Pats tell Deion Branch to s*ck it.

[stevew]

If you were Branch's agent, do you sign the Tender quickly(within a week or so), or do you let it drag out all summer and risk having it pulled. I think I sign it quickly, 8 million or so guaranteed for one season isn't chump change. Go out then, have a big year, and you're still young enough to get a contract the next year.

I feel a bit more for Branch than I did for Javon Walker cause Branch was a 2nd round pick, didn't get a great bonus, and his agent locked him into too long of a deal(5 years).

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by stevew

I feel a bit more for Branch than I did for Javon Walker cause Branch was a 2nd round pick, didn't get a great bonus, and his agent locked him into too long of a deal(5 years).

That's curious logic.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

That's curious logic.

Walker got more in rookie signing bonus than Branch made in his whole rookie contract. Branch's agent was an idiot for signing him to a 5 year rookie deal, probably for an extra 200k or so at the most. Granted, that's the difference between being a first and second round pick. When a guy plays great and genuinely hasn't been paid too much more than the minimum his whole career, I kind of feel bad for him for a split second.

But, those 2 patriots proposals were pretty fair, and he should have probably signed the 3 year 18 million dollar one.

[QuikSand]

I am generally not inclined to give players a complete pass on their agents's decisions. Perhaps it's naive of me to believe this, but I still think it's ultimately the player who decides what to do, and the agent pursues his objectives.

If Branch didn't want to potentially be locked into a below-market deal (where a holdout was his only option) then he should have pursued a shorter deal with less money guaranteed, and made that clear to this agent. He didn't.

[TroyF]

I generally have few problems with players who hold out in football with a contract. The exceptions are guys who pull the stunt within a year or two of signing the deal. (as Terrell Owens did)

You have such a short life span and the teams wield so much power over you, if you are underpaid and deserve a bigger contract, I think you should hold out and get it.

The smart teams usually take care of it before it gets to the Branch/Walker/Vasher situation. They admit the guy has outplayed their contract and try to take care of them.

The Patriots did this with Branch in a way. Their problem is that they clearly misjudged how much he was worth on the open market and valued him incorrectly to those conditions.

This is one case where the Patriots are lucky to be the Patriots. If this is the Bears, I think they have trouble signing FA's, draft picks will hold out longer for better deals, etc. after they do it for a few years. The Patriots won't have those issues to deal with at least.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I am generally not inclined to give players a complete pass on their agents's decisions. Perhaps it's naive of me to believe this, but I still think it's ultimately the player who decides what to do, and the agent pursues his objectives.

If Branch didn't want to potentially be locked into a below-market deal (where a holdout was his only option) then he should have pursued a shorter deal with less money guaranteed, and made that clear to this agent. He didn't.

I don't know about Branch in specifics here, but a lot of agents have tried to sign their players to shorter term deals as rookies and the teams have simply refused to budge on the issue.

It puts the players in a horrible situation. If they hold out, especially as second round/lower picks, they have zero shot of playing early and it can impact their careers in a negative way. If they sign the deal and the team decides to do what the Bears are doing with Vasher (not offering ANY improvement on a contract), the player is screwed.

I wish the NFL PA had not only instituted a rookie cap but a set number on years each contract could be for as well. (with first rounders getting the longest possible deals and it going down from there)

[stevew]

It has now changed to where I believe top 15 or 16 picks can get a max of 6 years, other first rounders a max of 5 years, and second and lower can get up to 4 year deals.

Back when Branch was a rookie, I believe there was a 5 year max on 2nd round deals, as I remember one of the reasons quincy carter went in the 2nd round was because you could offer a 5 year deal.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by TroyF

This is one case where the Patriots are lucky to be the Patriots. If this is the Bears, I think they have trouble signing FA's, draft picks will hold out longer for better deals, etc. after they do it for a few years. The Patriots won't have those issues to deal with at least.

