Has the NFL considered a draft lottery...

[PCRoughrider]

...for the non-playoff teams?

The NBA, legendarily, has one. The NHL has one. The Blackhawks won theirs today, just a few days after the season ended, oddly.

The NFL really should have one.

FYI, for any Caps fans here, they will pick 5th this year.

[bubba9497]

no

no need for it

[skinsn24]

no this is a horrible idea. The current system works.

[skinfan2k]

no 1 throws games in the nfl with the season being so short.. teams like the titans last year and teams that start off poorly have a chance to make the playoffs

[PCRoughrider]

no

no need for it

No sport NEEDS it but what would it hurt?

And it would be another "event" in the offseason for the NFL, and they never have enough of those!

[skinfan2k]

1 player can make a big impact in the nba and other sports, not in the nfl..

[ALLWORLD]

No sport NEEDS it but what would it hurt?

And it would be another "event" in the offseason for the NFL, and they never have enough of those!

okay, I will say it. Its a retarded idea. Teams that do poorly most likely need some help and should have a better chance at getting more talent. How would pan out if Indy and Chicago drew and ended up getting top picks while teams like Oakland and Arizona, Detroit etc.. got the last picks?

[InTikiITrust]

okay, I will say it. Its a retarded idea. Teams that do poorly most likely need some help and should have a better chance at getting more talent. How would pan out if Indy and Chicago drew and ended up getting top picks while teams like Oakland and Arizona, Detroit etc.. got the last picks?

Pretty sure it doesn't work like that....

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The NBA has it because one player can almost single-handidly reverse the fortunes of a team. So in order to maintain some intergrity, the league has to have a mechanism in place to stop teams from throwing games.

Of course, this year, there are two potential franchise players so teams are tanking at an embarassing rate anyway.

It simply does not happen in the NFL. So, no need for it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

okay, I will say it. Its a retarded idea. Teams that do poorly most likely need some help and should have a better chance at getting more talent. How would pan out if Indy and Chicago drew and ended up getting top picks while teams like Oakland and Arizona, Detroit etc.. got the last picks?

Okay...you don't know how the lottery works. But nice post anyway.....

[ALLWORLD]

Pretty sure it doesn't work like that....

You must have missed the point.

The system now makes the worse the team, the higher the pick, right?

By getting a "lottery" you could have a winning team, getting 1st dibs on talent...

[ALLWORLD]

Okay...you don't know how the lottery works. But nice post anyway.....

is there any other way to use a "lottery"?



Maybe I should have used every team with records to explain... just using the 2 better finishers from the previous season for an example.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

is there any other way to use a "lottery"?



Maybe I should have used every team with records to explain... just using the 2 better finishers from the previous season for an example.

In the NBA and NHL (I think) only teams that miss the playoffs are in the lottery. So...no....the Bears and Colts would not be in it.

Secondly, the lottery is weighted so that the team with the worst record has something like 60 percent of the ping pong balls. In other words, the team with the worst record has a 3 out of 5 chance of getting the #1 pick. The team in the lottery with the best record has, I believe, a 1 in 60 chance.

Finally, the lotterry in the NBA only determines the top three picks. After that, it goes in order of record. So, even if the Bucks miss out on Durant and Oden, the worst they do is the #4 pick. There is no scenario where they pick in the #20s.

Still...good effort on your part.

[ALLWORLD]

In the NBA and NHL (I think) only teams that miss the playoffs are in the lottery. So...no....the Bears and Colts would not be in it.

Secondly, the lottery is weighted so that the team with the worst record has something like 60 percent of the ping pong balls. In other words, the team with the worst record has a 3 out of 5 chance of getting the #1 pick. The team in the lottery with the best record has, I believe, a 1 in 60 chance.

Finally, the lotterry in the NBA only determines the top three picks. After that, it goes in order of record. So, even if the Bucks miss out on Durant and Oden, the worst they do is the #4 pick. There is no scenario where they pick in the #20s.

Still...good effort on your part.

Not even halfway through that I got dizzy and had to drink water.

Thanks for the info though. :applause:

[PCRoughrider]

It would only be for the non-playoff teams, like the NBA and NHL and it would be weighted so the worst teams are most likely to get the top picks, just like the NBA and NHL.

And if your argument is that one top player on an NFL team has less impact than on an NBA team for example, that's even more of an argument for the lottery in the NFL. In the NFL, what would be the problem with the worst team picking first (because they "won" the lottery) or picking third or fourth (because they "lost" the lottery)? By your own argument, one player isn't going to make the difference on that bad team in the NFL, whether that player be the best player or the fourth best player in the draft. In the NBA, in many years, there is a HUGE advantage to getting the top pick, as opposed to the third or fourth pick. In those years, if you're really bad in the NBA, you should REALLY get that top pick!

