PDA

View Full Version : Alan Branch is slipping...


bigbluedefense
03-17-2007, 05:37 PM
Hopefully he slips all the way to 20 to us. Ive said this before, and I still believe it. While we may have other "needs", I think if Branch falls to 20 it would be hard to ignore him. We've all said it once or twice before: battles are won and lost in the trenches.

A dominant front 4 can mask alot of glaring weaknesses in the back 7. Heck, Carolina took a dominant front 4 and average back 7 all the way to the SB just a couple of years ago.

Branch would make our dline flat out impossible to block. Is he overrated? Yeah, in some ways. But we don't need him to be Warren Sapp. We just need a big hulking NT who can occupy blockers and cause some penetration. And Branch can definately be that guy. Coffield could play UT for us next year if we get Branch, which is probably his better fit anyway. Disruption at the point of attack is more important than anything. I think he could directly or indirectly improve our defense more than any back 7 skill position player could. Imagine trying to run on us with Branch in the middle? You wouldn't even get past the dline. Osi and Stray shut down the edges, and Coffield and Branch would clog the middle like no tomorrow. And with AP going sideline to sideline, forgetaboutit. We would potentially have the best run d in the NFL. And its all about your run D at the end of the day.

Im hoping he falls to us.

Damix
03-17-2007, 05:41 PM
I doubt he falls, but if he does you gotta take him. If our DTs can develop into poormen Stroud and Henderson, with our set of ends it will easily be the best line in the league.

Giantsfan1080
03-17-2007, 05:45 PM
If Alan Branch fell to #15 then thats when I seriously start to think about trading up to get him. As BBD said he could really make our D-Line dominant.

bigbluedefense
03-17-2007, 05:48 PM
If Alan Branch fell to #15 then thats when I seriously start to think about trading up to get him. As BBD said he could really make our D-Line dominant.

Yeah, I think he's probably the only player I would consider trading up for. I wouldn't mind giving up a 1st and 3rd for him. I really wouldn't. I think our LB concerns are a little overrated, and like Ive said countless times, the only real pressing need I see on defense for the upcoming year is FS. And with the depth at safety, we can easily address it in round 2 if need be. Maybe even round 3 with Weddle who could potentially fall there. (Id take Weddle in round 2 though if he was there).

hugegmenfan
03-17-2007, 06:44 PM
i heard reports are that is very out of shape and also he is much more suited toa 3-4 defense and i dont kno if he would fit in with our scheme
hes def a special talent and exhibited great skills at Michigan but i think hes too much of an underachiever- truthfully if he fell to 20 i would entertain serious trade offers b.c we could easily get an xtra 2nd rounder for him

Number 10
03-17-2007, 07:09 PM
I can see him falling out of the top 10 with all of these DEs proving their worth in workouts, but out of the 15 is extremely unlikely.

Number 10
03-17-2007, 07:11 PM
i heard reports are that is very out of shape and also he is much more suited toa 3-4 defense and i dont kno if he would fit in with our scheme
hes def a special talent and exhibited great skills at Michigan but i think hes too much of an underachiever- truthfully if he fell to 20 i would entertain serious trade offers b.c we could easily get an xtra 2nd rounder for him

He is not out of shape....he had one of the more impressive agility drills at the combine and he without a doubt shaved off a few pounds.

bigbluedefense
03-17-2007, 07:11 PM
i heard reports are that is very out of shape and also he is much more suited toa 3-4 defense and i dont kno if he would fit in with our scheme
hes def a special talent and exhibited great skills at Michigan but i think hes too much of an underachiever- truthfully if he fell to 20 i would entertain serious trade offers b.c we could easily get an xtra 2nd rounder for him

We heard the same reports about Ngata last year. Everytime you have a big NT type of DT like Branch, theres always the "questionable motor/lazy" tag thrown on them. We see it all the time. I wouldn't read much into it at all.

