions, or maybe Chayut giving misleading signals or negotiating in bad faith--we don't really know), their front office made a mistake and delayed the negotiations until this spring (or maybe, like Givens, Branch didn't want to negotiate, perferring to test FA waters). Then Chayut threw in a big monkey wrench and torpedoed the negotiations and ended any chance of Branch coming back to New England. I'm a Pats fan. I'm not mad at Branch. I'm not mad at the Patriots, although I certainly think, in hindsight, they could have handled this better. I'm a little annoyed at Chayut, but that's besides the point. > the thing that people are ignoring in Deion Branchâ€s situation is the fact that he is outrageously overvaluing his talent, and overpricing his production. We're ignoring all that? Deion Branch just received every penny he was asking for, and did so from a far more disadvantageous negotiating position than free agency. Seattle may have, but Deion Branch certainly did not "outrageously overvalue/overprice" anything, unless of course the presumption (once again) is that it was his lifelong purpose to protect and serve the New England Patriots and their perfect business model. Recent history shows a fairly high number of WRs drafted in the first round to be busts anyway. What makes you think this isn't a better use of a first rounder than many teams will make? Seattle addressed (theoretically) the future of the CB position this year in the draft, has a QB and TB (with pretty decent backups) in the fold, a couple good #2 WRs in Engram and Burleson, likely wasn't going to use the first rounder on a LG anyway, 2 decent TEs (when they can stay on the field), was never going to use a 1st rounder on a FB, has a glut at LB and 5 or 6 good D-linemen...so unless they were going to hit a homerun with their #1 draft pick next year, why not use it to get a backup #1 WR, given that D-Jack has an injury history, given that they have the cap space? On the flip side, NE stood to lose if the grievance got upheld (remember a lot of people thought Seattle's grievance against Minnesota would get upheld on the Hutchinson contract. Don't go assuming Branch couldn't have won) and the best offer on the table at that time was a second rounder from an in-division team, i.e. the Jets. I'm a Seahawks fan, and I think both teams won here. The only chance this directly hurts NE is if they see SEA in the Super Bowl this year, really, and if that happens, well, getting to the Super Bowl heals a lot of hurt, doesn't it? Using conventional stats to judge a WRs past performance is a really horrible way to predict their future results under a different coach and system, by the way. I don't even see why someone would do that here. The main purpose of this site is to have useful statistics with predictive value, not "well he only caught 50 passes for that Super Bowl winning team," which is a near completely meaningless statistic for predictive purposes. Many points: * The pick should be somewhere in the mid-late 20s. Even with problems on the O-line, Seattle's own weak division + the NFC North should be worth 8-10 more-or-less free wins. (Case in point: they played like crap yesterday and still cashed the free win against Detroit.) I doubt they'll get the best record in the league or return to the Superbowl (they may be the favorite for both, but the field is still the better bet), so no later than 29. * Branch is a good receiver. He will probably not do as well in Seattle as the Seahawks hope (new QB, new system, late start to the season), but not as badly as rabid Patriot fans hope (vis. David Patten, who essentially disappeared in Washington). Much of Branch's value may have come from Brady throwing him the ball, but I hear Hasselbeck's pretty good, too. * The Patriots were missing not only Branch and Givens yesterday, but the two receivers they logically expected to replace them (Gabriel and Jackson). Troy Brown, Reche Caldwell, and Bam Childress should be the #3, #4, nd #5 receivers, not the #1, #2, and #3. That much said, depth is obviously a concern. * The reason they failed to extend Branch last year, is that they were hard up against the cap after Dillon's extenion (probable mistake), Brady's second extension (not a mistake) and paying to end Seymour's holdout (probably not a mistake). That they're trying to avoid such a situation this year, is hardly a surprise. They also have Koppen, Graham, and Samuel to extend, and can burn any surplus up to $6.7 million on Seymour's option bonus. 98- None that I know of. My point is, I don't think one can say "But I donâ€t think that the Patriots “lostâ€? because on the most important point, protecting their business model, they did not buckle", when they've deviated from the business model before. In other words, it seems their business model does allow for disregarding contracts. You guys realize that the MMQB link has been posted all day? Nobody's bashing PK today because of this... RCH (#98) Recently, I can only think of Jarvis Green off the top of my head. I *think* one or two of Matt Light, Dan Koppen, and Stephen Neal was/were redone lately, but I don't remember the details. But to be honest, not that many rookies drafted in the Belichick/Pioli era have reached that point yet where they need contracts redone. Other than Brady and Seymour, 2000 and 2001 were horrible draft years for the Pats. Givens and Branch and Daniel Graham are the first few of the successful draftees coming up. Kevin said this:
"But is Branch overpaid at $6.5 M a year? Iâ€d have to say no. And given the fact that New England is SO thin at WR, Iâ€d have worked something out with him." That's perfectly reasonable. I 'm not sure I disagree entirely. But. The pats did fine. They were paid a first round draft pick for part of one season for a player that would be passed over in the first round again, even knowing what you're getting. The only way the pats could lose is to let him walk without getting anything for him, and him still not playing. They played the market pretty well to get a first for him. Being the best receiver on any given team don't make you a #1 receiver. It makes you a #2 with big ideas, I guess. Reggie Wayne money? Reggie Wayne is a lot better than Deion Branch. And I've always liked Branch here. But give Wayne his props. Deion Branch is making less money now than he might have. If he had hit the market in one year, unresricted or been franchised (unlikely,except for trade) he would have commanded stupid money from someone. Givens did. If he thinks the risk of getting nothing in a year outweighs the money, then he's taking a discount because he doesn't have faith in himself over the long haul. He's like a lottery winner that takes the cash payout now instead of more over a longer period. And if he doesn't think he's gonna be around to earn his money, why should the pats, or their fans? Ty Law was a tremendous mercenary in this regard, and he's cleaned up twice now. But he didn't have to weasel out of anything. He timed the market because he was unrestricted. Seahawks showed desperation for a WR here.That seems appropriate, given their scheme. Others seem to think the pats should have. But there scheme is different, and always has been. I just don't think he's a top dollar receiver. And I can't think of too many receivers that merit top dollar player money anyway. Oh, and by the way, Peyton Manning is the king of all gaggers and always will be. When it counts, he's invisible. A loser's a loser. This looks like a good move for Seattle. After losing Jurevicius to FA and Jeramy Stevens and Darrel Jackson suffering injuries (though Jackson played fine Sunday), not to forget Burleson having trouble picking up the West Coast offense, they could really use Branch. Branch's strong suits I think are his hands, picking apart a zone and running after catching intermediate passes. It looks like he profiles well for Seattle's offense. For the Patriots, I think it hurts them this year. The receivers weren't very good against Buffalo and the only reinforcements on the way are Chad Jackson and Doug Gabriel. Maybe Doug Gabriel can help a little but I don't think you can expect much from Jackson as it's rare for rookies to make much of an impact anyway but especially not so after missing so much of training camp with his hamstring injury. It's not like Jackson was thought to be a polished route runner coming out of college to begin with so I think the odds are against him. Hopefully the Patriots' trackrecord of making good late first round selections will continue with Seattle's pick. > Iâ€m a Pats fan. Iâ€m not mad at Branch. Iâ€m not mad at the Patriots, although I certainly think, in hindsight, they could have handled this better. Iâ€m a little annoyed at Chayut, but thatâ€s besides the point. That's fair and reasonable. It's beyond me how some fans can view this situation from the outside and say that the Patriots wanted to negotiate and otherwise did all the right things, but the player and his agent refused to cooperate (or even return phone calls as someone has claimed). The "blame the agent" card is the easiest one in sports to play, and is rarely valid imo. It's almost irrelevant though. When it's my team, and they choose to spend or not spend to a certain level, to make a point on principle, to be or not be proactive in negotiations earlier in the contract, I hold the team responsible for those decisions, both when they turn out bad, or well. The rest is just excuses. It's completely reasonable to expect that the Patriots could have wrapped up Deion Branch at the price he extracted from the Seahawks, or maybe even a bit less given the team's initial leverage advantage. They didn't, and we take it from there. MJK - You are right, the good draft choices from the start of the BB era are just coming up for renewal. I just researched Light and Green. Both of these guys finished their original deals and were resigned before hitting UFA. Koppen is still on his rookie deal. They were paid a first round draft pick for part of one season for a player that would be passed over in the first round again, even knowing what youâ€re getting. The concept of Deion Branch re-entering the entry draft is interesting. Last year's draft was loaded, and I still think he'd go in the top ten. Many players simply can't make the transition from BMOC to the NFL. Branch has proven he can handle the NFL and all that comes with it, which IMO is a big deal. @100: "Just to point out–the Patriots DO occasionally pay for top WR talent, or try to at least. They offered Derrick Mason (sp?) a boatload of money last year"
The Patriots reportedly offered him a deal for around $4.5 million a year. That's not top flight receiver money, but a decent contract value for someone they expect top production from. This is similar to the contract they gave Corey Dillon. From the published reports that I've seen, he stands to make roughly $5 million a year. That's not top flight running back money, but again, a decent value for the above average production they expect to get from him (assuming he can stay healthy, which is obviously questionable). @101: "Weâ€re ignoring all that? Deion Branch just received every penny he was asking for, and did so from a far more disadvantageous negotiating position than free agency. Seattle may have, but Deion Branch certainly did not “outrageously overvalue/overpriceâ€? anything, unless of course the presumption (once again) is that it was his lifelong purpose to protect and serve the New England Patriots and their perfect business model. "
It's not my presumption at all. I am not a Patriots fan nor apologist. It's simply my contention that he and his agent overvalued his talent and production at the outset of the bargaining process, and somehow Seattle jumped in to the bidding to completely overpay for him. But that remains to be seen, based on his production the next few years. If I was the Patriots, or any team in the NFL, I wouldn't have paid $6.5 million per year for Branch, just like I wouldn't have paid $4.5 million per year for David Givens. I'd much rather let a 2nd round guy like that walk, who I wasn't positive about, and get a 1st round pick in return. They just don't seem like impact players to me, on whom I would want to tie up a serious percentage of my cap for 5 years at a time. That's probably why they wanted to do a 3 year deal, to see if Branch's production would continue to increase to merit his high salaries. > The pats did fine. They were paid a first round draft pick for part of one season for a player that would be passed over in the first round again, even knowing what youâ€re getting. I strongly disagree with this statement. From the same starting point in their careers, I'd pass on Santonio Holmes to take Branch in the middle of the first round, in a heartbeat, given knowledge of Branch's future production. What's your basis for this assessment? More than half of all first-rounders (at any position) never reach even the modest level of success that Branch has had (and I'm sure that it's Seattle's projection that the best is yet to come). I just listened to Holmgren's press conference, and while he sounds happy to have Branch (a good receiver, proven performer, etc), it doesn't sound like he's really figured out what they're going to do with him or how they're going to work all their receivers into the offense. He did go out of his way to say the tight end is important to their running game, so I guess that would mean they're not going to start going four receivers all the time. Anyway, it will be interesting to see who the odd man out is. Glenn, I'd rather have Branch than Santurdio too, but that's a whole 'nother thing you're adding in there. Branch has never distinguished himself as anything but a decent and respectable person while he was here. I like the pats scheme. Branch fit it, for a good long while, anyway. In a way, the league is functioning as it should. Seattle needed him more than the pats. The pats will use that draft pick, oh yes. Holmgren needs to do something right now and it showed. It got finicky there,for a while, with the speculation, and I don't like players that won't finish their contracts, but it didn't turn out that bad for anybody. I'd rather have David Patten back. Can we get him with a fifth? 115- Looking at it from another angle, are you certain you'd rather have any of the 32 players selected in the 2006 Draft- with the possible exception of Santonio Holmes- than Deion Branch? Just to correct a few miststatments of fact in this thread: 1) On the suggestion that the Pats should have signed Branch earlier: They tried. They first made Branch an extension offer after the 2004 season -- with 2 years left on his rookie deal. They tried again this spring, with 1 year left on his deal. 2) That the Pats refused to negotiate. Jon. Kraft on radio yesterday said that all indications in March were that they would hammer out an extension. They gave Branch two different contract proposals, expecting to begin a negotiation. Branch's agent did no respond to either proposal. The only communication to their offers was Branch's holdout from minicamps (out of the blue -- he had been working out every day, talking with the team and Chayut's demand that the Pats agree not to franchise him. Kraft indicated the team was blindsided. 3) On the suggestion that the Pats ended up getting exactly what they were offered last week: The Seahawks offered their 2nd round pick. Their 1st round pick is obviously higher. The Jets offered Washington's second round pick. Seattle's 1st round pick is obviously higher than that. One more point. You guys are aware that the Pats drafted Chad Jackson with an eye towards his becoming the team's #1 wide receiver. From all reports, the Pats planned to take Jackson with their 1st round pick, until Maroney dropped to them and they couldn't resist. They immediately traded up to the top of the 2nd round to grab Jackson. Belichick personally worked out Jackson extensively before the draft during his extended visit with Urban Meyer at Florida. Jackson was very impressive in the mini-camps, in exactly the same way Branch was his rookie season. The only difference is that Jackson has the physical tools (size and speed) to be true #1 WR in the NFL. Branch has the physical tools to be a superb possession receiver. Trogdor, Maybe NE fans are willing to give BB/SP the benefit of the doubt because they have been proven right more often than not? Possibly? There is no reason for you to go through a tirade of ridiculous exaggerations. * Branch had proven to everyone that he wasn't coming back. NE did what they had to do and got some value out of it. Sometimes I have to help my clients step back and look at the big picture when they suffer temporary setbacks. Here is a good time: If your team traded a #2 draft pick for a #1 5 years later, as well as had the services of a very good receiver of thos five years, would you consider that a good move or a bad one? I will grant you that NE should have agreed to give Branch more money in this year; I do think that was a mistake. But NE couldn't have known, based on Branch's demeaner up till now, that Branch would essentially give them the middle finger and stop negotiating at that point. * Lastly, if Gabrielle or Jackson (or in a perfect world - both) prove to be a better option than NE is trotting out there right now, their WR will most certainly be good enough to win the SB this year, particularly with the way the running game looks now. As many people have said already, NE's OL (and Brady's poor passing) made the WRs look much worse than they really are. The thirty two plyers in the draft are chosen by thirty two teams all trying to accomplish different things. The pats scheme is based on value, especially at WR. I would not have used the patriots first round pick to acquire Deion Branch. They didn't call me and ask me, though. It's not an insane thing to say you would. I don't think it's crazy to say you wouldn't, either. When it was Brown, Branch, Givens, and Patten, they were sort of interchangeable players, closely aligned in talent. I imagine Belichick will try to assemble some form of similar corps. I can't see him bundling his picks and trying to get Randy Moss or something. Truth be told it's Bethel Johnson I'm gonna miss. I know he was a mental case, but he was the most electrifying return man I've ever seen here. But Belichick used to have a fullback running back kicks, so lord knows it's considered a fungible position around here. I like that many teams have different approaches and they compete. There are more teams with a definable vibe that don't suck this year than most years. With or without Branch, NWE don't suck. Where people bet money, the pats are #2 to win the super bowl. #1 is the Colts. No accounting for taste. 