Branch for a 4th

[Fafnir]

I don't think the Pats are going to run it more without Moss now! They still are setup to be a passing team.

This part I'm going to disagree with.  I think it's going to a more balanced attack, using the two-TE sets not just for passing but also for the run game.  I think they really like both Fred Taylor and BJGE, they both hit the hole hard and get decent yardage (even though neither's much of a threat to break a long one).  

There will still be a lot of short, quick passes - more of the West Coast-ey kind of offense - but sure looks to me like there's going to be more of a focus on ball control, including establishing somewhat of a running identity.

Their offensive line hasn't been good at run blocking for a while now, and their backs are just average when it comes to making plays.

I think we'll continue to see similar passing/running splits.

[Fafnir]

Statistically yes they were the best with moss, but his point was more successful.  They were more successful when they were winning superbowls throwing to the open guy.

Don't let the result of a close SB sway you. The Pats were one sack/miracle catch away from that SB win, and one shanked FG away from two SB losses.

They idea that they're better off throwing to the "open guy" without Moss is silly. They're better when Moss is getting open deep and drawing safety help.

Please don't call my ideas silly... Im not really interested in playing make believe and what could have happened.  It is an absolute fact that the team was more successful with Deion Branch than with Randy Moss.  Does that mean they are better with him this year than they were with Moss?  that remains to be seen. 

These are some thoughts from Mike Reiss

Perfect fit -- Branch is one of the few players that uniquely fits the Patriots' needs at this time. He knows the team's system and can play all the receiver spots, so the learning curve won't be steep. That's a key consideration for the Patriots given their complex offensive system, especially when making a trade during the season. Branch is a high-character player who joins Brandon Tate, Wes Welker, Julian Edelman, Taylor Price and Matthew Slater on the receiver depth chart. He should be active on the 45-man game-day roster for Sunday's matchup with Baltimore and represents a receiver-specific attitude shift of sorts for the team.

Changing offense -- Without the vertical threat of Moss, the Patriots are likely to go back to the type of offense they ran when Branch was putting up solid numbers from 2002-05. That's an attack that spreads the ball around and features more short and intermediate routes in a West Coast-like style. Branch has more wear on his tires at this point of his career, but he should still be productive in that type of setup.

In theory Roy is right. The problem I have is with Brady and how this offense has progressed with Moss over the years.

Brady fell in love with the deep ball. When the going has gotten tough, Brady just airs it out into coverage and the results are spotty.

He is the best deep threat on the planet but it is still a low percentage play.

It is kind of like living and dying by the three ball in basketball. Sure you can get hot and look amazing and unstoppable for stretches, but you can also get cold if a team decides to run you off the line.

Moss caught a rediculous amount of jump balls in 2007. Sometimes in double or triple coverage. As time went on, those plays resulted in picks more than they did scores.

I wonder what percentage of Bradys picks were throws to Moss. I know this year that number is 100%.

He definitely was forcing the ball in the Jets game, but other than that I haven't seen it.

[Rondo2287]

Statistically yes they were the best with moss, but his point was more successful.  They were more successful when they were winning superbowls throwing to the open guy.

Don't let the result of a close SB sway you. The Pats were one sack/miracle catch away from that SB win, and one shanked FG away from two SB losses.

They idea that they're better off throwing to the "open guy" without Moss is silly. They're better when Moss is getting open deep and drawing safety help.

Please don't call my ideas silly... Im not really interested in playing make believe and what could have happened.  It is an absolute fact that the team was more successful with Deion Branch than with Randy Moss.  Does that mean they are better with him this year than they were with Moss?  that remains to be seen. 

I'll call your ideas silly when they are, and this is clearly the Pats homer in you talking.

The Pats lost their last SB because of their offensive line's play, not their offensive system. The years the Pats won the SB after Brady's first year his YPA and YPC were pretty close. The bigger difference was that they didn't run the ball as much and threw it more. I don't think the Pats are going to run it more without Moss now! They still are setup to be a passing team.

The Pats were a better team with Moss, trading for Branch for a similar pick is a clear downgrade. Sometimes you have to make a trade for locker room reasons, but the idea that they need a "route runner" is spin.

Ok you can call it spin, but this guy who worked in the NFL evaluating talent for 20 years said pretty much the same thing. 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b2bb2c/printable/patriots-vikings-take-smart-business-approach-to-moss-deal

And while i may be talking as a homer you are also just talking as a jealous non-pats fan.  Listen I get it, the pats have been the most dominant franchise of the past decade and it would be like me railing against every move the yankees made in the late  90's and early 2000's.

