Schefter: Branch to New England for 4th round pick

[Ron Sellers]

Found two interesting stats regarding Branch with Seattle.

The good news for the homers/glass half-full crowd is that Branch has been in on 83% of Seattle's snaps in their first four games. That would lead us to believe he is healthy if he is staying on the field that much.

The bad news for the chicken little/glass half-empty crowd is that Branch was averaging only 28 yards per game.

Fantasy alert: Carroll expects Lynch to play a lot
Scout.com: Seahawks Quarterly Review

Apologies in advance if this was already mentioned, with 500+ comments in this thread I may have missed it previously.

 

[Kontradiction]

To be fair (I don't like the trade because of the compensation), Branch is bring brought in to be that WR3/Outside WR2.


WR1/Slot WR1 - Welker
WR2/Outside WR1 - Tate
WR3/Outside WR2 - Branch
Receiving TE1 - Hernandez
Receiving TE2 - Gronkowski

WR4 - Edelman
WR5 - Price/Slater/the guy sitting in row 16, seat 4
Receving TE3 - Crumpler

Branch being an "average" WR3 will be sufficient if Tate is ready to play the Moss role and Welker is still improving over the course of the season.

Just a question out of pure curiosity. If the Pats were somehow able to finagle their way back into the fourth round, would you become a fan of the move?

 

[Deus Irae]

Just a question out of pure curiosity. If the Pats were somehow able to finagle their way back into the fourth round, would you become a fan of the move?

No, because that's a secondary maneuver, and it's not tied to the trade. That's different than "we traded away a wideout, so we need to bring in another wideout".''

 

[NE39]

Hasselbeck didn't seem to throw to him much, though. Whether that is because he wasn't open or preferred throwing elsewhere (he seems particularly fond of throwing to John Carlson), I don't know.

However, despite playing 83% of the snaps (more than any other Seahawks WR), Branch was only targeted 18 times, catching 13 passes.

 

[mgcolby]

No, because that's a secondary maneuver, and it's not tied to the trade. That's different than "we traded away a wideout, so we need to bring in another wideout".''

Your logic definitely holds comedic value.

By using your logic, then yes it is the same: "we traded away a 4th round pick, so we need to get another one."

It is no different.

 

[QB12]

....
It will be Tate split out, Welker flanked offset with Hernandez in the slot -more often than not...

Disagree. Once you put Hernandez in the slot, you're telegraphing pass to the defense. One reason why Hernandez is so effective right now is he is lined up tight, with a LB assigned to cover him in case its a pass. No LB can cover him. Plus, with him lined up tight, the defense doesn't know whether its a run or a pass.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your logic definitely holds comedic value.

By using your logic, then yes it is the same: "we traded away a 4th round pick, so we need to get another one."

It is no different.

Really? How many receptions does "4th round pick" have in NFL history?

Oh, right..... ZERO. It's not a person. Furthermore, the team already has a 4th round pick for next season. What's been traded away is the higher of the two 4th round picks, after all.

You should try using your mind instead of just letting your knee jerk you in its direction.

 

[mgcolby]

Disagree. Once you put Hernandez in the slot, you're telegraphing pass to the defense. One reason why Hernandez is so effective right now is he is lined up tight, with a LB assigned to cover him in case its a pass. No LB can cover him. Plus, with him lined up tight, the defense doesn't know whether its a run or a pass.

I agree to a point. But when they bring in 13 personnel and split Hernandez out into the slot they are essentially operating in 12 personnel, with Gronk and Crump in tight. We should have no issue running out of that formation. If anything we allow the defense to pick its poison, if you will. If they go big with a LB on Hern then we pass, if they go small with a safety, then we can motion him back in and run, or once again leave him out there and let him take the safety out of the play and run it.

Our TE's give us a ton of flexibility.

 

[drew4008]

We have so many draft picks next year, do you guys honestly think that there is a better chance that the rook we would've gotten with that pick would contribute more than Branch?

First of all, they won't contribute at all this season (obviously) and Branch will, so there's already an advantage... that's why teams give up picks from the next draft, to improve their team NOW. Second, they'd have to actually make the team and compete with all those other picks (7 other picks in the first 4 rounds).

I mean it's definitely possible that a 4th round pick can be a complete star... but I don't see how you can be thaaat certain of such a scenario that you're willing to say "************, I can't believe we gave up that pick for Branch". It just boggles my mind.

 

[Coach42]

Tate does not have to fill Moss's role, that is total BS. The Pats never have asked a player to do something they are not capable of. They have always coached to player strengths while attempting to hide their weaknesses. To think that just because Moss is gone someone will have to alter what they do best to imitate Moss is wrong.

 

[mgcolby]

Really? How many receptions does "4th round pick" have in NFL history?

Oh, right..... ZERO. It's not a person. Furthermore, the team already has a 4th round pick for next season. What's been traded away is the higher of the two 4th round picks, after all.

You should try using your mind instead of just letting your knee jerk you in its direction.

Its the same friggin logic, only you can't see that. I'm sure a lot of 4th round picks have plenty of receptions in NFL history. :singing:

My mind works just fine thank you very much. The only thing that doesn't work is your ability to see anyone else's point of view as valid.