1) On the suggestion that the Pats should have signed Branch earlier: They tried. They first made Branch an extension offer after the 2004 season — with 2 years left on his rookie deal. They tried again this spring, with 1 year left on his deal. Assuming that's true, that puts the "Patriots won't renegotiate contracts" theory away. 2) That the Pats refused to negotiate. Jon. Kraft on radio yesterday said that all indications in March were that they would hammer out an extension. They gave Branch two different contract proposals, expecting to begin a negotiation. Branchâ€s agent did no respond to either proposal. The only communication to their offers was Branchâ€s holdout from minicamps (out of the blue — he had been working out every day, talking with the team and Chayutâ€s demand that the Pats agree not to franchise him. Kraft indicated the team was blindsided. I find that hard to believe- I'd been hearing of Branch possibly holding out since before the draft. If *I'd* heard the speculation, how could the team have been blindsided? 3) On the suggestion that the Pats ended up getting exactly what they were offered last week: The Seahawks offered their 2nd round pick. Their 1st round pick is obviously higher. The Jets offered Washingtonâ€s second round pick. Seattleâ€s 1st round pick is obviously higher than that. One of us has bad information, then. On September 1 I read that Seattle was offering a first, and the Jets were offering a second and an unknown player. Just as none of us would take anything Jason Chayut says at face value, I don't think we should take what Kraft has to say at face value. Either I'm supposed to believe that Camp Branch employed the most senseless and bizarre negotiating tactics in the history of negotiation, or Jonathan Kraft isn't telling the whole truth. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Maybe NE fans are willing to give BB/SP the benefit of the doubt because they have been proven right more often than not? I'm one of those fans. When the Pats drafted Logan Mankins in 2005, I had a fit that lasted about ten seconds (WE JUST TOOK A GUARD- WE DON'T NEED A GUARD! HE WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND IN THE MID-SECOND!!). Then the little voice inside my head said "these guys know what they're doing". And they did. The Pats organization has an excellent track record, which gives them credibility. However, there are some fans that literally act as if the organization is infallable, and they are not. We'll see how it all pans out. If the Pats have a good season and a strong passing game, if Branch craters in Seattle, if the pick they got from the Seahawks becomes a star...not all of those things have to happen to make this a good move for New England. I just don't think it's going to, though. I can't help but think the team would have been better off giving him what he accepted from Seattle. I just listened to Holmgrenâ€s press conference, and while he sounds happy to have Branch (a good receiver, proven performer, etc), it doesnâ€t sound like heâ€s really figured out what theyâ€re going to do with him or how theyâ€re going to work all their receivers into the offense. He did go out of his way to say the tight end is important to their running game, so I guess that would mean theyâ€re not going to start going four receivers all the time. Anyway, it will be interesting to see who the odd man out is. Now I see the fiendish cleverness of it all. With too many WRs to profitably use, Seattle will be willing to trade one back to the Patriots for, say, a 3rd rounder in a few weeks. Mwa ha ha! One more and I promise I'll take a break! :) The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, and they did it by making a lot of really good moves. The organization had the same sheen as the Patriots do now- "these guys know what they're doing". Well, the Red Sox have made some spectacularly bad player transactions over the past two years. They proved not to be infallable. In fact, at some point that happens in every organization. Are the Patriots next? We'll find out. "I canâ€t help but think the team would have been better off giving him what he accepted from Seattle." I thought the two extension offers the Pats made, averaging $6.15 million per year, were already too high based on Branch's mid-pack #1 production. They were certainly not insulting offers and should have generated good faith counter-offers from the player. 178 + 37 + 482 + 123 = 811 comments (and counting...) So when does this all get moved into one single Thread Which Cannot Be Named, Part II? :) Re; #125 But hwc, you forgot that you have to divide by N+1 years instead of by N years, because that's how Branch math works :) Huh -- I didn't know that sort of thing could be done: According to sources in Seattle, the Seahawks have requested and received a two-game roster exemption for Deion Branch, which will give him time to learn Mike Holmgrenâ€s system and become familiar with quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. (from John Tomase at the Boston Herald) The Mulgrew nominates post 77 as Post of the Year! The Mulgrew likey! Is Ty Law still the leading receiver on the Colts? I've lost track. How can the Patriots be happy with drafting a potential good player when they could have had a good player with little risk. i've been gone all day, but feel i need to respond...
Re:#57
My point was that the pats dumped their best player at one of their weakest positions when they have 13 mil in cap room this year and no way to improve other areas of the team for this season with that money. they were going to give him the money next year, why not this year when they have the cap room and no other avenues to upgrade their team.
and i'm not drinking the reche caldwell kool aid.
Re:#67
tongue planted firmly in cheek, but that's the trust some patriots fans (maybe you, i don't know) have in belichick and i was merely pointing out the absurdity. and ask antonio gates how easy it is to win a super bowl with reche caldwell as one of your primary recievers.
Re:#77
exactly. Over 120 posts on this topic in just 7 hours or so proves for once and for all, that this is ultimately nothing more than a Patriots fan site. Period. re 130
He plays cornerback for the KC Chiefs. re 133
I agree with that. That is an astute observation on your part. Kudos. re: 130 I know you were trying to be funny with that. Well, you weren't. So that's why I posted what I did in post 134. 133: Look back at last year's threads re: Terrell Owens. Was it an Eagles fan site back then? The total number of posts is greater from the Branch threads, but the total number of posts has increased for all threads. The Branch situation is both complex and interesting, and generates a lot of discussion, just as it would be if he played for any other team. "How can the Patriots be happy with drafting a potential good player when they could have had a good player with little risk." Your premise appears to be incorrect. The Pats could not have had Branch. By refusing to respond to legitimate contract exension offers, Branch and his agent had clearly made the decision to not play for the Pats. I don't understand why Branch made that decision, but it is apparent he did. There is nothing "insulting" about a 5 year $31 million, $11 million guaranteed deal. Once it because set in stone that Branch would never play for the Pats again, trading for a 1st round pick is not a bad move. They wouldn't have done signficantly better with a "tag n' trade", so why tie up the $6+ million tender and go through the aggravation? This route preserves the franchise tag option for Daniel Graham, should the team opt to go that route. Wouldn't make sense to use it Samuel or Koppen. Your premise appears to be incorrect. The Pats could not have had Branch. By refusing to respond to legitimate contract exension offers, Branch and his agent had clearly made the decision to not play for the Pats. Let's be honest- none of us really knows what happened. So I'm left to ask- does that make sense? I'm not saying that situation is impossible, but it seems not just unlikely, but radically so. I'm expected to believe that Branch wouldn't report to camp, wouldn't even talk to the team, wouldn't even say what his problem was...I just can't believe that. It makes no sense. I donâ€t understand why Branch made that decision, but it is apparent he did. There is nothing “insultingâ€? about a 5 year $31 million, $11 million guaranteed deal. Again, from what I understand the Patriots refused to pay more than $1 M for 2006, and to Branch that was unacceptable. A few random comments while reading this thread during the Tony Bowl and a few glasses of wine (BTW, any chance the Pats flip that #1 from the Hawks to the Vikes for this awful Williamson kid? If I'm the Vikes I'm calling Bethel Johnson's agent tomorrow). Anyway, DP, you've just caused Aaron to go sleepless for the week. His worst nightmare is that this gets perceived as a PatsCentric site. What do you think he should do, DP, put a quota on our posts? HWC is the Bruschi of the site...totally reliable. Couldn't imagine us going 3000 posts without him. RodneyPiper (whatever)...Don Davis Award, buddy...out of nowhere: post of the night. To all panicky Pats fans: If you watched the same game as I did, didn't it occur to you that the Bills were much better than the Pats expected and the jerkiness of the first half was due to the Bills' ferocious D-speed, and less to do with the Pats' OL or WRs? To all you Pats Haters: I feel your pain. Been breathing the exhaust of Yankee dominance all my life and it's easy to get testy and irrational, but sooner or later you surrender to reality: they win consistently so, yes, they know what they're doing. Stop embarrassing yourselves (and if you think all Pats fans are a monolithic horde of koolaid drinkers, print out Kevin11 posts and pin them over your bedpost at night.) And finally to Trogolodyte...The Lonely End...all the Pats haters here and you couldn't convince one of them to salute that dirty pair of underwear you ran up the flagpole. What a frickin' waste of time and cyberspace. At least I could drawn on a couple of glasses of Pinot Gris for motivation. Thanks #119 for making #77's point. And just for fun… Brady sucks, Red Sox suck, Bruins suck, Celtics suck, Sam Adams sucks, Krypton sucks. Yes, the Red Sox do suck. Just heard on NFL news that the Pats have filed, or at least talked about filing, a tampering charge against the Jets. Hmmm, if that's true, I wonder if it would explain why Branch suddenly started holding out for almost exactly the amount of money the Jets eventually would offer him... If true, that would really change the face of this discussion... Re: #142 Yawn. There was probably a way better case for tampering with the Milloy situation and nothing came of that, so I would expect nothing to come of this. Not that I'd put the Jets past actually tampering, though. :-) re: 143 The Jets got tampered with by Carl Peterson, but they probably liked it because Herm Edwards sucks. My father liked him though due to the Miracle at the Meadowlands. Go Eags! Re: #77 LOL--Trogdor, I tip my cap to you . . . In that vein, I propose that the Pats' FO hard-line negotiating tactics had the effect of shooting themselves in the foot, thus poisoning their relationship with Branch to the point that they had no option but to get rid of the guy. Trading what is likely to be a #28-#32 pick for Deion Branch is like taking candy from a baby.[/snarky tone off] Actually, I see this as two teams making the best of a bad situation. The Pats did seem to poison their relationship with Branch, or so it appeared from 3000 miles away. So they got what they could for a receiver who appeared set to stay away 'til Week 10. But the Seahawks FO has spent most of the offseason trying to make up for pooching their handling of Steve Hutchinson's contract negotiations as well. As a 'Hawks fan, I think this move isn't about this year (although they'll definitely see some benefits later this year). This move is about grabbing Darrell Jackson by the short hairs next offseason so that he'll show a bit more interest in being part of the program prior to Week 1. It looks to me like D-Jack just lost a lot of leverage in Seattle. "Again, from what I understand the Patriots refused to pay more than $1 M for 2006, and to Branch that was unacceptable." That's all semantics. Every player who signs as a free agent plays the first year for a vet minimum salary PLUS a guaranteed signing bonus. For example, Peyton Manning's new contract called for $1 million salaries in the first couple of years. The extensions offered to Branch were no different. $1.05 million salary from his rookie contract PLUS either $8 million or $11 million GUARANTEED from an extension. At the end of the day, you can call it what you want. It still boils down to how much guaranteed, how many years, how long? The Pats made legitimate offers to Branch. Were the offers absolute top of the market? No. But, $6 million a year (or $5 million if you use Chayut's math) are hardly chump change for a mid-tier #1 receiver. The franchise tag average of the top five highest paid is $6.15 million. When Branch's only response to those offers was a fax from the agent informing the team that he would hold out unless the team gave up its franchise tag option, it was very clear that Branch had no intention of negotiating an extension. How else could that response be interpreted? Thatâ€s all semantics. No, Itâ€s cold hard cash. Every player who signs as a free agent plays the first year for a vet minimum salary All of them? 100%? Branchâ€s new deal with Seattle? Stop. PLUS a guaranteed signing bonus. For example, Peyton Manningâ€s new contract called for $1 million salaries in the first couple of years. Compare Branchâ€s and Manningâ€s signing bonuses and guaranteed money, then promptly and rightfully throw the comparison out the window. The Pats made legitimate offers to Branch. I keep reading this. Who claimed the Pats made illegitimate offers? When Branchâ€s only response to those offers was a fax from the agent informing the team that he would hold out unless the team gave up its franchise tag option, it was very clear that Branch had no intention of negotiating an extension. How else could that response be interpreted? I canâ€t emphasize this enough- thatâ€s the Patriots†side of the story. Branchâ€s side of the story is this- heâ€s happy in Seattle and with what theyâ€ve offered him. Trogdor #77- easily the post of the year... if it wasn't so long it would easily replace zlionsfan's template as the most quoted on the site. Kevin11 #63: Top WRS are COVETED by NFL teams. Of course they are. Teams like the Browns, Lions, Cardinals ... Notice a pattern there? How much, exactly, have the top 25 pick wideout picks of the 1999-2003 drafts: Tory Holt (the one and only hit of this list still with his original team and doing well!), Troy Edwards, Peter Warrick, Plaxico Burress, Travis Taylor, Sylvester Morris, R. Jay Soward, David Terrell, Koren Robinson, Rod Gardner, Santana Moss, Freddie Mithcell, Donte Stallworth, Ashley Lelie, Javon Walker, Charles Rogers, Andre Johnson, and Bryant Johnson, helped their teams to win big? Frankly, I'm not seeing the value you are claiming is there. Most of these guys were so disappointing, they are either out of football just a few short years later, or are playing with another team, most often after being dealt out of town, picked up off waivers, or cut early in their first contract. Here's a message to those of you who say above that Football Outsiders is simply a Patriots fan site. Michael David Smith, Mike Tanier, Russell Levine, Ned Macey, Tim Gerheim, Al Bogdan, Benjy Rose, Ian Dembsky, Vin Gauri, Will Carroll, Doug Farrar, Jason Beattie, Ryan Wilson, and Vivek Ramgopal. If you think that 150 comments in this thread outweigh the collective contributions of those writers (plus Benjy and Jason), then by all means, we are a Patriots fan site. If you have respect for Mike, Mike, Russell, etc., then we hope you will acknowledge that FO is not a Patriots fan site. Unless you also think that Deadspin.com is an Arizona Cardinals fan site. November 8, 1:26pm ET
Editor-in-Chief
Creator of DVOA and DYAR
Worcester, MA
September 11, 2006, 2:22 pm ET Our long national nightmare is over. This is great news for Seahawks fans, and not such great news for Patriots fans, but a first-round selection is pretty good value. They just need Doug Gabriel or Ben Watson to really come through.
