Should the Patriots have won their 4th Super Bowl? (1 Viewer)

[crnerblitz]

I am just revisiting my rant that I posted about the decision to let Deion Branch go. I thought it was wrong then and I believe that the Pats would have beaten the Colts with branch as their #1. Thus in my mind at least least proving the point of my afformentioned rant.

A former Pats fan.

 

[Serenity Now]

Nah, I think they still would have lost. Despite a couple shaky plays from Caldwell, the WRs weren't the problem here. Nasty combo of play calling, a couple bad penalty calls and probably 'destiny'. I think this was just the Colts year.

What really ticks me off is that I think the Pats could have handled the Bears in the super bowl had they been able to overcome that Colts game.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Unless Branch was going to go Troy Brown and play D, I don't think so. The offense score 27 points. It is tough to give up 38 and win.

 

[Ack88]

Unless Deion Branch could pull a Troy Brown and play defense, the Patriots still lose the game. From the late second quarter on, the Colts offense absolutely abused the Pats defense. If you don't make ANY stops, you don't deserve to win.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Personally, I can't believe that any Patriot fans really believe this. I don't think that the OP is one, but it's a sentiment that I still hear around here.

Basically, I think that it's just an easy, simple, excuse to go to. It doesn't require a lot of though or analysis. "Patriots lost in the AFC Championship game - well if they had Branch they might've won!"

If you think Branch should've gotten his coin here, then that's fine - I think that is a valid and debatable topic. If you think that the reason the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl was because they didn't have Deion Branch, you're delusional.

Generally, I believe that if you make it to the AFC Championship team, you have a championship-caliber roster. A lot of things can happen in the span of one game, that's what the playoffs are all about. The Branchless Patriots went up to a 21-3 lead in the first half. The Branchless-Patriots had numerous opportunities to put the game away late in the second half - they didn't do it. The offense couldn't convert a couple of big 3rd downs, and the defense played like it was a junior high team. Manning was absolutely transcendent in the second half, and the Patriots couldn't stop him or keep the ball long enough to neutralize him.

All that being said - they still almost won. So if you mean to tell me that if the Patriots convert that 3rd down with 3 minutes left and win, then it was a GOOD idea to not pay Branch $54 million, but if they DON'T convert that 3rd down then it was a BAD idea not to pay $54, then I think you don't really know what you're talking about.

Also, I love this aspect of Belichick's "ego". I'm not going to sit here and and say he doesn't have an ego, but Branch was let go (for a 1st round pick I'll add) because the Patriot front office (including but not limited to Belichick) believed that they could succeed without paying Branch all that money...well guess what, they made it to a very winnable AFC Championsip game. They were RIGHT. Just because they blew the biggest lead in conference championship history does not mean you should just reverse every personel decision they made.

Belichick has plenty of blame for this game. They were outcoached. If you want to ##### about personel decisions, you'd have a much more valid argument if you #####ed about the depth on the defense. Some of the names of the defensive players on the field at the same time in the second half of that game I had never SEEN before. Eric Alexander got OWNED all night. The lack of depth at LB and the secondary really hurt them, IMO - certainly a lot more than an upgrade at WR.

@ this team now holds the record for scoring the most points in conference championship history and STILL losing - and you come here saying they should've kept a WR. It'd be sad if this weren't such an obvious

BTW, I voted "No" on the poll.

 

[The Shizzle]

I think the three main factors were:

1. Aging, slow linebackers that tired out on 10-20 yd pass plays.

2. Ineffective run game that couldn't keep the defense rested.

3. Rodney Harrison not playing. (Yes a safety is that important..IE..Bob Sanders.)

I don't think Deion had anything to do whatsoever with the Patriots losing the AFC game.

 

[Boston]

I do think the Pats could have used Branch's typical season of 1,300 yards and 11 TDs. No doubt about it...

Branch is a very good player. Everyone agrees to that. That's why the Pats tried to extend him a year before his deal was done. Unfortunately the parties were not able to come to an agreement. Yet, the belief that he is an All Pro level WR is absolutely absurd. That's just not correct. The guy has never gone for over 1,000 yards in his five year career and his TD totals are nothing special as well.

The bottomline with Branch is he would have helped the Patriot team in 2006 but would have hurt the Patriot organization long term if they gave him a deal like Seattle's. The way the Pats play football Branch is not the player to give big money to. The Pats tie up their money in other areas they deem more important and seeing as they were able to come a few minutes away from winning the AFC with Caldwell and Gaffney I think they are on the right path.

