Why Alan Branch?

[crazyhorse1]

Ok. Michigan's Alan Branch's body takes up about half the defensive line and maybe two guys blocked him every play in O6, but shouldn't a guy we might draft No. 1 have averaged better than two tackles a game in O6 and gotten more than one sack? Michigan opponents didn't run ninety per cent of their plays to the other side, did they?

[UK Skins Fan]

Fair question. What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

[old-timer]

We can't afford to draft just one player in the first 4 rounds. We need at least two starters from that one pick, preferably a new defensive lineman who can actually pressure the quarterback, and a decent cover guy to replace Kenny Wright. And then we still need big help at linebacker.

Even if Branch is great, we'll still get raped in the secondary and who's to say Branch is not a bust or become another injury problem we can't afford?

Don't go for Alan Branch. Trade down for lower picks and/or proven starters.

[1niksder]

Gaines Adams DE 6'5 260 Clemson
By: Robert Davis
After a redshirt year, and a year as a reserve end, Adams began to parlay his immense talent into production. As a sophomore, he finished the year with 35 tackles, eight for loss, and five sacks. He continued to improve, and had an outstanding junior season. On the year, Adams had 56 tackles, 15 for loss, and 9.5 sacks. Adams lived up to the hype as a senior, finishing with 56 tackles, 15.5 for loss, and 10.5 sacks.

Gaines Adams has big time pass rush potential. He is an excellent athlete, that has excellent speed and agility on the football field. He can explode off the snap and blow right by the tackle to get into the backfield. He does not just rush straight off the edge, he shows the agility to easily adjust his direction as he moves up the field. Adams has an excellent frame that should allow him to add weight at the next level, and not lose any of his quickness.

Adams relies too much on his natural talent. With his lack of great size right now, he can be taken out of the play in running situations. He needs to learn how to get off blocks better, and must bulk up to play on the line at the next level. He also needs to show more consistency on a down to down basis.

Adams has all the talent to be a standout pass rusher at the next level. He should be the first defensive end selected, and with good workouts, could be a Top five selection.

Gaine is a big run stuffer .... but so is this guy and he's already in the league...

Terdell Sands UFA Oakland Raiders
The defensive tackle entered his fifth NFL season without much fanfare. He was stuck behind other players, and hadn’t been thought of as an impact player by most. However, the former Chattanooga player has shined when given the opportunity. One reason that Sands has been effective is his size. Standing 6’7” and weighing 335 pounds, Sands is enormous, and difficult to take out of a play. His height allows him to bat down passes if he cannot get penetration, and he has developed a decent awareness of where the ball is. In non-starter minutes, he’s still just two tackles away from his career season high, and he is earning more and more time each week. The Raider will be well-served to sign him to an extension, but Sands might look elsewhere if Oakland won’t guarantee him more playing time.

And he shouldn't cost, Al Davis and his crew is just as screwed up as ours so maybe he'll slip into the market

Both of those guys would be OK if we got them

Alan Branch DT 6'6 321 Michigan Jr.
By: Robert Davis
Despite only playing in spot duty as a freshman in 2004, Branch managed to notch two sacks on the year. As a sophomore he finished the year with 31 tackles, 10 for loss, and five sacks. This season as a junior he faced a lot more attention from opponents, and it limited the numbers he could put up. He still finished with 23 tackles, five for loss, and two sacks along with an interception against Ohio St.

The obvious trait that jumps out at you about Branch is his size. He has a massive frame and is immovable on the inside of the defensive line. His size and strength allows him to hold his ground and clog running lanes. Branch is also a very good athlete for his size and shows the ability to get around blocks and adjust to the ball carrier and make the play. His combination of talent will allow him to play end or nose tackle in a 3-4, or inside in a 4-3 alignment.

Branch just is not a big time playmaker. He is not an explosive penetrator and will not make many plays on his own. He also needs to continue to refine his technique as he can rely on his size too much to make plays.

While Branch isn’t a big playmaker, that’s really not what teams will be looking for out of him. His ability to clog running lanes is, and that is why he is held in high regard. There are some talented senior defensive tackles but none carry an early round grade. If Branch were to declare, he could be the first tackle selected in April.