Comments
297 comments, Last at 25 Sep 2006, 12:35am I still am not quite sure why the Hawks really needed yet another good receiver that doesn't have the best speed but runs well and blocks well. They've already got three of 'em. Maybe they figure they can run a 5-WR set and go all the time? Meanwhile, Seneca Wallace sits on the bench, wondering when he'll get to kick ass as a receiver like he did so briefly. What are the Pats going to do with a 1st round pick? Trade it to someone for their WR? Is anyone really looking to trade any WRs at this point? For some reason, WRs that are good are in short, short supply. I secretly hope that the Pats decide to take a chance on Charles Rogers, end up playing him, and he turns out...well, to suck as much as he did. But they still have to play him, because seriously - who do the Pats have at WR right now? Inanimate Carbon Rod and his friends? who do the Pats have at WR right now? Doug Gabriel, Chad Jackson, Troy Brown, Reche Caldwell. Probably in that order. Not great, but I've seen worse. Add in Ben Watson, Daniel Graham, and the running game, and that's liveable. Truth to tell, I'm more worried about the pass-(non)-blocking of the vaunted Patriots' O-line right now. Ask Drew Bledsoe how a fabulous receiver corps looks when you're getting pounded all day. As many of you know, there is another Branch-related thread here with almost 500 posts, and there was one before it with over 200. Among some of the claims posted there: -The Patriots held all of the leverage. -Branch and his agent held an insidious combination stupidity and craziness. -Branchâ€s only options were to sit until Game 11 and not make any money this year, or play for $1 M. All of these claims have been proven false. Deion Branch got everything he wanted. He now has a long term deal that pays him handsomely, effective right now. His holdout has proven to be an effective weapon, even against a team thatâ€s considered the smartest in the NFL. Jason Chayut (Branchâ€s agent) has done nothing short of a masterful job representing his clientâ€s best interests, this despite months of cries from fans and media saying the exact opposite. Kal, the Pats are a team constantly looking at the future. A first round pick at the end of the round is great (and IMO, worth more than one at the beginning of the round.) They'll get someone like branch out of it, great talent, no money. Another player who they get 5 years out of at less than a mil a year. Remember that study FO did a while back, and found that the best value in the draft was the end of the first/beginning of the second round? Now the pats have 2 picks in that range. As to current recievers, I like Branch, but once Brady gets comfortable with his new recievers (none of which hes played with before, except Troy) I'm sure they'll look fine. You have to remember, Patten looked great in NE, he looks awful in Washington. Givens looked great in NE, and served as the #1 when Deion was hurt. He didnt look so hot against the Jets this week. I think Deion has more talent than those two, but I also think Brady makes recievers look good. (not that hasselbeck wont). Brady WILL get comfortable with the new core, and over the season, chad jackson will start, and everything will be fine. That pats have a running game this year, unlike last year. My gut suspicion says that the Pats are shopping that 1st round pick + some other things for some other big-name receiver. But this is just total random thinking; I've not heard any rumor stating or implying this. Mostly because it's very hard for me to imagine Belichick - and more importantly, Brady - being happy with Gabriel, Jackson, Troy Brown and Caldwell as his WR corps. While he's never been gifted with ridiculous talent at WR, Brady's had at least smart, capable players who did shart route running and good blocking. Gabriel doesn't do that, Caldwell doesn't do that...about the best receiver in the Pats system right now is Brown. Man, that's sad. Congrats to Branch and his agent. That kind of rocks. New England really played this entirely the wrong way. Sure, they got a first rounder, but does anyone really believe that pick will be higher than, say, 28th overall? Meanwhile, I heard that there were plans in the works to start their $13 million in unspent cap space at WR. That's what makes this all so ludicrous- it's not like they couldn't afford Branch here! It's not like they have anything better to spend their money on, either. I understand that it's the "Patriot way", blah blah blah, but I really don't get how NOT SPENDING $13 million will ever help your football team win. #1: Obviously they'll trade their number one pick to Seattle for a quality wide receiver. Maybe someone like that Branch fellow. Wait sec... Re: 3 It looks like the godlike, omnipotent, walks-on-water Chayut also took out the hamsters running FO's newest server :-) Kevin, you keep harping you're point, and you're wrong. The whole point was that the Pats werent goign to trade him unless they got compensated for a #1 reciever at $1m a year. They got a first round pick, which compensates them for the lost value. Both sides got pretty much exactly what they wanted once it became clear that Branch was gone. As a Hasselbeck and Branch owner in fantasy I'm pleased to see this happen. As a Steelers fan in real life, I'm glad to get a good receiver out of our conference. I am disappointed to see Seattle with another weapon, especially one that torched us in the AFC Championship game in 2004. Any of the Hawks fans on here able to figure out what this move is all about? Is Darrell Jackson's knee really in that bad of shape? Do they think Branch can play Guard? #10: I'm still very confused. The Hawks D is still one of the strong suits from last year (aside from the secondary), but really, I didn't see there being any real negatives in the Hawks that needed such a drastic deal. Jackson is aging and often injured, and last season was a scary season given the massive set of injuries at WR - perhaps Holmgren wanted talent and depth? My gut feeling is that Holmgren knows Alexander isn't going to do as well this season and wants to give Hass as many weapons as he can. Having Branch, Jackson and Burleson sounds decent, but I'll miss Engram's ability to get first downs. And I still don't know how great Branch is in terms of actually, like, getting defenders to double cover him. Meanwhile, Seneca Wallace sits on the bench, wondering when heâ€ll get to kick ass as a receiver like he did so briefly.Nah, he knows that won't happen as long as he's the #2 QB in Seattle, since he needs to stay healthy just in case the worst happens. Honestly I think it might have been better to bring in a legit backup QB so that Wallace can be moved to WR but those are few and far between, so we'll just have to wait for David Greene to progress in his development, and maybe next year Seneca will get on the field regularly at WR-slash. It's still a great deal for the Seahawks though, I'm not sold on Burleson as a starting WR, he seems more like a situational deep threat, but Branch is proven and Engram really needs to stay in the slot to be effective while D-Jack's health is still questionable. Now if only the offensive line can remember how to block. the Patriots Kool Aid has become waaaay too strong lately. This seems like a highly, highly questionable move... Their recievers now are 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a rookie who has been hurt, 3) Reche Caldwell, and 4) the 52 year old Troy Brown. I can't think of one other team that has worse talent at the WR position. I think what it comes down to is the Pats just didn't feel that Branch was worth Reggie Wayne money - and Branch and the 'hawks do. As a Pats homer I will miss him, but I also think the 'hawks will find that $39mil is a lot to spend on a part-time #1 receiver. Kibbles, they'll use that money to pay Seymour's guaranteed money, so he'll count as basically vet minimum for the rest of his contract, which is huge. They'll use any left to get an extension out of someone else on that defensive line. For those of you who think getting a #26-32 pick in the draft is not worth much, IMO, its better than getting the #1. The patriots dont need $10m a year rookie, they need more players who are a high value/cost ratio. Players who they can get 4 good years out of for $2m total. FO did a draft analysis on the value of picks last year, and the end of the first round, and the beginning of the second were by far the most valuable, because of the good talent available, and the negligible cap hit. 9- What am I wrong about? And how can you say this: Both sides got pretty much exactly what they wanted once it became clear that Branch was gone. After saying this in the previous thread: THeyre going to want either multiple firsts, or a young player with TONS of potential, for very low money. Rich No 1st round pick gives you 4 years at $2 mil total. The study showed that the best value was around the 10th pick of the 2nd round. However, quality fell off fairly steadily from top to bottom. The pick at the end of the 1st isn't better, its just cheaper per average production. Its also the case that the average production is dragged down by busts. If you have a team who always makes good early round draft picks, the value issue would probably be much different. Ergo, if you have faith that the Pats would draft the best players at the beginning of the round, then you'd rather have an earlier pick most likely. If you think that the Pats are only average, then you want to be as close as possible to #42 overall. At this point this was the only move that made sense for the Patriots. I think it was clear that Branch wanted out. he got what he wanted. As a pats fan im really sad to see him go because he and Brady had something special that was bound to get even more impressive as both moved throught the primes of their careers. Where the Pats really messed was not signing him earlier. Everyone could see what a connection he and Brady had. Kal #1: But they still have to play him, because seriously - who do the Pats have at WR right now? Inanimate Carbon Rod and his friends? The Eagles went deep into the playoffs 4 years straight with Inanimate Carbon Rod and friends at wide receiver. The Patriots did this twice - 2001 and 2003 and won the Super Bowl. Inanimate Carbon Rod isn't going to light up your fantasy team, but he's adequate for a relatively unimportant position on a football team. Look at how many playoff games Randy Moss (8 in 8 years) and Terrell Owens (10 in 10 years) and Marvin Harrison (10 in 10 years) played in compared to Troy Brown (17 in 13 years), Todd Pinkston (12 in 5 years) and James Thrash (11 in 7 years)? If top shelf wideout is so important, why haven't those first three guys hauled their teams to more playoff games? Seattle has pursued a very bizzrro world personnel strategy since relieving Holmgren as GM - letting Hutchinson go, and paying way too much for Burleson and Branch (and Peterson and Ponder). "The pick at the end of the 1st isnâ€t better, its just cheaper per average production." If you think thats not a better pick, then you dont understand salary cap football. Look at this year, Reggie Bush at $51m for 6 years, or Laurence Maroney at $8m for 5 years. I'm sure theres some dropoff in talent there, but its not enough to justify the extra amount of cash, and salary cap space. I'd rather have Maroney for $1.6m/year of cap space, than Bush for $8.5m/year of cap space. Thats pretty typical for the difference in cash between a high first rounder, and a late first rounder. To me, it's astounding to see how mercenary the Pats are. Still. Getting a first round pick is good (and thank you, Rich Conley, for saying the same thing essentially twice - especially since it was incorrect both times), but this guy was the MVP of the superbowl two years ago and had a better regular-season performance last year. And he was traded for a first round draft pick. If the Patriots pick a receiver with that, I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh. To me, getting a first round pick for a guy who has shown talent in a position that often gets the best years in the midrange years is just...it's kind of shocking. Especially when the hit on the cap could be taken. But it's the Patriots - they can do no wrong, right? kevin, I think the comments around Chayut were that his tactics were the worst way to get Branch something FROM THE PATRIOTS, because of how they negotiate. We'll never know now the true max money that might have been extracted from the Pats by an agent willing to negotiate with them. What most of us missed was that as far back as May, Branch simply didn't want to be a Patriot anymore (in hindsight, his desire to just get to UFA makes sense). But a first round pick is FAR more valuable to the