Player Spotlight: Deion Branch (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

2007 Player Spotlight Series

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

Thread Topic: Deion Branch, WR, Seattle Seahawks

Player Page Link: Deion Branch Player Page

Each article will include:

Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member

Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads
FBG Projections
Consensus Member ProjectionsThe Rules

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player
Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"
To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the playerProjections should include (at a minimum):

For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs
For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs
For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDsBest of Luck and ENJOY!

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I expect a slight improvement from last season, as he was traded to Seattle basically at the start of the season. With a year under his belt to get acquainted with Seattle's system, he should do a little better.

60 receptions, 800 yards and 6 tds

 

[shadyridr]

IMO Branch is the Seahawks #1a WR. But that doesnt mean hes gonna put up huge numbers. I expect DJ Hackett to have a solid season and Bobby Engram to be the 3rd down WR with Burleson also stealing some catches. basically Hasslebeck is gonna spread the ball. And I expect Hackett to be the red zone thread while Alexander gets his usual 15+ red zone TDs. IMO Branch is a good WR but not a true #1. He is a possession WR so I expect alot of catches with not alot of yards or TDs.

78 rec, 1000 yds, 5 tds

 

[Byron_nyc]

For the first time in his career, Branch is both healthy and the unquestioned #1 WR on his team. Everything is in place for the 2005 Super Bowl MVP to have a career year.

75 receptions 1100 yards 10 TDs. 8 rushes, 50 yards.

 

[David Yudkin]

My question on Branch having watched him almost every game he played in New England is whether he can do well as a WR1 (and there's some debate as to whether he'll even be that in SEA). He had some big games with the Pats when he was not covered very well and Brady kept feeding him the ball. In games when opponents game planned to double Branch or put a top cornerback on him Branch did not fare anywhere near as well. He had 30 games in New England where he had under 50 yards receiving and 18 of those were games of 30 yards or less.

Part of the reason he did so well in some games in NE was they had so many options as receiving threats (at least back in the day) with Branch, Givens, Patten, Brown, Graham, Watson, Fauria, Faulk, etc. and they schemed to created mismatches that that greatly benefitted Branch. Brady would target the open man and if the receiver de jour that was open was Branch than great. If not, he did very little.

That being said, Seattle also uses a lot of receivers and that may hurt Branch's chances of vaulting up the WR rankings just like it did in NE. I personally see him above average to good WR (and thus the Pats were justified in not wanting to break the bank to keep him).

70-925-5 receiving

2-10-0 rushing

 

[Jason Wood]

Deion Branch is entering his 6th season and has yet to surpass the 1,000-yard mark. That got me wondering how many WRs in NFL history went for 1,000+ yards for the first time in year 6 or later. I was surprised to see so many names:

NAME POS YR AGE EXP

Ahmad Rashad wr 1979 30 8

Alfred Jenkins wr 1980 28 6

Brandon Stokley wr 2004 28 6

Brett Perriman wr 1995 30 8

Charlie Joiner wr 1976 29 8

Cris Carter wr 1993 28 7

Darnay Scott wr 1999 27 6

**** Gordon wr 1970 26 6

Drew Hill wr 1985 29 7

Ed McCaffrey wr 1998 30 8

Eddie Kennison wr 2004 31 9

Eric Metcalf wr 1995 27 7

Frank Clarke wr 1962 28 6

Frank Lewis wr 1979 32 9

Freddie Scott wr 1981 29 8

Henry Ellard wr 1988 27 6

Irving Fryar wr 1991 29 8

John Gilliam wr 1972 27 6

John Stallworth wr 1979 27 6

Johnny Morris wr 1964 29 7

JT Smith wr 1986 31 9

Ken Burrough wr 1975 27 6

Michael Jackson wr 1996 27 6

O.J. McDuffie wr 1998 29 6

Pat Studstill wr 1966 28 6

Pat Tilley wr 1981 28 6

Pete Retzlaff wr 1965 34 10

Qadry Ismail wr 1999 29 7

Quinn Early wr 1995 30 8

Raghib Ismail wr 1998 29 6

Raymond Berry wr 1960 27 6

Reggie Langhorne wr 1993 30 9

Sammy White wr 1981 27 6

Stephone Paige wr 1990 29 8

T.J. Houshmandzadeh wr 2006 29 6

Terry Barr wr 1963 28 7

Tim Brown wr 1993 27 6

Tony Martin wr 1995 30 6

Troy Brown wr 2001 30 9

Wally Francis wr 1979 28 7

Willie Jackson wr 2001 30 8

 

[David Yudkin]

Deion Branch is entering his 6th season and has yet to surpass the 1,000-yard mark. That got me wondering how many WRs in NFL history went for 1,000+ yards for the first time in year 6 or later. I was surprised to see so many names:NAME POS YR AGE EXP Ahmad Rashad wr 1979 30 8Alfred Jenkins wr 1980 28 6Brandon Stokley wr 2004 28 6Brett Perriman wr 1995 30 8Charlie Joiner wr 1976 29 8Cris Carter wr 1993 28 7Darnay Scott wr 1999 27 6Dick Gordon wr 1970 26 6Drew Hill wr 1985 29 7Ed McCaffrey wr 1998 30 8Eddie Kennison wr 2004 31 9Eric Metcalf wr 1995 27 7Frank Clarke wr 1962 28 6Frank Lewis wr 1979 32 9Freddie Scott wr 1981 29 8Henry Ellard wr 1988 27 6Irving Fryar wr 1991 29 8John Gilliam wr 1972 27 6John Stallworth wr 1979 27 6Johnny Morris wr 1964 29 7JT Smith wr 1986 31 9Ken Burrough wr 1975 27 6Michael Jackson wr 1996 27 6O.J. McDuffie wr 1998 29 6Pat Studstill wr 1966 28 6Pat Tilley wr 1981 28 6Pete Retzlaff wr 1965 34 10Qadry Ismail wr 1999 29 7Quinn Early wr 1995 30 8Raghib Ismail wr 1998 29 6Raymond Berry wr 1960 27 6Reggie Langhorne wr 1993 30 9Sammy White wr 1981 27 6Stephone Paige wr 1990 29 8T.J. Houshmandzadeh wr 2006 29 6Terry Barr wr 1963 28 7Tim Brown wr 1993 27 6Tony Martin wr 1995 30 6Troy Brown wr 2001 30 9Wally Francis wr 1979 28 7Willie Jackson wr 2001 30 8

I too have researched this in the past, but mostly to debunk the "3rd year breakout" for WRs.

 

[Da Guru]

My question on Branch having watched him almost every game he played in New England is whether he can do well as a WR1 (and there's some debate as to whether he'll even be that in SEA). He had some big games with the Pats when he was not covered very well and Brady kept feeding him the ball. In games when opponents game planned to double Branch or put a top cornerback on him Branch did not fare anywhere near as well. He had 30 games in New England where he had under 50 yards receiving and 18 of those were games of 30 yards or less.Part of the reason he did so well in some games in NE was they had so many options as receiving threats (at least back in the day) with Branch, Givens, Patten, Brown, Graham, Watson, Fauria, Faulk, etc. and they schemed to created mismatches that that greatly benefitted Branch. Brady would target the open man and if the receiver de jour that was open was Branch than great. If not, he did very little.That being said, Seattle also uses a lot of receivers and that may hurt Branch's chances of vaulting up the WR rankings just like it did in NE. I personally see him above average to good WR (and thus the Pats were justified in not wanting to break the bank to keep him).70-925-5 receiving2-10-0 rushing

I pretty much agree with that assesment. 65-75 catches 900-1000, 5-6 TDs.