Branch on the other hand may stay in school

[ANT7088]

Ok. Michigan's Alan Branch's body takes up about half the defensive line and maybe two guys blocked him every play in O6, but shouldn't a guy we might draft No. 1 have averaged better than two tackles a game in O6 and gotten more than one sack? Michigan opponents didn't run ninety per cent of their plays to the other side, did they?

He's a DT, so if they run 90% to 1 side & 10% to the other, aren't they avoiding him 100%??

[JPM36]

I like the Terdell Sands suggestion.

If I was running the team I'd draft Branch AND sign Sands. I believe that a good defense starts with the guys up front and if we had Branch and Sands we'd be formidable at the point of attack.

If Branch is gone when we pick (6th overall) I'd look at Glenn Dorsey of LSU.

[UK Skins Fan]

How does a guy get through school with a name like Terdell?! Good grief.

Then again, I suppose when you're 6'7", nobody is going to call you Terd for short.

I like the Sands idea - neither Adams nor Branch sound like the kind of player we should be spending a top 10 pick on at the moment. Going after Sands, and then converting the first round pick into two picks (assuming our front office is capable of making that deal without giving away Jason Campbell and Santana Moss into the bargain) makes sense to me.

But I'll probably change my mind tomorrow.

[JPM36]

Trading down to get 2 good players always sounds like a good idea on paper. If we could do that I would be all for it.

However, this is all predicated on

1) The assumption that there is a team willing to trade 2 precious (to every team but the Redskins apparently) draft picks to move up and get one player, who they would then have to pay Top 10 money.

AND

2) The assumption that our front office would be able to take those 2 non- Top 10 picks and turn them into 2 starter caliber football players, which is far from a guarantee with our FO in charge.


I think it's ridiculous when people just make blanket statements like "Oh we should just trade down" without considering all that has to fall into place for trading down to work out successfully.

Unless the Patriots are willing to give us both of their first round picks for the #6 pick, I'd just take Branch and build the defensive line around him.

[Jeremy81]

I think Gaines Adams is definately worth a top ten pick...if he's available, i say snatch him up...but more than likely, tampa bay will get him. I wouldn't mind trading down either...Victor Abiamiri is a good DE and only getting better and will sure to be available late in the first.

[joebagadonuts]

What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

You're forgetting the Gregg Williams/Joe Gibbs motto when it comes to playing rookies: While you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee. While the defense needs a good shakeup and the insertion of some young players, I'd be surprised to see a draft pick, even an early one, starting on opening day.

[UK Skins Fan]

What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

You're forgetting the Gregg Williams/Joe Gibbs motto when it comes to playing rookies: While you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee. While the defense needs a good shakeup and the insertion of some young players, I'd be surprised to see a draft pick, even an early one, starting on opening day.

The thought had entered my mind. But it's too depressing to think on it any further - the idea that it really doesn't matter who the 'Skins draft, he won't get to start anyway.

[KazooSkinsFan]

What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

You're forgetting the Gregg Williams/Joe Gibbs motto when it comes to playing rookies: While you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee. While the defense needs a good shakeup and the insertion of some young players, I'd be surprised to see a draft pick, even an early one, starting on opening day.

You know you're saying this out loud. When I think I can't read a more ignorant post I'm smacked in the face with reality.

Rookies not playing are getting coffee. They aren't practicing, they aren't learning the playbook, they aren't being mentored. There is nothing for a 22 year old kid to learn until they play.

Wow, this post indicates a complete and utter dearth of intellectual content. I'm impressed, it's really not easy to post anything of this little value.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Branch on the other hand may stay in school

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I'm a Michigan native (Kazoo being short for Kalamazoo) and Michigan Alum as well. The word is he is in fact leaning to stay, though that could be wishful thinking on our part. He says his family isn't in need of the money either.

He is a force, I'd love to have him play for the Skins when he comes out.

[SkinsJock]

How does a guy get through school with a name like Terdell?! Good grief.

Then again, I suppose when you're 6'7", nobody is going to call you Terd for short.

