Deion Branch (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

I'm sure there will be a Player Spotlight on Branch down the road, but I am curious as to what people see for him this year.

The Patriots lost several players in the off-season (Givens, Davis, Johnson, Fauria) that totaled roughly 100-1,400-10 combined.

To replace them, the Pats added Reche Caldwell, Chad Jackson, and two rookie tight ends.

Some of that production will probably be reinvested in the ground game with perhaps a healthy Dillon and rookie Maroney (the Pats had 600 fewer rushing yards in 2006 vs 2005).

What piece of that production might we expect to go to Branch, given that he is clearly the go to receiver now? He has struggled when double teamed in the past, so being the clear #1 could actually HURT his numbers.

Giving Branch 20% of the vacated production (basically another 40 fantasy points in 0 PPR leagues) could vault Branch into the bottom of the Top 10.

Thoughts?

 

[VICK-tory]

holdout looming

 

[TS Garp]

I think Branch's numbers are almost certainly bound to go up, but the question is how much. Will he ever truly step up and be an unquestioned #1 or will the Patriots continue to spread the ball around in a way that translates to success on the field but frustrates fantasy owners? I do find it interesting that Branch wasn't targeted very much in the last few games of the season. Hard to say whether that's just in keeping with his streakiness, or whether that will carry over into this year. If I had to guess, I would say that Branch will take a step forward this season, but not into the top 10.

 

[mightyeskimo]

I don't foresee Branch in the top 10 simply because I don't believe his TD's will be that numerous. I do think he'll have 1000 yards receiving.

 

[Warhogs]

I see his numbers staying about the same. The other pieces will pick up what was lost. Branh is not a player "special" enough to raise his level to pick up those pieces IMO. I say this and I own him on a dynasty team.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think Branch's numbers are almost certainly bound to go up, but the question is how much. Will he ever truly step up and be an unquestioned #1 or will the Patriots continue to spread the ball around in a way that translates to success on the field but frustrates fantasy owners? I do find it interesting that Branch wasn't targeted very much in the last few games of the season. Hard to say whether that's just in keeping with his streakiness, or whether that will carry over into this year. If I had to guess, I would say that Branch will take a step forward this season, but not into the top 10.

The other issue for Branch and New England is that beyond Branch there is:Reche Caldwell (never had 30 receptions or more than 350 yards before)

Chad Jackson (talented but still a rookie)

Troy Brown (29-466-2 last year)

A bunch of no names--literally almost no one that's proven anything (Bam Childress, Michael McGrew, Zuriel Smith, Matt Shelton, John Stone, Rich Musinski, Jakari Wallace, and Erik Davis)

Maybe the RB and TE get targeted more, but in terms of WR for now it's Branch lapping the competition.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't foresee Branch in the top 10 simply because I don't believe his TD's will be that numerous. I do think he'll have 1000 yards receiving.

Branch had 998 yards last year. Are you saying Branch would get close to nothing more than that this year?

 

[mightyeskimo]

I don't foresee Branch in the top 10 simply because I don't believe his TD's will be that numerous.  I do think he'll have 1000 yards receiving.

Branch had 998 yards last year. Are you saying Branch would get close to nothing more than that this year?

No. I was using the 1000 yards receiving as simply a benchmark and not an absolute figure. Anywhere from 1000-1250 yards.

 

[TS Garp]

I think Branch's numbers are almost certainly bound to go up, but the question is how much. Will he ever truly step up and be an unquestioned #1 or will the Patriots continue to spread the ball around in a way that translates to success on the field but frustrates fantasy owners? I do find it interesting that Branch wasn't targeted very much in the last few games of the season. Hard to say whether that's just in keeping with his streakiness, or whether that will carry over into this year. If I had to guess, I would say that Branch will take a step forward this season, but not into the top 10.

The other issue for Branch and New England is that beyond Branch there is:Reche Caldwell (never had 30 receptions or more than 350 yards before)

Chad Jackson (talented but still a rookie)

Troy Brown (29-466-2 last year)

A bunch of no names--literally almost no one that's proven anything (Bam Childress, Michael McGrew, Zuriel Smith, Matt Shelton, John Stone, Rich Musinski, Jakari Wallace, and Erik Davis)

Maybe the RB and TE get targeted more, but in terms of WR for now it's Branch lapping the competition.