I wonder if this is going to start to hurt the Patriots now. If I'm a FA and I see the crap they are trying to pull here with their best WR, I'm thinking twice about signing with them.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I am generally not inclined to give players a complete pass on their agents's decisions. Perhaps it's naive of me to believe this, but I still think it's ultimately the player who decides what to do, and the agent pursues his objectives.

Ultimately it is the player's decision to sign the contract or not, but the agent's job is to get the best contract possible and to look after his client. I think it's more a situation where the agent tells the player what they are going to try to do, and the player follows along.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Ultimately it is the player's decision to sign the contract or not, but the agent's job is to get the best contract possible and to look after his client. I think it's more a situation where the agent tells the player what they are going to try to do, and the player follows along.

I have little doubt that this is, indeed, how it often works. I still don't translate that to much sympathy for a player who makes a bad decision either in hiring an agent who does a bad job, or in taking an agent's advice.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I think it's more a situation where the agent tells the player what they are going to try to do, and the player follows along.

I have absolutely no insight on this, but this has always been my belief on how 90% of these things work. It's basically the agent telling the player why a certain course of action is the best for them, and the agent executing it. Only when something goes wrong does the player possibly step in and tell the agent to back down. I suspect that's why a guy like Drew Rosenhaus or the Poston guy gets his clients, by promising to get them a deal no one else can. Other than "I want a big payday" or "I deserve more than I'm getting or more than that guy," I don't see players running the show.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

If Branch didn't want to potentially be locked into a below-market deal (where a holdout was his only option) then he should have pursued a shorter deal with less money guaranteed, and made that clear to this agent. He didn't.

Why take the risk of a shorter deal with less guaranteed, especially when you're a rookie and all it takes is one play to end your career? You have to get as much as you can, and as much of it guaranteed as you can, whenever you can.

He played under this contract for years, produced well enough to be valuable to other teams in the league, and should be paid what he's worth. If the Patriots don't want to pay him, let him go. Try to get something in return, but if not, oh well. I don't see how placing the franchise tag on him is going to work. Especially if he's as unhappy in New England as he appears to be.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I generally have few problems with players who hold out in football with a contract. The exceptions are guys who pull the stunt within a year or two of signing the deal. (as Terrell Owens did)

I'm beginning to come over to this camp. Since NFL deals are not guaranteed, the NFL is a different animal when it comes to contracts. A team like Seattle can sign a guy like Nate Burleson to a 7-year, $49 million deal, but have no intention of paying him more than $14 million over 4 years. So, why is that OK - but it's not OK for Branch to decide not to live up to the final season in his contract (if he has a legal option to pursue).

I guess I don't see the difference between a team that cuts/renegociates a player 5 years into a 7-year deal (cause he will be making too much) and a rookie who doesn't want to play his final season of a 5-year deal at a "rookie" rate when his performance is greatly above that.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm beginning to come over to this camp. Since NFL deals are not guaranteed, the NFL is a different animal when it comes to contracts. A team like Seattle can sign a guy like Nate Burleson to a 7-year, $49 million deal, but have no intention of paying him more than $14 million over 4 years. So, why is that OK - but it's not OK for Branch to decide not to live up to the final season in his contract (if he has a legal option to pursue).

.

Because in Burelson's case it's common knowledge what the realized value of his contract is. He knows the numbers represent salary cap manipulation and without it he would receive the guranteed money he did get.

Now if Burelson was under the belief he was in line for and entitled to 49 million I may have sympathy for him. In this case I do not and don't for any other NFL player out there. They are all well aware of how the system works and even if they aren't experts have a responsibility to hire representation that are experts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess I don't see the difference between a team that cuts/renegociates a player 5 years into a 7-year deal (cause he will be making too much) and a rookie who doesn't want to play his final season of a 5-year deal at a "rookie" rate when his performance is greatly above that.