 

[Sleeper 43]

My question on Branch having watched him almost every game he played in New England is whether he can do well as a WR1 (and there's some debate as to whether he'll even be that in SEA). He had some big games with the Pats when he was not covered very well and Brady kept feeding him the ball. In games when opponents game planned to double Branch or put a top cornerback on him Branch did not fare anywhere near as well. He had 30 games in New England where he had under 50 yards receiving and 18 of those were games of 30 yards or less.Part of the reason he did so well in some games in NE was they had so many options as receiving threats (at least back in the day) with Branch, Givens, Patten, Brown, Graham, Watson, Fauria, Faulk, etc. and they schemed to created mismatches that that greatly benefitted Branch. Brady would target the open man and if the receiver de jour that was open was Branch than great. If not, he did very little.That being said, Seattle also uses a lot of receivers and that may hurt Branch's chances of vaulting up the WR rankings just like it did in NE. I personally see him above average to good WR (and thus the Pats were justified in not wanting to break the bank to keep him).70-925-5 receiving2-10-0 rushing

Its no secret no one single WR ever thrives in NE, Brady is the king of spreading the ball around , thats why ANY NE WR was hit or miss any given week.Branch has his best season ever - 90/1200/9 TD'sVery curious how they will handle the Moss situation, I can see alot of people buying high on Moss and not keeping in mind there are no number 1's in NE up until this point. It could change though, but its not worth the risk to me.

 

[David Yudkin]

My question on Branch having watched him almost every game he played in New England is whether he can do well as a WR1 (and there's some debate as to whether he'll even be that in SEA). He had some big games with the Pats when he was not covered very well and Brady kept feeding him the ball. In games when opponents game planned to double Branch or put a top cornerback on him Branch did not fare anywhere near as well. He had 30 games in New England where he had under 50 yards receiving and 18 of those were games of 30 yards or less.Part of the reason he did so well in some games in NE was they had so many options as receiving threats (at least back in the day) with Branch, Givens, Patten, Brown, Graham, Watson, Fauria, Faulk, etc. and they schemed to created mismatches that that greatly benefitted Branch. Brady would target the open man and if the receiver de jour that was open was Branch than great. If not, he did very little.That being said, Seattle also uses a lot of receivers and that may hurt Branch's chances of vaulting up the WR rankings just like it did in NE. I personally see him above average to good WR (and thus the Pats were justified in not wanting to break the bank to keep him).70-925-5 receiving2-10-0 rushing

Its no secret no one single WR ever thrives in NE, Brady is the king of spreading the ball around , thats why ANY NE WR was hit or miss any given week.Very curious how they will handle the Moss situation, I can see alot of people buying high on Moss and not keeping in mind there are no number 1's in NE up until this point. It could change though, but its not worth the risk to me.

Since this is a Branch thread and not a Moss thread (and since this has been kicked around in several other threads), I really don't want to hijack it. BUT . . .Here are all the WRs that Brady has had catch a pass since he's been a Patriot:Troy Brown Deion Branch David Patten David Givens Reche Caldwell Bethel JohnsonDoug GabrielTim DwightJ.J. Stokes Terry Glenn Charles Johnson Chad Jackson Donald HayesJabar Gaffney Andre Davis Dedric Ward Brandon Childress Bert Emanuel Torrance Small Fred Coleman Kelvin Kight Jonathan SmithIf ANY of those guys comes close to Randy Moss in terms of talent, speed, and ability please point out who that might be.IMO, this mirrors the situation in PHI with T.O. coming to town. The Eagles had ho hum receivers prior to Owens that did not have great numbers and the team spread the ball around. Owens seemed to do pretty well as an Eagle (when he kept his mouth shut). Factored out to a 16-game season, Owens put up: 97-1516-15.I contend that Brady thows the ball to whoever is open. If Moss is able to get open better than all his predacessors, then he will see plenty of targets.

