What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

SEA WR - Branch to start week 5 (1 Viewer)

Enforcer

Footballguy
LINK

PermalinkFriday practice -- Holmgren says Branch will start

Posted by Eric Williams @ 11:52:04 am

The Seattle Seahawks had an hour-long walk through today, and Coach Mike Holmgren talked to reporters afterwards.

Here are some tidbits.

Holmgren said Deion Branch will start on Sunday at flanker. Holmgren did not want to put a number on how many snaps Branch will see, but expect to see Branch out on the field for at least half of the snaps.

Holmgren said the same thing goes for Bobby Engram. Expect to see Engram in the slot this week, and to probably play the same amount as Branch.

Holmgren said either Billy McMullen or Keary Colbert will start at split end.

McMullen has played well so far, but Holmgren said he'd likes what Colbert brings and wants to get him on the field as well. Colbert had been playing flanker, but has had to learn both positions in a short amount of time.
 
Not much of a surprise, but good to hear it from the coach. He sits for me as I want to see how he produces AND comes away from actual playing time. Situation to monitor.

 
Not much of a surprise, but good to hear it from the coach. He sits for me as I want to see how he produces AND comes away from actual playing time. Situation to monitor.
Me too. I own both Branch and Engram. Going to wait until week 6 before either becomes a potential start.
 
Not much of a surprise, but good to hear it from the coach. He sits for me as I want to see how he produces AND comes away from actual playing time. Situation to monitor.
Me too. I own both Branch and Engram. Going to wait until week 6 before either becomes a potential start.
Same. I drafted Branch late and he's been sitting on my IR slot for awhile. Now that he's available, i'll wait and see how he's targeted and how he plays. My starters are Greg Jennings and Dwayne Bowe, so its tough to bench one of those guys for Branch right now.
 
I try to post a lot of news and information, but seldom throw out my opinion. I was off the opinion that Morris and Jones would post similar stats by the end of the year. I was wrong there so far, but that may be only because Morris got hurt. Time will tell.

I know its not the consensus opinion right now, but I just can't see Engram outscoring Branch in any format (yeah, PPR too) if they both are healthy. I work under the assumption that every player is an injury risk. I tend not to believe in the concept of injury prone. For every guy that gets hurt multiple times I can name a guy that's shook off the injury-prone label. Just my opinion.

 
I try to post a lot of news and information, but seldom throw out my opinion. I was off the opinion that Morris and Jones would post similar stats by the end of the year. I was wrong there so far, but that may be only because Morris got hurt. Time will tell.I know its not the consensus opinion right now, but I just can't see Engram outscoring Branch in any format (yeah, PPR too) if they both are healthy. I work under the assumption that every player is an injury risk. I tend not to believe in the concept of injury prone. For every guy that gets hurt multiple times I can name a guy that's shook off the injury-prone label. Just my opinion.
I don't get this. In 2007, Engram way outperformed Branch on a ppg basis outside of TDs (about the same). If you pro-rate Branch's stats from 11 to 16 games, Engram still bested him by 25 receptions and almost 300 years.I may have both next week (Branch on waivers till next week and I am first on waivers list), so I don't really care who shines, but I could easily see Engram settle back into Hasselbeck's security blanket and best Branch, especially in PPR which is my league.Also, a quick note that Engram and Branch did have quite a few solid games the same weeks last year, so no reason why both can't do well. I also don't think Julius Jones will continue to play like he did against SF and STL, so I do think the passing game will be the main cog of their offense.
 
Not much of a surprise, but good to hear it from the coach. He sits for me as I want to see how he produces AND comes away from actual playing time. Situation to monitor.
Me too. I own both Branch and Engram. Going to wait until week 6 before either becomes a potential start.
Engram owner here and I'm going with Lance Moore this week.
:thumbup: I would say that hardly qualifies as a choice. No one sees the future, but based on Colston still being out, no one in FF would tell you to start a player who has yet to see the field and might not play the whole game over the #1 non-RB option for Brees, who also has 14-186-2TDs the past two weeks.
 
