Collins traded to Cleveland per Schefter
- Thread starter Nite Vizhun UV
- Start date
I cannot think of a situation where the Pats lost a ring due to a trade they made that weakened the team. Do you have any specific examples? All I could come up with was the Richard Seymour trade, but that 2009 team wasn't close.
A poster in last week's game thread did point out that Collins was the same age as Jerod Mayo when Mayo's play started to decline. I hadn't really thought of Collins very much until someone pointed out Lombardi's dislike for him, and even then I did not put much stock in it. But he's had 2 subpar games in a row, and if he was consistently missing or completely blowing off assignments, I can see where Belichick the coach would tell Belichick the GM to get rid of the guy.
Still, I would like to see the Pats make a trade to pick up a player before the deadline.
I would argue that had they not traded Branch in 2006 they probably would have won the Super Bowl.
People always say "They didn't get enough in return" -- well, this may be the most they could have gotten. I doubt that there were better offers that BB turned down, just to send a "My way or the Brown highway" message.
Not a trade, but do the Patriots kick on 4th and 13 in the Super Bowl that Shall not be Name if a certain Colts' kicker was still on the roster?
Ghost has been unreal since then (despite some issues here and there) but they likely kick that with Adam.
That playoff game likely takes place in Foxborough if they had Branch playing all year.
FWIW
NEPD_Loyko
Per my Collins source: Collins turned down 11 million per year and recently got into a heated argument with Patricia recently
10/31/16, 11:22 AM
NEPD_Loyko
Per my Collins source: Collins turned down 11 million per year and recently got into a heated argument with Patricia recently
10/31/16, 11:22 AM
Branch was holding out and placed on the Did Not Report list, so had they not traded him they still would not have gotten his production on the field. He had rejected a 3 year extension already and talks had turned acrimonious. He signed for 6/39 with Seattle after the trade; it's almost certain that if the Patriots had signed Branch to a similar deal they would have been weakened going forward as the money tied up in his contract would not have allowed them to sign/keep other players.
And anyway, it's tough to say not having Branch cost them a Super Bowl when their defense couldn't hold a 21-3 lead in the second quater at Indy in the CG. The offense scored 31 points that day, it wasn't the problem. And the following year was 18-1. Seemed to do OK without Branch.
Alex Mack signing with the Falcons is likely to net the Browns a 3rd round comp pick.
Branch has been said a few times, but I also think they had a much better chance with Seymour as well.
Come on, this is nonsense speculation. Baltimore had gone 13-3, SD 14-2, Pats and Indy 12-4. It was incredibly unlikely the Branch would have been worth the 2 or 3 game swing to ensure the game was in Foxboro. The Pats did, after all, go down to SD and beat a 14-2 team in their own barn without him.
Was Branch going to be the reason the Pats beat Denver in Denver that year? Was Branch going to be the guy to stop the Wildcat and thus avoid losing 21-0 to Miami? No and no.
They got Solder for the Seymour trade. That's a pretty big get; Solder's not a top five tackle or anything but he's decent and decent LTs are hard to find.
Even better:
They've already traded the 4th round pick.
Edit: other reports are they already traded a 4th round comp pick. Volin is never wrong though!
They've already traded the 4th round pick.
Edit: other reports are they already traded a 4th round comp pick. Volin is never wrong though!
They needed to win exactly one more game to ensure the matchup against Indy took place in Foxborough.
It's not nonsense, it's just speculation. There can't be a factual answer to the question "which trade the Patriots have made that significantly lowered their chances to win a title?". It's all hypothetical.
I'm not considering context or the financial impact of the decision, just answering that single question.
No one beats their breast about not having Branch if Caldwell doesn't drop the ball. Period. The team didn't miss him, unless somehow he learned to play defense as part of the new contract. They had a 21-3 lead in Indy and couldn't hold it. They scored 31 that day. The lack of Deion Branch wasn't the problem. The defense getting gassed and being old was the problem. It's no coincidence that after the season the team immediately blew their FA load on Adalius Thomas.
The defense on that 2009 team was beyond repair, and so Seymour alone would not have helped them.