 

[hotdampepperman]

80/1100/9

 

[LBH]

Put me in the camp that believes while Branch may be #1 on the depth chart he will be #2 in fantasy scoring as a Seahawk wr behind DJ Hackett

80rec 965yds 6tds

 

[BGP]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/313127_draft26.html

Hawks hope to repeat O-line magic in picks

By CLARE FARNSWORTH

P-I REPORTER

KIRKLAND -- With the 23rd pick in the second round of the NFL draft Saturday, the Seattle Seahawks ...

Could very well grab a guard, after waiting for almost eight hours that day to make their first selection.

If not in the second round, then surely they will be on guard in the third round. Or, the fourth round Sunday, when the two-day draft concludes.

"If we can find another (guard) that we could develop into a starter, that would be great," Seahawks president Tim Ruskell said. "We have to think about the future there."

By making astute selections, as the Seahawks did in drafting right tackle Sean Locklear in the third round in 2004 and left guard Rob Sims in the fourth round last year.

.....

SEAHAWKS NEEDS: To relive 90 seconds from last offseason, when it was decided there was no need to use the franchise tag on Steve Hutchinson because the club would be able to match any offer sheet the All-Pro left guard signed with another team. Oops. Losing Hutchinson to the Vikings -- and that infamous "poison pill" clause -- is why the Seahawks were willing to give "Hutch money" to Kris Dielman before the Chargers left guard opted to return to San Diego. Losing Hutchinson is one of the biggest reasons no one on the Seahawks line played as well in 2006 as they did during the 2005 run to the Super Bowl. Losing Hutchinson is why the Seahawks will draft a guard at some point this weekend.

Summary: The Seahawks felt they made a mistake in how they handled the Hutchinson situation, and losing him had a significant negative impact on their OL in 2006. They seem committed to taking an OG in the first 4 rounds. The Seahawks feel comfortable hitting on such picks, given how Locklear and Sims have panned out in recent years.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/spor..._hawkweb29.html

Atkins was the 120th overall pick and Wrotto the 124th, the choice Seattle obtained from the San Francisco 49ers in the Darrell Jackson trade completed this morning.

This had to help push the Seahawks to trade Darrell Jackson to the 49ers for the 4th round pick that yielded OL Mansfield Wrotto. Ultimately this has meant the Seahawks are committing to Branch as their big time WR in 2007. He hasn't had 1000 yards receiving yet, but he should be given every opportunity to have a career year this season. The question is how strong the offensive line will be, and if they will rebound now two years removed from the loss of Hutch.

75-1000-7

0-0-0

 

[Thom Yorke]

Overview/Background: When thinking about Branch's prospects for 2007, the first thing that came to mind was the relative stability of the offensive situation in Seattle. Once again, Mike Holmgren, Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, and Walter Jones return to form the core of the Seattle offensive attack. Given this continuity, I thought that it might be worthwhile to crank up the old Data Dominator and see what sorts of numbers that Seahawk wideouts have put up over the last few years. Here's what I learned:

2002: Seattle wideouts had 2,835 of the team's 4,226 receiving yards.

2003: Seattle wideouts had 2,725 of the team's 3,866 receiving yards.

2004: Seattle wideouts had 2,682 of the team's 3,715 receiving yards.

2005: Seattle wideouts had 2,682 of the team's 3,629 receiving yards.

2006: Seattle wideouts had 2,773 of the team's 3,367 receiving yards.

(note that the 04 and 05 numbers are NOT a typo!)

What can we conclude from these numbers? Well, I think it is fair to say that passing numbers have been trending downwards over the last 5 years. Furthermore, the WR's share of the passing numbers has remained relatively stable, with a small range of between 2682 and 2835 yards.