..But I'll probably change my mind tomorrow.

the draft pick posts we are about to see for the next 4 months will probably do that to you

[joebagadonuts]

What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

You're forgetting the Gregg Williams/Joe Gibbs motto when it comes to playing rookies: While you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee. While the defense needs a good shakeup and the insertion of some young players, I'd be surprised to see a draft pick, even an early one, starting on opening day.

You know you're saying this out loud. When I think I can't read a more ignorant post I'm smacked in the face with reality.

Rookies not playing are getting coffee. They aren't practicing, they aren't learning the playbook, they aren't being mentored. There is nothing for a 22 year old kid to learn until they play.

Wow, this post indicates a complete and utter dearth of intellectual content. I'm impressed, it's really not easy to post anything of this little value.

Name me the last rookie to start on opening day for this Joe Gibbs tenure. Please. I didn't say the rookies weren' t learning, or being mentored. I didn't even say that I agreed with the philosphy of not starting rookies. I simply stated that, given the past history of this coaching staff, rookies don't start, no matter how desperate the need.

If you assumed that by my post I was advocating sitting rookies no matter what (or even worse, mistook my attempt at humor for seriously suggesting that the rookies are on coffee duty), then you assumed wrong.

I am rather proud that you went through all that linguistic gymnastics just to insult me, however. It's rare that someone does so in such a gentlemanly way. I feel as though I should slap you in the face with my glove in retaliation.

[1niksder]

I am rather proud that you went through all that linguistic gymnastics just to insult me, however. It's rare that someone does so in such a gentlemanly way. I feel as though I should slap you in the face with my glove in retaliation.

I'm not going to go as far as to say I'm proud of his post but unlike most he stayed within the rule and only commented on the subject of the post.

Others can learn from this.
1. He disagreed with what you had to say and he let it be known
2. He didn't call you any names
3. He got you to contemplate doing physical to him
4. He had total disregard to the fact that what you were posting is correct

[Mursilis]

Trading down to get 2 good players always sounds like a good idea on paper. If we could do that I would be all for it.

However, this is all predicated on

1) The assumption that there is a team willing to trade 2 precious (to every team but the Redskins apparently) draft picks to move up and get one player, who they would then have to pay Top 10 money.

AND

2) The assumption that our front office would be able to take those 2 non- Top 10 picks and turn them into 2 starter caliber football players, which is far from a guarantee with our FO in charge.


I think it's ridiculous when people just make blanket statements like "Oh we should just trade down" without considering all that has to fall into place for trading down to work out successfully.

Unless the Patriots are willing to give us both of their first round picks for the #6 pick, I'd just take Branch and build the defensive line around him.

Finally, someone's talking some sense. Now all you GM wannabe's, just stop.

[Mursilis]

What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

You're forgetting the Gregg Williams/Joe Gibbs motto when it comes to playing rookies: While you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee. While the defense needs a good shakeup and the insertion of some young players, I'd be surprised to see a draft pick, even an early one, starting on opening day.

You know you're saying this out loud. When I think I can't read a more ignorant post I'm smacked in the face with reality.

Rookies not playing are getting coffee. They aren't practicing, they aren't learning the playbook, they aren't being mentored. There is nothing for a 22 year old kid to learn until they play.

Wow, this post indicates a complete and utter dearth of intellectual content. I'm impressed, it's really not easy to post anything of this little value.

What the heck are you talking about?!?! JBD was right both in suggesting Gibbs doesn't play rookies, and right to question the idea. Some rookies, especially first rounders are ready to play significant time in their first year. Look at Vince Young - 8-6 as a starter! Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, Marques Colston, Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, Clint Ingram, and Maurice Jones-Drew also are all rookies who both saw significant play-time this year, and made significant contributions to thier teams. Gibbs' unfounded bias against young players (not making Brunell compete for his job vs. Campbell in camp sure paid off, huh Coach?) is yet another idea (like swapping away your draft picks) which might've worked in the 80's but isn't so bright in today's NFL.

[crazyhorse1]

What I want from a top ten pick is immediate impact, and from a defensive lineman that means the ability to stuff the run, collapse the pocket, and generally wreak havoc.