Seymour may have made a difference in 2010 or 2011 (a huge maybe), but he likely would have left as a free agent by then anyway.
Can you tell by the fact that a lot of posts in here saying something like "I hate this trade!" and "WTF?"
Not having the team's best wide receiver wasn't a factor in a shootout against Peyton Manning? Okay.
It wouldn't have been a shootout had the defense shown up. They scored plenty of points to win the game. They had a big lead too.
What if Branch handed out free flu shots so that everyone wasn't sick, did you think of that?
I mean, he left and the team went from 10-6 to 12-4. Maybe he sent the flu to them before the AFCCG that year too!
The 2006 AFCCG was so close that Branch absolutely could have made the difference.
Even with Branch though the 2006 team wasn't particularly talented and the AFC was pretty stacked; it's hard to look at that year as one where the Patriots should have won more than they did. .
You keep forgetting the fact that the team's best WR did not want to play in NE that season and was willing to hold out the year.
Once again, I'm not talking about context. I'm answering the question: "which trade has Belichick made that could have potentially cost the Patriots a Super Bowl?". I agree that it was the financially sound decision to trade Branch.
I love you Red, but 95% of the time when these things happen with the Pats you start pissed off then in a day or two post "I'm coming around on this..."
Here's hoping
But lets say the Pats are starting those two, and that BB magically posts here. Wouldnt he tell us that Collins wasn't playing any better than Mingo and Van Noy did in this (hopefully) mythical game?
And in fact had already missed one game and been fined $600K for holding out. And giving him the 6/39 he got from Seattle would have almost certainly meant that the Pats wouldn't have signed Thomas for the next season and maybe not traded for Moss or Welker and would probably have not reached the SB. There wouldn't have been enough money.
No move or potential move exists in a vacuum.
Except the context matters, in that if the trade wasn't made, the Pats likely don't have Branch anyway. So you cannot say the trade potentially cost the Patriots a Super Bowl.
This seems like a significant risk to the deal. If Mack ends up returning a 4th, and this is the first year under a new system so who knows, the Pats may end up with worse comp than if they had just kept him. Either they have some assurance the CLE comp pick is a 3rd or the situation was worse than we know.
Some deadline speculation:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/10/31/trade-deadline-deals-joe-thomas-sheldon-richardson-torrey-smith/93035182/
Says Haden could be available for a Day 2 pick. Thomas for a second rounder. It's the Browns, maybe we trade the 3rd right back to them for Haden.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/10/31/trade-deadline-deals-joe-thomas-sheldon-richardson-torrey-smith/93035182/
Says Haden could be available for a Day 2 pick. Thomas for a second rounder. It's the Browns, maybe we trade the 3rd right back to them for Haden.
If the Pats sign Branch to a massive contract in 2006, that 2007 roster is never constructed. Say what you will about how 2007 ended, but that team was pretty good. That Branch contract Seattle signed was terrible, especially giving up the pick as well.
If this is the argument, then sure, you have a point. So I'll just say that not giving Branch a new contract potentially cost the Patriots a Super Bowl. (Before some of you get antsy, I agree that it was the right move not to pay him what he wanted. To get a first round pick for your troubles was just the cherry on top).
Belichick seems to agree that the dreck they were rolling with at WR cost the team in 2006, considering all the moves he made to boost the position in the following season.
Also, Branch had exactly one year in his career with more than 61 catches...his last year in NE. Every other year he was a 40-50 catch guy who only played a full year once.
The very first thing the Pats did was to sign Thomas, so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion there.
Yeah, getting Stallworth, Welker and Moss in a single offseason wasn't an indictment on the state of the receiving options at all.
And was only possible because they didn't sign Branch to a massive overpay. Seriously, anyone saying the Pats the that ridiculous contract was a mistake is being ridiculous. He had a top 5-10 worst contract in football and the Pats got a first rounder out of it.
I agree with all of this. My argument is just that for the 2006 season only, not having him on the team possibly cost them a Super Bowl. Obviously Bill knew at the time he made the deal that the 2006 Patriots would be worse off without Branch, but it still was the right move.