Official Colin Branch Sucks Thread

>>he was never ever someone who was feared as a hard hitter or as a ball hawk.

never said ya did, the point was that he wasn't a difference maker. on a good day, the best he did was not make a ton of mistakes and get the man on the ground. i'd prefer a ball hawk (and if not that then a break breaker) that also consistently does his job.

>> 1.5 million isn't chump change.

can we keep WW for that?

>> Insticts aren't great, yet at least, but he has decent range IMO.

I woulda thought it good but maybe "range" is not the best word. He never showed much of any ability that i can remember to get to over and help on a long fly route. Grant did.

>> Nor is he going to grow any, 5'11 is as tall as he gets. Someday, I'd like to cover a freaking TE.

Height wasn't the biggest issue. First of all we need to be in the same neighborhood.

>> But it[']s as a free.

okay. we'll disagree for now

 

Per year? hell, that's what we pay our backup LBs and DEs. It'd be nice to lock him in at under $2.5 mil a year, but it's hard to say, especially dependent on length.

A 1st round tender by itself this year would probably be about $1.5 mil this year, yeah.

Is that really you?

 

Boy should I know better than to get into another $#!+fest with Magnus, where I will undoubtedly be accused of many things, but in the interests of "standing up for the little guy" I'll just throw in my opinion that we really didn't see much of a drop in performance from Grant to Branch, and this is from someone (if you care to remember) who hoped Grant would be brought back.

If someone wants to argue that Grant had more natural talent and should have been a far better FS than Branch will ever have a right to be, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but in terms of actual on-field performance Grant absolutely wasn't a strength in our secondary. Over the course of his career here he was consistently out of position, a somewhat below average tackler, and overly aggressive in ballhawking. It amazes me how people can forget things so quickly but there is a veritable highlight reel of Grant getting burned, be it in the Superbowl or regular season. He's still young and I widely praised him for improving his play in that final season with us, but he improved from liability to being solid, still not the strength someone with his raw talent should be.

Meanwhile Branch is something of an athlete playing a position (a la Michael Vick at a much, much lower level). He doesn't have Grant's raw ability or instincts, he just flies around. That being said, I have every Panther game burned to DVD and I don't recall him getting burned any more frequently than Grant. In fact, Ricky Manning was a much bigger liability in pass coverage this year than Branch. For that matter, Minter probably is as well. That's not to say that I wouldn't mind an upgrade at FS, but we can upgrade just about any position other than LDE. I'll agree with the statement that Branch is not a very good tackler, but he's more active in that respect than I remember Grant being. I don't recall Deon making an inordinate number of tackles heading upfield, just from the side or trailing downfield. That's not much of a knock considering that his tackling was better than expected from college scouting reports and you really shouldn't be relying on your FS in that capacity much anyway, but in my opinion it's there just the same.


Of course I'm going to get slammed for speculating, but to me it's beyond obvious that there's an agenda at work here. Slamming Branch is a prerequisite for pimping Thomas Davis, who I and a widely respected Panther fan (I'll let him identify himself if he wants to) think is rather overrated. That's not to say that Davis wouldn't be better than Branch - the former being a potential first round pick and Branch being a fourth rounder sort of gives that away at least in terms of potential - but it's a little too coincidental that the biggest critics of Branch also seem to be the biggest supporters of Davis (meanwhile some such as myself wouldn't mind going safety in the second or third rounds, so it's not like we don't want to improve, just that we don't hype Davis). Oh, and since I'm already opening myself up to criticism, it's worth pointing out that bashing someone's grasp of statistics, especially when claiming statistical superiority, and then failing to acknowledge the fact that Branch and Grant had pretty darn similar statistics is more than a little disingenuous.


At this point I'm going to surrender to better judgment and back out of this thing (I assume I'm not the first one to notice similarities between this board and the old Charlotte forum). I only stopped by to get that ESPN Insider information again anyway. I want to see what that idiot Mel Kiper has happening in the first round.

 

stats weren't actually much different from Grant's, no. And Grant himself had a down year in Jax. I'll stand behind the feeling that he was better, and more active in run support (a little too active, given that his pass coverage mistakes were usually playaction, and certainly in the SB).

I'll credit Fox/Trgo for continuing to mix up and disguise coverages and hiding Branch some, but he's just not enough IMO. He's still the weak link. i don't think there's an ulterior motive - Davis is a good player and I'd like him here, but no more than an OT, and no more than I'd like the type player we could get in 2 or 3.