[the_Bird]

I don't think the Pats are going to run it more without Moss now! They still are setup to be a passing team.

This part I'm going to disagree with.  I think it's going to a more balanced attack, using the two-TE sets not just for passing but also for the run game.  I think they really like both Fred Taylor and BJGE, they both hit the hole hard and get decent yardage (even though neither's much of a threat to break a long one).  

There will still be a lot of short, quick passes - more of the West Coast-ey kind of offense - but sure looks to me like there's going to be more of a focus on ball control, including establishing somewhat of a running identity.

Their offensive line hasn't been good at run blocking for a while now, and their backs are just average when it comes to making plays.

I think we'll continue to see similar passing/running splits.

BJGE is averaging 4.6 yds/carry (and 4.4/carry last year).  Fred Taylor was averaging 4.3/carry last year, and probably would be again this year if he hadn't gotten hurt.  For the year, they're solidly middle-of-the pack in terms of yards per game as a team, as well as per-carry.  Boosted a bit by playing Buffalo, hurt a bit by playing the JETS.

Are they the best running team in football?  Of course not.  Will they dominate on the ground?  Nope.  Are either of the main RBs big-play threats?  Nope.

But, are they good *enough* to maintain a more-traditional balance between rushes and passes?  Boy, sure looks like it to me.  Again, comes down to the desire to shorten the game, get some first downs, ball control offense being the best way to help a young, developing defense.

[Fafnir]

Statistically yes they were the best with moss, but his point was more successful.  They were more successful when they were winning superbowls throwing to the open guy.

Don't let the result of a close SB sway you. The Pats were one sack/miracle catch away from that SB win, and one shanked FG away from two SB losses.

They idea that they're better off throwing to the "open guy" without Moss is silly. They're better when Moss is getting open deep and drawing safety help.

Please don't call my ideas silly... Im not really interested in playing make believe and what could have happened.  It is an absolute fact that the team was more successful with Deion Branch than with Randy Moss.  Does that mean they are better with him this year than they were with Moss?  that remains to be seen.  

I'll call your ideas silly when they are, and this is clearly the Pats homer in you talking.

The Pats lost their last SB because of their offensive line's play, not their offensive system. The years the Pats won the SB after Brady's first year his YPA and YPC were pretty close. The bigger difference was that they didn't run the ball as much and threw it more. I don't think the Pats are going to run it more without Moss now! They still are setup to be a passing team.

The Pats were a better team with Moss, trading for Branch for a similar pick is a clear downgrade. Sometimes you have to make a trade for locker room reasons, but the idea that they need a "route runner" is spin.

Ok you can call it spin, but this guy who worked in the NFL evaluating talent for 20 years said pretty much the same thing.  

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b2bb2c/printable/patriots-vikings-take-smart-business-approach-to-moss-deal

And while i may be talking as a homer you are also just talking as a jealous non-pats fan.  Listen I get it, the pats have been the most dominant franchise of the past decade and it would be like me railing against every move the yankees made in the late  90's and early 2000's.

How is me saying they were better with Moss motivated by jealousy? I don't mean to insult by saying you are a Homer, its just a fact. You did expect them to go 16-0 again last year didn't you?

*shrug* I'm a Bears fan I just like to talk football, attack me if you want but you're just lashing out without any reason to.

I think Mike Lombardi is drinking the team's kool-aid there.

[Chris]

So they basically just traded Laurence Maroney for Deion Branch.  I'll take it.  Even if Branch doesn't return to his old form, I love this move as a depth move.  This way, they can sustain an injury to a WR and not have to rely on practice squad players.  And of course the upside is through the roof.

[Fafnir]

So they basically just traded Laurence Maroney for Deion Branch.  I'll take it.  Even if Branch doesn't return to his old form, I love this move as a depth move.  This way, they can sustain an injury to a WR and not have to rely on practice squad players.  And of course the upside is through the roof.

Moss and Maroney for Branch and a 3rd round pick.

I still think if Moss is worth a 3rd, they overpaid for Branch. I agree they needed to get another WR.

[Rondo2287]

Statistically yes they were the best with moss, but his point was more successful.  They were more successful when they were winning superbowls throwing to the open guy.

Don't let the result of a close SB sway you. The Pats were one sack/miracle catch away from that SB win, and one shanked FG away from two SB losses.

They idea that they're better off throwing to the "open guy" without Moss is silly. They're better when Moss is getting open deep and drawing safety help.