Is Branch that man?

And, if he isn't, is there anybody in this draft who is? Because if there isn't a true all-around impact defensive lineman in this draft, then I'd like to see the Redskins trade down and pick up two good players rather than reach too far for one.

So, as the man says: why Alan Branch?

You're forgetting the Gregg Williams/Joe Gibbs motto when it comes to playing rookies: While you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee. While the defense needs a good shakeup and the insertion of some young players, I'd be surprised to see a draft pick, even an early one, starting on opening day.

You know you're saying this out loud. When I think I can't read a more ignorant post I'm smacked in the face with reality.

Rookies not playing are getting coffee. They aren't practicing, they aren't learning the playbook, they aren't being mentored. There is nothing for a 22 year old kid to learn until they play.

Wow, this post indicates a complete and utter dearth of intellectual content. I'm impressed, it's really not easy to post anything of this little value.

What the heck are you talking about?!?! JBD was right both in suggesting Gibbs doesn't play rookies, and right to question the idea. Some rookies, especially first rounders are ready to play significant time in their first year. Look at Vince Young - 8-6 as a starter! Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, Marques Colston, Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, Clint Ingram, and Maurice Jones-Drew also are all rookies who both saw significant play-time this year, and made significant contributions to thier teams. Gibbs' unfounded bias against young players (not making Brunell compete for his job vs. Campbell in camp sure paid off, huh Coach?) is yet another idea (like swapping away your draft picks) which might've worked in the 80's but isn't so bright in today's NFL.

The Redskins of George Allen's time were not only veterans but old guys, physical wrecks actually; their locker room looked like a rehab filled with guys with fallen aches who had never lifted a weight in their lives. They were the worse physical specimens and the worse conditioned players in the league. But they were tough, and experienced, and enjoyed a huge advantage in that they had learned techniques in the pros their opponents had not yet learned. That was the secret behind Allen's success.

I don't think that sort of thing works today. First, today's players have been playing longer and have been better coached in High School and college that they used to be-- the difference in experience level is less, reducing the advantage of the NFL experienced player. Second, the typical NFL player lasts only three and one half years, so the vets have relatively little superiority over rookies in regard to experience. And thirdly, today's increased number of games burns up the old guys at an increased rate.

In sum, Allen's old formula is now a formula for disaster.

[Pudgeman37]

Finally, someone is listening to the my Terdell Sands move. You need him in your defense and he can come in and make a huge impact.

As for the draft. there are times you need to stay in your position, or you need to move down. In 2004 and 2005, the Redskins were right to stay in their position since in '04 you had a choice of Taylor or Winslow. In '05, you had the remaining of the CB draft, which was Rogers. If the Skins were in the top 10 of last year's draft, they would of stayed and get the "elite 8", in this case Michael Huff. This year, there is no one that stands out except for Calvin Johnson, the two QBs, and Adrian Peterson. You can get good value down in the latter stages of the draft still if you're going to get a DT or DE. There is no Mario Williams or Julius Peppers, trade the pick.

[brad7686]

I could be wrong, but i think Gaines Adams has potential to be an elite pass rusher. I have watched him, he uses his hands well, has great balance, and has extremely good burst and speed. He would however be a possible liability in the run game. He could def get bigger at his height and not lose speed.

I watched Branch today in the rose bowl, He is quite large. He was often double teamed, but i was not impressed with his movement. I am sure there are extremely fat tackles available that can occupy two blockers and not push the pile.

I feel they should pull the trigger on adams if he is available, him and carter would complement each other well. We need help in the pass game and the run game, so maybe if we get Adams we can stack the box and blitz more to prevent the run game from being such a problem. Make the qb beat us under pressure, maybe cause some mistakes. I think a pass rush and a new MLB are really the biggest needs...besides a new corner.

[KazooSkinsFan]

He had total disregard to the fact that what you were posting is correct

Wow, so you agree that rookies are sitting on their hands? There is no value in what they are doing because they are not playing? I'm stunned because I respect your views. You can't seriously believe there is no value in anything they are doing because they are not playing, which is the point I made. They are 22 year old kids. They are babes. They are wet behind the years. You can't believe they don't need to actually learn before they play. Sure, there are a few that are so talented they step right in, but few rookies do.