[ALLWORLD]

Couldnt care less about NBA or NHL, as for the sport I watch, which we are talking about... No need at all nor is there a point to show otherwise. The system in place works fine (unless your like us and trade your picks).

[FunBunch7]

I htink that since each NFL game is a true EVENT, even when a team is like 2-11 down the strecth...to win a game is HUGE for their self esteem.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt the 53 players on the Raiders last year felt good that they "earned" the #1 pick in the draft. Now some Super Star "College" athlete will come in and virtually be handed the starting job and will get 50 million for 6 years.

[DWinzit]

I do not agree with the lottery idea. The only thing I do not like regarding the draft is the supplemental picks. I do not feel they are necessary! :2cents:

[[[ghost]]]

Its a very dumb idea.

If you're the worst team in the league, you should have the first shot at turning things around. The Lottery is a VERY stupid idea. CHicago doesn't deserve that first pick (NHL).

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

Quite frankly I think it is a good idea, if only for the effect it has on the season prior o a draft. In the NFL every game counts and parity is such that any team can beat any other team depending on a few bounces. Adding a lottery would be a level of security to ensure teams don't intentionally tank games towards the end of the season which may have an effect on another teams playoff hopes.

[JoeSkins]

Lotteries are meant to prevent teams from late-season tanking to guarantee themselves the top pick while still giving the worst team the best chance at the top pick. It's a tool to help fans get their money's-worth on tickets they buy (if they happen to root for a crap team and buy tickets late in the year). The NFL sells tickets just fine and dandy-like, and doesn't need that safety net.

[SkinsOrlando]

No, the system for the NFL works fine.

[pjfootballer]

I do not agree with the lottery idea. The only thing I do not like regarding the draft is the supplemental picks. I do not feel they are necessary! :2cents:

I agree with that statement. I don't like the supplemental picks. I say if you snooze, you lose. Because frugal teams like the Patriots, underpay or don't pay players and then end up having 11 or 12 picks in the draft.

[Shotgunner]

So under the lottery system the SB champs could end up with the #1 pick. Does not sound very fair.

[OWUeagleMD]

The NFL has found its success by selling parity. Thirty-two teams' fan bases have legitimate palyoff aspirations in training camp, which no other league has ever been able to say. There are two primary reasons: the hard cap and the draft system.

The hard cap, by its very nature, needs to raise every year to adjust for the market. Aside from that routine escalation the cap should remain untouched. The draft should never be changed in any way; it is perfect.

Somewhere along the line, someone asked the question "what could it hurt?" Without overstating my case, the anser is, the foundation of the league. A draft lottery would alter the foundation of the most successful sport in America.

Not such a hot idea, but certainly a fun topic for a message board.

Keep in mind also that there are 7 relavent rounds in the NFL and barely one relevant round in the NBA.

[OWUeagleMD]

I agree with that statement. I don't like the supplemental picks. I say if you snooze, you lose. Because frugal teams like the Patriots, underpay or don't pay players and then end up having 11 or 12 picks in the draft.

Frugal teams like the Patriots?

[NewCliche21]

Frugal teams like the Patriots?

Um, yeah. Have you paid attention to them for the past seven years?

As for the idea: Hell no.

[OWUeagleMD]

Um, yeah. Have you paid attention to them for the past seven years?

As for the idea: Hell no.

Corey Dillon, Tom Brady, Drew Bledsoe, Roosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison and about 50 guys this year.

They spend plenty of money. They just don't spend it the same way the Redskins and other teams do.

[DWinzit]

I agree with that statement. I don't like the supplemental picks. I say if you snooze, you lose. Because frugal teams like the Patriots, underpay or don't pay players and then end up having 11 or 12 picks in the draft.The NFL rewards teams for not signing their own players, WHY? If they decide to let them go, so be it! :insane:

[DWinzit]

Corey Dillon, Tom Brady, Drew Bledsoe, Roosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison and about 50 guys this year.

They spend plenty of money. They just don't spend it the same way the Redskins and other teams do.This year NE went uncharacteristically crazy in the market. You must admit they have let a lot of good home grown talent go and attempted replacing from within or with cheaper FA's. They have usually resided well under the cap and that is what NewCliche and pjfootballer were driving at!