If you want to knock the Pats knock them for timing. By not addressing Branch's situation earlier they were left in a bind. There wasn't a bunch of alternatives once the situation went south. Yet, until the season was getting close I don't think anyone really thought Branch would be as adamant as he was.

The bottomline is I'd much rather have a #1 draft pick and money to sign a player like Dan Koppen than Branch. While there was some short term pain the Pats goal is to be very good for the long term and not be a team that's good for awhile and than fall apart due to age and salary cap issues. The only way you're going to accomplish that is to make some col, hard decisions like they did with Branch.

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

While I voted no in this poll, the flip side of the coin must be looked at. If Branch swallowed his OWN ego by adhereing to orginal rookie contract that he signed and then agreed to the slightly lower extention money that the patriots offered, THEN maybe the patriots would have been able to squeeze out one more win which would have put the AFC championship at Gillette which may have swayed the entire picture. Whatever!

Having Branch would have been nice (maybe even contributed to a win) but I took the Red, White, Silver, and Blue pills so I am unable to compute anything that goes against the patriot way. Like the loads of other Patriot fans that I know, I still don't think that Dion Branch was worth the money that Seattle dumped on his door step but I hope he proves me wrong as he is a heck of a player and good person all around.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I think the three main factors were:1. Aging, slow linebackers that tired out on 10-20 yd pass plays.2. Ineffective run game that couldn't keep the defense rested.3. Rodney Harrison not playing. (Yes a safety is that important..IE..Bob Sanders.)I don't think Deion had anything to do whatsoever with the Patriots losing the AFC game.

#1 - agredd#2 - they didn't even try and run in the second half. I kept waiting for them to give the ball to Dillon and it never happened. I think they had like 5 running plays the whole 2nd half. Horrible game plan, this my patriot friends is what cost you the game and a 4 superbowl.#3 - somewhat agree, he would have helped.

 

[PMENFAN]

NO, I don't think Branch would have made a difference. They added him, while subtracting a OG (granted probably the best OG in the league) in Seattle, and Seattle isn't even the conference championship, after a SB appearance a year ago. Is Branch a difference maker? The evidence suggests no. The Pats also had him last year, and hung only 14 in Denver. This year without him, they put up 27 with the O. I like Deion, and I think he was an asset to the team. But an asset worth the money Seattle paid for him? A receiver worth #1 receiver money? I don't think it's even close.

As for Belichick having an ego. Of course he does. Successful people do. You have to believe in what you're doing. His past success, and even the current success, would build that ego. Face reality. They were no more than one play in either direction from being in the Superbowl, and likely winning. Is there any question that they were the second best team in the league this year when it came time to play for the hardware? Yes, they didn't have the best record. Nobody expected them to, with rebuilding the receiving corps. I didn't expect a 12-4 team to be the 4 seed, but they were. Am I happy they lost in the AFCCG? Absolutely not. But, in the grand scheme, I'm happy where they are. And, where they are has everything to do with Bill Belichicks ego, and why he has an ego to begin with. The philosophy and business model employed in Foxboro. You can disagree with the individual decisions all day long, but who else is having the success? They've won 3 of the last 6 Superbowls, and came within a hair of having a solid crack at the fourth. What other team is even close to that mark? Nobody else has even been to 2 Superbowls in that time, nevermind win 3 of them. Philly comes closest, with the conference Championship games, but their down seasons have been down. NE"s down season was missing the playoffs on a tiebreaker. I'll take that ego every year he wants to coach.

 

[PMENFAN]

I think the three main factors were:1. Aging, slow linebackers that tired out on 10-20 yd pass plays.2. Ineffective run game that couldn't keep the defense rested.3. Rodney Harrison not playing. (Yes a safety is that important..IE..Bob Sanders.)I don't think Deion had anything to do whatsoever with the Patriots losing the AFC game.

1- I partially agree. The insertion of Alexander, a young LB, led to many of the LB's blown/beat in coverage. Definitely have issues. There's also the issue of the injury ravaged secondary missing assignments. 2 I agree. The run game was not good. I didn't like a lot of the calls. To much cute stuff. The Colts are a quick D. The draws kept getting us caught int he backfield. I think quick hitters between the tackles would have served us better. That said, I also have the knowledge that the draws didn't work. The draws that did work, worked great. We just went to that well too many times, and that's the run play they looked for. #. I absolutely agree. There's no question that he makes a difference, because it allows them to use the nickel more. Not to mention when Hawkins went down and missed many plays in the second half, the Pats went all the way to the end of the Bench for Rashad Baker, whom they just signed in mid November. His absence just so limited what they could do as a defense to stem the flow. But, you have to play with what you have, and even in the situation that unfolded, it was a 38-34 game.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

A former Pats fan.