Patriots than one year of Deion Branch at 1M and him then departing for nothing in UFA. All 7 Pats first rounders are starters. Most are still on their ridiculously low rookie contracts. That's how you beat the cap long term. Disco Stu #13: Their recievers now are 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a rookie who has been hurt, 3) Reche Caldwell, and 4) the 52 year old Troy Brown. I canâ€t think of one other team that has worse talent at the WR position. The Eagles have: 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a second year guy who was hurt a few weeks ago, 3) a 4th round rookie, 4) an undrafted free agent rookie, 5) the immortal Greg Lewis. It does seem to be working out okay though here. #19: The Eagles did do well with this strategy, but never made it as far without a top-notch receiver. The Pats in 2003 and 2004 had Branch, Givens, Patten, and Brown. Of those four, 3 are gone into lucrative free agency picks. How you can say that it was the same thing 4 years ago when the Patriots seemingly had a ton of talent at the position is beyond me. Of course, it could be that the Pats and those receivers have hoodwinked everyone into thinking they're better than they are. #20: was drafting Manning as the #1 pick a better or worse choice than drafting Rodgers at #18? In some drafts, the #1 pick is going to be a slam-dunk. In others, it's going to be kind of meh. There are some positions where paying a lot early is not the worst thing ever. There are other positions where it's not as important. I don't know if Maroney will be as valuable as Bush, and time will tell - but saying that Maroney is much better because he's later and thus costs less? That seems a spurious argument at best. Put it this way - do you think that the Pats would even blink at trading a #24 pick for a #2 pick, straight up? Re #19- The Patriots (2001 version) had Troy Brown (2001 version) catching passes. And in 2003 they had Branch, Givens, and Brown. Def not carbon rods. I can't understand the "Position X isn't valuable" theory... every position is valuable. RBs are fungible, a QB just needs to be a game manager, and now WRs are unimportant. So let's forget "skill" position players and just invest in the line- wait, no- just the left tackle. The last good team to disregard the WR position like this was the Eagles, and they never became truly dangerous until they got a playmaker in Owens (and maybe now Stallworth). Maybe the Pats will compile a good regular season, but I can't see them being dangerous with this group of recievers, unless Gabriel breaks out in a big way. 22- Chayut *did* negotiate with the Patriots, but from all reports the Pats refused to come off their insistence that Branch play for $1 M in 2006. Now he'll be playing for a lot more than that. The Eagles have: 1) a guy who has been on the team three weeks, 2) a second year guy who was hurt a few weeks ago, 3) a 4th round rookie, 4) an undrafted free agent rookie, 5) the immortal Greg Lewis. It does seem to be working out okay though here. The Eagles have played Houston. Remember Houston - the team that literally broke the DVOA system last year because they were so terrible? Might wait a bit before seeing how incredible Donte Stallworth et al are. Vern #22: Most are still on their ridiculously low rookie contracts. Thatâ€s how you beat the cap long term. No, no, no. You don't beat the cap by playing young guys for cheap. You beat the cap by extending good young guys for cheap early and cutting them when they are older and about to begin their inevitible decline, and not overpaying and overcontracting in years for free agents on the wrong side of their career productivity. In this sense, letting a guy like Branch go was not smart. But getting high compensation for a disgruntled player who would have been gone the next season was. So this transaction is a mized bag. If you think thats not a better pick, then you dont understand salary cap football. I do- I've been playing in an auction-style fantasy baseball league for over 20 years. We each have $265 imaginary dollars to spend on 23 players, which we have an open auction for. The best values are always the players you can get for $1. Two $1 players can sometimes equal the production of a $20 player. HOWEVER- you're never going to win by only having $1 players, despite the fact that those players provide the best per-dollar value. If you don't spend money on stars, you're simply not going to win. Before someone says "it's not the same thing"...actually, it's exactly the same thing. The Patriots lost, unless they have some hidden knowledge or maybe a voodoo doll of Branch. A #1 seems like a little on the overpayment side, given what the Broncos gave the Packers for Javon Walker, but not ridiculously so and in line with the Jets' reported offer of a #2 and a player. Still, it's FAR below their reported demands. Congrats to Walker and Chayut, who got what they wanted. Re #16
Once it became clear that Branch wasn't going to play a full season for the Pats' this year at $1.05M, and moreover that he would be traded, getting a #1, even a #1 likely at the bottom of the round like Seattle's, is pretty good value. Compare to the Packers getting a #2 for Walker from Denver. Re: #22 Citation, please? Kal, if performance between Bush and Maroney is similar, than Maroney is absolutely a MUCH better pick than Bush. Because Bush means you cant spend money somewhere else. Building a franchise is not about getting the absolute best players at a couple positions, its about having the most possible talent. You can't do that by overpaying players. So yes, if you want to consistently win, and Bush and Maroney end up being similar players, Maroney was absolutey, positively, the better pick becaues he opens up EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR of salary cap space to improve another position. I'd stick the Eagles above the Pats, just because Stallworth has shown more career to date than Gabriel, and Brown is a year older than Jackson, but I agree w Kal. A play fake left Stallworth open by 30 yards yest- let's not get too excited about beating the Texans. Wowza. The Pats had their hands tied somewhat with Branch, but this leaves them with very little at WR apart from the immortal Troy Brown. Chad Jackson may be good eventually, but rookie WRs typically don't pan out their first year. Sure the Pats can use Watson/Graham more often, but that removes some offense flexibility. All the WR trades in the wings have been made - there's not much else for the Pats to do but wait till the draft and address the loss of Branch there, if the current corps doesn't show up. Once it became clear that Branch wasnâ€t going to play a full season for the Pats†this year at $1.05M, and moreover that he would be traded, getting a #1, even a #1 likely at the bottom of the round like Seattleâ€s, is pretty good value. I don't disagree, but I thought it was apparent on 9/1 (when the original offer and "multiple picks" claim was made) that Branch wasn't going to play for that figure. Re: #31 Argh! I meant Re: #26 Citation, please? Rich- while I agree w you that salaries for top picks are out of whack, it's a pretty big leap at this point in their careers to say that Bush and Maroney are similar players. Well you can say what you want, Branch got out. And While the price is okish, its investment in the future and it hurts now. I think Branch prooved again, like others before him, that you can get out, if you are willing to pay the price. Especially if helped by some screwed up team communications. But the worst thing about this, that now Branch will surely not drop through the waiver wire to me. Could have at least have the decency to wait 3 more days. > And how can you say this... after saying this... It's called pathological denial. Ten days ago Rich started with the ridiculous proposition (no ifs or buts) that Deion Branch would be on the field in Week 1, playing for the New England Patriots, as Branch had absolutely no other options. He and others then gradually reconciled themselves to each compromising shift in position by the Patriots, no matter how much this contradicted earlier statements. In the end, whatever the Patriots eventually chose to do, the decision would validate both the intelligence of Patriots' management as well as the prior arguments of Patriots' supporters. They weren't wrong, because as they'd said all along, the Patriots would come away with value by maintaining the hard line of their bargaining position, blah blah blah. Re 37 nobody does that. But you can almost buy Seymore for the difference in their salary. And I rather have Seymore and Marooney. 29, no, its not the same. Why? Because fantasy football is based on stats, and its based on a short term view. In an auction league, you can afford to pay $95 for larry johnson, but its no longer the same if you have to agree that you'll pay larry johnson $95 every year for the next 6 years, even after he breaks his leg and can't walk. Look at 2001, Look at 2003. There were about 5 players on the team who anyone outside of New England had ever even heard of. They won superbowls. They win by using stars before anyone else knows they are stars. They win by using vets who everyone thinks are washed up. They do re-sign their stars early too, they signed Brady to a long term deal early. Same with Seymour. Same thing they'll do with Warren and Wilfork. Its pretty obvious that the patriots dont feel that wide recievers are worth much money. You can disagree with their view, but its pretty obvious thats how they feel, as year after year they field late round picks at WR. I think the last time the Pats picked a WR in the first round was Terry Glenn. Allow me to quote myself from last week:
# Iâ€m guessing Deion will be a Seahawk by Wednesday… :: Dan Riley — 9/2/2006 @ 7:32 pm Take that ESPN NFL Expert John "Mr. Peepers" Clayton. And I did say that was this Wednesday (9/13), didn't I, Aaron? Well, I meant to. Kevin11 (#29 )-- Spend money on stars like Seymour and Brady, maybe? The Patriots' brain trust apparently thinks Branch isn't in the same class as those two. Okay. Apparently, you do. Again, okay. Reasonable people can disagree over Branch's value. 39 GlennW No, I said he'd be on the field playing by week 1. Whether it was for the Pats, or someone else. I was off by 18 hours. SO sue me. #32 - well, sure. If it's 'similar', whatever that means, yeah, it's a better deal. What if it isn't? Or what if that pick gives you something totally unrelated or unobtainable? If Bush is the next superstar running back, the kind of guy that can singlehandedly change a team or a game, and Maroney is similar to him - well, Maroney was a steal. If Bush turns out to be just another good back, and Maroney is okay, it's also likely a steal of some kind. If Bush turns out to be far better than Maroney, though - is it still a good deal for the Patriots, especially when they're lacking so much at WR? Overpaying for talent is one thing, but not having any talent is quite the other. One thing that this will likely do for future Patriot draft picks is make it harder to sign simple rookie contracts without escalators. Because they've shown themselves to not value homegrown talent, it'll mean players will not be as likely to negotiate with them. This kind of problem is the same thing that the Eagles faced, and it'll be a similar problem. Or...Belichick and Brady can do no wrong!!!1! 37. And its silly at this point in their careers that theyre very different players. We've got 1 game to go on here. College doesnt count for crap in the NFL. The Patriots are the best team in the league making people decisions, and they've never gone wrong before. Branch sucked anyway. Just wait until the end of the season when Brady's MVP, the Pats win another Super Bowl, and Jackson has gotten over 1400 yards recieving /Pats fan mode Re Kulko- that's exactly what he was doing- starting w a supposition- that Bush and Maroney will be similar players- and concluding that "Maroney was absolutey, positively, the better pick". Now Maroney may end up being a comparable player, but the point is flimsy because it rests on a supposition that a late first round pick is similar in talent to the next Gale Sayers. 43- I agree that if Team A doesn't want to pay a player what Team B will, it's smart to make a trade. If the Patriots did not think Branch is worth the Seattle contract, they did the right thing. The problem here is that the Patriots DID offer Branch an extension for $6 M a year, but it wouldn't have kicked in until 2007. why can't pats fans comprehend that belichick and pioli can make mistakes...unless this is part of belichick's master plan to unveil a 1rb 4te offense that will completely change the way the NFL is run ushering in a new pats dynasty, and totally crushing all who oppose him.