The difference is the terms of the contract. The player knows what he's agreeing to. The possibility of termination is a factor in the negotiations, and has to be considered by both sides. In the NFL, longer term contracts favor the team to a large extent. Teams in the MLB can't decide that a player is no longer with the money owed in a guaranteed contract, and withold payment. That's against the terms of the deal.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

The difference is the terms of the contract. The player knows what he's agreeing to. The possibility of termination is a factor in the negotiations, and has to be considered by both sides. In the NFL, longer term contracts favor the team to a large extent. Teams in the MLB can't decide that a player is no longer with the money owed in a guaranteed contract, and withold payment. That's against the terms of the deal.

To me it doesn't matter, especially with rookies who outperfrom their deals. If Branch had been a flameout, his team wouldn't have hesitated giving him the axe. Branch is outperforming is contract in a big way. He has maybe 2 chances in his career to sign a big deal. Possibly only one chance.

If this money were all gaurenteed, I'd have a much different opinion. Suck it up, you signed, it, deal with it. But when the team has the ability to chop you and not give you a dime of your slated salary for the year, I think you have every right to say that you've outplayed your deal and they need to reup you.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by TroyF

To me it doesn't matter, especially with rookies who outperfrom their deals. If Branch had been a flameout, his team wouldn't have hesitated giving him the axe. Branch is outperforming is contract in a big way. He has maybe 2 chances in his career to sign a big deal. Possibly only one chance.

If this money were all gaurenteed, I'd have a much different opinion. Suck it up, you signed, it, deal with it. But when the team has the ability to chop you and not give you a dime of your slated salary for the year, I think you have every right to say that you've outplayed your deal and they need to reup you.

They tried to reup him but apprantly it was a veiled attempt to screw him and create this chaos now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

The difference is the terms of the contract. The player knows what he's agreeing to. The possibility of termination is a factor in the negotiations, and has to be considered by both sides.

Per the CBA, teams also know there are methods a player can legally hold out and report later in the season. So, you can make the same argument from the player holdout end.

In the NFL, longer term contracts favor the team to a large extent. Teams in the MLB can't decide that a player is no longer with the money owed in a guaranteed contract, and withold payment. That's against the terms of the deal.

Yeah, but this isn't MLB. A player in the NFL knows going in that the bonus/guaranteed money is the only money they can count on. Each player knows they can be let go at any time (as long as the team can afford the bonus acceleration). On the flip side, the team knows any player can hold out in camp (and pay penalties) and decide not to report until week 10 (and still acrue that year).

These are both valid actions by both parties so I don't see how people can be OK with one (ie, an overpaid player getting cut) but not OK with the other (ie, an underpaid player holding out for more).

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

If this money were all gaurenteed, I'd have a much different opinion. Suck it up, you signed, it, deal with it. But when the team has the ability to chop you and not give you a dime of your slated salary for the year, I think you have every right to say that you've outplayed your deal and they need to reup you.

But if the contract has a provision that allowed Branch to rip up the deal and renegotiate if he outperformed the original terms, that that's a "value" for Branch, and the Patriots would presumably have demanded a "value" in return (i.e., smaller bonus, etc).

I understand what you're saying in terms of general fairness, I just have a problem with any party to any contract essentially implying terms that weren't negotiated.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

Per the CBA, teams also know there are methods a player can legally hold out and report later in the season. So, you can make the same argument from the player holdout end.

OK, I didn't know too much about the CBA holdout provisions, so in that case, I suppose Branch's actions are indeed a legally implied part of his patriots contract.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

They tried to reup him but apprantly it was a veiled attempt to screw him and create this chaos now.

They tried to reup him at less than his market value. (something he just recently proved when he called the Pats bluff)

Clinton Portis wanted the same thing. Denver realized early in the offseason that he wasn't going to budge and they weren't going to make him the top paid RB in football. They dealt him.

Granted, they got a great deal, but so could the Patriots if they'd have been smarter earlier in the offseason.