Branch has versatility. He has played End in the 3-4, NT in the 3-4, and NT and UT in the 4-3. His versatility is ideal, and I think he'd play great in either scheme. Probably a little better in the 4-3 because of his height. But that height didn't stop Jason Ferguson from being a solid 3-4 NT, so I think that may be overplayed.

bigbluedefense
03-17-2007, 07:13 PM
I can see him falling out of the top 10 with all of these DEs proving their worth in workouts, but out of the 15 is extremely unlikely.

If he slipped to 14, I would give trading up consideration. With the lack of quality players in this draft, I don't think losing a 3rd to move up for him would be that bad of an idea at all.

Damix
03-17-2007, 07:37 PM
Eh, if we do end up getting him, and Strahan retires next year, I could really see a move to the 3-4.

Coefield, Robbins, draft pick/FA at DE. Branch and maybe Seawright? to man NT.

Osi, Tuck and Kiwi man the OLB, Wilk, Pierce and Blackburn inside. Hell if Torbor is around he'll be giddy cause this is where he actually fits (still won't get playing time)

scottyboy
03-17-2007, 08:12 PM
i dont think he really falls past pit. either they would take him, or someone will trade up. who knows, a 3-4 teams with ammo like NE could get him. i highly doubt he comes to us.

THIZZorDIE
03-17-2007, 08:39 PM
Dont dream of him @ 20 until he's past 11. I dont see the niners passing on him, and if he does pass eleven I'd think people would start trading up for a shot specifically at him.

Number 10
03-17-2007, 08:53 PM
If he slipped to 14, I would give trading up consideration. With the lack of quality players in this draft, I don't think losing a 3rd to move up for him would be that bad of an idea at all.


We'd have to give up our 2nd to move up that far I think....

My plan remains the same, trade our 2nd and 3rd to move up as far as we can in the 2nd so we can have two top 40-45 picks.

ricky bobby
03-17-2007, 09:12 PM
We'd have to give up our 2nd to move up that far I think....

My plan remains the same, trade our 2nd and 3rd to move up as far as we can in the 2nd so we can have two top 40-45 picks.

No way that is happening. We haven't filled a single need via free agency. This mean we have about 10 holes to fill in the draft. We are in a rebuilding mode. Two high pick rookies won't take us over the top. Reese in going to build depth and I wouldn't be surprised if he did just the opposite and traded down.

Slasher28
03-17-2007, 10:16 PM
The only thing we should do this year is trade down, alan branch would be good, but I seriously doubt we need another DT to add to our five, we have the needs of 2 OLBs, DB, OL, and possibly WR, it wouldn't be a good idea to trade up.

grizmoandchodey
03-18-2007, 08:24 AM
well alan branch is definitely out of the quesion for me. We have way to many needs and this is a huge draft for us. if we didn't have all of these major needs i would consider him. Also if we signed Cato June (who is now on the bucs) that would lean a little more to actually pick him up or trade up for him. But we can't just take the best player possible we have to fill our needs in this draft.

bigbluedefense
03-18-2007, 10:38 AM
I think too often we overrate the need to fill "holes". Show me one complete team in the NFL. There isn't one. Those days are over, nowadays every team has holes heading into the regular season. Look at Chicago. They got killed for not addressing their offensive "holes" this past year, instead sticking to their philosophy and establishing depth on defense, and it worked out quite nicely.

The key is, minimizing the effect of those holes in your overall gameplan. This requires a coach who will adjust, and a GM who will be willing to have holes in certain positions relative to the scheme in favor of being strong in positions that are important to the scheme being run by the coach.

You can't have it all, so we need to be strong in the areas of football that need dominance. And thats on the lines in particular, MIKE, Safety, RB, TE, QB respectively.

In a 4-3 defense, you can get away with having average OLBs as long as you have a dominant MIKE. We have that. We are one piece away from being dominant on the dline. We have a dominant TE, and potentially one in qb. What we need to do in this draft is build up our lines, and our secondary. We'll be fine if we can do that.