also, why give up a very good player at the position you are weakest at for a late first when you have 13 million in cap space? what are the pats saving their money for? eventually some of this is going to be spent on good players, right? over-under on posts:330 RE: #29 Wow. You've been playing in an auction-style FANTASY BASEBALL league for over 20 years. You must REALLY know alot about the NFL salary cap. Re: #29 If you donâ€t spend money on stars, youâ€re simply not going to win. Your statement is rather incomplete (ironically so, given what this website is all about). If you had said "if you don't spend money on stars at the positions where having stars is shown to matter, you're simply not going to win" you would have been on to something. 45, again Kal, they've shown themselves to not value homegrown talent at Wide Reciever. Not homegrown talent in general. They've shown that they very much value home grown talent on the defensive side of the ball. Is that so wrong, that they think Richard Seymour is vastly more valuable than Deion Branch? I, honestly, have to agree with them on that one. 48 Disco Stu, your whole argument agaisnt mine is that Reggie Bush is going to be a game changing superstar. I dont believe he will. Hes going to be good, but RUNNING BACKS ARE FUNGIBLE. Disco Stu #25: The Patriots (2001 version) had Troy Brown (2001 version) catching passes. And in 2003 they had Branch, Givens, and Brown. Def not carbon rods. That is the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. You are looking back from 2005/2006 at these guys and assessing them based on subsequent performance for who they were in 2003, which was an okay guy with Branch @ 57 for 803 with 3 TDs, two marginal guys with around 500 yards each (not exactly lighting it up) Johnson with 209 yards and Patten with 140 yards. Troy Brown 2001 is what is called a statistical outlier. He accomplished something that he ordinarily would not due to the circumstances of the team. I can't escape the feeling that all these guys are system guys produced by Brady and the Weis offense. David Patten's production in 2000 and 2005 seem to confirm this pretty directly. We'll see this year with Givens and Branch. I canâ€t understand the “Position X isnâ€t valuableâ€? theory… every position is valuable. RBs are fungible, a QB just needs to be a game manager, and now WRs are unimportant. So letâ€s forget “skillâ€? position players and just invest in the line The marginal value of a few hundred yards of additional production from the wideout or running back position is not worth the marginal cost against the cap. A good QB will compensate for a lack of talent in one area by creating it in another (i.e. in the running backs or tight ends if the wideouts are deficient). I don't think QB is fungible. Running Back, Kicker, and to some extent Wideout are. Otherwise, the Samkon Gado's of the world and undrafted kicking wonders like Akers and Vinateri wouldn't pop out of nowhere every year. Without good lines, good skill play is irrelevant because the skill players won't get a chance to really show it. Ask Archie Manning. That's why O and D-Tackles, and D-Ends make so much money. Football games are won and lost on the lines, not by wideouts. If great wideouts guaranteed victory, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Arizona would win every year. The last good team to disregard the WR position like this was the Eagles, and they never became truly dangerous until they got a playmaker in Owens Define dangerous. Because to me, 4 Championship games in a row is pretty dangerous. The Eagles scored their most points for a season ever in 2002 (415) with Pinkston leading the charge. The 2004 team with Owens ended up 29 points back from that mark at 386, and was only marginally better than 2003 with James Thrash at 374 points scored. People perceive a major difference in the team with and without Owens, but it never showed up in the scores achieved in 2002 and 2003. Re:#53
because we have all seen that richard seymour can play every position, win super bowls single handedly, and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Richard Seymour is a great player, but you need many good players to win in the NFL, and the Patriots have lost lots of wr talent during the offseason. maybe chad jackson is the next jerry rice, but if he's not the pats are in trouble "Richard Seymour is a great player, but you need many good players to win in the NFL" Exactly, which is why you dont overpay a decent wideout when you've repeatedly shown you can get good production out of guys like Troy Brown, and David Patten. 41- Rich, no offense, but you keep moving the goalposts. You start out by saying that the Patriots need to spend money judiciously in a salary cap league. I agree with you, but that you I also point out that a team needs stars to win, and at some point you have to pay a star like a star. Then you move the goal posts by essentially saying that it's the long term nature of the contract that the team finds unappealing. Maybe the Patriots really don't think Branch is worth $6 M a year. Putting aside the fact that they OFFERED HIM A $6 M A YEAR DEAL... Again, if the Patriots really didn't think Branch was worth the money and they wanted to spend that money elsewhere, they did well getting a first for him. But the fact that they accepted today what they turned down ten days ago tells me that wasn't really what they wanted. Phil, You're commenting on an internet message board--YOU are obviously the true NFL salary cap expert Dicso Stu, Pardon me but the Eags were successful before and after terrell owens. The Eags got off to a ravishing start yesterday and they will win the NFc east division. They got to the NFC Championship Game before Owens joined the team. They'll get back there without him. re 41 Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The Eags and Pats realize wrs are not as important as other players. If the Pats were demanding that Branch take the full injury risk in 2006 for a million dollars, he had no choice but to get out of there by any means necessary, and good for him that he did. As to whether the Pats should have offered more, I'd need to be certain what their final offer was, and what they intend to do with the mony not paid to Branch. If it allows them to front-load the guaranteed cash that Seymour will get, so Seymour's cash doesn't impinge cap flexibility in future years, then getting a middle to low first round pick (much as we pretend otherwise, nobody knows for sure where Seattle will finish) may end up being a good deal. As to whether it is a good deal for Seattle, ya' got me. If the offensive line continues to get whipped like leased horse/donkey hybrids, as the Lions did to them, then it won't make much difference who is lining up wide. What I wonder about is what the Seahawks would do if Hasselbeck went down with a season-ender in the next couple of weeks, which he might, if he keeps getting pounded like he was yesterday. Would they try to make it work with Seneca Wallace, or would they decide that the future is now, and try to open up talks with the Packers, who, by the end of the month, should be fully cognizant of their blunder in not trying to stock some draft picks for their anemic roster. Now that Favre has wised up and grasped that he's got zero chance to be competitive in Green Bay, he may even allow himself to be coached again. If you had said “if you donâ€t spend money on stars at the positions where having stars is shown to matter, youâ€re simply not going to winâ€? you would have been on to something. Are you saying WRs don't matter? I acknowledge that some positions in the NFL are more valuable than others. It's a rarity to see a center or a guard go high in the draft, and even more of a rarity for a fullback or a kicker. But WRs? They are routinely drafted very high. Top WRS are COVETED by NFL teams. "Then you move the goal posts by essentially saying that itâ€s the long term nature of the contract that the team finds unappealing." Um, kevin, no i didnt. I was using that to say why your auction style draft comparison has absolutely nothing to do with football salary cap management. The risks are completely different, so they can't be compared to each other. Don't be a weasel, Rich-- you made that "he'll be playing next week" statement in the context of Branch's holdout, after explicitly making the point that he had no leverage and wouldn't dare sit out until Week 10. Then later you wrote that Branch is a premier receiver who is worth more than a first-rounder, and that someone like Tatupu or Vilma would have to be included in trade to make it worthwhile for the Patriots. You either really believed that or were just blowing smoke, but the fact is that it didn't happen. I never said that I know more about something than the next guy because of my fantasy league experience. Do you play Dungeons and Dragons much? maybe chad jackson is the next jerry rice, but if heâ€s not the pats are in trouble Unless Ben Watson is the next Shannon Sharpe. I seem to recall that Sharpe got a ring or two on teams with iffy wideouts. In any case,we'll see how this all works out. Like I said, I'm much more concerned about the awful pass blocking from yesterday than about trading Branch to another conference. Branch wasn't going to help against the Jets this week, anyway. Better pass blocking will. Kal #45: Because theyâ€ve shown themselves to not value homegrown talent, itâ€ll mean players will not be as likely to negotiate with them. This kind of problem is the same thing that the Eagles faced, and itâ€ll be a similar problem. Huh? Do you really know what you are talking about? The Eagles have resigned more of their own players for extension over the past few years than any other team in the league. Something like 66% of the talent (meaning players who weren't busts like Freddie Mitchell and Quinton Caver) out of rounds 1-3 eligible for resigning during the Andy Reid era has been resigned. The Eagles have shown they don't value talent on the decline (Duce Staley, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor, Hugh Douglas, Jermane Mayberry, John Welbourn, Corey Simon, etc.), not that they don't resign their players. A lot of this argument is boiling down to the camps of Pats are s00per geni0uses!@!#!@ vs. let's see those nerds get some comeuppance. Let's look to that quote machine, no not Yogi Bera but Mark Twain: It is not best that we should all think alike; it's the difference of opinion that makes horse races. Two successful organizations are trading based on a difference in perception of the value of a player. What's the big whup. It's definitely premature to declare one side a winner and the other side a loser. The clear winner at this point is the player. He goes from sitting out 10 games and facing some uncertainty in his last 6 (hello new special teamer) to having a new contract at an apparently agreeable salary. He also doesn't have to go to siberia or have Craig Krenzel's less coordinated cousin sail passes over his head. As for the Pats, I think they did what they could. They didn't want to pay the guy this year, they got compensation rather than having a season long distraction and watching the guy go for nothing as an UFA. The Seahawks motivations are a little opaque to me now but I'm pretty sure I'm not operating with their complete set of information. If D-Jax has ongoing health concerns this could be a very savvy move on their part. And who knows, maybe they'll stuff seneca wallace and nate burleson in an oversized jersey (ala alvin and the chipmunks) and make them play guard. 64- Rich, it was a valid comparison. The enire point of my post is that you need to get good value, but you also need production. In other words, sometimes you have to pay a six million dollar player...wait for it...six million dollars. Look, I'm a Pats fan. I had no problem when the Pats let Adam Vinitieri or David Givens walk. And I agree that it's better to let a player leave than to overpay him. But is Branch overpaid at $6.5 M a year? I'd have to say no. And given the fact that New England is SO thin at WR, I'd have worked something out with him. 63, Yeah, theyre coveted by teams like Detroit. Teams who consistenly are bad. Teams that win consistently draft Defensive lineman, quarterbacks, etc. Positions that are huge impacts. NOT wide recievers. Tried to post this earlier, but the server ate it. Figure it should go around post #30 or so... Three points, 1). Kevin, why do you and other people keep saying that Chayut did negotiate, and the Pats didn't? Do you have a source on that? Everything I read said that the Pats *DID* try to negotiate and that it was CHAYUT who REFUSED to negotiate with the Pats unless they offered Reggie Wayne money--in fact, he wouldn't even take their calls. I never heard anything (other than here on FO from people like you) about the Pats sticking on the salary this year, and that's why negotiations broke down. 2). I think the point is not that every position is unimportant, but rather than any position can be made unimportant (except perhaps for O-line). In addition to the O-line, which affects all aspects of the offense, you have five other basic elements to an offense--the running game, the RB's as recievers, the TE's, the QB, and the WR's. No team has pro-bowlers in all five categories. But as long as you're strong in four of the five, you can game plan around the fifth, especially on offense. E.g. wonderful supporting cast at every other position can make average QB's look good. Or, the Pats have been covering a bad running game every year since Curtis Martin, except for 2004. Now their running game looks like it will be near the top of the league, their RB's are all decent in the passing game, they have a great stable of TE's, and a HOF QB. As long as you only have one weakness, that weakness is not that important. I think I calculated that the average starting WR only touches the ball 3-5 times per game. That's no more important than a pass catching TE or a good 3rd down back, and probably less important than a good running game. Would Branch have made this offense amazingly potent? Yes. But they probably can still get it done with less than average WR's, like the Eagles or KC a number of years back. 3). I still think Chayut was a bad agent. If I made you play Russian Roulette, and offered you $100 if you survived, and you survive and collect your $100, does that mean that I operated in your best interest? Just because Branch got what he wanted does not mean that it was a sure thing. What if the Seattle recievers in Week 1 had performed much better, and Seattle had pulled back their trade offer, rather than boosting it to a 1st? Branch would have been stuck holding out, making no money this year, and then probably getting a much less good deal in FA next year, even if he wasn't franchised. What if he had come in, out of shape, in week 10 and had a nasty injury that killed his marketability next year? For that matter, what if he had taken the Pats offer and then gone on to become a HOF reciever (not saying he will or won't now, but you can certainly do worse than playing with Tom Brady). I still maintain that it would have been in Branch's best interest for Chayut to negotiate with the Pats and see what their best offer would have been before risking Branch's whole future on a toss of the dice. Going to the hard line crap so early forced Branch and the Patriots into mutually untenable positions. Just becuase Chayut got lucky and it worked out for Branch doesn't mean he's a good agent, just a lucky one. All that being said, I wish Deion the best in Seattle, and hope the Pats defeat the Seahawks in SB XLI. Hey Rich! 1. What team was smart enough to win the Super Bowl last year? 2. What did that team spend it's first round draft pick on? Sometimes you make it too easy. :) Glenn, like I said, branch couldnt afford to sit 10, he didnt. I said He'd be playing week 1, and thats exactly what I meant. GO back and read my post, I'm pretty sure I said "whether its for the patriots or not". I never said Branch was worth a first+, I said Branch plus cap space was. They got a first, thats close. Kevin, I guess this is where I disagree with you, and why we can't see eye to eye. I dont think ANY reciever, is worth $6m to the patriots system. Brady has repeatedly got good performance out of low grade recievers. Theres no reason to pay big money for a good reciever. > The problem here is that the Patriots DID offer Branch an extension for $6 M a year, but it wouldnâ€t have kicked in until 2007. And that's the long and the short of it. The salary-cap ramifications are something of a red herring; the difference between what Branch was asking for (and eventually received from the Seahawks) amounts to about $1m per year of the contract. This was more about the principle of strictly holding a player to his full contractual obligations as well as dealing with a holdout, than affordability. I believe that if Branch had originally signed only a 4-year rookie contract, the Patriots would have been willing to give him close to what he's been asking for. So given that, the decisions made in this matter should be evaluated based on the Patriots' team (offensive) performance over the next few years. This was NOT a case where the Patriots simply couldn't reasonably afford the player given his talent level, such as with David Givens. "Hey Rich! 1. What team was smart enough to win the Super Bowl last year? 2. What did that team spend itâ€s first round draft pick on? Sometimes you make it too easy. :) " Which proves that you can win while having a weakness at WR. (and dont tell me that ARE isnt a weakness) Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of all time, and it's not even close. [Note to fans of the "other 31" who may happen to stumble upon this thread: we have a tremendous opportunity here to isolate all the angry, obnoxious New England fans (are there any other kind?) in this thread and keep them here forever. Kind of like an FO leper colony, or the spinning glass dimensional prison holding the three Kryptonians from Superman 1 and 2. You see, experience has shown that any thread even remotely related to the Patriots will generate upwards of 400 comments within a few days, no matter how insignificant the matter may be. They just can't get enough of - well, not hearing themselves talk, more like watching themselves type, although given the quality of many of their comments they're probably actually dictating to their helper monkeys. Anyway, these threads related to Branch combine so many passions of New England fans. For example: 1) The ability to vastly overstate the importance of one of their pretty good players while he's with the team, then pretend that he always sucked when he's gone. Branch is somewhere between the 10th and 18th best receivers in the NFL - pretty good, but to hear NE fans talk about him, he's better than Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, and Jessica Alba combined. But now that he's gone? Oh, he sucked, it was amazing they ever won a single game with him, just like those idiots Bledsoe, Johnny Damon, Antoine Walker, Nomar... We don't f***in' need him, you could throw an equipment manager out there and he'd catch 1200 yards, that's how good Brady is!!! 2) The ability to lick Belichick's and Pioli's respective crotches. Nothing they do is ever wrong. Ever. EVER!!! They could trade Brady for a random McCown, sign him to a 6-year, $96-million contract, and you'd have 800 posts saying what a brilliant move it is, how the deal is really cap-friendly (better than Manning's, anyway!!1!), and how QB McCown is actually brilliant, he's just never gotten a good opportunity. 3) the chance to pretend that, no matter which draft pick New England gets, he's guaranteed to be a Hall of Famer - in fact, he'll be so good, they'll induct him while he's still playing. Not only that, he'll sign for $300K a year, because the chance to be close to Belichick and to win (because no other teams ever win, ever!) is worth more than the millions he'd leave on the table. Everybody who plays for the Patriots signs for at least 60% below market value, don't ya know... Anyway, these things will keep them yapping back and forth for hundreds of comments. But eventually even this will get old for them, and they'll migrate back to other threads to ruin all the fun we were having while they were busy here. So here's the plan - every hundred comments or so, someone drop by here and post something that's guaranteed to get them going again, then just leave. Don't bother reading anything here, it'll all be a bunch of New England fanboi garbage. Suggested topics that are virtually assured of keeping them trapped here for a few more hours and hundreds more comments, unable to pull themselves away, instinctively drawn here like the Salmon of Capistrano: 1) the incomparable greatness of Peyton Manning
2) Eli Manning
3) the 2001 Rams were actually better than the Patriots, the Pats just got lucky (repeatedly throughout the season and playoffs). Oh, that reminds me...
4) TUCK RULE!
5) the fact that New England gets the most favorable officiating of anyone, ever. Between the tuck rule, the allowed mugging of Colts receivers in 03 (and even when the rules were supposedly being enforced in 04), the fact that they haven't had a hold called against them since the 90's...
6) Pete Carroll is a brilliant coach. He was significantly more successful in his tenure there than "genius" Belichick was in Cleveland. If he returned to the NFL, he'd win four or five Super Bowls, easy. The fact that New England couldn't even win one while he was there is evidence of the complete suckitude of that entire region.