BTW, the rest of your post was good.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Name me the last rookie to start on opening day for this Joe Gibbs tenure.

And this has to do with what I said because...

Please. I didn't say the rookies weren' t learning, or being mentored.

Interesting, so what did you mean when you said "you're doing nothing on the sidelines, go get me a cup of coffee?"

You didn't say they weren't learning, but you said they were "doing nothing." I'm not feeling contradicted here.

I didn't even say that I agreed with the philosphy of not starting rookies. I simply stated that, given the past history of this coaching staff, rookies don't start, no matter how desperate the need.

If you assumed that by my post I was advocating sitting rookies no matter what (or even worse, mistook my attempt at humor for seriously suggesting that the rookies are on coffee duty), then you assumed wrong.

And this has to do with what I said because...

I am rather proud that you went through all that linguistic gymnastics just to insult me, however. It's rare that someone does so in such a gentlemanly way. I feel as though I should slap you in the face with my glove in retaliation.

Funny, no sarcasm intended. Well done.

[KazooSkinsFan]

What the heck are you talking about?!?! JBD was right both in suggesting Gibbs doesn't play rookies, and right to question the idea. Some rookies, especially first rounders are ready to play significant time in their first year. Look at Vince Young - 8-6 as a starter! Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, Marques Colston, Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, Clint Ingram, and Maurice Jones-Drew also are all rookies who both saw significant play-time this year, and made significant contributions to thier teams. Gibbs' unfounded bias against young players (not making Brunell compete for his job vs. Campbell in camp sure paid off, huh Coach?) is yet another idea (like swapping away your draft picks) which might've worked in the 80's but isn't so bright in today's NFL.

I'd be interested in your view if you care to re-read what I said and address that rather than a point I didn't make. I never said Gibbs didn't play rookies and I never said no rookie was not worth playing as a rookie. I said that they are not "doing nothing" when they are not playing as rookies, which is what he said they were doing. Please do not extrapolate my points into views which I neither stated nor hold.

[old-timer]

Trading down to get 2 good players always sounds like a good idea on paper. If we could do that I would be all for it.

However, this is all predicated on

1) The assumption that there is a team willing to trade 2 precious (to every team but the Redskins apparently) draft picks to move up and get one player, who they would then have to pay Top 10 money.

AND

2) The assumption that our front office would be able to take those 2 non- Top 10 picks and turn them into 2 starter caliber football players, which is far from a guarantee with our FO in charge.


I think it's ridiculous when people just make blanket statements like "Oh we should just trade down" without considering all that has to fall into place for trading down to work out successfully.

Unless the Patriots are willing to give us both of their first round picks for the #6 pick, I'd just take Branch and build the defensive line around him.

Finally, someone's talking some sense. Now all you GM wannabe's, just stop.

Get over yourself. He's got a point, but it's hardly decisive. Yes, our FO is almost useless when it comes to finiding overlooked talent. But so is our coaching staff. I don't see how anyone can think that this defense can be fixed with what is, essentially one single draft choice. Or perhaps you're putting great faith in our cocching staff to completely reverse then track record and NOT throw away, yet again, next years' draft picks to bring in yet another class of 'proven' (i.e., overrated, expensive, wornout, or bad-fit) vetersns.

I'd rather take a chance with what's left of our scouting staff. There are undoubtedly a number of solid teams out there who think that they are one superstar away from the Super Bowl and are willing to reach (i.e., trade multiple draft picksand/or existing starters) to get the fifth pick in the draft. I have faith that Vinny has enough sense to surreptitiously walk down the street to 7-11 and pick up a draft guide off the porno rack and pick up two solid players from the 1 to 32 charts that way. Better that than expecting him to make productive use of our 5 through 7 picks, which he almoust rountinely wastes. Or perhaps you'd like to be sitting here next year in exactly the same position we are in today, after GW picks 2007's version of Adam Archuleta.