Bandwagon much?

 

[code]

A few reasons the Pats lost the AFCC game...#1 the defense was depleted by injuries (like the entire secondary, and seymour getting nicked early in the game)

#2 the defense was weakened by the flu running through the locker room all week

#3 the offensive playcalling was sub-optimal in the second half

.

.

.

#1296 they didn't have Deion Branch on offense

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I do think the Pats could have used Branch's typical season of 1,300 yards and 11 TDs.

Simmer down, he has a career total of 18 TDs in 5 seasons. 60/800/4 is a quick yearly average for Branch and it's a stretch to label his as "very" good. He's an average WR.

 

[Boston]

I do think the Pats could have used Branch's typical season of 1,300 yards and 11 TDs.

Simmer down, he has a career total of 18 TDs in 5 seasons. 60/800/4 is a quick yearly average for Branch and it's a stretch to label his as "very" good. He's an average WR.

I was being sarcastic...

 

[phthalatemagic]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

 

[nysfl2]

While I don't think that Branch would have allowed the Pats to win that game, I think there is a possibility that the Pats with Brach would have won another game or two during the regular season, and gotten home field advantage over the Colts for the AFC Championship.

If that game is played at New England, I think there is a much better chance that the Pats are Superbowl champs now.

 

[TD Ryan]

this team now holds the record for scoring the most points in conference championship history and STILL losing - and you come here saying they should've kept a WR. It'd be sad if this weren't such an obvious

you'll be hard pressed to find a NE fan that wasn't:- sorry to see Branch go- but realized it was the correct move for the team to make

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I do think the Pats could have used Branch's typical season of 1,300 yards and 11 TDs.

Simmer down, he has a career total of 18 TDs in 5 seasons. 60/800/4 is a quick yearly average for Branch and it's a stretch to label his as "very" good. He's an average WR.

I was being sarcastic...

sorry.

 

[Phurfur]

I am just revisiting my rant that I posted about the decision to let Deion Branch go. I thought it was wrong then and I believe that the Pats would have beaten the Colts with branch as their #1. Thus in my mind at least least proving the point of my afformentioned rant. A former Pats fan.

After the mediocre season Branch had you are still on this soap box. Branch would not have lead them to the super bowl, NE has a #1 draft pick and Seattle is stuck with Branch.

 

[AB in DC]

I'd vote yes if it weren't for the moronic subtitle and juvenile whining in the OP.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I do think the Pats could have used Branch's typical season of 1,300 yards and 11 TDs. No doubt about it...

You should have added or or here as people won't get that you were joking.As for the OP's question... If, if, if, if, if. It's futile to suppose "what if's?"

The Patriots finished 3rd in the NFL this season (some may argue they finished 2nd). That's pretty damn good for a supposed "down year". Should they have paid #1 money to a holdout, who's actually a #2? Never. That's why teams like the Pats can continue to put a good product on the field year in and year out. They do not let themselves get hamstrung by one player.

How's Tennesse digging David Givens these days?

 

[Kit Fisto]

He's an average WR.

 

[Kit Fisto]

this team now holds the record for scoring the most points in conference championship history and STILL losing - and you come here saying they should've kept a WR. It'd be sad if this weren't such an obvious

you'll be hard pressed to find a NE fan that wasn't:- sorry to see Branch go- but realized it was the correct move for the team to make

Lots of good replies in here.

 

[Gr00vus]

I do think the Pats could have used Branch's typical season of 1,300 yards and 11 TDs.

Simmer down, he has a career total of 18 TDs in 5 seasons. 60/800/4 is a quick yearly average for Branch and it's a stretch to label his as "very" good. He's an average WR.

More to the point of the OP - Branch dropped a TON of balls for Seattle this year. I think Caldwell actually outperformed Branch in the post season this year as well overall.Missing Branch was not the problem.

 

[Buttmonkey]

I am just revisiting my rant that I posted about the decision to let Deion Branch go. I thought it was wrong then and I believe that the Pats would have beaten the Colts with branch as their #1. Thus in my mind at least least proving the point of my afformentioned rant.

A former Pats fan.

Hmmm, this is probably typical of a lot of Pats fans. Here and spouting off when their team wins, but this guy sees the writing on the wall and has already dropped what is supposedly "his" team. Nice. Guess you'll be a Colts fan now.