Keeping this consistency in mind, has anything changed which would cause us to be believe that Seattle is going to see a wild up/downswing in either overall passing or passing directed towards wideouts? Well, Jerramy Stevens is gone at TE, but with the exception of 2005, he never had more than 349 receiving yards. I think that Marcus Pollard can probably replace those numbers, so we can't really expect a ton of new yardage/targets for the wideouts from that source. Shaun Alexander isn't suddenly going to become Reggie Bush, either. Accordingly, I think it is reasonable to assume that Seattle WR will compile between 2600 and 3000 passing yards this year, with 2800 being a very plausible projection.

Taking that 2800 number as our projection for Seattle WR output, let's look at another (relative) constant: Bobby Engram. Between 2002 and 2005, Engram had between 500 and 778 receiving yards. I didn't include 2006, where he missed much of the regular season due to a bizarre thyroid issue. However, Engram had 290 yards in 7 regular season games, thus putting him on pace for yet another 600 yards or so. Matt Hasselbeck has repeatedly stated that he trusts Engram greatly, and I don't see a great reason to believe that Bobby can't haul in another 600 or so yards next year. In fact, having lost Darrell Jackson, I think the argument can be made that Hasselbeck with tend to rely on the guy he's been throwing to the longest. I'm putting Engram down for 650 yards.

That leaves roughly 2150 yards for Deion Branch (you may have forgotten by now, but this is Branch's spotlight!), D.J. Hackett, and Nate Burleson (and the rest of the SEA WR). Last year, Burleson managed a pitiful 192 yards during the regular season. While I think there's some reason to believe that Burleson can do a bit better than that next year, he doesn't appear to be any better than the 4th wideout, and accordingly, I'm projecting him for 275 yards.

That leaves us with 1875 receiving yards to go around between Branch and Hackett. Last year, Branch had 53 catches for 725 yards, while Hackett had 45 catches for 610 yards. Now, the common wisdom is that Hackett's role will continue to increase, and I think that it will in fact play out that way. That said, I do think that Branch will be the better receiver in 2007. Thus, I'm going to project Branch at 1,050 yards, and Hackett at 825.

We also need to figure out how to distribute the roughly 20-25 TD passes that Hasselbeck dishes out a season. Giving 4-5 to TE/RB, and another 2-3 to Engram, we're left with roughly twelve to split amongst Branch and Hackett. Both Branch and Hackett had 4 scores last year, and Hackett got those on fewer touches. I simply can't identify any particular reason why Branch would become favored in the red zone, particularly if he draws the opposing team's #1 corner. If Hackett pulls in 7 scores, that leaves us with the following for Deion Branch:

Deion Branch 2007 projection: 71 catches, 1,050 yards receiving, 5 TD

 

[FFRich]

Branch not joining the Seahawks until after the start of the season last year and missing the 1st 2 games while also missing Hasselbeck at QB for a number of games, makes looking at his last year's production somewhat irrelevant. Although 53-725-4 was a very respectable result under those circumstances as the #2 WR.

Darrell Jackson has waved bye-bye and Branch will replace him as Seattle's #1 WR this year on BOTH the depth chart and the field. Over the past 3 years Jackson played in 35 regular season games as Seattle's #1 WR with the following stat line: 184-2588-20. Over a 16 week season, assuming Branch can have similar production as Seattle's #1 WR, Branch's 2007 stat line would be: 84-1184-9. For arguments sake, let's assume Branch is only 90% effective as Seattle's #1 WR when compared to Jackson. (An assumption I believe ito be faulty) Under that 90% scenario Branch's 2007 stat line would read: 76-1066-8. I believe Branch will prove to be every bit as effective as Seattle's #1 when compared to Jackson. So, therefore under the same system, the same Head Coach and the same QB, Branch will put up numbers that are strkingly comparable to Jackson's and will finish 2007 with a stat line of 80-1100-8.

 

[duaneok66]

excellent thread; thanks to all for the numerical breakdowns . . .