I agree with you. Again, I see Branch's numbers improving, although I do think Watson's numbers will improve, and I think Caldwell/Jackson will be serviceable. In any case, Branch is a very intriguing player for this season. He has a lot of upside and a good chance to outperform his draft position.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't foresee Branch in the top 10 simply because I don't believe his TD's will be that numerous.  I do think he'll have 1000 yards receiving.

Branch had 998 yards last year. Are you saying Branch would get close to nothing more than that this year?

No. I was using the 1000 yards receiving as simply a benchmark and not an absolute figure. Anywhere from 1000-1250 yards.

That's what I was somewhat alluding to. Another 200 yards or so and 2 TD and Branch would have been Top 10 last year.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

It's quite possible, that the majority of that passing production from last year (7th in attempts, 3rd in yards, 3rd in TDs) simply disappears. It's not like the yards HAVE to go somewhere to account for the losses of the other guys.

The Pats could simply be a worse passing team in 2006 than they were in 2005. They were near the top in all passing categories in 2005. It's a lot easier for them to just drop to average than for them to maintain that with less talent.

In addition, whatever passing production left can easily go to Watson and Graham, who have tons of room to grow in the offense.

So it's in no way guaranteed that Branch has to improve a lot, or improve at all. I'm sure he'll crack the top 24, but he has a long way to go to crack bottom top 10 logistically.

 

[Blackjacks]

It's also a contract year for him. This year gives him a chance to make some serious coin.

 

[David Yudkin]

It's quite possible, that the majority of that passing production from last year (7th in attempts, 3rd in yards, 3rd in TDs) simply disappears. It's not like the yards HAVE to go somewhere to account for the losses of the other guys.

The Pats could simply be a worse passing team in 2006 than they were in 2005. They were near the top in all passing categories in 2005. It's a lot easier for them to just drop to average than for them to maintain that with less talent.

In addition, whatever passing production left can easily go to Watson and Graham, who have tons of room to grow in the offense.

So it's in no way guaranteed that Branch has to improve a lot, or improve at all. I'm sure he'll crack the top 24, but he has a long way to go to crack bottom top 10 logistically.

Here's New England's total yardage breakdowns in the Brady era:2005 4322 + 1512 = 5834

2004 3750 + 2134 = 5884

2003 3651 + 1607 = 5258

2002 3767 + 1508 = 5275

2001 3326 + 1793 = 5119

Overall, the offense seems to have done better over time. I also don't think the Pats' defense will be as fierce as in other years, so they will likely need to put some points on the board to win. I doubt the offense takes much of a hit overall, so in essence the production from the guys missing will have to be redestributed.

 

[PatsWillWin]

It's quite possible, that the majority of that passing production from last year (7th in attempts, 3rd in yards, 3rd in TDs) simply disappears. It's not like the yards HAVE to go somewhere to account for the losses of the other guys.

The Pats could simply be a worse passing team in 2006 than they were in 2005. They were near the top in all passing categories in 2005. It's a lot easier for them to just drop to average than for them to maintain that with less talent.

In addition, whatever passing production left can easily go to Watson and Graham, who have tons of room to grow in the offense.

So it's in no way guaranteed that Branch has to improve a lot, or improve at all. I'm sure he'll crack the top 24, but he has a long way to go to crack bottom top 10 logistically.

Here's New England's total yardage breakdowns in the Brady era:2005 4322 + 1512 = 5834

2004 3750 + 2134 = 5884

2003 3651 + 1607 = 5258

2002 3767 + 1508 = 5275

2001 3326 + 1793 = 5119

Overall, the offense seems to have done better over time. I also don't think the Pats' defense will be as fierce as in other years, so they will likely need to put some points on the board to win. I doubt the offense takes much of a hit overall, so in essence the production from the guys missing will have to be redestributed.

Last year WAS the year in which the Patriots defense was "not as fierce" as year spast and they had to put up points to win. Most teams in the first 10 weeks of the season threw on the Patriots at their leisure because of the gross number of injuries to Harrison, Poole, Gay, etc.They were also running with guys like Kevin Faulk, Zeroeu, and Heath Evans. The running game will be much more of a factor with a healthy (presumably) Dillon and Maroney to back him up. I think a more balanced offensive attack will actually lead to a slight decline in Brady and his weapons.

 

[20431]

 

[Tau837]

Last year the Pats attempted 565 passes and completed 352. In 2004, they attempted 485 and completed 293. In 2002 & 2003 the number more closely resembled 2005 than 2004.

