Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Well, it obviously depends on the league and your WR depth. There are some games where the Pats just wont pass much.Situational play...What type of league is this...6 teamer, start 2?Branch is the clear number one on a very good passing team with one of the top QBs in the league.
Well, you can throw that out the window after last night. I counted at least 3 drops and I was flipping channels..
Well i don't know about three, as i can't recall that many. If you want to play that game then i'd say there were atleast three bad throws by Brady that would have seriously inflated Branch's numbers. Realistically he could have had atleast 200 yards and 2 TDs last night. He looked great for not playing one snap in preseason. He's a great WR who'll get his as long as he's healthy.
your counting 44 games of his.. so your counting when the guy was a rookie and not a number one.. your counting his first two years when he was a situational player.. what about just his numbers from last year (when healthy) and this year (1 game)... that would be years 3 and 4.. those are the numbers i am looking at.. i dont give a crap what he did as a rookie.. you averaging that in there just proves your point, but doesnt show the whole story about how he has improved and what a good wr he is now.. he is a number one on a good passing team with arguably the best qb in the league throwing him the ball.
You can break this down however you want, but Branch has been a starter since his second year. But I'll give all the numbers and people can decide for themselves whatever they want about Branch.2002:
Yes, he's still a situational play. This is still the Patriots who win games by getting a lead early and running the ball until the clock runs out. Brady had less than 250 yards passing in 10 out 16 games last year and spreads the ball out. I'm of the opinion that Branch gets more of those yards than in the past, but you can't count on the Pats passing game week in and week out. I will keep starting him against bad pass defenses, but if you start him every week expecting him to be consistent you will be disappointed. I also don't see him going off for 200 yards and 3 TD's in his offense the way some WR's are capable of doing.Situational play...
Bingo.Well, it obviously depends on the league and your WR depth. There are some games where the Pats just wont pass much.Situational play...
Yeah, and there are MOST games when Pitt won't or Balt or Hou or Jack or NYJ or probably a few other teams. That isn't stoping people from loving Ward, Mason, Johnson, Smith or Coles as solid #2s. What makes Branch any different? I personally, I think Branch is a better play than probably all of the guys I just listed.Bingo.Well, it obviously depends on the league and your WR depth. There are some games where the Pats just wont pass much.Situational play...
Ward - the solid #1 and has proved that he can get 1000 yards and 10 TD's.Mason - not sold on him either and consider him even less of a #2 than Branch, at least until I see Boller play well.Yeah, and there are MOST games when Pitt won't or Balt or Hou or Jack or NYJ or probably a few other teams. That isn't stoping people from loving Ward, Mason, Johnson, Smith or Coles as solid #2s. What makes Branch any different? I personally, I think Branch is a better play than probably all of the guys I just listed.Bingo.Well, it obviously depends on the league and your WR depth. There are some games where the Pats just wont pass much.Situational play...
Yes, they are both #1's - just as I consider Branch the #1. I have little doubt that Branch could put up Ward-like numbers if he's healthy, although that's a big if. He was a great value for people in the 7th/8th rounds as the #25 or so WR but he comes with higher risk than Ward.I only ended up with him in one of my leagues since it just didn't make sense to take him (Mike Anderson in the 7th in one league and he went just before my pick in another).
Branch averaged 3.9 receptions and the team averaged 18.3 receptions per game last year, so Branch got 21% of the receptions.Ward averaged 5.0 receptions and the team averaged 14.3 receptions per game last year, so Ward got 35% of the receptions.Mason - no track record in BALAJohnson averaged 4.9 receptions and the team averaged 17.9 receptions per game last year, so Johnson got 27% of the receptions.JSmith averaged 4.6 receptions and the team averaged 19.1 completions per game last year, so Smith got 24% of the receptions.LColes averaged 5.6 receptions and the team averaged 20.6 receptions per game the final year Coles was with the Jets, so he got 27% of the receptions.Of the players mentioned, Branch had the lowest number of receptions per game and the lowest percentage of receptions. I don't know if that really menas that much, but I suspect if we looked at other WR in the same bandwith, he will be on the low side for those numbers.
What stops Bruce from out producing Holt in a given week, Porter over Moss, Wayne over Harrison, ect.... There are not guarantees for ANY WR in a single game. It has been well established throughout the course of the off-season that Branch is the WR of choice in NE, from both the coaches and Brady. If you’re looking for absolutes, you’re playing the wrong game.
That's what I'm saying. Every QB spreads the ball around if they have good WR's. The second that the Patten left I felt things would change for the Patriots since they no longer have 3 good WR's to throw to and that's the reason they spread the ball around so much. Now they don't have that luxury and will have to throw the ball more to Branch and Givens. Of course Givens will have weeks where he outproduces Branch, but it's normal #2 WR's to do that for a lot of teams.
+----------+--------+-------------+----+| WK OPP | RSHYD | REC YD | TD |+----------+--------+-------------+----+| 1 oak | 0 | 7 99 | 1 || 2 car | 0 | 8 60 | 0 || 3 pit | 0 | 6 78 | 0 || 4 sdg | 0 | 1 6 | 0 |+----------+--------+-------------+----+| TOTAL | 0 | 22 243 | 1 |+----------+--------+-------------+----+Not really, I would say they are average, especially in PPR leagues (which I have him in). 60 yds per game would be 960 for the year. 78 yds a game would be 1248 for the year. I wasn't expecting the guy to put up a TD every week, but consistent yds and smoe nice amounts of Rec. Weeks 2 and 3 provided that, wek 4 was awful.
So when does it go from one bad week to a trend? I like Branch as much as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that for every good game he has, he averages almost one equally putrid one (at least up until this point in his career). Maybe that will change, but there's a decent chance that each week he will be a total nonfactor fantasywise.2002KC 6-33-0GB 5-38-0DEN 0-0-0DET 0-0-0CHI 1-9-0OAK 3-11-0MIN 1-20-0BUF 1-41-02003BUF 1-9-0NYJ 2-25-0WAS 3-38-0CLE 3-30-0JAX 1-16-0NYJ 2-24-0TEN 3-10-0IND 2-23-02004ARI 1-7-0CLE 1-13-0CIN 3-44-0MIA 3-44-0IND 1-15-02005SD 1-6-0Yes, he should be targetted more and should have improved with time. But the Patriots have played him regularly since the day he joined the team, so playing time really hasn't been the issue.
You're grasping at straws. Since when are 8 and 6 catches poor or below average for a WR1 on a team? WRs not named Terrell Owens and Randy Moss don't score every week.As long as a WR is getting catches like that every week, there will be plenty of opportunity for yards and TDs.
The fact is, after 4 weeks he is the 28th ranked receiver. He is not the found gold that everyone thought he would be. Every 3rd or 4th week he will have a good game, good enough to get your hopes up. Then he will let you down. That is what we were saying before the season, and, now, after 4 games.Brady spreads the ball around, Delhomme targets one guy. That is a fact.
WhoopsBranch 8-107-0This is one Branch owner who is sitting him against a tough ATL DST in favor of Stallworth and AJ this week
so there