I try to post a lot of news and information, but seldom throw out my opinion. I was off the opinion that Morris and Jones would post similar stats by the end of the year. I was wrong there so far, but that may be only because Morris got hurt. Time will tell.I know its not the consensus opinion right now, but I just can't see Engram outscoring Branch in any format (yeah, PPR too) if they both are healthy. I work under the assumption that every player is an injury risk. I tend not to believe in the concept of injury prone. For every guy that gets hurt multiple times I can name a guy that's shook off the injury-prone label. Just my opinion.
I don't get this. In 2007, Engram way outperformed Branch on a ppg basis outside of TDs (about the same). If you pro-rate Branch's stats from 11 to 16 games, Engram still bested him by 25 receptions and almost 300 years.I may have both next week (Branch on waivers till next week and I am first on waivers list), so I don't really care who shines, but I could easily see Engram settle back into Hasselbeck's security blanket and best Branch, especially in PPR which is my league.Also, a quick note that Engram and Branch did have quite a few solid games the same weeks last year, so no reason why both can't do well. I also don't think Julius Jones will continue to play like he did against SF and STL, so I do think the passing game will be the main cog of their offense.
I understand why you would think this. In my opinion Engram's stats were inflated because of the injuries to both Branch and Hackett last year. He was the only legitimate target on the field that was healthy. The flanker position is the key receiving position in this offense. It has been for a long time. Engram got to benefit from being the flanker last year. That's Branch now.Ask yourself this question. Why isn't Engram starting as the flanker? The answer is two-fold in my opinion. First, its because Engram excels as the slot receiver. Second, because Branch has a better skill set for the flanker position. Engram knows how to find the holes in the middle of the field. Branch has the quickness to run the slant that's critical to this offense.Do we really believe that the premiere receiver for any team in the NFL is going to be the guy that doesn't start, but comes off the bench as the third guy in the slot? Yes, I won't be surprised to see Engram see the field just as much this coming week, but I'll be shocked to see Engram get as many targets as Branch if both stay healthy from now until the end of the season. If you don't buy that because you believe Branch is destined to be injured again, I understand your argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your right to that opinion.
 
I don't get this. In 2007, Engram way outperformed Branch on a ppg basis outside of TDs (about the same). If you pro-rate Branch's stats from 11 to 16 games, Engram still bested him by 25 receptions and almost 300 years.
that analysis is a little nonsensical, dude, and that's even if I convert years into yards.edit: I wouldn't expect much from either one of them against the giants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get this. In 2007, Engram way outperformed Branch on a ppg basis outside of TDs (about the same). If you pro-rate Branch's stats from 11 to 16 games, Engram still bested him by 25 receptions and almost 300 years.
that analysis is a little nonsensical, dude, and that's even if I convert years into yards.
:thumbup: What in the heck are you talking about? In 2007, last year, Branch played 11 games and Engram played 16. I prorated Branch's stats to 16 games and compared them and Engram's stats were still way better.Have you ever heard of per game stats? If you like that better, Engram was better per game by around 1/3.
 
I think Engram is a much better option than Engram this year.

Engram broke a bone and once that is fully healed, which it is, he is will not be at risk for injury.

Branch tore his ACL in January. Typical healing time would have him back around Novemeber. So, either Branch is a really quick healer, or he is rushing back. I pick the later.

Also, Branch average receiving yardage with the Seahawks is 55 yards per game and 4 catches per game with 8 Total TDs.

Over the last two years, Engram has averaged 62 yards per game and 5 catches per game with 7 total TDs.

Engram's stats from last year: 94 rec, 1147 yards, 6 TDs.

I think Engram is a No. 2 fantasy receiver and I think Branch is more of a 3 or 4.

 
Chew on these numbers...

First, Seattle threw the ball so much last year it was pathetic. At one point they absolutely gave up on running the ball. Call it the Alexander fiasco. Seattle homers will tell you the same. Hasselbeck posted his career marks across the board. That was purely out of desperation. Hasselbeck put the ball in the air 131 times from weeks 9 through 11. That isn't going to happen again this year. They have more than reemphasized the run. So far, so good. They have run the ball well, but against poor teams. We'll see how this plays out against better competition.

Second, Engram had his top four games in terms of targets from week 6 through 11 (11,11, 21, 7 and 11. there was a bye week in there). Branch's first game back after injury was week 11. Hackett was out for those first three games including the insane 21 target Engram love-fest.

Like I said above, I know my opinion isn't the consensus, but I believe I have some valid reasons why my opinion holds water.

 
Branch tore his ACL in January. Typical healing time would have him back around Novemeber. So, either Branch is a really quick healer, or he is rushing back. I pick the later.
I won't be surprised to see this be a valid argument. My money is on him being fine, but my bets are never a lock.
 