So we should go after an OG, maybe LT (although Im not a fan of this LT group), possibly trade up for Okeye or Branch, or stay home and grab a safety and CB in this draft.

I think on defense, you need playmakers in all 3 sections of the defense. You need 2 playmakers on the dline (1 DE + 1 DT is most ideal), 1 playmaker in the LB core (MIKE in the 4-3), and 1 in the secondary (I personally prefer a safety, but a shutdown corner is ideal).

You need to have that to be solid on defense. If you can have more than that, than great, but we should approach defense with that philosophy. Try to get 2 playmakers on the dline, 1 in the LB core, and 1 in the secondary.

Now with our "holes", this is a 2 year process to ideally fix. So this year, we have to address what we feel we can get good value for, and leave the other holes for next year. We can't realistically address everything this year. So you have to go into the draft with the idea of addressing holes where you can get quality players in this draft, and addressing concerns that are vital to the scheme being run.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-18-2007, 11:16 AM
Talking to a former NFL scout now, Russ Lande, and he thinks DJ and Branch are big time boom or bust picks. Thinks he needs to be in the right system or else he will not to do well. 1 dimensional player that could do very poorly if not used right in the specific system.

scottyboy
03-18-2007, 11:31 AM
bbd- i see where you are coming from with not having to fill holes, and every team does have them. we did that last year by drafting kiwi.(and it did pay off) BUT when you trade up, you would trade up get a specific guy to fill a hole. If we traded up and lost picks and got a guy who would help, but wasnt necessarily needed, that would be costly.

hugegmenfan
03-18-2007, 12:12 PM
No way that is happening. We haven't filled a single need via free agency. This mean we have about 10 holes to fill in the draft. We are in a rebuilding mode. Two high pick rookies won't take us over the top. Reese in going to build depth and I wouldn't be surprised if he did just the opposite and traded down.

ur right-i really dont think trading up is the smart decision- if anything we must trade back and get more picks- we are not that great of a team and worse than our pick in the draft right now
Branch is not a sure thing- no one is- that is why we must acquire depth and young guys to fill the many voids we have

bigbluedefense
03-18-2007, 02:26 PM
Talking to a former NFL scout now, Russ Lande, and he thinks DJ and Branch are big time boom or bust picks. Thinks he needs to be in the right system or else he will not to do well. 1 dimensional player that could do very poorly if not used right in the specific system.

Who's DJ? And what system does he feel that Branch will thrive in?

49ersfan_87
03-18-2007, 02:29 PM
Just curious BBD. If he has work ethic questions, why would you want him so bad? To me, those are about the worst questions a prospect could have about him.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-18-2007, 04:51 PM
Who's DJ? And what system does he feel that Branch will thrive in?

Dwayne Jarrett, and he didnt get into specifics on what system, nor did anyone else ask. Just that Branch isnt all that he is cracked up to be and in the wrong system he would be terrible. He called those 2, DJ, and branch, the boom bust players in the first round.

Damix
03-18-2007, 04:58 PM
Just curious BBD. If he has work ethic questions, why would you want him so bad? To me, those are about the worst questions a prospect could have about him.

BBD was saying that he doesn't really have worth ethic questions, but any big DT that is 320/330+ gets labeled with the questionable motor/bad worth ethic

bigbluedefense
03-18-2007, 05:09 PM
Just curious BBD. If he has work ethic questions, why would you want him so bad? To me, those are about the worst questions a prospect could have about him.