[BrianD]

With the offers that were made to Branch, did the teams also make reasonable trade offers for him? It seems like if teams really wanted to screw with the Pats, they could offer Branch a great salary and then offer the Pats a terrible trade deal. The Pats wouldn't be able to take the deal, but Branch would now think he was worth more and would hold out.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by TroyF

They tried to reup him at less than his market value. (something he just recently proved when he called the Pats bluff)

Clinton Portis wanted the same thing. Denver realized early in the offseason that he wasn't going to budge and they weren't going to make him the top paid RB in football. They dealt him.

Granted, they got a great deal, but so could the Patriots if they'd have been smarter earlier in the offseason.

Well his fair market value is now zero. Good work by the Branch camp. Hopefully they come up with this great deal next year to recoup his fines and lost game checks should he choose to hold out.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm beginning to come over to this camp. Since NFL deals are not guaranteed, the NFL is a different animal when it comes to contracts. A team like Seattle can sign a guy like Nate Burleson to a 7-year, $49 million deal, but have no intention of paying him more than $14 million over 4 years. So, why is that OK - but it's not OK for Branch to decide not to live up to the final season in his contract (if he has a legal option to pursue).

I guess I don't see the difference between a team that cuts/renegociates a player 5 years into a 7-year deal (cause he will be making too much) and a rookie who doesn't want to play his final season of a 5-year deal at a "rookie" rate when his performance is greatly above that.

I'm in the same boat. I generally don't have as much tolerance for holdouts in other leagues because the money is guarenteed. In the NFL, since much of the contract is not guarenteed, I feel a different way about players holding out. It is all good and well to say "You signed it, now uphold your contract", but when it is built into the system for teams to decide, whenever they want, to not uphold the contract, why shouldn't the players get the same right?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Well his fair market value is now zero. Good work by the Branch camp. Hopefully they come up with this great deal next year to recoup his fines and lost game checks should he choose to hold out.

??? How is his value zero? The Jets and Seahawks (if the reports are to be believed) seem to value him. What should he do? Play this year, hope he doesn't get injured, and then leave?

Since when does holding out lower your value? The only thing that will lower his value is poor performance, injury, or piss poor attitude.

And I'm sure Branch's next contract will leave him with enough money to cover his fines and missed checks, as well as put food in his family's mouths (and Latrell Sprewell's, too).

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

??? How is his value zero? The Jets and Seahawks (if the reports are to be believed) seem to value him. What should he do? Play this year, hope he doesn't get injured, and then leave?

Show me his market for the next 6 months.

Then once he's tagged show me his market for the next 6 months.

Look at his previous offers and look at the Jets and Seahawk offers. You tell me if it's worth it.

Beyond that the Pats don't want guys like this to begin with so those arguing precedent and free agent taboo have it all wrong. NE will never sign the young guy making his first big deal on the market.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Well his fair market value is now zero. Good work by the Branch camp. Hopefully they come up with this great deal next year to recoup his fines and lost game checks should he choose to hold out.

This was already responded to below, but your statement has problems on multiple levels:

1) His VALUE is right at the Reggie Wayne level, the level he stated he wanted all along. That's what the Seahawks are willing to pay him. NE is choosing not to pay him his value, so he's withholding his services. NE believes they are right and the Jets/Seahawks are wrong. Their choice. But Branch has a market valueof more than they are willing to pay.

2) This stopped being about money when NE botched this thing and let Branch test the market. At that point it became a respect issue. It changed it from business to personal. At this point, Branch is probably bothered very little by the loss of money this year. Yeah, 1.5 is a killer number for most of us. But Branch will likely get in the area of 13-15 million in signing bonuses next year. He's not going hungry and the situation will be resolved one way or another. Branch isn't especially worried about that 1.5 million now.