I try to post a lot of news and information, but seldom throw out my opinion. I was off the opinion that Morris and Jones would post similar stats by the end of the year. I was wrong there so far, but that may be only because Morris got hurt. Time will tell.I know its not the consensus opinion right now, but I just can't see Engram outscoring Branch in any format (yeah, PPR too) if they both are healthy. I work under the assumption that every player is an injury risk. I tend not to believe in the concept of injury prone. For every guy that gets hurt multiple times I can name a guy that's shook off the injury-prone label. Just my opinion.
I don't get this. In 2007, Engram way outperformed Branch on a ppg basis outside of TDs (about the same). If you pro-rate Branch's stats from 11 to 16 games, Engram still bested him by 25 receptions and almost 300 years.I may have both next week (Branch on waivers till next week and I am first on waivers list), so I don't really care who shines, but I could easily see Engram settle back into Hasselbeck's security blanket and best Branch, especially in PPR which is my league.Also, a quick note that Engram and Branch did have quite a few solid games the same weeks last year, so no reason why both can't do well. I also don't think Julius Jones will continue to play like he did against SF and STL, so I do think the passing game will be the main cog of their offense.
I understand why you would think this. In my opinion Engram's stats were inflated because of the injuries to both Branch and Hackett last year. He was the only legitimate target on the field that was healthy. The flanker position is the key receiving position in this offense. It has been for a long time. Engram got to benefit from being the flanker last year. That's Branch now.Ask yourself this question. Why isn't Engram starting as the flanker? The answer is two-fold in my opinion. First, its because Engram excels as the slot receiver. Second, because Branch has a better skill set for the flanker position. Engram knows how to find the holes in the middle of the field. Branch has the quickness to run the slant that's critical to this offense.Do we really believe that the premiere receiver for any team in the NFL is going to be the guy that doesn't start, but comes off the bench as the third guy in the slot? Yes, I won't be surprised to see Engram see the field just as much this coming week, but I'll be shocked to see Engram get as many targets as Branch if both stay healthy from now until the end of the season. If you don't buy that because you believe Branch is destined to be injured again, I understand your argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your right to that opinion.
How many games did Engram play flanker? It isn't like Branch missed the whole year, he missed 5/6 games. I looked at the game logs and out of the 10 games I know they played together it was 5-5 in terms of who put up the better stats. Yes, Engram had his top game without Branch, but his other 5 games were right about the same as his games with Branch.Engram was pretty consistent last year, aside from the one game he and Branch both sucked when they got killed by Pitt, with or without Branch and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same results this year regardless of Branch.
 
think about what you're doing and read the post above mine (no, not THIS one.....)
:thumbdown: On the years, but I still think your comment was wrong. I did look at Engram's stats when he played with Branch and other than his one great game against Cleveland, he produced very similar stats with and without Branch. If Branch play most of 2007 and Engram stayed the same in all but 1 of the games Branch missed, I still think that Engram's benefit from playing flanker when Branch was out is overstated, IMHO.
 
Engram was pretty consistent last year, aside from the one game he and Branch both sucked when they got killed by Pitt, with or without Branch and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same results this year regardless of Branch.
I disagree. He had his two best career games (in targets, receptions, and yards) as a Seahawk in week 6 and 9 without Branch on the field.6 NO 11 targets 9-120-09 CLE 21 targets 14-139-1 (this one game accounted for 15% of his catches and yards)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chew on these numbers...First, Seattle threw the ball so much last year it was pathetic. At one point they absolutely gave up on running the ball. Call it the Alexander fiasco. Seattle homers will tell you the same. Hasselbeck posted his career marks across the board. That was purely out of desperation. Hasselbeck put the ball in the air 131 times from weeks 9 through 11. That isn't going to happen again this year. They have more than reemphasized the run. So far, so good. They have run the ball well, but against poor teams. We'll see how this plays out against better competition.Second, Engram had his top four games in terms of targets from week 6 through 11 (11,11, 21, 7 and 11. there was a bye week in there). Branch's first game back after injury was week 11. Hackett was out for those first three games including the insane 21 target Engram love-fest. Like I said above, I know my opinion isn't the consensus, but I believe I have some valid reasons why my opinion holds water.
I don't know, I guess those targets don't seem out of line. First, take out the 21 target game. I have no clue what happened, but that is so out of whack that it is almost double the highest target games Branch or Engram had in 2007 or 2006. In the other 15 games, Engram averaged 8 targets per game when he played without Branch and 7 targets per game when he played with Branch. If you are saying that Hasselbeck threw more in the games without Branch, then it sure seems like Engram's production (minus the ridiculous game) wasn't really dependent on Branch at all.
 