Please don't call my ideas silly... Im not really interested in playing make believe and what could have happened.  It is an absolute fact that the team was more successful with Deion Branch than with Randy Moss.  Does that mean they are better with him this year than they were with Moss?  that remains to be seen. 

I'll call your ideas silly when they are, and this is clearly the Pats homer in you talking.

The Pats lost their last SB because of their offensive line's play, not their offensive system. The years the Pats won the SB after Brady's first year his YPA and YPC were pretty close. The bigger difference was that they didn't run the ball as much and threw it more. I don't think the Pats are going to run it more without Moss now! They still are setup to be a passing team.

The Pats were a better team with Moss, trading for Branch for a similar pick is a clear downgrade. Sometimes you have to make a trade for locker room reasons, but the idea that they need a "route runner" is spin.

Ok you can call it spin, but this guy who worked in the NFL evaluating talent for 20 years said pretty much the same thing. 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b2bb2c/printable/patriots-vikings-take-smart-business-approach-to-moss-deal

And while i may be talking as a homer you are also just talking as a jealous non-pats fan.  Listen I get it, the pats have been the most dominant franchise of the past decade and it would be like me railing against every move the yankees made in the late  90's and early 2000's.

How is me saying they were better with Moss motivated by jealousy? I don't mean to insult by saying you are a Homer, its just a fact. You did expect them to go 16-0 again last year didn't you?

*shrug* I'm a Bears fan I just like to talk football, attack me if you want but you're just lashing out without any reason to.

I think Mike Lombardi is drinking the team's kool-aid there.

I think its comical that calling me a homer is fact but me saying a fan of a struggling franchise is jealous of a dominant franchise is an attack.

[Fafnir]

I think its comical that calling me a homer is fact but me saying a fan of a struggling franchise is jealous of a dominant franchise is an attack.

So anything I say is discounted because I'm a Bears fan?

You've shown yourself to be a Homer over the past few years here when it comes to the Pats, that's okay. I'm a homer when it comes to the C's! (And their lots of other Homers around too)

With my Bears/Cubs I'm more of a fatalistic fan. (for example my Bears probably are going to make the playoffs with their schedule and 4 wins in the bank but unless their O-line improves magically they'll get killed in the playoffs)

Regardless, keep believing that downgrading your WRs is a good move for this year. The Pats are pretty good team anyways and should be in the playoffs still.

[Chris]

So anything I say is discounted because I'm a Bears fan?

Yes...unless it involves Ditka.  Then you will be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Greenbean]

Statistically yes they were the best with moss, but his point was more successful.  They were more successful when they were winning superbowls throwing to the open guy.

Don't let the result of a close SB sway you. The Pats were one sack/miracle catch away from that SB win, and one shanked FG away from two SB losses.

They idea that they're better off throwing to the "open guy" without Moss is silly. They're better when Moss is getting open deep and drawing safety help.

Please don't call my ideas silly... Im not really interested in playing make believe and what could have happened.  It is an absolute fact that the team was more successful with Deion Branch than with Randy Moss.  Does that mean they are better with him this year than they were with Moss?  that remains to be seen. 

These are some thoughts from Mike Reiss

Perfect fit -- Branch is one of the few players that uniquely fits the Patriots' needs at this time. He knows the team's system and can play all the receiver spots, so the learning curve won't be steep. That's a key consideration for the Patriots given their complex offensive system, especially when making a trade during the season. Branch is a high-character player who joins Brandon Tate, Wes Welker, Julian Edelman, Taylor Price and Matthew Slater on the receiver depth chart. He should be active on the 45-man game-day roster for Sunday's matchup with Baltimore and represents a receiver-specific attitude shift of sorts for the team.

Changing offense -- Without the vertical threat of Moss, the Patriots are likely to go back to the type of offense they ran when Branch was putting up solid numbers from 2002-05. That's an attack that spreads the ball around and features more short and intermediate routes in a West Coast-like style. Branch has more wear on his tires at this point of his career, but he should still be productive in that type of setup.

In theory Roy is right. The problem I have is with Brady and how this offense has progressed with Moss over the years.

Brady fell in love with the deep ball. When the going has gotten tough, Brady just airs it out into coverage and the results are spotty.

He is the best deep threat on the planet but it is still a low percentage play.

It is kind of like living and dying by the three ball in basketball. Sure you can get hot and look amazing and unstoppable for stretches, but you can also get cold if a team decides to run you off the line.