This method has certainly worked for them, but I think last season they realized it caught up with them at the WR position. They have since shored this up by opening that notoriously closed wallet.

[OWUeagleMD]

This year NE went uncharacteristically crazy in the market. You must admit they have let a lot of good home grown talent go and attempted replacing from within or with cheaper FA's. They have usually resided well under the cap and that is what NewCliche and pjfootballer were driving at!

This method has certainly worked for them, but I think last season they realized it caught up with them at the WR position. They have since shored this up by opening that notoriously closed wallet.

But what I'm driving at is that their "notoriously closed wallet" is unfairly characterized. I know what the other guys were suggesting, it's the same thing everyone everywhere suggests about the Patriots.

Bellichek makes a lot of money. Tom Brady makes a lot of money. Richard Seymour makes a lot of money. Corey Dillon made a lot of money before retiring. They pay their money to plenty of players and aren't nearly as far under the cap on a regular basis as public perception dictates.

I just wish everyone would appreciate the fact that there are a number of ways to spend money under the current system and each team goes about it in different ways. The owner who, by design, spends significantly less money than his co-owners is a myth. Some teams handle business one way, others do theirs another. Under the current CBA the difference between the highest and lowest payroll in the league is negligible.

[DWinzit]

I understand where you are going and previously agreed their style worked for them.

Yes their coach and a select few have made good money. Regardless of how they spent their funds, they were always well under the cap. This concept back fired on them over the past season and they appear to have altered their approach.

No one can argue with NE's success over the past 5 seasons!:)

[OWUeagleMD]

Yes their coach and a select few have made good money. Regardless of how they spent their funds, they were always well under the cap. This concept back fired on them over the past season and they appear to have altered their approach.


I don't really agree that it backfired. For one, they played in the AFC championship game this season. For two, the guy they refused to pay most recently, Deion Branch, provided them a first round pick in the upcoming draft. That's the type of thing I'm talking about in terms of spending money in different ways. They had an asset in Branch and translated it into a highly valuable draft pick. To me, they saw Deion Branch as a replaceable player who was more valuable as a piece in a trade than he was in a player; I laugh at the assertion that they simply didn't want to sign a check out of frugality.

I don't agree that they've altered their approach. Though they've signed more players for more money this season than in any other, they've also showed a willingness to spend neccesary money when available players warrant that money. Roosevelt Colvin was one of the most coveted players in free agency the year they signed him. Clearly Corey Dillon was a major acquisition (though he came in a trade, he also signed a contract extension upon arrival). Rodney Harrison was a pro-bowler in San Diego. So, to me, their approach has always been "our guys first, as long as they come at the value their play warrants, and other team's guys only when neccesary." I would say they didn't change anything this season, but happened to experience an off-season in which other team's players presented a greater priority than their own. This off-season seems in line with their approach all along, it just isn't typical.

[DWinzit]

I don't agree that they've altered their approach. Though they've signed more players for more money this season than in any other, Exactly! I rest my case.;)


And yes NE has historically showed a willingness to spend big on one FA every year or two. The players they in bring are replacements for aging or unhappy stars. They also did sign Brady and Seymour to big contracts prior to them going into their final contract season. All good moves!

[pjfootballer]

Frugal teams like the Patriots?

Asante Samuel? Deion Branch? They usually don't sign alot of big money players outside of the organization. They did this year. And yes, I agree that they usually give their superstars the big money.

[BlueTalon]

...the lottery is weighted so that the team with the worst record has something like 60 percent of the ping pong balls. In other words, the team with the worst record has a 3 out of 5 chance of getting the #1 pick. The team in the lottery with the best record has, I believe, a 1 in 60 chance.

Finally, the lotterry in the NBA only determines the top three picks. After that, it goes in order of record. So, even if the Bucks miss out on Durant and Oden, the worst they do is the #4 pick. There is no scenario where they pick in the #20s. It would only be for the non-playoff teams, like the NBA and NHL and it would be weighted so the worst teams are most likely to get the top picks, just like the NBA and NHL.

And if your argument is that one top player on an NFL team has less impact than on an NBA team for example, that's even more of an argument for the lottery in the NFL. In the NFL, what would be the problem with the worst team picking first (because they "won" the lottery) or picking third or fourth (because they "lost" the lottery)? By your own argument, one player isn't going to make the difference on that bad team in the NFL, whether that player be the best player or the fourth best player in the draft. In the NBA, in many years, there is a HUGE advantage to getting the top pick, as opposed to the third or fourth pick. In those years, if you're really bad in the NBA, you should REALLY get that top pick!