7) Tom Brady + that goat he likes to pose for pictures with = performance of an unnatural act
8) Roethlisberger is better than Brady. After all, he's a bigger winner earlier in his career!
9) Did I mention Manning is better than Brady? See, if we play this right, we can enjoy days, maybe even months, of having comment threads without any Patriot fans! Oh, what a wonderful day that will be. So to get back to it...] Bill Belichick's feces has a foul odor. GO back and read Okay- using the "find" feature on my browser, I've come up with: "It does NOTHING good for him to hold out" "NYJ/SEA arent†going to be willing to pay the price in picks, so the pats have proven their point" "Heâ€ll play, or heâ€ll ride the pine. Hes not going anywhere…" "But theres nothing he can do about it this year, except hold out. Him holding out will guarantee that the offers to him will be lower, and much less guaranteed." I'm not trying to pick on you, but GEEZ! Admit that you were wrong and move on. I can be wrong too- I thought Charles Rogers would be a star in the NFL, and that Donovan McNabb would suck. I thought USC was going to crush Texas in last year's Rose Bowl. I said those things, I was proven wrong, and I don't bother trying to deny any of it. #68:Huh? Do you really know what you are talking about? The Eagles have resigned more of their own players for extension over the past few years than any other team in the league. I remember a lot of problem with Westbrook, Corey Simon, and some other high-end talent on the Eagles grousing about precisely this. That the Eagles weren't willing to spend things. It took TO to get the Eagles to resign a lot of players - notably Westbrook. What will it take in New England? #71: Bill Parcells and Andy Reid seem to think that top-quality receivers are fairly good investments. It's probably better to look at FA than draft, since draft gets occluded by the inevitable disability to evaluate talent. Denver went after Javon Walker, TO got moved around twice despite his character flaws, Randy Moss got big deals.(yeah, I know) Harrison and CJ both got big deals before they were FAs, as did Reggie Wayne. ...receivers have at least the impression that they are not fungible by most of the league save the Patriots. Hmm. That'd be a good study - how impactful a big-name receiver is on a team's overall improvement. I think that everyone arguing about Branch's market value, relative leverage and the Patriots negotiating strategies is missing the critical point of the dispute. At the end of the day the Patriots were not going to pretend that the final year of Branch's rookie contract didn't exist. That has always been the core issue. I'd bet that even if the Patriots made an offer that was the long term economic equivalent of the Seattle offer but held him to the final year of his rookie deal he would have refused it.
This concept is critical to the Patriots system not only for players who might be in similar situations in the future (Koppen, Hobbes, et. al.) but for players who have toed the line and waited for theirs (Bruschi, Vrable, et. al.).
If you must call out a winner and a loser, then clearly Branch won from a financial perspective. Time will tell if he wins in all aspects of the deal. But I don't think that the Patriots "lost" because on the most important point, protecting their business model, they did not buckle. Their biggest mistake was not realizing sooner that Branch was as steadfast as he was. But to me, adhering to the principles of a system that the organization believes in and that has been hugely successful is worth the difference between Deion Branch & a 5th round choice and Doug Gabriel & a first round choice. > I think the point is not that every position is unimportant, but rather than any position can be made unimportant (except perhaps for O-line). Yes, that's right. The Patriots may be pushing the envelope though in declining to pay the market rate for all but top superstar talent, which is the crux of this debate. Yesterday for example, against a weak team, the Patriots had a great rushing attack but a sputtering, mediocre offense on the whole. I have no issue with the pro-Patriots argument in theory-- all I would ask though is that it be fairly evaluated going forward, based on the on-field results. I have serious doubts right now though as once again the Patriots are treading new ground, this time in attempting to turn over almost their entire WR corps in one off-season. Can we agree at least that this matter is hardly settled, and judge the Branch decision based on what happens next? I can understand the Pats point of view on this. They don't think the guy was worth what he was asking and so they made a great deal and unloaded Branch. I cannot understand why the Seahawks gave up a first round pick for him. He has never finished in the top 10 of any major receiving category. Javon Walker and Terrell Owens were both traded for 2nd round picks, and they had much greater value than Branch. How is Branch worth a first? New England should sign a guy like Quincy Morgan or even take a chance on Charles Rogers. Over the long run they will be much better off, but this deal leaves them a bit shorthanded for now. I thought you were supposed the sign the Super Bowl MVP to a ridiculous contract that offseason, not wait another year. Maybe the Seahawks know something that we don't? is there any person more obnoxious in their posting than Kevin11. relax man. Re #67
ISTR Shannon Sharpe's rings came with (a) the Denver Broncos, with a RB having some of the greatest RB years in history, one of the best QBs in NFL history, and two WRs who made All-Pro teams and (b) the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, featuring perhaps the best defense in the past two decades (non-adjusted D-DVOA -40.0%). As to 1) No, DVOA does not show that Deion Branch is between the 10th and 18th best reciever in the NFL. It shows that Tom Brady, and Deion Branch, in the Patriots system are between the 10th and 18th best combination. NOthing more. Dvoa put David Patten/Tom Brady at about replacement level IIRC, but in wAshington he was significantly worse. Again, we'll see how well Branch and Givens do this year, but I'm willing to bet they dont do as well now that theyre not being thrown to by Brady. Hasselbeck isnt a huge dropoff, so Branch will do ok, but Givens wont. Thats my whole point, I believe that Tom Brady (as well as peyton manning, and a couple of other quarterbacks) inflate reciever DVOA numbers. Its pretty simple, and its part of the reason all these stud recievers go into Atlanta, and suddenly suck. Good quarterbacks make recievers look better than they are, bad quarterbacks make recievers look worse than they are. How many players have left newengland for bigger contracts in the last two or 3 years, and actually played well? I cant think of any 80- You're forgetting that this Patriots regime has ROUTINELY re-done contracts, tearing up old ones and replacing them with new ones. Using one example, they disregarded Tom Brady's contract and gave him a new one- effective immediately- soon after the 2001 season. All Pat's fans had better start praying that they take no injuries at WR or TE all year. With Branch gone, this team is REALLY thin at those positions. RE 81: Agreed, the only way to evaluate this situation is by team success over the next few years. And yes, the offense wasn't clicking yesterday, but as others have pointed out that seemed to be as much about the line play as anything else. (I don't recall many dropped passes, or plays where Brady had time but couldn't find an open man.) Also - Jackson and Gabriel didn't even play. I'm not saying they'll be Swann and Stallworth, but the team should be better with them than it is without them. "Yes, thatâ€s right. The Patriots may be pushing the envelope though in declining to pay the market rate for all but top superstar talent, which is the crux of this debate." Glenn, you keep bringing this up, and its WRONG. They do pay top dollar for superstar talent. JUST NOT AT POSITIONS THEY DONT FEEL ARE IMPORTANT. They pay superstar dollar for players they feel are worth it; Brady, Seymour, Rosey Colvin, etc. Its not a matter of them not paying the money. Every year they spend up to the cap. Its a matter of them feeling that certain positions are more important than others, and spending the money on those. Again, that money will be spent, it'll just be spent somewhere they think is more important. Re #83
Stupid Tom's, never another around except when a little confusion wouldn't be in order. The main problem with free agent signings, and this goes with all sports, is that you are spending money on what the players have done, rather on what they will do. That's why most free agnet signings turn out to be busts. Now it might not be as bad in football as in baseball because the contracts aren't guaranteed. Winning teams are built on young players who are obviously cheaper. And if your front office is great at picking talent, your team can stay strong since you won't be drafting at the beginning of the draft and having to hand out ridiculous contracts. Re #90
Which is why it's so confusing (or maybe telling?) that they won't pay Branch $6M starting this year instead of next year when they have $12M or so in cap room. Re #92
Curse you, Aquascum! 2002 - 13 games, 43 catches for 489 yards & 2 TDs
2003 - 15 games, 57 catches for 803 yards & 3 TDs
2004 - 9 games, 35 catches for 454 yards & 4 TDs
2005 - 16 games, 78 catches for 998 yards & 5 TDs If you were an NFL team, would you pay $6.5 million a year for that kind of production? The Seattle Seahawks just did. The New England Patriots did not. The Seattle Seahawks have won 0 Super Bowls this decade, and in fact have never won the Super Bowl. The New Englands Patriots have won 3 Super Bowls this decade. Aside from the fact that he was still under contract for one more year, the thing that people are ignoring in Deion Branch's situation is the fact that he is outrageously overvaluing his talent, and overpricing his production. Deion Branch has never averaged 15 yards per catch in a regular season, has never scored more than 5 TDs in a regular season, never had 1000 yard receiving in a season, and never even had a multi-touchdown game. Would YOU want to have a significant portion of your team's Salary Cap tied up to pay a player who's only played a full season once, and who's production hasn't matched his agent's mouth? The reality is that while the Patriots offered him a 3 year deal for $6 million per, you usually just don't pony up that kind of dough to someone who you're not positive is an impact player, especially after they ignore the last year of their contract and basically try to make an embarrassing example out of your organization. The Patriots were never going to give Branch the Reggie Wayne type contract he was seeking, because he probably doesn't deserve it. It doesn't matter if he was the Super Bowl MVP. Do you remember how Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, and Dexter Jackson's careers went after they won the SB MVP and tried to cash in?? They do pay top dollar for superstar talent. JUST NOT AT POSITIONS THEY DONT FEEL ARE IMPORTANT. But they *offered* Branch a top dollar contract. They just weren't willing to have it start in 2006. The main problem with free agent signings, and this goes with all sports, is that you are spending money on what the players have done, rather on what they will do. Thatâ€s why most free agnet signings turn out to be busts. I have to disagree here. All teams take a player's age and predicted future performance into consideration before making an offer. Branch just turned 27, so barring injuries he'll have some good years ahead of him. Six years? Maybe not. > They do pay top dollar for superstar talent. JUST NOT AT POSITIONS THEY DONT FEEL ARE IMPORTANT. I said "declining to pay the market rate for ALL BUT top superstar talent", and I stand by that. Brady and Seymour are those superstars who have received top dollar, and the rest of the payroll gets spread around more evenly than on some other teams, perhaps. Maybe that approach will always work, and maybe it won't. But the fact is, currently the Patriots are well under the salary cap, and the only way they'll exhaust that space is by trading this season's deficit for future space. Near-term performance should therefore be judged on that basis. This is NOT a case where you can say, the team had no choice, they had no cap space-- the team certainly does/did have the salary cap flexibility to decide between Deion Branch now, or someone else later. The only caveat which I would add to that is that it would seem sensible to use the cap space in the near term when you KNOW that you are a Super Bowl contender, as the Patriots are now. You have no idea what this team might look like 3-4 years from now. RE: 87 - Other than Seymour and Brady, whose rookie contracts have been re-done with the final year(s) being ignored? That is the valid comparison here. Am I missing something? The Patriots also paid top dollar for multiple years for a RB - you know, one of those fungible positions. Sorry, how good is Dillon now? Was he worth the top money when he was barely a presence last year? Some times the Patriots pay for talent at certain positions, some times they don't. It isn't simply all or nothing. They did it with Seymour and didn't do it with Viniateri. They did it with Brady and Dillon but not Branch. I suspect they'll do it with Bruschi but not Vrabel. Depends on their position - but I do honestly think that this specifically will hurt them more this season. Just to point out--the Patriots DO occasionally pay for top WR talent, or try to at least. They offered Derrick Mason (sp?) a boatload of money last year, but he ended up taking a smaller offer because he wanted to play in Baltimore for some reason... Belichick also mentioned in a press conference once that, given the chance, he would sign Randy Moss in a heartbeat. I don't think it's fair to say that the Patriots didn't value Branch. I think they did, and they would have LOVED to lock him up for three to five years at 5-6 M a year. Rewind to before this mess, and he probably would have been willing to do that. It probably could have happened if it was negotiated last year or earlier. For whatever reasons (salary cap implications, waiting to see how the draft panned out, misreading Branch's intentions, or maybe Chayut giving misleading signals or negotiating in bad faith--we don't really know), their front office made a mistake and delayed the negotiations until this spring (or maybe, like Givens, Branch didn't want to negotiate, perferring to test FA waters). Then Chayut threw in a big monkey wrench and torpedoed the negotiations and ended any chance of Branch coming back to New England. I'm a Pats fan. I'm not mad at Branch. I'm not mad at the Patriots, although I certainly think, in hindsight, they could have handled this better. I'm a little annoyed at Chayut, but that's besides the point. > the thing that people are ignoring in Deion Branchâ€s situation is the fact that he is outrageously overvaluing his talent, and overpricing his production. We're ignoring all that? Deion Branch just received every penny he was asking for, and did so from a far more disadvantageous negotiating position than free agency. Seattle may have, but Deion Branch certainly did not "outrageously overvalue/overprice" anything, unless of course the presumption (once again) is that it was his lifelong purpose to protect and serve the New England Patriots and their perfect business model. Recent history shows a fairly high number of WRs drafted in the first round to be busts anyway. What makes you think this isn't a better use of a first rounder than many teams will make? Seattle addressed (theoretically) the future of the CB position this year in the draft, has a QB and TB (with pretty decent backups) in the fold, a couple good #2 WRs in Engram and Burleson, likely wasn't going to use the first rounder on a LG anyway, 2 decent TEs (when they can stay on the field), was never going to use a 1st rounder on a FB, has a glut at LB and 5 or 6 good D-linemen...so unless they were going to hit a homerun with their #1 draft pick next year, why not use it to get a backup #1 WR, given that D-Jack has an injury history, given that they have the cap space? On the flip side, NE stood to lose if the grievance got upheld (remember a lot of people thought Seattle's grievance against Minnesota would get upheld on the Hutchinson contract. Don't go assuming Branch couldn't have won) and the best offer on the table at that time was a second rounder from an in-division team, i.e. the Jets. I'm a Seahawks fan, and I think both teams won here. The only chance this directly hurts NE is if they see SEA in the Super Bowl this year, really, and if that happens, well, getting to the Super Bowl heals a lot of hurt, doesn't it? Using conventional stats to judge a WRs past performance is a really horrible way to predict their future results under a different coach and system, by the way. I don't even see why someone would do that here. The main purpose of this site is to have useful statistics with predictive value, not "well he only caught 50 passes for that Super Bowl winning team," which is a near completely meaningless statistic for predictive purposes. Many points: * The pick should be somewhere in the mid-late 20s. Even with problems on the O-line, Seattle's own weak division + the NFC North should be worth 8-10 more-or-less free wins. (Case in point: they played like crap yesterday and still cashed the free win against Detroit.) I doubt they'll get the best record in the league or return to the Superbowl (they may be the favorite for both, but the field is still the better bet), so no later than 29. * Branch is a good receiver. He will probably not do as well in Seattle as the Seahawks hope (new QB, new system, late start to the season), but not as badly as rabid Patriot fans hope (vis. David Patten, who essentially disappeared in Washington). Much of Branch's value may have come from Brady throwing him the ball, but I hear Hasselbeck's pretty good, too. * The Patriots were missing not only Branch and Givens yesterday, but the two receivers they logically expected to replace them (Gabriel and Jackson). Troy Brown, Reche Caldwell, and Bam Childress should be the #3, #4, nd #5 receivers, not the #1, #2, and #3. That much said, depth is obviously a concern. * The reason they failed to extend Branch last year, is that they were hard up against the cap after Dillon's extenion (probable mistake), Brady's second extension (not a mistake) and paying to end Seymour's holdout (probably not a mistake). That they're trying to avoid such a situation this year, is hardly a surprise. They also have Koppen, Graham, and Samuel to extend, and can burn any surplus up to $6.7 million on Seymour's option bonus. 