Saw that the Pats also cut Chad Johnson, glad to see that waste of money is finally behind us. This Branch thing is just stupid on their part. I predict 9-7 this year.
Can we put aside the thought of the Patriots as cap wizards and agree that they are desperate for a wide receiver and they should just pay the man what the Seahawks and Jets are clearly willing to pay him? You can say Branch won't beat the Pats at this game, but I think the game on the field is a bit more important, and right now the Patriot receiver are shit.
Not being privy to what's going on in the front office, and not seeing the players on the field, I don't think it's so black-and-white. Certainly the Pats seem depleted at wide receiver, but I assueme they're operating on principal: we won't let a holdout screw us over, because then everyone will do it. That seems pretty sound to me, and the Patriots' track record of success would lead me to take their side; that is, while I'm almost certainly sure that the losss of Branch will make the Patriots worse, I have to say it was pretty foolish of Branch to think this would work.
If we're talking about what makes a team better just on the field, why not pay major money for the best stars in the game when they are free agents? Because it screws the rest of the team. Paying [insert superstar name here] $50 million dollars and paying Branch half of that may not seem like the same thing, but it's a question of degrees, and I think the Pats have recently proven themselves to be masters at knowing what point to cave in (Seymour) and what point not to cave in (Milloy). I'm not going to question them until they turn in a disastrous season, and I think it's unfair to take Branch's side just because he obviously has some leverage. He's not one of the top 10 or even 15 receivers in the league and has never even reached 1000 yards - he's trying to strongarm the Pats simply because he can. That's a dangerous a foolish game when your game doesn't necessarily back it up. I think the Pats are right.
Some more thoughts I had while folding my laundry:
Don't get me wrong, it sucks sucks sucks that Branch won't be on the Pats (most likely). But you'd be hard-pressed to say he's even one of their five most important players.
1) Tom Brady
2) Rodney Harrison Life with Rodney: Good at coverage, absolutely great at stopping the run. Life without Rodney: The last 15 minutes of SB 38; all of last year.
3) Richard Seymour He's commonly considered one of the top three DLs in the game, if not the best. He can do it all, and opens the lanes for the LBs in the 3-4 scheme.
4) Laurence Maroney If he's as good as everyone says he is, there's no reason to think he won't have a ridiculous season even this year. When someone touches the ball 200-250 times, they're probably more important than a WR who nets about 80 catches in a good season.
5) Deion Branch I'm even giving him the benefit of the doubt here over Bruschi, because we know how good Bruschi is (I'm just not sure about how he's going to be after last year, plus, he's not all that young). Branch is obviously their best WR, but as I basically asked earlier, does that say more about him or the Pats?
If you agree with this, or even just parts of it, I think it's even clearer that the Pats can't cave in here. If they do so for Branch, why wouldn't everyone above him do the same thing?
Branch's demands are not beyond his market value. The Pats have been fortunate enough to get by underpaying guys and now that seems to changing. They can stick to principals, but if those principals no longer produce a Super Bowl contender, what good are?
It's not at all about where Branch ranks on the team, it's about a receivng corp that is the worst in football without Givens or Branch. That's no hyperbole!
9 comments:
Saw that the Pats also cut Chad Johnson, glad to see that waste of money is finally behind us. This Branch thing is just stupid on their part. I predict 9-7 this year.
Oops, I meant Chad Brown, sorry.
The Branch thing is stupid on Branch's part. You're not going to beat the Pats at this game.
Can we put aside the thought of the Patriots as cap wizards and agree that they are desperate for a wide receiver and they should just pay the man what the Seahawks and Jets are clearly willing to pay him? You can say Branch won't beat the Pats at this game, but I think the game on the field is a bit more important, and right now the Patriot receiver are shit.
Not being privy to what's going on in the front office, and not seeing the players on the field, I don't think it's so black-and-white. Certainly the Pats seem depleted at wide receiver, but I assueme they're operating on principal: we won't let a holdout screw us over, because then everyone will do it. That seems pretty sound to me, and the Patriots' track record of success would lead me to take their side; that is, while I'm almost certainly sure that the losss of Branch will make the Patriots worse, I have to say it was pretty foolish of Branch to think this would work.
If we're talking about what makes a team better just on the field, why not pay major money for the best stars in the game when they are free agents? Because it screws the rest of the team. Paying [insert superstar name here] $50 million dollars and paying Branch half of that may not seem like the same thing, but it's a question of degrees, and I think the Pats have recently proven themselves to be masters at knowing what point to cave in (Seymour) and what point not to cave in (Milloy). I'm not going to question them until they turn in a disastrous season, and I think it's unfair to take Branch's side just because he obviously has some leverage. He's not one of the top 10 or even 15 receivers in the league and has never even reached 1000 yards - he's trying to strongarm the Pats simply because he can. That's a dangerous a foolish game when your game doesn't necessarily back it up. I think the Pats are right.
Some more thoughts I had while folding my laundry:
Don't get me wrong, it sucks sucks sucks that Branch won't be on the Pats (most likely). But you'd be hard-pressed to say he's even one of their five most important players.
1) Tom Brady
2) Rodney Harrison
Life with Rodney: Good at coverage, absolutely great at stopping the run.
Life without Rodney: The last 15 minutes of SB 38; all of last year.
3) Richard Seymour
He's commonly considered one of the top three DLs in the game, if not the best. He can do it all, and opens the lanes for the LBs in the 3-4 scheme.
4) Laurence Maroney
If he's as good as everyone says he is, there's no reason to think he won't have a ridiculous season even this year. When someone touches the ball 200-250 times, they're probably more important than a WR who nets about 80 catches in a good season.
5) Deion Branch
I'm even giving him the benefit of the doubt here over Bruschi, because we know how good Bruschi is (I'm just not sure about how he's going to be after last year, plus, he's not all that young). Branch is obviously their best WR, but as I basically asked earlier, does that say more about him or the Pats?
If you agree with this, or even just parts of it, I think it's even clearer that the Pats can't cave in here. If they do so for Branch, why wouldn't everyone above him do the same thing?
Branch's demands are not beyond his market value. The Pats have been fortunate enough to get by underpaying guys and now that seems to changing. They can stick to principals, but if those principals no longer produce a Super Bowl contender, what good are?
It's not at all about where Branch ranks on the team, it's about a receivng corp that is the worst in football without Givens or Branch. That's no hyperbole!
Also, the idea that if the Pats pay Branch what he earned it will lead to a rash of holdouts is just not true.
Also, Brady already got paid, as did Seymour THAT is what Branch is reacting to. Let's not confuse the matter.
Post a Comment