So IMO the first question to resolve is how much they will pass this year. I think they would prefer the 2004 type of offense, if they can establish the ground game to support that offensive philosophy. Can they do that with Maroney?

I'll split the difference and project 525, with 330 completions (62.9%). They have had 28 TD passes each of the past two years, so I'll go with that. And using a similar ypa to last season would result in 4000 passing yards.

Let's break it down.

24% of receptions went to RBs in 2004 & 2005. In 2004, RBs got a bit more than 15% of the passing yardage, and in 2005 they got 17.6%. I'll split the difference and give them 16.5%. In 2004 & 2005, RBs only scored a total of 3 receiving TDs.

So I'll give the RBs 79/660/1.

19% of receptions went to TEs in 2004, and 15% went to them last year--I'll split the difference and go with 17%. TEs got 17.8% of the passing yardage in 2004 and 17% last year. I'm bumping this up slightly to 19%, given the loss of WR2 Givens and WR4 Dwight, plus expected improvement for Watson. And the TEs have had 9 receiving TDs in each of the past two years.

So I'll project 56/760/9 for the TEs.

That leaves 195/2580/18 TDs for the WRs. I think the top 4 are currently expected to be Branch, Jackson, Caldwell, and Brown, but I'm not really sure what the pecking order will be. And I think it is possible they could add a veteran before the season that could also become a marginal factor.

I could see something like this:

Branch 80/1070/7

Caldwell 30/390/3

Jackson 25/350/2

Brown 42/490/4

Others 18/280/2

At least this provides a strawman to poke holes in. I could easily see shifting the numbers around for Caldwell, Jackson, and Brown... but the real point there is the expectation that the three of them will combine for 97/1230/9.

1070/7 isn't top 10, but it would have been WR15 last year, within a few points of both WR13 and WR18. Still, that is likely close to his upside and is by no means guaranteed.

I have had Branch in the past, and he is tough to count on. Last season he played 16 games and had only 4 above 10 fantasy points, with a corresponding 4 games below 5 fantasy points. The year before, he had 3 10 point games in 9 games played, but 5 of his other 6 games were 5.1 points or less. Similar story in 2003.

If you start 3 WRs, you can probably live with him as a WR3, but he is a weak WR2.

 

[Bri]

Branch has never had a 1000 yard season and frankly that concerns me. I know 998 last year is soooo close but still. He's also never been much of a red zone target with like 3-4 TDs a year. Plus last year was his first full season with 16 games. The guy has an awful knack for taking some shots.

He's awesome at finding a soft spot in a zone and appears to be a very smart WR but he's more effective than great.

Reche, I don't have high hopes for him. I "plan" on him losing out to Chad or Troy and being our 3rd or 4th WR.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Fluff post.

 

[Borat]

The Patriots lost several players in the off-season (Givens, Davis, Johnson, Fauria) that totaled roughly 100-1,400-10 combined.

Givens: 59-738-2Davis: 9-190-1Johnson: 4-67-1Fauria: 8-57-2Total: 80-1052-5Not even close to the 100-1400-10 numbers you clearly made up without even bothering to do any research.

 

[mightyeskimo]

I don't foresee Branch in the top 10 simply because I don't believe his TD's will be that numerous.  I do think he'll have 1000 yards receiving.

Branch had 998 yards last year. Are you saying Branch would get close to nothing more than that this year?

No. I was using the 1000 yards receiving as simply a benchmark and not an absolute figure. Anywhere from 1000-1250 yards.

That's what I was somewhat alluding to. Another 200 yards or so and 2 TD and Branch would have been Top 10 last year.

The yards I can see but I don't see him scoring more than 5 TD's again this year.

 

[zamboni]

I think someone mentioned it, but my concern with Branch is that I he doesn't seem to be a big red zone target.

He's smallish, so the ability to outmuscle or outleap DBs probably isn't there. Givens seemed to be more befitting of that role, and perhaps someone else takes on Givens' chances (who that is, I don't know).

He probably will get lots of catches and yards, but the possibility of modest TDs makes me a bit hesitant.

 

[imeimex]

We would be much better off talking about a QB that will never play another down in this league.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Patriots lost several players in the off-season (Givens, Davis, Johnson, Fauria) that totaled roughly 100-1,400-10 combined.

Givens: 59-738-2Davis: 9-190-1

Johnson: 4-67-1

Fauria: 8-57-2

Total: 80-1052-5

Not even close to the 100-1400-10 numbers you clearly made up without even bothering to do any research.