 

[AB in DC]

If that's the case, then good riddance.

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow: but in regards to Bruschi and Harrison while they may be getting older, they are still decent players...Teddy may see his role reduced this season a la Seau as he is seemingly losing a step or two but Harrison, in my eyes, has proven that he can still play provided he is on the field and not rehabbing injury. As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

 

[Kit Fisto]

As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Right here, up top!

 

[My_Favorite_Team_is]

As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Right here, up top!

I don't know to be like this or like this

 

[phthalatemagic]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow: but in regards to Bruschi and Harrison while they may be getting older, they are still decent players...Teddy may see his role reduced this season a la Seau as he is seemingly losing a step or two but Harrison, in my eyes, has proven that he can still play provided he is on the field and not rehabbing injury. As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Oops, sorry I forgot Caldwell was on the team. Bruschi and Harrison: I guess the future will tell the truth, if they continue the slide they are on, 2006 will be looked on as the season that they started to "lose it". Maybe, maybe not.

 

[massraider]

Losing Branch had n othing to do with it. And if you re-read the Branch threads from last year, I was giving it to the Pats pretty hard. Losing Branch didn't seem to hurt them this season.

So why didn't they win? Well, they didn't get the breaks this time. Remember when Reggie Wayne caught that ball, and it squirted out, only to have him get it back under control? That never used to happen. What used to happen was some Patriot jumped on it, and Brady led the team to a FG (Another gritty win!), and the Pats moved on.

The minute Wayne recovered that ball, you just knew it was over.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I am just revisiting my rant that I posted about the decision to let Deion Branch go. I thought it was wrong then and I believe that the Pats would have beaten the Colts with branch as their #1. Thus in my mind at least least proving the point of my afformentioned rant.

A former Pats fan.

Hmmm, this is probably typical of a lot of Pats fans. Here and spouting off when their team wins, but this guy sees the writing on the wall and has already dropped what is supposedly "his" team. Nice. Guess you'll be a Colts fan now.

Doubtful. Most Pats fans err on the side of being blindly loyal homers (I can say that because I am one). I suspect crnerblitz has a personal connection to Branch, as he is in the minority on this issue.

 

[Boston]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow: but in regards to Bruschi and Harrison while they may be getting older, they are still decent players...Teddy may see his role reduced this season a la Seau as he is seemingly losing a step or two but Harrison, in my eyes, has proven that he can still play provided he is on the field and not rehabbing injury. As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Oops, sorry I forgot Caldwell was on the team. Bruschi and Harrison: I guess the future will tell the truth, if they continue the slide they are on, 2006 will be looked on as the season that they started to "lose it". Maybe, maybe not.

What slide are they on? They improved from 2005 to 2006.In 2005 they were 10-6 and lost in the divisional round of the playoffs. In 2006 they were 12-4, won a playoff game at home and on the road while losing the AFC Championship in a game that while very ugly at times they pretty much lead for 58 minutes. Going into this offseason they have between 26-30 million in cap space as well as two first round picks as well as probably obtaining about three or four more in compensatory. As far as free agency is concerned the only major free agents they have up in the next two years are Samuel and Graham this year and Bruschi next year (and that's probably a moot point because next year is probably his last).This team is not sliding. They have some issues but they are still a top five team that can easily get back on top with a good offseason.

 

[phthalatemagic]

THe individual players, not the team

 

[parrot]

The Patriots offered Branch a fair contract that was still in keeping with their long-term management plan.

Branch chose to hold out - even though he was legitimately under contract - and force his way out of town. If there was an ego problem here, it was with Branch, not with Belichick.

 

[Boston]

THe individual players, not the team

Sorry about that. Bruschi is definetly sliding. No doubt about it...although it's pretty understandable as he has a lot of miles on him and his recent medical scare doesn't help. He can still help but his role has to be reduced. I think role similar to Ted Johnson's a few years back would make sense but anything more than that is not good news.As for Harrison his play isn't slipping. He's still a force. His issue is staying on the field hich is obviously a major concern. The Pats still need him badly. He gives their D an edge they don't have without him and they're not ready to move on away from him. That being said they need to find his eventual replacement this offseason because the clock is ticking with him and the past injuries speak for themself.

 

[crnerblitz]

I am just revisiting my rant that I posted about the decision to let Deion Branch go. I thought it was wrong then and I believe that the Pats would have beaten the Colts with branch as their #1. Thus in my mind at least least proving the point of my afformentioned rant.

A former Pats fan.