And how exactly would this be an improvement on the way the NFL currently does it? (Just because the NBA is jacked up doesn't mean the NFL should join them in their messedupedness.)

[BlueTalon]

Adding a lottery would be a level of security to ensure teams don't intentionally tank games towards the end of the season which may have an effect on another teams playoff hopes.

Can you give any examples at all of an NFL team ever intentionally tanking a game for any reason? (Even if you could convince the coaches to do it, you'd have to convince the players to do it -- and no player who is playing for pride or future paychecks is going to willingly join in on an intentional tanking.)

Can you provide any evidence or theory or line of reasoning that would demonstrate why having a lottery would prevent teams from "tanking" any games?

[BlueTalon]

I don't really agree that it backfired. For one, they played in the AFC championship game this season. For two, the guy they refused to pay most recently, Deion Branch, provided them a first round pick in the upcoming draft.

But if Branch had been on their roster in that AFC Championship game, they'd have been more likely to win it. And they lost games (at least one game, according to Brady) earlier in the season, which, had they won, would have resulted in higher playoff seeding. In that sense, it backfired.

Yes, they get a 1st round pick this year, and they will do well with it. But they cost themselves a shot at the big dance in 2006.

[OWUeagleMD]

But if Branch had been on their roster in that AFC Championship game, they'd have been more likely to win it. And they lost games (at least one game, according to Brady) earlier in the season, which, had they won, would have resulted in higher playoff seeding. In that sense, it backfired.

Yes, they get a 1st round pick this year, and they will do well with it. But they cost themselves a shot at the big dance in 2006.

They made it to the AFC Championship game. I know they are the Patriots, and are thus held to a higher standard, but they did pretty well for a team fighting against such a personel "backfire."

They view things in a larger sense than the "here comes the season, we must do everything in our power to win RIGHT NOW" mentality that everyone seems to feel defines a good owner. It's as though, in some people's minds, the only type of owner who actually wants to win and is willing to show it financially is the owner who is willing to cave to all demands for immediate gratification.

The way the Patriots played the Deion Branch angle resulted in: an AFC Championship game appearance during their "backfired" season; and a roster the following season which will include Donte Stallworth at receiver, at least a push in talent level compared to Branch but for less money, which means more cap space for a guy like Adalius Thomas, as well as a second first-round pick to ensure the long-term health of the ball club.

The Patriots are not cheap. They are smart. All of us are jealous.

[Warhead36]

It makes sense in the NBA because one player can literally turn a franchise around(see: Lebron James). In the NFL teams don't really tank since as you can see teams at the top of the draft look to trade down and get more picks anyway.

[MrFrank]

...for the non-playoff teams?

The NBA, legendarily, has one. The NHL has one. The Blackhawks won theirs today, just a few days after the season ended, oddly.

The NFL really should have one.

FYI, for any Caps fans here, they will pick 5th this year.

Having the lottery would somewhat negate the purpose of having a salary cap.

[BlueTalon]

They made it to the AFC Championship game. I know they are the Patriots, and are thus held to a higher standard, but they did pretty well for a team fighting against such a personel "backfire."

They view things in a larger sense than the "here comes the season, we must do everything in our power to win RIGHT NOW" mentality that everyone seems to feel defines a good owner. It's as though, in some people's minds, the only type of owner who actually wants to win and is willing to show it financially is the owner who is willing to cave to all demands for immediate gratification.

The way the Patriots played the Deion Branch angle resulted in: an AFC Championship game appearance during their "backfired" season; and a roster the following season which will include Donte Stallworth at receiver, at least a push in talent level compared to Branch but for less money, which means more cap space for a guy like Adalius Thomas, as well as a second first-round pick to ensure the long-term health of the ball club.

The Patriots are not cheap. They are smart. All of us are jealous.

Somehow, I think that if you could play what-if and go back and change things, if you were to offer the Patriots a deal where they'd give up a 1st round draft pick this year to keep Branch last season and make a Super Bowl appearance in XLI, they'd do it.

[OWUeagleMD]

Somehow, I think that if you could play what-if and go back and change things, if you were to offer the Patriots a deal where they'd give up a 1st round draft pick this year to keep Branch last season and make a Super Bowl appearance in XLI, they'd do it.

You are operating under the false assumption that Deion Branch gurantees the Patriots a trip to the Super Bowl. He's a good player, but he could have dropped the pass in the flank on the sideline as easily as Jabar Gaffney did. But, yes, if we walked into a make believe land where one player guranteed that a team would go further than without him, the Patriots would accept your deal. In reality, the Patriots continue to excel with a sound business model. It is silly to call them cheap.