Work ethic questions usually do bother me. But when it comes to big DTs, I think its usually unfairly cast on alot of players. Thats why I don't have a problem with it for Branch. If youre 330 lbs, chances are youre gonna be a little lazier than the average joe. It just comes with the territory. As long as his fatass can occupy 2 blockers when the qb says hike, I could care less whether he hits the film room or not. For NTs, their job isn't that complicated. They just need to occupy blockers as much as they can.

bigbluedefense
03-18-2007, 05:13 PM
Dwayne Jarrett, and he didnt get into specifics on what system, nor did anyone else ask. Just that Branch isnt all that he is cracked up to be and in the wrong system he would be terrible. He called those 2, DJ, and branch, the boom bust players in the first round.

Dwayne Jarret scares me in the 1st. If he's there in the 2nd, I wouldn't mind, but not with our 1st. His lack of speed scares me. We have nobody on our team who can create separation, we need some quicker guys out there.

NY+Giants=NYG
03-18-2007, 06:44 PM
Dwayne Jarret scares me in the 1st. If he's there in the 2nd, I wouldn't mind, but not with our 1st. His lack of speed scares me. We have nobody on our team who can create separation, we need some quicker guys out there.

Thats what Russ said. He said DJ is a possession WR, and somehow I thought of Ike. Good moves after the catch, good hands, but not going to beat the fast corners in this league, and god forbid he gets an injury to his legs, he will be hurting because all he will have is his hands, but wont get seperation.

hugegmenfan
03-18-2007, 06:50 PM
Dwayne Jarret scares me in the 1st. If he's there in the 2nd, I wouldn't mind, but not with our 1st. His lack of speed scares me. We have nobody on our team who can create separation, we need some quicker guys out there.

im strongly strongly opposed to drafting any WR in the 1st round let alone jarrett who i feel is just a product of the system
we have so many other needs, please lets steer away from WR

Curse of Tiki
03-18-2007, 09:13 PM
alan branch is not going to fall to 20. he's too good and there' will be one team that is not stupid.

we will not trade up to get alan branch because we have too many holes. in fact, i'm a fan of actually trading down for more picks if possible.

GiantRutgersFan
03-18-2007, 09:37 PM
Dwayne Jarret scares me in the 1st. If he's there in the 2nd, I wouldn't mind, but not with our 1st. His lack of speed scares me. We have nobody on our team who can create separation, we need some quicker guys out there.



I like Sidney Rice a lot in this draft. He would be great if we traded down or if he lasts until our 2nd pick.

Jarrett isnt speedy, but he is a very big target and has good hands.

I think there is enough elite WR's that we shouldnt even take one at 20. There should be a really nice WR prospect around 52 (we might have to trade up a few spots)

SportzFreak
03-25-2007, 03:24 PM
When you look at the draft there are many quality recievers that will slip due to the depth of the WR Class this year. I think it is very possible WR's such as Sidney Rice, Steve Smith, and Aundrae Allison could last until the third round. On the second day of the draft you WR's such as David Clowney, Craig Davis, and Chansi Stuckey could be around. Although they need to improve their overall game, they are reasonably sized WR's with tremendous game speed.

The four players that I think the Giants should be looking, besides Timmons and PUZ, are Reggie Nelson, the FS out of Florida, Joe Staley, an athletically gifted LT out Central Michigan, and one of the few legitimate LT prospects in this draft class, Darrelle Revis out of Pitt, and Chris Houston out of Arkansas. Reggie Nelson is a playmaker at FS who is athletic enough to move to CB if necessary. Joe Staley is on the rise after confirming his athleticism during his Pro Day. Both Darrelle Revis and Chris Houston are very athletic corners who can shut down the best of recievers. Honestly, Revis might be gone at 20 but Houston should still be around.

There is no reason for the Giants to move up in the draft unless Leon Hall or Levi brown slip to the 14 spot which they would have to give up at least their 3rd round pick, and according to a "Draft Pick Value Chart" I'm looking at a 5th round this year, or a 4th round next year.

SportzFreak
03-25-2007, 03:26 PM
I forgot to mention that unless the Giants trade, or pickup a stopgap at LT this year, Joe Staley should be their pick. If they do get a LT, then Puz should be the pick.