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.All evidence suggests the Patriots don't consider themselves a win-now team and don't execute player moves to maximize the Brady window. We can all debate about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but we have transaction after transaction to match BB rhetoric that shows this isn't how the Patriots operate or view their franchise.
My issue is that we are worse today than we were yesterday and the upside is a pick between the 3rd and 4th round (maybe). That's bad value for a guy you drafted in the second round when you have legit Super Bowl aspirations. There's a chance this team has 2 more rings if Bill doesn't make moves like this that weaken a really good team.
There's also a chance they have one less ring and aren't contending anymore because they decided to GFIN in previous seasons and whiffed.
2006 Deion Branch.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.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.
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.I'll add that if he had been looking that bad on film that it was getting him benched (and presumably contributed to getting traded), I would assume other teams noticed as well, helping to lower his value. If he had a year left on his deal, sure you might have time to think you can coach him up and fix it. But as you say, not in 8 games.
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?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.
They are more likely to get the 3rd for Alex Mack.If it becomes a 4th round pick, does Goodell get to steal it?
They're trading with the Falcons, too?They are more likely to get the 3rd for Alex Mack.
That playoff game likely takes place in Foxborough if they had Branch playing all year.Maybe. They scored 34 points in the playoff game in which they were eliminated though.
If it becomes a 4th round pick, does Goodell get to steal it?
Good point. I think he does.
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.I would argue that had they not traded Branch in 2006 they probably would have won the Super Bowl.
Alex Mack signing with the Falcons is likely to net the Browns a 3rd round comp pick.They're trading with the Falcons, too?
Branch has been said a few times, but I also think they had a much better chance with Seymour as well.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.
Thanks. I misunderstoodAlex Mack signing with the Falcons is likely to net the Browns a 3rd round comp pick.
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.That playoff game likely takes place in Foxborough if they had Branch playing all year.
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.Branch has been said a few times, but I also think they had a much better chance with Seymour as well.
They needed to win exactly one more game to ensure the matchup against Indy took place in Foxborough.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.
Yeah, man, we never fucking win.Cut to me in January wondering again how we didn't win in a year we were by far the best team halfway through.
The defense on that 2009 team was beyond repair, and so Seymour alone would not have helped them.Branch has been said a few times, but I also think they had a much better chance with Seymour as well.
In true Boston sports fashion, we're already getting the "he was actually not that good a player", "he's a malcontent" and "he wanted way too much money" narratives on their way.
Not having the team's best wide receiver wasn't a factor in a shootout against Peyton Manning? Okay.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.
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.Not having the team's best wide receiver wasn't a factor in a shootout against Peyton Manning? Okay.
What if Branch handed out free flu shots so that everyone wasn't sick, did you think of that?It wouldn't have been a shootout had the defense shown up. They scored plenty of points to win the game.
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!What if Branch handed out free flu shots so that everyone wasn't sick, did you think of that?
The 2006 AFCCG was so close that Branch absolutely could have made the difference.Not having the team's best wide receiver wasn't a factor in a shootout against Peyton Manning? Okay.
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.Not having the team's best wide receiver wasn't a factor in a shootout against Peyton Manning? Okay.
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.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.
So keep Roberts in his elevated role and play Collins in a different role. He does so many things that can help the defense like putting him in on passing downs and let him go rush the passer. A player that talented should not be traded for the return they got in his walk year when they can get a 3rd for him by simply not signing him in March.
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?All true and a fair point. However, I just hope we aren't lamenting this trade come January if we're starting Mingo and Van Noy in the AFC championship 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.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.
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.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.
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.Surely this somewhat opaque league-run comp pick process will have a favorable outcome for New England.
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).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.
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.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.
The very first thing the Pats did was to sign Thomas, so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion there.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.
Yeah, getting Stallworth, Welker and Moss in a single offseason wasn't an indictment on the state of the receiving options at all.The very first thing the Pats did was to sign Thomas, so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion there.
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.Yeah, getting Stallworth, Welker and Moss in a single offseason wasn't an indictment on the state of the receiving options at all.
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.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.