[BlueTalon]

You are operating under the false assumption that Deion Branch gurantees the Patriots a trip to the Super Bowl. He's a good player, but he could have dropped the pass in the flank on the sideline as easily as Jabar Gaffney did. But, yes, if we walked into a make believe land where one player guranteed that a team would go further than without him, the Patriots would accept your deal. In reality, the Patriots continue to excel with a sound business model. It is silly to call them cheap.

I never called them cheap. But I'm saying that Deion Branch is clearly a better receiver than Jabar Gaffney. Obviously, we can't go back with certainty and predict how things would have gone -- but the Patriots got as far as they got with the personnel they had. Replacing Gaffney with Branch (or actually, never having to replace Branch to begin with) would have clearly resulted in a better Patriots team (argue with Brady, not me) than the one that got as far as it did.

I'm not saying (and never have said) that the Patriots don't have a good business model. Most teams in the league would kill to have their success of recent years.

But that doesn't mean their handling of the Branch situation didn't backfire on them a bit last year. It could easily have been (and probably was) the difference between not appearing in the Super Bowl and making it to XLI.

[skinfan2k]

its so funny how u guys forget that NE was up 21-3 on indy and it was the defense that got tired that lost them the game.

[OWUeagleMD]

its so funny how u guys forget that NE was up 21-3 on indy and it was the defense that got tired that lost them the game.

Exactly.

[OWUeagleMD]

I never called them cheap. But I'm saying that Deion Branch is clearly a better receiver than Jabar Gaffney. Obviously, we can't go back with certainty and predict how things would have gone -- but the Patriots got as far as they got with the personnel they had. Replacing Gaffney with Branch (or actually, never having to replace Branch to begin with) would have clearly resulted in a better Patriots team (argue with Brady, not me) than the one that got as far as it did.

I'm not saying (and never have said) that the Patriots don't have a good business model. Most teams in the league would kill to have their success of recent years.

But that doesn't mean their handling of the Branch situation didn't backfire on them a bit last year. It could easily have been (and probably was) the difference between not appearing in the Super Bowl and making it to XLI.

Right now it is a hypothetical argument. I'll end my role in this by saying that I think there are at least three bigger contibuting factors to the Patriots' loss than the absence of Deion Branch: depleted secondary, inability to control the game with the run, inability to stop the run in the fourth quarter.

I think the outcome is exactly the same if Deion Branch is in the game. That being the case, I would rather go into next season with Stallworth at a smaller cap number and a first round pick.

Branch is definitely an upgrade over Gaffney, no need to argue with you or Brady on that one. If Brady wanted to come out and say his absence was a direct contributor to their loss then it would be a different story.

Position by position analysis of a team on paper leads to conclusions such as yours. Actual games are not determined that way, which is why I believe the Deion Branch situation was inconsequential in the result of the Pats season.

[Rufus T Firefly]

The Patriots were WAY below the cap last year when they decided to let both Branch and Givens go. A lot of that space never got spent. It was obvious to many of us that this was going to kill their receiving corps. From day 1, that was clearly correct. Brady didn't even look like the same QB last year without his go-to WRs of the past. And there were plenty of whispers that Brady was ticked off about the situation, feeling he took less money on the promise that money would be used to keep his favorite receivers around, and it wasn't.

They were easily one of the top 4 contenders for the SB before the year started. If you don't have something of a "win now" philosophy at that point, you're foolish. No matter how brilliant you think you are, that window can close in a hurry. And to significantly undermine your chances of a title in exchange for a future 1st round pick you know will be late (really they were lucky that turned out to be as high as #24) is wrong-headed. The chances that that player will ever be as good as Branch are slim. And that's a couple years in the future before you can get much out of that pick anyway. And that's what they got for Branch, plus some salary cap space they never spent.

Every knowledgable Pats fan I know thinks not having Branch cost them a title this year.

This is a case of the Pats making a big mistake, but, because they're the Patriots, people actually praise them for it.

[Rufus T Firefly]

its so funny how u guys forget that NE was up 21-3 on indy and it was the defense that got tired that lost them the game.

And a couple of first downs would have almost certainly changed that. The type of first downs that Branch and Givens always seemed to get in the past.

[skinfan2k]

And a couple of first downs would have almost certainly changed that. The type of first downs that Branch and Givens always seemed to get in the past.

chad jackson was really good when he played and the patriots could have used him.. Branch is just an excuse when it was the defense who couldn't get off the field..