Hmmm, this is probably typical of a lot of Pats fans. Here and spouting off when their team wins, but this guy sees the writing on the wall and has already dropped what is supposedly "his" team. Nice. Guess you'll be a Colts fan now.

Doubtful. Most Pats fans err on the side of being blindly loyal homers (I can say that because I am one). I suspect crnerblitz has a personal connection to Branch, as he is in the minority on this issue.

Thank you Senior for not piling on. All I lack is being threatened and I believe I will have hit for the cycle. I am a great many things, but I am none of the things that have been suggested here. And yes my parents were too married. The overwhelming majority has spoken. My OPINION is wrong. Branch was not is not and will not be the cause of N.E. losing games. We can now go back to never supposing what ifs, as it was suggested.

I have been a Redskins and Patriots fan since 1975. It was the soonest I could become fans of these two teams because I was only introduced to the game when I was 5. So, having been a fan all my life I can definately say... mmm no, I am not a bandwagon fan. I offer my Texas Rangers fandom as further proof if needed.

I have no connection to Dieon Branch. I just happen to dislike Bill Belichick. As it was said before, there are more than enough reasons for people to dislike him so lets leave it at that.

In conclusion You were right and I was wrong. I will not start anymore Patriots rants.

 

[phthalatemagic]

THe individual players, not the team

Sorry about that. Bruschi is definetly sliding. No doubt about it...although it's pretty understandable as he has a lot of miles on him and his recent medical scare doesn't help. He can still help but his role has to be reduced. I think role similar to Ted Johnson's a few years back would make sense but anything more than that is not good news.As for Harrison his play isn't slipping. He's still a force. His issue is staying on the field hich is obviously a major concern. The Pats still need him badly. He gives their D an edge they don't have without him and they're not ready to move on away from him. That being said they need to find his eventual replacement this offseason because the clock is ticking with him and the past injuries speak for themself.

Yeha, it's cool... I wasn't clear. Thanks for the thoughts!

 

[Kit Fisto]

Losing Branch had n othing to do with it. And if you re-read the Branch threads from last year, I was giving it to the Pats pretty hard. Losing Branch didn't seem to hurt them this season.So why didn't they win? Well, they didn't get the breaks this time. Remember when Reggie Wayne caught that ball, and it squirted out, only to have him get it back under control? That never used to happen. What used to happen was some Patriot jumped on it, and Brady led the team to a FG (Another gritty win!), and the Pats moved on.The minute Wayne recovered that ball, you just knew it was over.

Yup, the bounces and calls just went the other way this year. And in a year where we were never really given a chance to go to the SB, finishing 3rd overall and a bounce or two away from the SB... I'll take it. We'll be back.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I am just revisiting my rant that I posted about the decision to let Deion Branch go. I thought it was wrong then and I believe that the Pats would have beaten the Colts with branch as their #1. Thus in my mind at least least proving the point of my afformentioned rant.

A former Pats fan.

Hmmm, this is probably typical of a lot of Pats fans. Here and spouting off when their team wins, but this guy sees the writing on the wall and has already dropped what is supposedly "his" team. Nice. Guess you'll be a Colts fan now.

Doubtful. Most Pats fans err on the side of being blindly loyal homers (I can say that because I am one). I suspect crnerblitz has a personal connection to Branch, as he is in the minority on this issue.

Crnerblitz is NOT a typical Pats fan, Buttmonkey. Instigate somewhere else.

 

[David Yudkin]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow: but in regards to Bruschi and Harrison while they may be getting older, they are still decent players...Teddy may see his role reduced this season a la Seau as he is seemingly losing a step or two but Harrison, in my eyes, has proven that he can still play provided he is on the field and not rehabbing injury. As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Oops, sorry I forgot Caldwell was on the team. Bruschi and Harrison: I guess the future will tell the truth, if they continue the slide they are on, 2006 will be looked on as the season that they started to "lose it". Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with both side of the Pats are starting to slip argument. IMO in 2005, they self destructed against the Broncos but were only 1 or 2 plays away from still winning that game and hosting the Steelers for the right to go to the Super Bowl. This year, they were essentially a first down away from reaching the Super Bowl again. So on the surface if they slipped from season's past it wasn't by much in terms of how far they got in the post season. If you think about it, there are plently of other teams that would be overjoyed to get as far as the Pats did the past two seasons.However, IMO they are noticably weaker in several areas compared to the 03/04 seasons, most noticably at LB, in the secondary, at WR, and overall depth. I also think that coaching losses also have had an impact on the team but that is a hard one to really evaluate. However, I do think that the loss of Weis and this year's crop of WRs led to a less effective passing game, at times and unhappy Brady, and more inconsistency in the offense overall.I also think while the loss of Branch in the Colts game was minimal, the whole ordeal overall took its toll and will have a negative imact on player relations in that current and potential players can now see the management's tactics for valuating and negotiating with players. It appears on the surface that the Pats philosophy will continue involve making low ball offers and trying to sign players to below market contracts.Now we can debate what that means. IMO Branch was not worth what he got for a contract but the market was such that he was able to get it. And in today's NFL with a ton of teams with plenty of cap room, I suspect that for many players in the league there will be another team willing to pay more than New England would. How that impacts who they roster will be an interesting thing to monitor over the next few years, as I suspect that they will be outbid on people they would otherwise want to sign--whether it be their own players or free agents.