Andre Davis 9-190-1Tim Dwight 19-332-3

David Givens 59-738-2

Bethel Johnson 4-67-1

Christian Fauria 8-57-2

Total: 99-1384-9

If we really want to get to every last yard, Dwight and Givens added a total of 24 rushing yards, Amos Zereoue added a reception for 5 yards and 14 rushing yards, and Mike Cloud had 59 rushing yards--none of hich I really counted.

If you want to call me out over 1 reception, 16 yards, and a TD, so be it.

 

[Bri]

The Patriots lost several players in the off-season (Givens, Davis, Johnson, Fauria) that totaled roughly 100-1,400-10 combined.

Givens: 59-738-2Davis: 9-190-1

Johnson: 4-67-1

Fauria: 8-57-2

Total: 80-1052-5

Not even close to the 100-1400-10 numbers you clearly made up without even bothering to do any research.

Andre Davis 9-190-1Tim Dwight 19-332-3

David Givens 59-738-2

Bethel Johnson 4-67-1

Christian Fauria 8-57-2

Total: 99-1384-9

If we really want to get to every last yard, Dwight and Givens added a total of 24 rushing yards, Amos Zereoue added a reception for 5 yards and 14 rushing yards, and Mike Cloud had 59 rushing yards--none of hich I really counted.

If you want to call me out over 1 reception, 16 yards, and a TD, so be it.

Dwight in one post not the other and this is stupid. Borat's got good pats comments in pats threads and David's a gem at posting stats so....shhh

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Going to bat for Yudkin - shouldn't a Patriots expert know that Dwight had 332-3 and is no longer on the team?

 

[Cool in the pocket]

I'm with KRS, Just Win Baby and any others who suggest that the passing numbers will drop if the running game is strong enough to allow it. I'm sure BB doesn't want Brady chucking it up all over the place and wants to be a more balanced, time control type of offense. Do they have the runnng game and D to allow this? That's really the question. I will subscribe to the theory that the D will be solid with BB there--he has been able to get solid play out of castoffs and unknowns time and time again. I don't buy the running game just yet, but it's possible if Dillon really is healthy. In any scenario, I just don't see Branch as the type of redzone threat that will get the TD's to vault him into a top 10WR.

 

[Boston]

There's a lot being posted that I don't agree with here. Here are some random thoughts:

*The Pats defense was a mess for a good portion of the year. When Seymour and the defensive backfield went out with injuries (as well as the Bruschi situation) the Pats could not defend a high school team. Unless the same type of injuries befall them again I'd be very careful about using data from last year. The Pats D will never be like that again if reasonably healthy.

*The Patriots had zero running game all year. Dillon was either injured or underachieving all year. Faulk and Pass also had their injury woes. The Pats were forced to rely on Heath Evans for a few games. So, again you have to be incredibly careful using data from last year. Dillon, Faulk and Pass are all healthy and a potential young stud in Maroney has been added.

*The Pats O line also had major injury woes. Light missed almost the entire year. Koppen had a season ending injury and there were other nicks all year long. They also started two rookies on their leftside for a good portion of the year. That's always a cause for concern. This year I see the O line unit being a top shelf unit. Everyone is back, Kazcur and Mankins have a year under their belt and they've also added some more depth. Look for this unit to be vastly improved over last year's unit and it will benefit both the passing and running game.

*It took about 3/4 of the year for McDaniels to find his groove. Replacing Charlie Weis was very difficult and quite frankly the Pats playcalling was not good for a good portion of the year. McDaniels settled down near the end of the year but he still hasn't called a game with a healthy run game since it was non-existent all year.

*Troy Brown will not be the #2 WR for the Pats.

*If anyone's numbers will improve this year it will be Watson. He was basically a rookie last year and he has by far the most upside of anyone in the pats passing game. Now, how many receptions he gets in the Pats share the ball offense is open for debate.

*Last year the Pats had virtually no depth at WR. After Branch and Givens you had almost nothing. Brown can help but he's nearing the end. As for Dwight and Davis...they stunk. Davis adds nothing. He could run one route and that was it. As for Dwight, he's easy to root for but he's a subpar WR. Bethel was a non-entity. Therefore it was very easy for teams to focus on Branch and when they did they often shut him down. He's an excellent WR but sizewise he can be taken out of the game if the Pats other weapons aren't clicking...like they weren't last year.