 

[LBH]

Overview/Background: When thinking about Branch's prospects for 2007, the first thing that came to mind was the relative stability of the offensive situation in Seattle. Once again, Mike Holmgren, Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, and Walter Jones return to form the core of the Seattle offensive attack. Given this continuity, I thought that it might be worthwhile to crank up the old Data Dominator and see what sorts of numbers that Seahawk wideouts have put up over the last few years. Here's what I learned:

2002: Seattle wideouts had 2,835 of the team's 4,226 receiving yards.

2003: Seattle wideouts had 2,725 of the team's 3,866 receiving yards.

2004: Seattle wideouts had 2,682 of the team's 3,715 receiving yards.

2005: Seattle wideouts had 2,682 of the team's 3,629 receiving yards.

2006: Seattle wideouts had 2,773 of the team's 3,367 receiving yards.

(note that the 04 and 05 numbers are NOT a typo!)

What can we conclude from these numbers? Well, I think it is fair to say that passing numbers have been trending downwards over the last 5 years. Furthermore, the WR's share of the passing numbers has remained relatively stable, with a small range of between 2682 and 2835 yards.

Keeping this consistency in mind, has anything changed which would cause us to be believe that Seattle is going to see a wild up/downswing in either overall passing or passing directed towards wideouts? Well, Jerramy Stevens is gone at TE, but with the exception of 2005, he never had more than 349 receiving yards. I think that Marcus Pollard can probably replace those numbers, so we can't really expect a ton of new yardage/targets for the wideouts from that source. Shaun Alexander isn't suddenly going to become Reggie Bush, either. Accordingly, I think it is reasonable to assume that Seattle WR will compile between 2600 and 3000 passing yards this year, with 2800 being a very plausible projection.

Taking that 2800 number as our projection for Seattle WR output, let's look at another (relative) constant: Bobby Engram. Between 2002 and 2005, Engram had between 500 and 778 receiving yards. I didn't include 2006, where he missed much of the regular season due to a bizarre thyroid issue. However, Engram had 290 yards in 7 regular season games, thus putting him on pace for yet another 600 yards or so. Matt Hasselbeck has repeatedly stated that he trusts Engram greatly, and I don't see a great reason to believe that Bobby can't haul in another 600 or so yards next year. In fact, having lost Darrell Jackson, I think the argument can be made that Hasselbeck with tend to rely on the guy he's been throwing to the longest. I'm putting Engram down for 650 yards.

That leaves roughly 2150 yards for Deion Branch (you may have forgotten by now, but this is Branch's spotlight!), D.J. Hackett, and Nate Burleson (and the rest of the SEA WR). Last year, Burleson managed a pitiful 192 yards during the regular season. While I think there's some reason to believe that Burleson can do a bit better than that next year, he doesn't appear to be any better than the 4th wideout, and accordingly, I'm projecting him for 275 yards.

That leaves us with 1875 receiving yards to go around between Branch and Hackett. Last year, Branch had 53 catches for 725 yards, while Hackett had 45 catches for 610 yards. Now, the common wisdom is that Hackett's role will continue to increase, and I think that it will in fact play out that way. That said, I do think that Branch will be the better receiver in 2007. Thus, I'm going to project Branch at 1,050 yards, and Hackett at 825.

We also need to figure out how to distribute the roughly 20-25 TD passes that Hasselbeck dishes out a season. Giving 4-5 to TE/RB, and another 2-3 to Engram, we're left with roughly twelve to split amongst Branch and Hackett. Both Branch and Hackett had 4 scores last year, and Hackett got those on fewer touches. I simply can't identify any particular reason why Branch would become favored in the red zone, particularly if he draws the opposing team's #1 corner. If Hackett pulls in 7 scores, that leaves us with the following for Deion Branch:

Deion Branch 2007 projection: 71 catches, 1,050 yards receiving, 5 TD

nice analysis. I drafted Hackett on almost every fantasy team I have so Im hoping for more than your projection. Whats a couple hundred extra yards and 1 or 2 tds