 

[Bossman]

Unless Branch was going to go Troy Brown and play D, I don't think so. The offense score 27 points. It is tough to give up 38 and win.

lack of quality DB's was their downfall vs. the Colts.Belichick did draft a WR in the 2nd rd in last years draft. He can't help it if the kid has a hamstring for 6 months.If you're jumping ship because Belichick let Branch go...("a former Pats fan"?) then go root for the Colts you turncoat.

 

[Boston]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow: but in regards to Bruschi and Harrison while they may be getting older, they are still decent players...Teddy may see his role reduced this season a la Seau as he is seemingly losing a step or two but Harrison, in my eyes, has proven that he can still play provided he is on the field and not rehabbing injury. As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Oops, sorry I forgot Caldwell was on the team. Bruschi and Harrison: I guess the future will tell the truth, if they continue the slide they are on, 2006 will be looked on as the season that they started to "lose it". Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with both side of the Pats are starting to slip argument. IMO in 2005, they self destructed against the Broncos but were only 1 or 2 plays away from still winning that game and hosting the Steelers for the right to go to the Super Bowl. This year, they were essentially a first down away from reaching the Super Bowl again. So on the surface if they slipped from season's past it wasn't by much in terms of how far they got in the post season. If you think about it, there are plently of other teams that would be overjoyed to get as far as the Pats did the past two seasons.However, IMO they are noticably weaker in several areas compared to the 03/04 seasons, most noticably at LB, in the secondary, at WR, and overall depth. I also think that coaching losses also have had an impact on the team but that is a hard one to really evaluate. However, I do think that the loss of Weis and this year's crop of WRs led to a less effective passing game, at times and unhappy Brady, and more inconsistency in the offense overall.I also think while the loss of Branch in the Colts game was minimal, the whole ordeal overall took its toll and will have a negative imact on player relations in that current and potential players can now see the management's tactics for valuating and negotiating with players. It appears on the surface that the Pats philosophy will continue involve making low ball offers and trying to sign players to below market contracts.Now we can debate what that means. IMO Branch was not worth what he got for a contract but the market was such that he was able to get it. And in today's NFL with a ton of teams with plenty of cap room, I suspect that for many players in the league there will be another team willing to pay more than New England would. How that impacts who they roster will be an interesting thing to monitor over the next few years, as I suspect that they will be outbid on people they would otherwise want to sign--whether it be their own players or free agents.

How is the O slipping? They have their entire O line signed long term. Maroney gives them their potential RB of the future. Brady is Brady and Cassell now has another year under his belt. Graham maybe gone but Thomas is in the fold. WR needs help but to say they're slipping basically means you don't see them upgrading in that one area this offseason. One point I do agree on is losing Weis. I'm not a fan of Josh McDaniel and really feel this is the biggest exposure on offense. There are just far too many times when the playcalling seems rudderless.On D this offseason will determine if they're slipping. At D line they're in great shape. With Wright's deveopment they now have quality depth as well. LB is a major issue and needs to be addressed. The secondary needs help but this is an area that has been decimated by injuries three years running so adding a few quality players as well as not having three or four guys on IR would solve a few problems. Overall what they do (or don't do) at LB will determine what direction the D heads in.Overall I do think this is an important offseason for the Pats. They have some exposure that needs to be addressed if they are to win a championship and I do think the depth needs to be reinforced. Yet, they are very deep and signed long term in the trenches as well as having a franchise QB and probably the best coach in the NFL. Add in 26-30 million in cap space as well as two #1's and they still control their own destiny and are a very healthy championship caliber franchise.

 

[switz]

I'm personally sick of hearing how "bad" the Pats WRs are. They aren't and have never been "bad" WRs, with or without Branch.