[Rufus T Firefly]

chad jackson was really good when he played and the patriots could have used him..

Jackson had 13 catches last year. Yes, he has some promise, but if the suggestion is that the Patriots were counting on him to even partly replace Branch last eyar, then you are ascribing a lot more foolishness to them than I was.


Branch is just an excuse when it was the defense who couldn't get off the field..

The discussion was whether the Branch trade (and not simply paying him his market value) backfired, It's actually bringing up the defense that is irrelevant in that context. The question is simple: If Branch is on the Patriots last year, do they beat the Colts? As the previous poster said, we can never answer a question 100%, but here's what we know:

Brady was off his game for most of the year. Even he (who never really complains publicly) said that was attributable to the receiver situation and said that probably cost the team at least a game. Accept that, and the team would have been playing the title game in New England instead of the dome, and most people would think that hanges the outcome of the game.

In the Championship, Reche Caldwell dropped two easy passes, either of which would probably change the outcome of the game. Also, there were couple of situations where a single first down would have given the D time to rest and changed the momentum of the game. In the past, Brady always seemed to find Branch or Givens and make that kind of play (if not start a scoring drive). This time, the play was never made.

Again, never being 100% sure, but I am as sure as is possible that Branch being on the field last year alone would have made the difference.

The team made that decision in the week before the season started. Their Defense, the O-Line, their RBs, etc were set. None of those were going to be improved or not by whether Branch was there. The team had a decision: Use the cap space they had and pay Branch his market value or dump him for future considerations. If the reverse of the decision they made would have put them in the Super Bowl (as I feel is almost definitely the case), then the move clearly backfired. Anything that says "yeah, but if the defense had been better..." is just distraction or spin at that point.

[OWUeagleMD]

The discussion was whether the Branch trade (and not simply paying him his market value) backfired, It's actually bringing up the defense that is irrelevant in that context. The question is simple: If Branch is on the Patriots last year, do they beat the Colts? As the previous poster said, we can never answer a question 100%, but here's what we know:

Brady was off his game for most of the year. Even he (who never really complains publicly) said that was attributable to the receiver situation and said that probably cost the team at least a game. Accept that, and the team would have been playing the title game in New England instead of the dome, and most people would think that hanges the outcome of the game.

I do not accept that. Deion Branch is a good player, but he isn't worth a whole game in the standings. Not a chance.



In the Championship, Reche Caldwell dropped two easy passes, either of which would probably change the outcome of the game. Also, there were couple of situations where a single first down would have given the D time to rest and changed the momentum of the game. In the past, Brady always seemed to find Branch or Givens and make that kind of play (if not start a scoring drive). This time, the play was never made.


Only one of the drops can be discussed. The Pats scored a touchdown on the drive in which Caldwell dropped a sure touchdown pass. As I said before, Branch may have caught the ball in the flat that Caldwell dropped. But maybe he drops the ball too. Branch had some great games and great seasons in New England, but he's not anywhere near the type of player that makes you say "He is going to catch this pass. He is going to make this play." Just because Branch is a better player compared side by side to Reche Caldwell doesn't change the overwhelmingly speculative nature of this argument. Games don't occur in a vacuum and better players don't always manage to make better plays. We know Caldwell dropped the pass. That's all that's really worth mentioning.

Again, never being 100% sure, but I am as sure as is possible that Branch being on the field last year alone would have made the difference.


I'm as sure as possible that he wouldn't have made a bit of a difference. Nice ping-pong match we have going here.


The team made that decision in the week before the season started. Their Defense, the O-Line, their RBs, etc were set. None of those were going to be improved or not by whether Branch was there. The team had a decision: Use the cap space they had and pay Branch his market value or dump him for future considerations. If the reverse of the decision they made would have put them in the Super Bowl (as I feel is almost definitely the case), then the move clearly backfired. Anything that says "yeah, but if the defense had been better..." is just distraction or spin at that point.

Again, I do not feel Branch makes any difference in the outcome of their season. Call it "spin" but they came short by one game, and in that game there were many factors that contributed to their defeat moreso than receiver play.