He comes back and blows his knee out in week three, it's something that has the potential of costing him millions of dollars, not just 1.5. He's sticking to his guns.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by TroyF

This was already responded to below, but your statement has problems on multiple levels:

1) His VALUE is right at the Reggie Wayne level, the level he stated he wanted all along. That's what the Seahawks are willing to pay him. NE is choosing not to pay him his value, so he's withholding his services. NE believes they are right and the Jets/Seahawks are wrong. Their choice. But Branch has a market valueof more than they are willing to pay.

2) This stopped being about money when NE botched this thing and let Branch test the market. At that point it became a respect issue. It changed it from business to personal. At this point, Branch is probably bothered very little by the loss of money this year. Yeah, 1.5 is a killer number for most of us. But Branch will likely get in the area of 13-15 million in signing bonuses next year. He's not going hungry and the situation will be resolved one way or another. Branch isn't especially worried about that 1.5 million now.

He comes back and blows his knee out in week three, it's something that has the potential of costing him millions of dollars, not just 1.5. He's sticking to his guns.

That's all well and good. He better hope NE doesn't consider this a respect issue as well.

edit....you think he's getting 13-15 million in a signing bonus? This thread is over then.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

edit....you think he's getting 13-15 million in a signing bonus? This thread is over then.

It's funny, this whole ordeal sure has seemed to enhance his value in the eyes of fans and the media. Before, he was a pretty good WR on a team that didn't feature that position. He's never had more than 1,000 yards or 5 TDs. Suddenly he's a superstar.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That's all well and good. He better hope NE doesn't consider this a respect issue as well.

edit....you think he's getting 13-15 million in a signing bonus? This thread is over then.

Wayne got something like 13.5.

The contract offer from Seattle seems nearly identical to the one Wayne got. A million off here or there. I believe the Patriots first offer, the one that Branch rejected, contained 11 million in bonuses. I guess I fail to see where 13-15 is that far off.

[molson]

I'd say that the odds are decent that Gabriel's 2006 will outperform Branch's 2005. That's how the Pats will win in the end.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd say that the odds are decent that Gabriel's 2006 will outperform Branch's 2005. That's how the Pats will win in the end.

I'd take you up on that bet. I think Gabriel will be lucky to catch 60 passes this year. He's going from a #3 WR to a #1 WR. If you think Branch is going to have trouble moving froma 2 to a 1, wait til you see Gabriel be forced to adjust.

(note: As said above in this thread, I LIKE Gabriel and think he can play)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Again, you overstate how powerful the Patriots are in this. if Branch were to sign the franchise tender, it would damned well impact the team that trades for him. They can sign him to an EXTENSION, but the one year cost would still be at one of the top 3 to 5 highest paid players for next season. The key word there is Branch SIGNS the tender. That puts him under contract for next year. The renegotiation would be for future years in the deal.

I guess I am confused and willing to admit it. Are you sure this is how it works? I've always thought that if a player signs the tender you can still trade him (and essentially the tender contract gets ripped up and replaced by the new multi-year deal with the new team OR you renegotiate and then trade). You're saying you can still trade him, but the one year guarantee salary remains somehow? Hmmm, does anyone have concrete authority on this. If I am wrong, then I see franchising him next season not as desirable unless the Pats actually have extra room for it.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I guess I am confused and willing to admit it. Are you sure this is how it works? I've always thought that if a player signs the tender you can still trade him (and essentially the tender contract gets ripped up and replaced by the new multi-year deal with the new team OR you renegotiate and then trade). You're saying you can still trade him, but the one year guarantee salary remains somehow? Hmmm, does anyone have concrete authority on this. If I am wrong, then I see franchising him next season not as desirable unless the Pats actually have extra room for it.

I could be wrong, but I thought when the player signed the deal, that was that, trade or no trade. If he was franchised, but didn't sign the tender, you could do whatever you wanted with him. (including the team pulling the franchise tag off which has happened before)

But if the guy accepts the deal and signs it, I thought that locked him in under those terms. Cap hit and all.

