Bill Swerski Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 The main problem with the Branch situation was the impact of budging to the demands of a player under contract refusing to play unless they re-did the contract. This would set a precendent to other players that felt underpaid and would have opened the door for other players to say "well, they teared up Branch's and paid him, it's my turn". Seymour held out and Belichick caved, so that precedent was already set. I mean they had Branch in 2005 and made it one round further in 2006 without him, so folks can say they would have made the SB if they had Branch, but you never know. Come on. You saw Caldwell drop those passes in the AFC Championship Game. You also saw how bad the Pats secondary was in '05. Brady's uncharacteristic bad play cost them in the playoffs that year. Well, I guess if sending a message to players is the most important thing than keeping better players.....all the power to the Pats. Seems to me they gave Welker the contract that Branch was looking for. Wes Welker - 7 years 38 million with 18.1 million guranteed for a late 2nd round pick. Deions Branch - 6 years 39 million with 13 million guranteed for a late 1st round pick. That's not what I'm reading... Welker agreed Tuesday to a five-year, $18.1 million contract includes a $9 million signing bonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Seymour held out and Belichick caved, so that precedent was already set. I believe Seymour reported to camp before the deal was inked. I'd have to look it up though. Ans even if not, the team admittedly puts Seymour and Brady in a different category than their other players. EDIT: Indeed, that is not true. Here is the details of the Seymour episode. It was indded a much smoother affair, which was why I thought he had reported first. Come on. You saw Caldwell drop those passes in the AFC Championship Game. Yes...yes we did. And it was painful. And the team still managed to put up 34 points. IMO it was the defense that let the team down, not the offense. Edited March 6, 2007 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I believe Seymour reported to camp before the deal was inked. I'd have to look it up though. Ans even if not, the team admittedly puts Seymour and Brady in a different category than their other players. EDIT: Indeed, that is not true. Here is the details of the Seymour episode. It was indded a much smoother affair, which was why I thought he had reported first. No arguments here, but my point was that Seymour whined about his contract and got paid. Therefore, the precedent of players threatening to hold out if they didn't get paid and BB caving into them was set before the Branch episode last summer. Agreed that guys like Seymour and Brady are on a higher level than Branch, but the precedent is still there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Like Nick, I totally disagree that not having Branch is why the Pats didn't make it to the SB this year. They scored plenty, however the D couldn't hold up. I suppose you could argue that the Pats having short drives is what caused the D to tire -- it's a valid point. Still and all, the Pats D couldn't stop anything in the middle pretty much all day and I really think that was the nail in their coffin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Like Nick, I totally disagree that not having Branch is why the Pats didn't make it to the SB this year. They scored plenty, however the D couldn't hold up. I suppose you could argue that the Pats having short drives is what caused the D to tire -- it's a valid point. Still and all, the Pats D couldn't stop anything in the middle pretty much all day and I really think that was the nail in their coffin. Well, that's certainly a big part of it. No doubt that NE's defense not being able to hold a 21-3 lead was huge. But only being able to score ONE TD against a not-that-great defense after the beginning of the second quarter was a big part of it as well. Having crap at WR also cost them the regular-season game against the Colts, which ended up costing them home-field advantage in the AFC Championship game. A wide-open Caldwell dropping that pass in the 4th quarter of the AFC Championship game also turned a sure first-and-goal (and probable TD) into a FG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.