But, let's accept the premise of your argument. Let's say they traded away a guy who was their surefire ticket to the SB in exchange for future considerations. Wouldn't it be fair to allow those future considerations to be realized before we declare the trade a success or a backfire? Since your entire argument is based on speculation that I personally find ridiculous, I'll present to you another option: With the cap space saved from declining to sign Deion Branch and the pick acquired in his trade, the Patriots sign Donte Stallworth and draft a guy who turns into the best MLB in football. Stallworth in turn explodes while playing with Brady, doubling Branch's best season's statistics. If Stallworth and the new MLB lead them to 5 super bowls-- 5 SBs which certainly would not have been won if they opted to keep Branch alone--- would it have still backfired? That is an absurd extreme, I know, but the nature of my argument requires that we allow the entire trade to play out.

Going back to my initial point---the Patriots are not cheap-- let me explain the way I view this decision. They did not feel Branch was worth his market value. They decided that they would not, under any circumstances, pay him the salary that the market dictated he deserved. Knowing he was not worth the money, they decided that they would trade him for a future first round pick. Even if he was the key to their SB destiny, that doesn't make them cheap; it makes them wrong. This has turned into two parallel arguments. In both cases I side with the Pats: they are not cheap, the Branch trade did not backfire. At the very least, the latter argument cannot be decided until we see who they take with that pick and how Stallworth plays with Brady.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I do not accept that. Deion Branch is a good player, but he isn't worth a whole game in the standings. Not a chance.


Maybe you just don't watch the Patriots, maybe you don't pay attention to stories about them, whatever. Brady was WAY off his game last year, especially early. You can google at least 100 articles about hwo he felt no chemistry with his receivers, how his demeanor changes, all his comments about Branch being "the most important member of the offense" etc. Bottom line is Brady suffered immensely last year and Branch was a HUGE factor in it. They lost 3 games in the first half of last year by a combined 20 points. In all of them, Brady was out of sync, if not flat-out bad. To say there's "not chance" Branch's presence could have made the difference in one of those games is just ignorant.

Only one of the drops can be discussed. The Pats scored a touchdown on the drive in which Caldwell dropped a sure touchdown pass.

I'll take a bit of a mulligan here. Caldwell actually had a 3rd drop in that game, but it was earlier and a bit less obvious. I remembered the two big drops and I remember the discussions with friends about his two drops that hurt the team, so I think I conflated them a bit. The other was in the third when they needed a first down, I believe. He had one terrible drop that was a huge factor in the game, another terrible one that turned out not to hurt, and a third that wasn't as bad but hurt a little.

As I said before, Branch may have caught the ball in the flat that Caldwell dropped. But maybe he drops the ball too. Branch had some great games and great seasons in New England, but he's not anywhere near the type of player that makes you say "He is going to catch this pass. He is going to make this play." Just because Branch is a better player compared side by side to Reche Caldwell doesn't change the overwhelmingly speculative nature of this argument. Games don't occur in a vacuum and better players don't always manage to make better plays. We know Caldwell dropped the pass. That's all that's really worth mentioning.


I'm as sure as possible that he wouldn't have made a bit of a difference. Nice ping-pong match we have going here.

Sorry, but these two statements taken together add up to something ming-boggling. what is POSSIBLE Branch would have dropped a key pass with no one within ten yards of him? Sure. Likely? No, not even close. What are the odds a WR of his caliber drops a sure TD in that situation? 5%? I think even that's a stretch. Somehow adding that up to "I'm as sure as possible that he wouldn't have made a bit of a difference" is preposterous.

And again, we also have to assume (as you do) that there is virtually no chance he and Brady might have gotten an extra 1st down as they had so often in the past. There were spots where a 1st could have swung the whole game.


Again, I do not feel Branch makes any difference in the outcome of their season. Call it "spin" but they came short by one game, and in that game there were many factors that contributed to their defeat moreso than receiver play.

Again, other factors are completely irrelevant. If Branch's presence makes the differecne in getting to the Super Bowl, then the move clearly back-fired. As I said, none of these conversations can be stated 100%. That's a fair statement. Your pretending that there is "no way" Branch would have made that difference is ridiculous.


But, let's accept the premise of your argument. Let's say they traded away a guy who was their surefire ticket to the SB in exchange for future considerations. Wouldn't it be fair to allow those future considerations to be realized before we declare the trade a success or a backfire? Since your entire argument is based on speculation that I personally find ridiculous, I'll present to you another option: With the cap space saved from declining to sign Deion Branch and the pick acquired in his trade, the Patriots sign Donte Stallworth and draft a guy who turns into the best MLB in football. Stallworth in turn explodes while playing with Brady, doubling Branch's best season's statistics. If Stallworth and the new MLB lead them to 5 super bowls-- 5 SBs which certainly would not have been won if they opted to keep Branch alone--- would it have still backfired? That is an absurd extreme, I know, but the nature of my argument requires that we allow the entire trade to play out.