[TroyF]

DOLA here. . . please don't assume I think Branch would sign the deal. I think he now wants out of NE and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. I don't even think it's about straight up money anymore.

It's just a tool he could use and one that could hurt the Patriots if Branch decided to jump on the offer.

I think the end result will be the Patriots getting a second rounder out of him. . . this year or next. I think Branch will get his Reggie Wayne money or right near it. I think Branch will play at a very high level for another three or four seasons at least, with a couple of pro bowl trips mixed in. At this point maybe the Patriots should just hold onto him and wait until he comes back in week 11 to pick up his service time.

Something that hasn't been talked about a lot in this thread. . . Obviously, the Patriots can't afford to lose Brady. We all get that. But is their second most important person on the team now Ben Watson? I could see an injury to Ben simply destroying that offense now. I'm just not sure how they'd move the ball with any consistency.

I remember saying two years ago how the Kansas City offense was terrific, but could really struggle badly against certain defenses. Any D with a cover LB who could contain Tony G and a front four who could contain the running game (not stop either, I think that was impossible, but just contain), could really grind that offense to a halt. Tom Brady is better than Trent Green (I know, I'm going out on a limb there), but his WR still have to get some seperation for there to be any type of a passing game.

The Broncos play the Patriots in week 3 I think. I'm honestly wondering how they'll use Champ Bailey in that game. I could easily see a scenario where he's shadowing Watson on critical third down plays.

[jeff061]

1) His VALUE is right at the Reggie Wayne level, the level he stated he wanted all along. That's what the Seahawks are willing to pay him.

This drives me nuts, I understand the concept and arguments behind "market value". However, bottom line is a players value is different for every team, I'm assuming this is an obvious statement. If it wasn't he would have had a couple dozen offers, or the Browns would not have overpaid for McGinest(they valued his leadership more than others).

The Patriots put a max value on him and offered it. He wouldn't sign. They let him seek what he could get on the market because things could only get better. Are they worse now? I don't think so. If he was going to sign at what the Patriots valued him he would have by now. And with or without that stunt he would have been fuming if he was tagged next year.

So where would they have been if they never let Branch seek out a trade? In the same damn place and with no negotiations/trade talks going on. Perhaps the only downside I see is a negative perception held by potential free agent signees next year.

[jeff061]

I hold no hard feelings and have no problem with Branch, by the way. Just that last year is the best year he'll have with the Pats offense, not worth the cash.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

This drives me nuts, I understand the concept and arguments behind "market value". However, bottom line is a players value is different for every team, I'm assuming this is an obvious statement. If it wasn't he would have had a couple dozen offers, or the Browns would not have overpaid for McGinest(they valued his leadership more than others).

The Patriots put a max value on him and offered it. He wouldn't sign. They let him seek what he could get on the market because things could only get better. Are they worse now? I don't think so. If he was going to sign at what the Patriots valued him he would have by now. And with or without that stunt he would have been fuming if he was tagged next year.

So where would they have been if they never let Branch seek out a trade? In the same damn place and with no negotiations/trade talks going on. Perhaps the only downside I see is a negative perception held by potential free agent signees next year.

No, they'd be right where QS thought they'd end up before this. Where Javon Walker was last year. He'd realize he was in a no win and would simply try to play out the contract and see what happened. Before it turned personal, Branch would have almost 100% caved in. No other teams, no other prayer, no true indicator of his market value other than a feeling. . . he'd have been screwed.

By letting him test the market, it turned nasty. Pretty much every insider I've read has made this indication and I see zero reason to doubt it.

As for your opinion about Branch, we difer greatly. I think he'd have put up over 1200 yards in that offense this year. Easily.

[jeff061]

Ignoring the spread the wealth nature of Brady and the offensive scheme(for the sake of argument), Belichick has been trying to make it more TE oriented for 2-3 years now. They didn't stumble onto Watson and Graham, a pair of 1st round TEs, they have had a plan for them.

