Branch?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from viewer222. Show viewer222's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    Grab him.  Brady loves the guy and it would add a deep threat. 
    Posted by 123meg

    Crawford from the practice squad makes more sense than Branch. He is faster than Branch and would be a lot more durable!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SilverSun. Show SilverSun's posts

    Re: Branch?

    As long as he does not cost more than a #5 choice.  We only got a low 3 for Rany Moss, one of the greatest WR ever, so Branch rates nothing near.  Read Dan S in the Herald today - we just got a lot worse this year with the Moss giveaway.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    It's not the same system or the same coaches, except for TB and BB.  Everything else has changed.   Moss was irreplaceable.  Media is now spinning this story as though he was a "bad egg" in NE...just ridiculous.  They're trying to treat him like Manny, who really did lay down on his team. Everything they do now is reactionary, not proactive.  In four years Brady will be what, 37?  For once I actually agree with Shaughnessy...this was not a good move.
    Posted by soups


    Then you're as deluded as he is. Moss wanted out and the offense is shifting to a system that minimalizes his role. The situation would have only gotten worse as the season progressed. Dan's a hypocritical spincter. He wrote off the Pats before the season even started and know he thinks they ruined their chances at a SB this year. What a joke.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Branch?

    For those who think that Seattle has an interest in moving Branch to NE all you have to do is watch the transactions pages,if the Seahawks bring in Dwayne Jarrett then they probably are thinking about trading Branch,pretty simple math if you bring in one position player then another must replace the one leaving and the reason why I use Jarrett as an example is because of the Pete Carroll conection from USC. I don't know who Crawford is,but he isn't on the Patriots PS. The only receivers on the patriots PS are Carson Butler a TE and Darnell Jenkins WR.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from crono420. Show crono420's posts

    Re: Branch?

    I can't believe the pats would trade moss to get branch. INSANE, BB SAYS HE WAS NOT A PROBLEM

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Branch?

    Originally, I was underwhelmed by this but what they hey....  Tom has a comfort zone with Branch.  Can't hurt, we know he can catch.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Branch?

    This is just the annual Branch-returning-to-Pats rumor. I would be surprised if a season passed when we did not read that one.

    Lest we all forget:
     
    1) This team is rebuilding with youth and jettisoning most of the old players.
    2) BB has never brought back a player that had burned the bridge.  Branch burned the bridge as badly as any departing player did - maybe worst of all.
    3) This team would like to win the SB this year, but BB is thinking realistically for next year and beyond, which means he has to develop the young talent they have now - which takes about 3 years - instead of bringing back declining players. If you don't BB has been planning this as a 3-year rebuilding process, you haven't been paying attention. I am the crazy guy who claimed last January that BB purposely threw the Ravens game to give the Pats more leeway in free agency.  That game plan was uncharacteristically terrible, so IMO they had to know they were definitely not winning a SB w/o Welker - why make things tougher in the off-season?  Thus Vrabel goes, Seymour goes, AD goes, Seau goes, Hobbs goes, Watson goes, Maroney goes, Green goes and now Moss goes. And I would be surprised if BB didn't persuade Harrson and Bruschi to retire.

    If I am proved wrong, I will eat my Sports Illustrated SB 36 Commemorative  football (if I could find it after my move last year).

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from flutie66. Show flutie66's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    This is just the annual Branch-returning-to-Pats rumor. I would be surprised if a season passed when we did not read that one. Lest we all forget:   1) This team is rebuilding with youth and jettisoning most of the old players. 2) BB has never brought back a player that had burned the bridge.  Branch burned the bridge as badly as any departing player did - maybe worst of all. 3) This team would like to win the SB this year, but BB is thinking realistically for next year and beyond, which means he has to develop the young talent they have now - which takes about 3 years - instead of bringing back declining players. If you don't BB has been planning this as a 3-year rebuilding process, you haven't been paying attention. I am the crazy guy who claimed last January that BB purposely threw the Ravens game to give the Pats more leeway in free agency.  That game plan was uncharacteristically terrible, so IMO they had to know they were definitely not winning a SB w/o Welker - why make things tougher in the off-season?  Thus Vrabel goes, Seymour goes, AD goes, Seau goes, Hobbs goes, Watson goes, Maroney goes, Green goes and now Moss goes. And I would be surprised if BB didn't persuade Harrson and Bruschi to retire. If I am proved wrong, I will eat my Sports Illustrated SB 36 Commemorative  football (if I could find it after my move last year).
    Posted by chrisakawoody



    no modern coach or player would ever throw a game. ever. period.
    the packers a week or so ago wouldnt let the bears score a touchdown in the waning moments, even tho it was probably the best chance they had to win.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Branch?


    Do the deal..please god, let us not send a 3rd to Seattle for him however.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from norichcrybabies. Show norichcrybabies's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    he cant hurt.  but why do we need him?  we have welker as a veteran leader.  why not let the kids play.  its not like he's going to do anything better than Tate.  so why not let the kids play?
    Posted by bostondynNASTY


    because if a kid goes down our feet are to the fire on a trade and we'll have to overpay for less.  worst case scenario he's a guy who's played with Brady before with real success.  What's wrong with that?  If his knee hurts??  meh...  so did Moss's.  Just need another guy our there with a history to occupy a 1st, 2nd or 3rd corner.  just going to make it easier on the other guys.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    In Response to Re: Branch? : no modern coach or player would ever throw a game. ever. period. the packers a week or so ago wouldnt let the bears score a touchdown in the waning moments, even tho it was probably the best chance they had to win.
    Posted by flutie66


    Oh really?  Sure about that? Remember the final Colts/Titans game of 2008, which the Colts threw to the Titans so they would have a softer match-up in the play-offs?  Even the Titans' back-up QB playing in that game suggested it was a gifted game. It was very obvious the Colts did not want to win that game.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from norichcrybabies. Show norichcrybabies's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    In Response to Re: Branch? : Oh really?  Sure about that? Remember the final Colts/Titans game of 2008, which the Colts threw to the Titans so they would have a softer match-up in the play-offs?  Even the Titans' back-up QB playing in that game suggested it was a gifted game. It was very obvious the Colts did not want to win that game.
    Posted by chrisakawoody

    Not playing to win can be considered as... well... not playing to win.  
    Colts/Jets last year.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Branch?

    Bring in Branch as a safty measure only just in case something happens to one of the WR's.  Bring him in to play a big role in the offense and that's just plain foolish.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bombdog. Show bombdog's posts

    Re: Branch?

    Does anybody think that Price will see the field this year. He has been inactive every game and you don't hear anything about him. Is he injured or just not good enough?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tenacioust. Show tenacioust's posts

    Re: Branch?

    Quick point to the turnip truck you Branch lovers fell off of so I can boot your @$$ back up on it.

    1) He held out
    2)He was overrated
    3) He was not a deep threat
    4)never had over 4 tds
    5)made of sugar glass
    6)whined and disrupted the team on his way out,tried to turn brady against ownership
    7)Crapped on the team saying Seattles offense was much more dynamic
    8)i hate you all
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Branch?

    In Response to Re: Branch?:
    In Response to Re: Branch? : Not playing to win can be considered as... well... not playing to win.   Colts/Jets last year.  
    Posted by norichcrybabies


    No, the Colts actually did things in the game to go against their team's success - they sabotages their chaces to win to get a more favorable match-up in the play-offs.   It's one thing to sit vets for the coming post-season, which is what the Colts did with the Jets last year.  It's another thing to ensure they lose on purpose, for a pay-off later.  That's what the Colts did in that Titans game.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share