In a word, no. I'll never judge trades that simplistically. I'll judge them on what the team knew, or should have known, at the time of the deal. What they should have known then was that they weren't going to spend the extra cap room last year, that they were likely going to get a late frist round pick, that the consensus was this would be a weak draft, and that the FA crop was weak and going to be over-priced. That's a bad decision, and if they get lucky in the future off it, that won't change anything.

Overlooked in your scenario is that they could have strucutured Branch's deal so they could have had room to sign Stallworth anyway. What does that do to the deal? What about the 2nd rounder they dealt for Wes Welker that they wouldn't have had to do if they had Branch? Or, could they have dealt up to 24 anyway to get the hypothetical player you're talking about? There are a million variables. To put another way, if we deal Sean Taylor and CHris Cooley tomorrow for two 6th round picks and those picks turn into Tom Brady and Maques Colston, is that then a good deal? Or, shoudl the team have acutally gotten value, and found another way to pick up those cheap commodities?

Again, one of the Super Bowl front-runners chose to significantly weaken their team and anger their franchise player for some modest future possibilities. Which might not pay off until the team's Championship window has closed anyway. That's bad business.
Going back to my initial point---the Patriots are not cheap-- let me explain the way I view this decision. They did not feel Branch was worth his market value. They decided that they would not, under any circumstances, pay him the salary that the market dictated he deserved. Knowing he was not worth the money, they decided that they would trade him for a future first round pick. Even if he was the key to their SB destiny, that doesn't make them cheap; it makes them wrong. This has turned into two parallel arguments. In both cases I side with the Pats: they are not cheap, the Branch trade did not backfire. At the very least, the latter argument cannot be decided until we see who they take with that pick and how Stallworth plays with Brady.

[RedskinzOwnU]

Why? So the 5-11 skins have a chance at a better draft pick than the 2-14 raiders? Come on, we both know they need that #1 pick more than we do. They neeed it for the ability to pick up a franchise player or trade down and improve themselves with more players. This league is all about parity - for better or worse. Giving the worst team the best pick only furthers that philosophy.

[BlueTalon]

I do not accept that. Deion Branch is a good player, but he isn't worth a whole game in the standings. Not a chance...

Again, I do not feel Branch makes any difference in the outcome of their season. Call it "spin" but they came short by one game, and in that game there were many factors that contributed to their defeat moreso than receiver play.


This is one where you actually could argue with Brady. Branch was the difference in (at least) one game, according to Brady. But the game in question is not the AFCCG, even though Branch arguably could have made the difference in that game as well. According to Brady (and I don't remember his precise words, so I'm paraphrasing), early in the season, losing Branch not only cost him his best go-to weapon, it messed with him mentally and directly led to a sub-par performance, which directly led to (at least) a loss.

(I say "at least" because I seem to recall Brady saying something about Branch's loss affecting him for two games, but I'm not as sure about that.)

Both the Patriots and the Colts were 12-4 at the end of the season, with the tiebreaker going to the Colts by virtue of the better conference record. That was the difference in seeding and HFA. Give the Patriots one more win, and the entire post-season changes to the Patriots' advantage.

You're free to not accept that, but Brady did, and I tend to think his opinion carries a little weight.



...so it's perfectly legitimate to claim the Branch deal backfired on the Patriots. You're right, long term it could help them. But would it help them enough to offset the loss of a chance at the Super Bowl this year? Your previous statement, "They view things in a larger sense than the 'here comes the season, we must do everything in our power to win RIGHT NOW' mentality that everyone seems to feel defines a good owner," indicates you think it will. But nobody, not even the Patriots, would willingly and knowingly sacrifice a shot at this year's SB for better positioning in future years -- not if they have a legitimate shot at it to begin with.

They made a decision, and it backfired. It happens. Losing Branch had a deeper effect than they anticipated, just like losing Steve Hutchinson had a deeper effect on the Seahawks than the we anticipated. And in those cases, you always look for the silver lining, and in the Patriots' case, they're looking good in this year's draft.

[ouvan59]

The Patriots are not cheap. They are smart. All of us are jealous.

I'd agree. There is also the mistaken impression that their championship teams were built exclusively through the draft which just flat out isn't true. Their first championship team had a ton of free agents on the roster. They have done a great job replacing parts through the draft since then but it all has been built on a solid nucleus. Of course, it doesn't hurt that they lucked into one of the greatest QBs in NFL history. I would love to see what they would do if Brady ever went down.