We'll also see how the running game fairs this year. Dillon doesn't have his injury excuse and doesn't look much better than last year. But Maroney has looked great.

I'm just not sure how anyone could see Branch, or just about anyone, putting 90/1200 numbers with the Pats. Last year was also a rare healthy year for him.

[TazFTW]

Being reported on ESPN that Branch has been traded to Seattle for a 2007 1st rounder.

[Swaggs]

Is it too soon to declare Branch/Seattle the winners over New Englad?

I like Bill Simmons' take on the Branch situation. He thinks it is Bill Belichek's "I'm Keith Hernandez" moment.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Is it too soon to declare Branch/Seattle the winners over New Englad?

I think everybody wins.

As a Pats fan, I would rather see that money used elsewhere. And I didn't expect to get a first rounder for him.

[Travis]

Just heard about the apparent confirmation of this trade, and I'll admit, as a Seahawks fan, I'm lost on this one. We just got Burleson, are very high on D.J. Hackett developing into a field stretcher, still have a reliable third down type receiver in Engram, not to mention a guy who is a top 15 receiver in the league when healthy.

Even if Jackson goes down, we could field Burleson/Engram/Hackett which I think most Seahawk fans could live with, and while I know Holmgren loves the 3 WR sets, I can't help but feel (hope) that this is a precursor to another move.

[SirFozzie]

The outcome for this trade depends a lot on how Gabriel turns out.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Travis

Just heard about the apparent confirmation of this trade, and I'll admit, as a Seahawks fan, I'm lost on this one. We just got Burleson, are very high on D.J. Hackett developing into a field stretcher, still have a reliable third down type receiver in Engram, not to mention a guy who is a top 15 receiver in the league when healthy.

Even if Jackson goes down, we could field Burleson/Engram/Hackett which I think most Seahawk fans could live with, and while I know Holmgren loves the 3 WR sets, I can't help but feel (hope) that this is a precursor to another move.

Seattle caught whatever the Lions organization has.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The outcome for this trade depends a lot on how Gabriel turns out.

No it doesn't. That's totally irrelevant.

[Swaggs]

What was the price tag for Gabriel?

I thought it was like a 4th, which seems to be a good value regardless. Gabriel and Branch could have been a strong tandem.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Seattle caught whatever the Lions organization has.

And they can catch Charles Rogers now, too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

No it doesn't. That's totally irrelevant.

Why? He's the replacement. If Gabriel performs well, then it was a good move to get him instead of overpaying Branch.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Travis

Just heard about the apparent confirmation of this trade, and I'll admit, as a Seahawks fan, I'm lost on this one. We just got Burleson, are very high on D.J. Hackett developing into a field stretcher, still have a reliable third down type receiver in Engram, not to mention a guy who is a top 15 receiver in the league when healthy.

Even if Jackson goes down, we could field Burleson/Engram/Hackett which I think most Seahawk fans could live with, and while I know Holmgren loves the 3 WR sets, I can't help but feel (hope) that this is a precursor to another move.

Travis, from what I've heard Burleson has struggled to get a grip on the offense, and is not as well-suited to the West Coast style. Engram is a 3rd down guy as you mention, Hackett is an up-and-comer, and Jackson is frankly too fragile to depend upon. He's great when he's healthy, but this is a Super Bowl-caliber team, and they've made a decent position group much stronger with the move. I like it.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by molson

Why? He's the replacement. If Gabriel performs well, then it was a good move to get him instead of overpaying Branch.

The two events aren't mutally exclusive.

Further, nobody ever said Gabriel would be "Branch" now. It's way more complex than that. Gabriel could cut tomorrow and it's still a good deal to get a first round pick for Branch.

Gabriel is likely to only catch 40 balls this year. Doesn't mean his aquistion was a bad move or overpaying Branch was a good move. This isn't baseball.