 

[phthalatemagic]

How is the O slipping? They have their entire O line signed long term. Maroney gives them their potential RB of the future. Brady is Brady and Cassell now has another year under his belt. Graham maybe gone but Thomas is in the fold. WR needs help but to say they're slipping basically means you don't see them upgrading in that one area this offseason. One point I do agree on is losing Weis. I'm not a fan of Josh McDaniel and really feel this is the biggest exposure on offense. There are just far too many times when the playcalling seems rudderless.On D this offseason will determine if they're slipping. At D line they're in great shape. With Wright's deveopment they now have quality depth as well. LB is a major issue and needs to be addressed. The secondary needs help but this is an area that has been decimated by injuries three years running so adding a few quality players as well as not having three or four guys on IR would solve a few problems. Overall what they do (or don't do) at LB will determine what direction the D heads in.Overall I do think this is an important offseason for the Pats. They have some exposure that needs to be addressed if they are to win a championship and I do think the depth needs to be reinforced. Yet, they are very deep and signed long term in the trenches as well as having a franchise QB and probably the best coach in the NFL. Add in 26-30 million in cap space as well as two #1's and they still control their own destiny and are a very healthy championship caliber franchise.

I don't think the team is slipping, I referred to Bruschi and Harrison when I originally said that, but that's Yudkin's horse now. The Patriots are an elite team, like the Colts have been for a handful of years now and a few bounces or crazy plays each year determine who wins the AFC. The Patriots have age issues on the defense to address, but every team has some sort of issue to address - the Colts have FA issues to address. I do think Seymour's injuries have been downplayed, I know he didn't miss any games, but it seems something is always going on with him (knee at the beginning of the year, elbow mid season, something in the AFCC just to name a few) and he is always playing through something that keeps him from being close to 100%. His health will determine (IMO) how good the Patriots' defense will be because he IMO is the straw that stirs that drink.

 

[Phurfur]

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow:

Caldwell played with SD in 2005 and NE in 2006. Am I missing somrthing?

 

[Boston]

How is the O slipping? They have their entire O line signed long term. Maroney gives them their potential RB of the future. Brady is Brady and Cassell now has another year under his belt. Graham maybe gone but Thomas is in the fold. WR needs help but to say they're slipping basically means you don't see them upgrading in that one area this offseason. One point I do agree on is losing Weis. I'm not a fan of Josh McDaniel and really feel this is the biggest exposure on offense. There are just far too many times when the playcalling seems rudderless.On D this offseason will determine if they're slipping. At D line they're in great shape. With Wright's deveopment they now have quality depth as well. LB is a major issue and needs to be addressed. The secondary needs help but this is an area that has been decimated by injuries three years running so adding a few quality players as well as not having three or four guys on IR would solve a few problems. Overall what they do (or don't do) at LB will determine what direction the D heads in.Overall I do think this is an important offseason for the Pats. They have some exposure that needs to be addressed if they are to win a championship and I do think the depth needs to be reinforced. Yet, they are very deep and signed long term in the trenches as well as having a franchise QB and probably the best coach in the NFL. Add in 26-30 million in cap space as well as two #1's and they still control their own destiny and are a very healthy championship caliber franchise.

I don't think the team is slipping, I referred to Bruschi and Harrison when I originally said that, but that's Yudkin's horse now. The Patriots are an elite team, like the Colts have been for a handful of years now and a few bounces or crazy plays each year determine who wins the AFC. The Patriots have age issues on the defense to address, but every team has some sort of issue to address - the Colts have FA issues to address. I do think Seymour's injuries have been downplayed, I know he didn't miss any games, but it seems something is always going on with him (knee at the beginning of the year, elbow mid season, something in the AFCC just to name a few) and he is always playing through something that keeps him from being close to 100%. His health will determine (IMO) how good the Patriots' defense will be because he IMO is the straw that stirs that drink.

Agreed about Seymour. He was not the same player and was almost invisible in the playoffs. Whether it was injuries or losing an edge due to the big contract I'm not sure but he didn't play up to his standards. It's not because teams focused on him because that's nothing new. Fortunately both Wilfork and especially Warren took their game to the next level which helped compensate. With his age I'm very hopeful that he reverts back to form in 07 because he is one of the main cogs on this team.