Moss caught a rediculous amount of jump balls in 2007. Sometimes in double or triple coverage. As time went on, those plays resulted in picks more than they did scores.

I wonder what percentage of Bradys picks were throws to Moss. I know this year that number is 100%.

He definitely was forcing the ball in the Jets game, but other than that I haven't seen it.

Well that was their only loss this year.

When the offense has struggled, it has been when Brady abandons spreading the ball around and keeps chucking it to Moss. In 2007 and evenn last year, Moss came up with an ungodly amount of big plays on those throws. This year he hasnt.

Receptions/Targets:

2007: 98/159 (62%)
2009: 83/138 (60%)
2010 (Including last nights game): 13/32 (41%)

Even the Cassel year was better than this year:

2008: 69/126 (55%)

I know it was only been 5 games, but maybe he is declining. He still has the straight line speed, but perhaps his vertical has decreased.

If he could run other routes it would not even be as glaring but he is rather one dimensional. Of course that one dimension he did better than anyone in the history of the game.

All Im saying is going deep to Moss hasnt worked this year as well as others. Brady kept going to him though until that Miami game.

[Rondo2287]

I think its comical that calling me a homer is fact but me saying a fan of a struggling franchise is jealous of a dominant franchise is an attack.

So anything I say is discounted because I'm a Bears fan?

You've shown yourself to be a Homer over the past few years here when it comes to the Pats, that's okay. I'm a homer when it comes to the C's! (And their lots of other Homers around too)

With my Bears/Cubs I'm more of a fatalistic fan. (for example my Bears probably are going to make the playoffs with their schedule and 4 wins in the bank but unless their O-line improves magically they'll get killed in the playoffs)

Regardless, keep believing that downgrading your WRs is a good move for this year. The Pats are pretty good team anyways and should be in the playoffs still.

You are just turning a blind eye to many outstanding factors and treating this as a Madden trade.  Yes Moss is rated a 95 and Branch an 87, so the patriots are stupid and suck.

[Greenbean]

I like the idea of killing teams over the middle of the field with Branch, Welker, and the TE's, and then someone like Tate sneaking deep due to the attention to the other weapons. It is kind of like working inside out in bball.

This is a remarkably entertaining season so far. This trade has sparked a fantastic debate and I cant wait to see how it turns out.

[StartOrien]

I think its comical that calling me a homer is fact but me saying a fan of a struggling franchise is jealous of a dominant franchise is an attack.

So anything I say is discounted because I'm a Bears fan?

You've shown yourself to be a Homer over the past few years here when it comes to the Pats, that's okay. I'm a homer when it comes to the C's! (And their lots of other Homers around too)

With my Bears/Cubs I'm more of a fatalistic fan. (for example my Bears probably are going to make the playoffs with their schedule and 4 wins in the bank but unless their O-line improves magically they'll get killed in the playoffs)

Regardless, keep believing that downgrading your WRs is a good move for this year. The Pats are pretty good team anyways and should be in the playoffs still.

You are just turning a blind eye to many outstanding factors and treating this as a Madden trade.  Yes Moss is rated a 95 and Branch an 87, so the patriots are stupid and suck.

Branch is about a 68

[Chris]

So they basically just traded Laurence Maroney for Deion Branch.  I'll take it.  Even if Branch doesn't return to his old form, I love this move as a depth move.  This way, they can sustain an injury to a WR and not have to rely on practice squad players.  And of course the upside is through the roof.

Moss and Maroney for Branch and a 3rd round pick.

I still think if Moss is worth a 3rd, they overpaid for Branch. I agree they needed to get another WR.

I think they overpaid for Branch only if he doesn't renegotiate his contract.  If he renegotiates, then I think its decent value.  

Moss is only worth a 3rd because he is old, unsigned next year, and his production is down a bit.

I do agree that the Pats downgraded at Wide Reciever...but I still like the move for purely selfish reasons.  I personally thought they had no chance at the superbowl unless the defense completely transformed itself, regardless of whether Moss was on the team or not.  So its not like they were punting the season away.  

But what they did was make a statement about the expectations of the players and the attitude of the team.  Basically, they seem to be making a concerted effort to go away from the 2007-2009 team, and return to the 2001-2004 ways.  No more jerks in the lockerroom.  No more trying to get a certain player the ball.  

Yeah, it probably is not going to work this season...but IMO, they weren't going anywhere anyways.  But it gives me more hope for next year that they are finally going in the right direction.

And yes, I am a homer.