98- None that I know of. My point is, I don't think one can say "But I donâ€t think that the Patriots “lostâ€? because on the most important point, protecting their business model, they did not buckle", when they've deviated from the business model before. In other words, it seems their business model does allow for disregarding contracts. You guys realize that the MMQB link has been posted all day? Nobody's bashing PK today because of this... RCH (#98) Recently, I can only think of Jarvis Green off the top of my head. I *think* one or two of Matt Light, Dan Koppen, and Stephen Neal was/were redone lately, but I don't remember the details. But to be honest, not that many rookies drafted in the Belichick/Pioli era have reached that point yet where they need contracts redone. Other than Brady and Seymour, 2000 and 2001 were horrible draft years for the Pats. Givens and Branch and Daniel Graham are the first few of the successful draftees coming up. Kevin said this:
"But is Branch overpaid at $6.5 M a year? Iâ€d have to say no. And given the fact that New England is SO thin at WR, Iâ€d have worked something out with him." That's perfectly reasonable. I 'm not sure I disagree entirely. But. The pats did fine. They were paid a first round draft pick for part of one season for a player that would be passed over in the first round again, even knowing what you're getting. The only way the pats could lose is to let him walk without getting anything for him, and him still not playing. They played the market pretty well to get a first for him. Being the best receiver on any given team don't make you a #1 receiver. It makes you a #2 with big ideas, I guess. Reggie Wayne money? Reggie Wayne is a lot better than Deion Branch. And I've always liked Branch here. But give Wayne his props. Deion Branch is making less money now than he might have. If he had hit the market in one year, unresricted or been franchised (unlikely,except for trade) he would have commanded stupid money from someone. Givens did. If he thinks the risk of getting nothing in a year outweighs the money, then he's taking a discount because he doesn't have faith in himself over the long haul. He's like a lottery winner that takes the cash payout now instead of more over a longer period. And if he doesn't think he's gonna be around to earn his money, why should the pats, or their fans? Ty Law was a tremendous mercenary in this regard, and he's cleaned up twice now. But he didn't have to weasel out of anything. He timed the market because he was unrestricted. Seahawks showed desperation for a WR here.That seems appropriate, given their scheme. Others seem to think the pats should have. But there scheme is different, and always has been. I just don't think he's a top dollar receiver. And I can't think of too many receivers that merit top dollar player money anyway. Oh, and by the way, Peyton Manning is the king of all gaggers and always will be. When it counts, he's invisible. A loser's a loser. This looks like a good move for Seattle. After losing Jurevicius to FA and Jeramy Stevens and Darrel Jackson suffering injuries (though Jackson played fine Sunday), not to forget Burleson having trouble picking up the West Coast offense, they could really use Branch. Branch's strong suits I think are his hands, picking apart a zone and running after catching intermediate passes. It looks like he profiles well for Seattle's offense. For the Patriots, I think it hurts them this year. The receivers weren't very good against Buffalo and the only reinforcements on the way are Chad Jackson and Doug Gabriel. Maybe Doug Gabriel can help a little but I don't think you can expect much from Jackson as it's rare for rookies to make much of an impact anyway but especially not so after missing so much of training camp with his hamstring injury. It's not like Jackson was thought to be a polished route runner coming out of college to begin with so I think the odds are against him. Hopefully the Patriots' trackrecord of making good late first round selections will continue with Seattle's pick. > Iâ€m a Pats fan. Iâ€m not mad at Branch. Iâ€m not mad at the Patriots, although I certainly think, in hindsight, they could have handled this better. Iâ€m a little annoyed at Chayut, but thatâ€s besides the point. That's fair and reasonable. It's beyond me how some fans can view this situation from the outside and say that the Patriots wanted to negotiate and otherwise did all the right things, but the player and his agent refused to cooperate (or even return phone calls as someone has claimed). The "blame the agent" card is the easiest one in sports to play, and is rarely valid imo. It's almost irrelevant though. When it's my team, and they choose to spend or not spend to a certain level, to make a point on principle, to be or not be proactive in negotiations earlier in the contract, I hold the team responsible for those decisions, both when they turn out bad, or well. The rest is just excuses. It's completely reasonable to expect that the Patriots could have wrapped up Deion Branch at the price he extracted from the Seahawks, or maybe even a bit less given the team's initial leverage advantage. They didn't, and we take it from there. MJK - You are right, the good draft choices from the start of the BB era are just coming up for renewal. I just researched Light and Green. Both of these guys finished their original deals and were resigned before hitting UFA. Koppen is still on his rookie deal. They were paid a first round draft pick for part of one season for a player that would be passed over in the first round again, even knowing what youâ€re getting. The concept of Deion Branch re-entering the entry draft is interesting. Last year's draft was loaded, and I still think he'd go in the top ten. Many players simply can't make the transition from BMOC to the NFL. Branch has proven he can handle the NFL and all that comes with it, which IMO is a big deal. @100: "Just to point out–the Patriots DO occasionally pay for top WR talent, or try to at least. They offered Derrick Mason (sp?) a boatload of money last year"
The Patriots reportedly offered him a deal for around $4.5 million a year. That's not top flight receiver money, but a decent contract value for someone they expect top production from. This is similar to the contract they gave Corey Dillon. From the published reports that I've seen, he stands to make roughly $5 million a year. That's not top flight running back money, but again, a decent value for the above average production they expect to get from him (assuming he can stay healthy, which is obviously questionable). @101: "Weâ€re ignoring all that? Deion Branch just received every penny he was asking for, and did so from a far more disadvantageous negotiating position than free agency. Seattle may have, but Deion Branch certainly did not “outrageously overvalue/overpriceâ€? anything, unless of course the presumption (once again) is that it was his lifelong purpose to protect and serve the New England Patriots and their perfect business model. "
It's not my presumption at all. I am not a Patriots fan nor apologist. It's simply my contention that he and his agent overvalued his talent and production at the outset of the bargaining process, and somehow Seattle jumped in to the bidding to completely overpay for him. But that remains to be seen, based on his production the next few years. If I was the Patriots, or any team in the NFL, I wouldn't have paid $6.5 million per year for Branch, just like I wouldn't have paid $4.5 million per year for David Givens. I'd much rather let a 2nd round guy like that walk, who I wasn't positive about, and get a 1st round pick in return. They just don't seem like impact players to me, on whom I would want to tie up a serious percentage of my cap for 5 years at a time. That's probably why they wanted to do a 3 year deal, to see if Branch's production would continue to increase to merit his high salaries. > The pats did fine. They were paid a first round draft pick for part of one season for a player that would be passed over in the first round again, even knowing what youâ€re getting. I strongly disagree with this statement. From the same starting point in their careers, I'd pass on Santonio Holmes to take Branch in the middle of the first round, in a heartbeat, given knowledge of Branch's future production. What's your basis for this assessment? More than half of all first-rounders (at any position) never reach even the modest level of success that Branch has had (and I'm sure that it's Seattle's projection that the best is yet to come). I just listened to Holmgren's press conference, and while he sounds happy to have Branch (a good receiver, proven performer, etc), it doesn't sound like he's really figured out what they're going to do with him or how they're going to work all their receivers into the offense. He did go out of his way to say the tight end is important to their running game, so I guess that would mean they're not going to start going four receivers all the time. Anyway, it will be interesting to see who the odd man out is. Glenn, I'd rather have Branch than Santurdio too, but that's a whole 'nother thing you're adding in there. Branch has never distinguished himself as anything but a decent and respectable person while he was here. I like the pats scheme. Branch fit it, for a good long while, anyway. In a way, the league is functioning as it should. Seattle needed him more than the pats. The pats will use that draft pick, oh yes. Holmgren needs to do something right now and it showed. It got finicky there,for a while, with the speculation, and I don't like players that won't finish their contracts, but it didn't turn out that bad for anybody. I'd rather have David Patten back. Can we get him with a fifth? 115- Looking at it from another angle, are you certain you'd rather have any of the 32 players selected in the 2006 Draft- with the possible exception of Santonio Holmes- than Deion Branch? Just to correct a few miststatments of fact in this thread: 1) On the suggestion that the Pats should have signed Branch earlier: They tried. They first made Branch an extension offer after the 2004 season -- with 2 years left on his rookie deal. They tried again this spring, with 1 year left on his deal. 2) That the Pats refused to negotiate. Jon. Kraft on radio yesterday said that all indications in March were that they would hammer out an extension. They gave Branch two different contract proposals, expecting to begin a negotiation. Branch's agent did no respond to either proposal. The only communication to their offers was Branch's holdout from minicamps (out of the blue -- he had been working out every day, talking with the team and Chayut's demand that the Pats agree not to franchise him. Kraft indicated the team was blindsided. 3) On the suggestion that the Pats ended up getting exactly what they were offered last week: The Seahawks offered their 2nd round pick. Their 1st round pick is obviously higher. The Jets offered Washington's second round pick. Seattle's 1st round pick is obviously higher than that. One more point. You guys are aware that the Pats drafted Chad Jackson with an eye towards his becoming the team's #1 wide receiver. From all reports, the Pats planned to take Jackson with their 1st round pick, until Maroney dropped to them and they couldn't resist. They immediately traded up to the top of the 2nd round to grab Jackson. Belichick personally worked out Jackson extensively before the draft during his extended visit with Urban Meyer at Florida. Jackson was very impressive in the mini-camps, in exactly the same way Branch was his rookie season. The only difference is that Jackson has the physical tools (size and speed) to be true #1 WR in the NFL. Branch has the physical tools to be a superb possession receiver. Trogdor, Maybe NE fans are willing to give BB/SP the benefit of the doubt because they have been proven right more often than not? Possibly? There is no reason for you to go through a tirade of ridiculous exaggerations. * Branch had proven to everyone that he wasn't coming back. NE did what they had to do and got some value out of it. Sometimes I have to help my clients step back and look at the big picture when they suffer temporary setbacks. Here is a good time: If your team traded a #2 draft pick for a #1 5 years later, as well as had the services of a very good receiver of thos five years, would you consider that a good move or a bad one? I will grant you that NE should have agreed to give Branch more money in this year; I do think that was a mistake. But NE couldn't have known, based on Branch's demeaner up till now, that Branch would essentially give them the middle finger and stop negotiating at that point. * Lastly, if Gabrielle or Jackson (or in a perfect world - both) prove to be a better option than NE is trotting out there right now, their WR will most certainly be good enough to win the SB this year, particularly with the way the running game looks now. As many people have said already, NE's OL (and Brady's poor passing) made the WRs look much worse than they really are. The thirty two plyers in the draft are chosen by thirty two teams all trying to accomplish different things. The pats scheme is based on value, especially at WR. I would not have used the patriots first round pick to acquire Deion Branch. They didn't call me and ask me, though. It's not an insane thing to say you would. I don't think it's crazy to say you wouldn't, either. When it was Brown, Branch, Givens, and Patten, they were sort of interchangeable players, closely aligned in talent. I imagine Belichick will try to assemble some form of similar corps. I can't see him bundling his picks and trying to get Randy Moss or something. Truth be told it's Bethel Johnson I'm gonna miss. I know he was a mental case, but he was the most electrifying return man I've ever seen here. But Belichick used to have a fullback running back kicks, so lord knows it's considered a fungible position around here. I like that many teams have different approaches and they compete. There are more teams with a definable vibe that don't suck this year than most years. With or without Branch, NWE don't suck. Where people bet money, the pats are #2 to win the super bowl. #1 is the Colts. No accounting for taste. 