*Givens will be missed but he never put up big numbers. He was a better real WR than fantasy WR. He's the only member of last years receiving unit that will be missed. Losing Davis, Dwight, Bethel and even Fauria (I like him but he's aging) is pretty much addition by subtraction. So the question is will this year's unit be better. I think overall it will be but how much depends on whether Caldwell and Jax can become a legit #2 or at least two #3's. If that happens and Watson improves than a lot of room opens up in the Pats offense. It will make Branch's life much better but it also frees up Brady to find other targets like Thomas, Graham and Mills as well as Kevin Faulk. If it's a worst case scenario than Branch has two DBs breathing down his neck all year and that won't be pretty.

IMO I think you'll see Branch's reception total be about the same but I don't see it being higher. The Pats are making a concerted effort to get Brady an arsenal of weapons because when he has that he's at his most dangerous. Also, I see a much improved run game as well as a stouter defense than the mess that was there for about 70% of the year. I don't see as many games where the Pats have to throw it blindly. Where I see potential improvement for Branch is in TDs and yardage. If the other weapons produce it will mean defenses will not be able to focus on Branch and he will have more room to operate after the catch where he can be dangerous which will translate into more yardage and TDs. Yet, I would not expect him to blow up. That's probably not going to happen as long as BB is coaching because he wants to get as many guys involved as possible. Branch still remains a quality #3 fantasy WR with the potential to be a solid #2 if he can get into the end zone enough.

 

[DoubleG]

I'm with KRS, Just Win Baby and any others who suggest that the passing numbers will drop if the running game is strong enough to allow it. I'm sure BB doesn't want Brady chucking it up all over the place and wants to be a more balanced, time control type of offense. Do they have the runnng game and D to allow this? That's really the question. I will subscribe to the theory that the D will be solid with BB there--he has been able to get solid play out of castoffs and unknowns time and time again. I don't buy the running game just yet, but it's possible if Dillon really is healthy. In any scenario, I just don't see Branch as the type of redzone threat that will get the TD's to vault him into a top 10WR.

While I would agree that the passing numbers would drop *IF* the running game is better, what rational would there be for expecting that to be the case?? Dillon is older - yes they drafted a young RB, but I just don't see them being able to run the ball better than last year. A similar point on the defense. I have to agree with Yudkin on this point. Branch will be (barring any other big trades) the #1, in an offense that will likely be passing at least as much as last year. Branch is two years removed from his leg injury and should easily hit the top 20 - if not sneak into the top 12 or so. A solid WR2+. (Although in my dynasty league, he may be on a rotation with Mason, given S.Moss and DJax)

 

[Cool in the pocket]

I'm with KRS, Just Win Baby and any others who suggest that the passing numbers will drop if the running game is strong enough to allow it. I'm sure BB doesn't want Brady chucking it up all over the place and wants to be a more balanced, time control type of offense. Do they have the runnng game and D to allow this? That's really the question. I will subscribe to the theory that the D will be solid with BB there--he has been able to get solid play out of castoffs and unknowns time and time again. I don't buy the running game just yet, but it's possible if Dillon really is healthy. In any scenario, I just don't see Branch as the type of redzone threat that will get the TD's to vault him into a top 10WR.

While I would agree that the passing numbers would drop *IF* the running game is better, what rational would there be for expecting that to be the case?? Dillon is older - yes they drafted a young RB, but I just don't see them being able to run the ball better than last year. A similar point on the defense. I have to agree with Yudkin on this point. Branch will be (barring any other big trades) the #1, in an offense that will likely be passing at least as much as last year. Branch is two years removed from his leg injury and should easily hit the top 20 - if not sneak into the top 12 or so. A solid WR2+. (Although in my dynasty league, he may be on a rotation with Mason, given S.Moss and DJax)

What are u projecting for the NE running game this year? It couldn't be much worse than last year when Dillon had health problems, the line was a mess and the D was riddled with injuries. It can't be much worse than LY IMO and maybe that is why Brady was chucking it all over th place. David was suggesting that Branch may become a borderline WR1--I don't think anyone would disagree with Branch being a WR2 with some upside.

 

[Borat]

While I would agree that the passing numbers would drop *IF* the running game is better, what rational would there be for expecting that to be the case??

How about the fact that 3/5 of the starting offensive line was injured for most of last year, plus they added a 1st round draft pick at RB in the offseason? That's not rationale for expecting the running game to improve?