 

[David Yudkin]

If they kept Branch would they have gotten Caldwell and Gaffney? I don't think so. I think Branch would have contributed about the same as those guys as well. Can't blame the lack of Super Bowl on the Branch thing. You can blame it on the lack of quality LBs and BB's breaking of his golden rule (getting rid of a guy one year too early as opposed to one year too late) with regards to Bruschi and Harrison.

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow: but in regards to Bruschi and Harrison while they may be getting older, they are still decent players...Teddy may see his role reduced this season a la Seau as he is seemingly losing a step or two but Harrison, in my eyes, has proven that he can still play provided he is on the field and not rehabbing injury. As regards to former fan: Try sitting on the comfy cold steel seats of Schafer Stadium through the awesome seasons of 90 and 91 when I had season tickets...the bandwagon doesn't even need you.

Oops, sorry I forgot Caldwell was on the team. Bruschi and Harrison: I guess the future will tell the truth, if they continue the slide they are on, 2006 will be looked on as the season that they started to "lose it". Maybe, maybe not.

I agree with both side of the Pats are starting to slip argument. IMO in 2005, they self destructed against the Broncos but were only 1 or 2 plays away from still winning that game and hosting the Steelers for the right to go to the Super Bowl. This year, they were essentially a first down away from reaching the Super Bowl again. So on the surface if they slipped from season's past it wasn't by much in terms of how far they got in the post season. If you think about it, there are plently of other teams that would be overjoyed to get as far as the Pats did the past two seasons.However, IMO they are noticably weaker in several areas compared to the 03/04 seasons, most noticably at LB, in the secondary, at WR, and overall depth. I also think that coaching losses also have had an impact on the team but that is a hard one to really evaluate. However, I do think that the loss of Weis and this year's crop of WRs led to a less effective passing game, at times an unhappy Brady, and more inconsistency in the offense overall.I also think while the loss of Branch in the Colts game was minimal, the whole ordeal overall took its toll and will have a negative imact on player relations in that current and potential players can now see the management's tactics for valuating and negotiating with players. It appears on the surface that the Pats philosophy will continue involve making low ball offers and trying to sign players to below market contracts.Now we can debate what that means. IMO Branch was not worth what he got for a contract but the market was such that he was able to get it. And in today's NFL with a ton of teams with plenty of cap room, I suspect that for many players in the league there will be another team willing to pay more than New England would. How that impacts who they roster will be an interesting thing to monitor over the next few years, as I suspect that they will be outbid on people they would otherwise want to sign--whether it be their own players or free agents.

How is the O slipping? They have their entire O line signed long term. Maroney gives them their potential RB of the future. Brady is Brady and Cassell now has another year under his belt. Graham maybe gone but Thomas is in the fold. WR needs help but to say they're slipping basically means you don't see them upgrading in that one area this offseason. One point I do agree on is losing Weis. I'm not a fan of Josh McDaniel and really feel this is the biggest exposure on offense. There are just far too many times when the playcalling seems rudderless.On D this offseason will determine if they're slipping. At D line they're in great shape. With Wright's deveopment they now have quality depth as well. LB is a major issue and needs to be addressed. The secondary needs help but this is an area that has been decimated by injuries three years running so adding a few quality players as well as not having three or four guys on IR would solve a few problems. Overall what they do (or don't do) at LB will determine what direction the D heads in.Overall I do think this is an important offseason for the Pats. They have some exposure that needs to be addressed if they are to win a championship and I do think the depth needs to be reinforced. Yet, they are very deep and signed long term in the trenches as well as having a franchise QB and probably the best coach in the NFL. Add in 26-30 million in cap space as well as two #1's and they still control their own destiny and are a very healthy championship caliber franchise.

I never said the offense was slipping, only that this year at times it was inconsistent (some weeks had trouble moving the ball in the air, some weeks had trouble moving the ball on the ground). N.E. had roughly 800 fewer passing yards in 06 vs 05 (but 05 was an inflated total due to a lot of things). As I said, IMO the team had games where they could run but not pass and vice versa and when they needed to run they had troubles and when the opposition knew they had to pass they had troubles.Bottom line, comparing the 2006 team to the 2004 team, I would suspect that many facets of the 04 team were stronger than this year. Yet they still almost one, so they haven't fallen all that much.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Caldwell was already on the team...Gaffney :idontknow:

Caldwell played with SD in 2005 and NE in 2006. Am I missing somrthing?

Caldwell had been signed as a Free Agent in the offseason before Branch decided to hold out.It's almost as if they brought Caldwell on board in anticipation of Branch holding out/being moved. If Branch had stayed, Caldwell would have been the #2 and there would have been no need for Gabriel or Gaffney.