 

>>can we keep WW for that?

Didn't say Grant = WW either.

>>I woulda thought it good but maybe "range" is not the best word. He never showed much of any ability that i can remember to get to over and help on a long fly route. Grant did.

He (Branch) showed some, late in the year. Recognition is the key, and not getting sucked in. Did some of that early, better late.

 

Good post Collin.

 

that certainly doesn't look like a statistic

 

>>Over the course of his career here he was consistently out of position, a somewhat below average tackler, and overly aggressive in ballhawking.

Overall, I'd agree, accounting for all three years. I personally think he went from being too aggressive to cautious in our system, and improved on his tackling to where he wasn't allowing big runs. Hence, less stats in 03, but fewer blown assignments. Regardless, he's gone, and we've talked too much about him here already.

Its getting to be like folks debating B-line with Thelt. Still.



>>Meanwhile Branch is something of an athlete playing a position (a la Michael Vick at a much, much lower level).

A bit unfair, to Branch. I seem to be defending a guy I was disappointed in a bit here. I think he understands the position well. If their is a place where Branch is higher than Grant other than speed at each's developmental time, its here IMO. If you mean details of tackling and techniques, yes.


>>I'll let him identify himself if he wants to)

Mags knows I think he's a bit high at #14 and not my favorite prospect anyway as I think he's more of a SS. Though the thought of taking him, should he fall, wouldn't be bad if we were looking to wait one more with Minter, and giving us some options down the road.

For the record, mags has been pretty hard on Branch for a while, well before the draft talk, and for the most part its been deserved through the season. So I don't think he's just pimping a need for a player. He's a willing tackler, but his tackling technique and angles are hard to stomach. His recognition needs to improve so he can take advantage of his speed and athleticism. We saw some of the latter improve during the season, and hopefully, with a push perhaps, the tackling will get better as it did with Grant.


>>I only stopped by to get that ESPN Insider information again anyway. I want to see what that idiot Mel Kiper has happening in the first round.

you try to leave, but we pull you back in. cha-cha-cha.

 

Hell, I think he's high at 14. He's just as good as anything else, though - Jammal Brown is rated top 10 in some places just because that's where a first tackle should probably go, not because he's at that level. Elton Brown is good, but he's not that franchise lineman either. And we don't need a WR like we need OL or S. So either way, we'd get the best player and that player would be a slight reach.


But, of course, there's no way that anything I have to say would have merit, I'm obviously just in love with Thomas Davis That's one of the more questionable things I've ever heard him say.

 

Piper:
>> you try to leave, but we pull you back in.

Him, actually, not "we." As we're all aware, I'm extraordinarily annoyed by Magnus running roughshod over people, especially when his argument is spectacularly weak, given how I'm portrayed as Satan himself for doing much the same.


Magnus:
Yeah, I lied about leaving after that last post. I watched the thread and I figure I can toss in a few more points since I'm going to be pissed off at you one way or the other and I might as well question your "almighty knowledge" once more.

>>Jammal Brown is rated top 10 in some places

That's who the aforementioned idiot has us taking, and I personally agree that he isn't worth it.


>>Elton Brown is good, but he's not that franchise lineman either.

Elton Brown is a franchise guard if there ever was one, although it's worth mentioning that guards (like safeties I might add) have less overall impact than the guys who line up outside them. Hell, I'm almost convinced that Elton would make a better tackle than anyone in this draft.


>>I'm obviously just in love with Thomas Davis That's one of the
>>more questionable things I've ever heard him say.

I wouldn't have any way to question Piper's statement about you being consistent against Branch given that I've been to this website exactly twice, but I do think it's pretty undeniable that you have repeatedly and strenuously expressed your desire for Davis. As for questionable, how about the suggestion that Davis might be a long-term solution for us at FS when I haven't seen anyone suggest he could play there in the NFL and many actually have him listed as an OLB. Sarcasm is cool, I use it too, but typically it's only effective when you've already given some indication for how the proposed idea is crazy. Given the many threads hyping Davis, I just don't see how you could do that. I grant that I could be completely wrong about your motivations, but the visible evidence makes my theory plausible at the least.


For what it's worth I'd like to go Brown, CB if one of the top three falls, Mike Williams if he fell somehow, or trade down. No way do I think Thomas Davis fits for us at #14, but I'm obviously not wild about any of the tackles either.