On the one hand, I'm surprised that Branch is starting so soon after coming back. On the other hand, he's probably their best option right now. Looking at the active WRs, I see the depth chart (for fantasy purposes) breaking down like this:

1. McMullen (he's the team's leading receiver and he'll probably start opposite Branch and see the most playing time)

2. Engram (his legs are fine and he'll get a lot of work at the slot)

3. Branch (he'll start but I don't think he'll be able to go the entire game)

4. Colbert (he might start for McMullen but he was a non-factor in his first game)

5. Bumpus (I hope he doesn't get cut because I like what I've seen so far)

6. K-Rob (kind of irrelevant right now....don't be surprised if he gets cut)

7. Taylor (this guy is terrible....if he's on the roster in a month I'll be shocked)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engram was pretty consistent last year, aside from the one game he and Branch both sucked when they got killed by Pitt, with or without Branch and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same results this year regardless of Branch.
I disagree. He had his two best career games (in targets, receptions, and yards) as a Seahawk in week 6 and 9 without Branch on the field.6 NO 11 targets 9-120-09 CLE 21 targets 14-139-1 (this one game accounted for 15% of his catches and yards)
Again, that Cleveland game was absurd. In the NO game, he had 5-73 of the 9-120 in the 4th Quarter when Seattle was down 28-10. He had just 5 targets in the 1st 3 Quarters. Aside from the absurd game, I don't think his stats were that different.Just for fun, I looked at 2005 (pre-Branch) and he averaged 7.46 targets in 13 games. In 2007, in the non-absurd 15 games, he averaged 7.53 targets. I hear what you are saying about those 2 games, but if you take out the 21 target game, it really seems like his targets are pretty consistent with or without Branch when he has played the full year or almost the full year in the past few years.By the way, I didn't count 2006 because 6 games is too small a sample, especially with a week 17 game as 1 of the 6. I also don't know when he got hurt and how much he played since 2 of his 3 worst target weeks were right after he missed 11 weeks. He also had his highest target game in the playoffs after those 2 lower target weeks.
 
I don't know, I guess those targets don't seem out of line.
Not out of line? In five years as a Seahawk Engram had 11 targets once. Last year, in a five games stretch Engram had at least 11 targets four times.
Nope, not at all. First, in 2005, he had 11 targets once, 10 targets 3 times and 9 targets 2 times and 8 targets 2 times. So 8 games out of 13, he had 8-11 targets.You just said above that Hasselbeck was chucking the ball a ton and we all know that Seattle's running game was non-existent after years of Alexander being a top rusher, so no, I don't think 11 targets is that excessive. 21, yes, but not the other games.Aside from the 21 target game, Branch had 3, 7, 7, 11 and 11 targets without Branch and 4, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 9, 10 and 11 targets with Branch. Do those really look all that different, especially when you find out that one of those 11 target games without Branch included Engram getting 6 targets in the 4th Quarter with Seattle trailing 28-10?
 
Do those really look all that different, especially when you find out that one of those 11 target games without Branch included Engram getting 6 targets in the 4th Quarter with Seattle trailing 28-10?
Yeah, I guess I do think that looks different. Especially when you compare it to his previous five years. 12 year vets just don't have career years that get repeated in year 13, but that's my opinion. I think people are seeing the 2007 season stats, but not viewing them in terms of the team situation at that time.I don't mean to beat this horse to death (maybe I already have). If he posts huge numbers again I'll be thrilled as a Seahawk fan, I just have my doubts. Seattle certainly needs a WR to step forward to balance the offense.
 
Do those really look all that different, especially when you find out that one of those 11 target games without Branch included Engram getting 6 targets in the 4th Quarter with Seattle trailing 28-10?
Yeah, I guess I do think that looks different. Especially when you compare it to his previous five years. 12 year vets just don't have career years that get repeated in year 13, but that's my opinion. I think people are seeing the 2007 season stats, but not viewing them in terms of the team situation at that time.I don't mean to beat this horse to death (maybe I already have). If he posts huge numbers again I'll be thrilled as a Seahawk fan, I just have my doubts. Seattle certainly needs a WR to step forward to balance the offense.
No problem, we definitely beat it to a pulp. I understand what you are saying, but I think the 2007-2008 Seahawks without a stud Alexander are a lot different than the 2006 and previous seasons. As you mentioned above, Hasselbeck threw a ton last year. In 2007, he had 562 attempts, easily his career high. You have to go back to 2003 before you find him throwing 500+. In 2008, he is on pace for 517, which would be his second most and to be honest, with 2 of the 3 games against SF and STL and only 2 of the remaining 13 against those two, I would bet that Julius Jones does worse than he has so far and Hasselbeck will end up throwing more and be a lot closer to his 2007 attempts than his previous years.I think based on the dearth of other options that if Branch and Engram stay healthy, they will probably each get 7-10 targets a game and both put up decent numbers. Easily startable in 3WR leagues.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top