1) On the suggestion that the Pats should have signed Branch earlier: They tried. They first made Branch an extension offer after the 2004 season — with 2 years left on his rookie deal. They tried again this spring, with 1 year left on his deal. Assuming that's true, that puts the "Patriots won't renegotiate contracts" theory away. 2) That the Pats refused to negotiate. Jon. Kraft on radio yesterday said that all indications in March were that they would hammer out an extension. They gave Branch two different contract proposals, expecting to begin a negotiation. Branchâ€s agent did no respond to either proposal. The only communication to their offers was Branchâ€s holdout from minicamps (out of the blue — he had been working out every day, talking with the team and Chayutâ€s demand that the Pats agree not to franchise him. Kraft indicated the team was blindsided. I find that hard to believe- I'd been hearing of Branch possibly holding out since before the draft. If *I'd* heard the speculation, how could the team have been blindsided? 3) On the suggestion that the Pats ended up getting exactly what they were offered last week: The Seahawks offered their 2nd round pick. Their 1st round pick is obviously higher. The Jets offered Washingtonâ€s second round pick. Seattleâ€s 1st round pick is obviously higher than that. One of us has bad information, then. On September 1 I read that Seattle was offering a first, and the Jets were offering a second and an unknown player. Just as none of us would take anything Jason Chayut says at face value, I don't think we should take what Kraft has to say at face value. Either I'm supposed to believe that Camp Branch employed the most senseless and bizarre negotiating tactics in the history of negotiation, or Jonathan Kraft isn't telling the whole truth. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Maybe NE fans are willing to give BB/SP the benefit of the doubt because they have been proven right more often than not? I'm one of those fans. When the Pats drafted Logan Mankins in 2005, I had a fit that lasted about ten seconds (WE JUST TOOK A GUARD- WE DON'T NEED A GUARD! HE WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND IN THE MID-SECOND!!). Then the little voice inside my head said "these guys know what they're doing". And they did. The Pats organization has an excellent track record, which gives them credibility. However, there are some fans that literally act as if the organization is infallable, and they are not. We'll see how it all pans out. If the Pats have a good season and a strong passing game, if Branch craters in Seattle, if the pick they got from the Seahawks becomes a star...not all of those things have to happen to make this a good move for New England. I just don't think it's going to, though. I can't help but think the team would have been better off giving him what he accepted from Seattle. I just listened to Holmgrenâ€s press conference, and while he sounds happy to have Branch (a good receiver, proven performer, etc), it doesnâ€t sound like heâ€s really figured out what theyâ€re going to do with him or how theyâ€re going to work all their receivers into the offense. He did go out of his way to say the tight end is important to their running game, so I guess that would mean theyâ€re not going to start going four receivers all the time. Anyway, it will be interesting to see who the odd man out is. Now I see the fiendish cleverness of it all. With too many WRs to profitably use, Seattle will be willing to trade one back to the Patriots for, say, a 3rd rounder in a few weeks. Mwa ha ha! One more and I promise I'll take a break! :) The Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, and they did it by making a lot of really good moves. The organization had the same sheen as the Patriots do now- "these guys know what they're doing". Well, the Red Sox have made some spectacularly bad player transactions over the past two years. They proved not to be infallable. In fact, at some point that happens in every organization. Are the Patriots next? We'll find out. "I canâ€t help but think the team would have been better off giving him what he accepted from Seattle." I thought the two extension offers the Pats made, averaging $6.15 million per year, were already too high based on Branch's mid-pack #1 production. They were certainly not insulting offers and should have generated good faith counter-offers from the player. 178 + 37 + 482 + 123 = 811 comments (and counting...) So when does this all get moved into one single Thread Which Cannot Be Named, Part II? :) Re; #125 But hwc, you forgot that you have to divide by N+1 years instead of by N years, because that's how Branch math works :) Huh -- I didn't know that sort of thing could be done: According to sources in Seattle, the Seahawks have requested and received a two-game roster exemption for Deion Branch, which will give him time to learn Mike Holmgrenâ€s system and become familiar with quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. (from John Tomase at the Boston Herald) The Mulgrew nominates post 77 as Post of the Year! The Mulgrew likey! Is Ty Law still the leading receiver on the Colts? I've lost track. How can the Patriots be happy with drafting a potential good player when they could have had a good player with little risk. i've been gone all day, but feel i need to respond...
Re:#57
My point was that the pats dumped their best player at one of their weakest positions when they have 13 mil in cap room this year and no way to improve other areas of the team for this season with that money. they were going to give him the money next year, why not this year when they have the cap room and no other avenues to upgrade their team.
and i'm not drinking the reche caldwell kool aid.
Re:#67
tongue planted firmly in cheek, but that's the trust some patriots fans (maybe you, i don't know) have in belichick and i was merely pointing out the absurdity. and ask antonio gates how easy it is to win a super bowl with reche caldwell as one of your primary recievers.
Re:#77
exactly. Over 120 posts on this topic in just 7 hours or so proves for once and for all, that this is ultimately nothing more than a Patriots fan site. Period. re 130
He plays cornerback for the KC Chiefs. re 133
I agree with that. That is an astute observation on your part. Kudos. re: 130 I know you were trying to be funny with that. Well, you weren't. So that's why I posted what I did in post 134. 133: Look back at last year's threads re: Terrell Owens. Was it an Eagles fan site back then? The total number of posts is greater from the Branch threads, but the total number of posts has increased for all threads. The Branch situation is both complex and interesting, and generates a lot of discussion, just as it would be if he played for any other team. "How can the Patriots be happy with drafting a potential good player when they could have had a good player with little risk." Your premise appears to be incorrect. The Pats could not have had Branch. By refusing to respond to legitimate contract exension offers, Branch and his agent had clearly made the decision to not play for the Pats. I don't understand why Branch made that decision, but it is apparent he did. There is nothing "insulting" about a 5 year $31 million, $11 million guaranteed deal. Once it because set in stone that Branch would never play for the Pats again, trading for a 1st round pick is not a bad move. They wouldn't have done signficantly better with a "tag n' trade", so why tie up the $6+ million tender and go through the aggravation? This route preserves the franchise tag option for Daniel Graham, should the team opt to go that route. Wouldn't make sense to use it Samuel or Koppen. Your premise appears to be incorrect. The Pats could not have had Branch. By refusing to respond to legitimate contract exension offers, Branch and his agent had clearly made the decision to not play for the Pats. Let's be honest- none of us really knows what happened. So I'm left to ask- does that make sense? I'm not saying that situation is impossible, but it seems not just unlikely, but radically so. I'm expected to believe that Branch wouldn't report to camp, wouldn't even talk to the team, wouldn't even say what his problem was...I just can't believe that. It makes no sense. I donâ€t understand why Branch made that decision, but it is apparent he did. There is nothing “insultingâ€? about a 5 year $31 million, $11 million guaranteed deal. Again, from what I understand the Patriots refused to pay more than $1 M for 2006, and to Branch that was unacceptable. A few random comments while reading this thread during the Tony Bowl and a few glasses of wine (BTW, any chance the Pats flip that #1 from the Hawks to the Vikes for this awful Williamson kid? If I'm the Vikes I'm calling Bethel Johnson's agent tomorrow). Anyway, DP, you've just caused Aaron to go sleepless for the week. His worst nightmare is that this gets perceived as a PatsCentric site. What do you think he should do, DP, put a quota on our posts? HWC is the Bruschi of the site...totally reliable. Couldn't imagine us going 3000 posts without him. RodneyPiper (whatever)...Don Davis Award, buddy...out of nowhere: post of the night. To all panicky Pats fans: If you watched the same game as I did, didn't it occur to you that the Bills were much better than the Pats expected and the jerkiness of the first half was due to the Bills' ferocious D-speed, and less to do with the Pats' OL or WRs? To all you Pats Haters: I feel your pain. Been breathing the exhaust of Yankee dominance all my life and it's easy to get testy and irrational, but sooner or later you surrender to reality: they win consistently so, yes, they know what they're doing. Stop embarrassing yourselves (and if you think all Pats fans are a monolithic horde of koolaid drinkers, print out Kevin11 posts and pin them over your bedpost at night.) And finally to Trogolodyte...The Lonely End...all the Pats haters here and you couldn't convince one of them to salute that dirty pair of underwear you ran up the flagpole. What a frickin' waste of time and cyberspace. At least I could drawn on a couple of glasses of Pinot Gris for motivation. Thanks #119 for making #77's point. And just for fun… Brady sucks, Red Sox suck, Bruins suck, Celtics suck, Sam Adams sucks, Krypton sucks. Yes, the Red Sox do suck. Just heard on NFL news that the Pats have filed, or at least talked about filing, a tampering charge against the Jets. Hmmm, if that's true, I wonder if it would explain why Branch suddenly started holding out for almost exactly the amount of money the Jets eventually would offer him... If true, that would really change the face of this discussion... Re: #142 Yawn. There was probably a way better case for tampering with the Milloy situation and nothing came of that, so I would expect nothing to come of this. Not that I'd put the Jets past actually tampering, though. :-) re: 143 The Jets got tampered with by Carl Peterson, but they probably liked it because Herm Edwards sucks. My father liked him though due to the Miracle at the Meadowlands. Go Eags! Re: #77 LOL--Trogdor, I tip my cap to you . . . In that vein, I propose that the Pats' FO hard-line negotiating tactics had the effect of shooting themselves in the foot, thus poisoning their relationship with Branch to the point that they had no option but to get rid of the guy. Trading what is likely to be a #28-#32 pick for Deion Branch is like taking candy from a baby.[/snarky tone off] Actually, I see this as two teams making the best of a bad situation. The Pats did seem to poison their relationship with Branch, or so it appeared from 3000 miles away. So they got what they could for a receiver who appeared set to stay away 'til Week 10. But the Seahawks FO has spent most of the offseason trying to make up for pooching their handling of Steve Hutchinson's contract negotiations as well. As a 'Hawks fan, I think this move isn't about this year (although they'll definitely see some benefits later this year). This move is about grabbing Darrell Jackson by the short hairs next offseason so that he'll show a bit more interest in being part of the program prior to Week 1. It looks to me like D-Jack just lost a lot of leverage in Seattle. "Again, from what I understand the Patriots refused to pay more than $1 M for 2006, and to Branch that was unacceptable." That's all semantics. Every player who signs as a free agent plays the first year for a vet minimum salary PLUS a guaranteed signing bonus. For example, Peyton Manning's new contract called for $1 million salaries in the first couple of years. The extensions offered to Branch were no different. $1.05 million salary from his rookie contract PLUS either $8 million or $11 million GUARANTEED from an extension. At the end of the day, you can call it what you want. It still boils down to how much guaranteed, how many years, how long? The Pats made legitimate offers to Branch. Were the offers absolute top of the market? No. But, $6 million a year (or $5 million if you use Chayut's math) are hardly chump change for a mid-tier #1 receiver. The franchise tag average of the top five highest paid is $6.15 million. When Branch's only response to those offers was a fax from the agent informing the team that he would hold out unless the team gave up its franchise tag option, it was very clear that Branch had no intention of negotiating an extension. How else could that response be interpreted? Thatâ€s all semantics. No, Itâ€s cold hard cash. Every player who signs as a free agent plays the first year for a vet minimum salary All of them? 100%? Branchâ€s new deal with Seattle? Stop. PLUS a guaranteed signing bonus. For example, Peyton Manningâ€s new contract called for $1 million salaries in the first couple of years. Compare Branchâ€s and Manningâ€s signing bonuses and guaranteed money, then promptly and rightfully throw the comparison out the window. The Pats made legitimate offers to Branch. I keep reading this. Who claimed the Pats made illegitimate offers? When Branchâ€s only response to those offers was a fax from the agent informing the team that he would hold out unless the team gave up its franchise tag option, it was very clear that Branch had no intention of negotiating an extension. How else could that response be interpreted? I canâ€t emphasize this enough- thatâ€s the Patriots†side of the story. Branchâ€s side of the story is this- heâ€s happy in Seattle and with what theyâ€ve offered him. Trogdor #77- easily the post of the year... if it wasn't so long it would easily replace zlionsfan's template as the most quoted on the site. Kevin11 #63: Top WRS are COVETED by NFL teams. Of course they are. Teams like the Browns, Lions, Cardinals ... Notice a pattern there? How much, exactly, have the top 25 pick wideout picks of the 1999-2003 drafts: Tory Holt (the one and only hit of this list still with his original team and doing well!), Troy Edwards, Peter Warrick, Plaxico Burress, Travis Taylor, Sylvester Morris, R. Jay Soward, David Terrell, Koren Robinson, Rod Gardner, Santana Moss, Freddie Mithcell, Donte Stallworth, Ashley Lelie, Javon Walker, Charles Rogers, Andre Johnson, and Bryant Johnson, helped their teams to win big? Frankly, I'm not seeing the value you are claiming is there. Most of these guys were so disappointing, they are either out of football just a few short years later, or are playing with another team, most often after being dealt out of town, picked up off waivers, or cut early in their first contract. Here's a message to those of you who say above that Football Outsiders is simply a Patriots fan site. Michael David Smith, Mike Tanier, Russell Levine, Ned Macey, Tim Gerheim, Al Bogdan, Benjy Rose, Ian Dembsky, Vin Gauri, Will Carroll, Doug Farrar, Jason Beattie, Ryan Wilson, and Vivek Ramgopal. If you think that 150 comments in this thread outweigh the collective contributions of those writers (plus Benjy and Jason), then by all means, we are a Patriots fan site. If you have respect for Mike, Mike, Russell, etc., then we hope you will acknowledge that FO is not a Patriots fan site. Unless you also think that Deadspin.com is an Arizona Cardinals fan site. November 8, 1:26pm ET