And the fact that you constantly take generous liberties in defining the debate down to the most minute detail in order to prove that your point is valid, while dismissing someone else's argument - because their point is irrelevent - based on your definition of what the two of you are debating.

You do it all the time, and I am sure I am not alone in finding it comical.

 

[Lansdowne]

It is fantasy, but the author's basic point is just as valid in the real world.

If "Branch is no longer a playmaker. Multiple knee surgeries have crippled his on-field production and ability to separate." was the quote that was bolded then I'd agree with you. But the part about Amendola was, and I didn't see how that had anything to do with the Patriots. As a fantasy manager, Amendola is a better add than Branch. Then again, Amendola is available to fantasy managers, not to the Patriots, which was the point I was making.

I guess I just don't see the point of using a fantasy football article to make a point. Sure, I'd rather own Brandon Marshall than Wes Welker on my fantasy team. Would I prefer Marshall on the Pats to Welker? Hell no. There's more to this stuff than just numbers.

 

[QB12]

If anyone wants to see Deion Branch at his dynamic best, check this Hulu link out of the 2004 AFC Championship Game at Pittsburgh (played in January 2005).

Hulu - Game of the Week: 2004 Patriots @ Steelers AFC Champ - Watch the full episode now.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

I hope that all of you guys saying that we overspent for branch realize that we are a WR short and are very close to the trade deadline. I am not a huge fan of the trade but I am happy to hear he's coming back and I still think he's got some juice in the tank. Tate is a better option at reciever at this point but Branch gives us depth and allows Tate to continue to return kicks. On top of all this, Branch is already familiar with the organization and he'll actually have a good QB throwing him the ball and a good offense.

Imagine if Welker or Tate got injured? How would we look at WR then? Not to mention both of them had injuries last season. Branch is also a veteran presence on a very young offense otherwise.

 

[SuperPatsFan]

If anyone wants to see Deion Branch at his dynamic best, check this Hulu link out of the 2004 AFC Championship Game at Pittsburgh (played in January 2005).

Hulu - Game of the Week: 2004 Patriots @ Steelers AFC Champ - Watch the full episode now.

Nice link! Thanks.

 

[Deus Irae]

Its the same friggin logic, only you can't see that. I'm sure a lot of 4th round picks have plenty of receptions in NFL history. :singing:

It's not the same logic. There is no such player as "4th round pick". "4th round pick" has never had a reception.

My mind works just fine thank you very much. The only thing that doesn't work is your ability to see anyone else's point of view as valid.

I see plenty of people's points of view as valid. Other people's point of view had nothing to do with my answer to Kontra since he was asking for an answer from my point of view, and it has nothing to do with your ridiculous post when you jumped in, since you did nothing but belittle my response as opposed to giving "your point of view" in answering Kontra's query. You simply made a terrible argument in attempting to bash my post.

And the fact that you constantly take generous liberties in defining the debate down to the most minute detail in order to prove that your point is valid, while dismissing someone else's argument - because their point is irrelevent - based on your definition of what the two of you are debating.

In this case, I was asked a specific question by a specific poster. He asked me if getting another pick in the 4th round would make me a fan of the move. There's no defining that down, there's no 'minute detail'. There's just you jumping in with a lame argument that attempted to equate actual players with draft picks.

You do it all the time, and I am sure I am not alone in finding it comical.

You're arguing that players on the field and draft picks are the same thing. Now that's comical.

 

[Simkin]

in the pics his knee looks ugly

 

[mgcolby]

It's not the same logic. There is no such player as "4th round pick". "4th round pick" has never had a reception.



I see plenty of people's points of view as valid. Other people's point of view had nothing to do with my answer to Kontra, and it has nothing to do with your ridiculous post when you jumped in, since you did nothing but belittle my response as opposed to giving "your point of view" in answering Kontra's query. You simply made a terrible argument in attempting to bash my post.



In this case, I was asked a specific question by a specific poster. He asked me if getting another pick in the 4th round would make me a fan of the move. There's no defining that down, there's no 'minute detail'. There's just you jumping in with a lame argument that attempted to equate actual players with draft picks.



You're arguing that players on the field and draft picks are the same thing. Now that's comical.

You connected the Moss trade with the Branch trade earlier in this thread, but excluded the Maroney trade, when another poster tried to equate it to Maroney for Branch. Which is essentially what happened.

But now you take the logical liberty of linking the Moss and Branch trade while dismissing the previous posters connection as independent of each other.

Then Kontra asks how you would feel about the trade if we manage to work our way back into the 4th round for a second time before the draft. And again you state that the moves are independent of each other.

Hence why I find your logic comical.

And obviously the little smiley face was lost on you. Not surprising.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Calm down kiddies, it gonna be ok.

 

[Kontradiction]

No, because that's a secondary maneuver, and it's not tied to the trade. That's different than "we traded away a wideout, so we need to bring in another wideout".''

Eh, I can see how you would feel that way. I feel like we overspent for him too. But, if we can get another fourth round pick back (which can be done a bunch of different ways outside of moving picks around in the upcoming draft), then I'll feel a lot better about it. Personally, I think we should have pulled the trigger on the Branch trade before we sent Moss packing. Seattle snuffed out how desperate we were for a receiver that could come in and learn the system immediately and they squeezed us for him. If we had made this move before letting Moss go, I think we could have probably gotten him for a sixth.