The Deion Branch Trade Three Years Later
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 1:46 PM PDT
63 comments
It's indisputable that Tim Ruskell's trade for Deion Branch has been a disappointment. What remains unexplored is if the trade should be a disappointment. Branch hasn't been great and a first round pick seems like a steep price, but is it really? If Seattle had instead drafted Branch with that pick instead of trading for Branch, what would the expected return be?
Using the model provided by Advanced NFL Stats, we can make a reasonable guess. Branch would have been the fourth wide receiver drafted. The fourth wide receiver drafted's career averages about 530 yards per season and 4.7 seasons starting. Branch has averaged 599 yards per season over 32 starts and 33 games played. That 33 is of a possible 46. Branch was traded on September 11, 2006 and not capable of playing until week three. Depending on how you figure it, Branch has either been Seattle's primary starter for two seasons or for three seasons with time lost due to injury.
The other matter is the contract. Branch received a six-year, $39 million dollar contract to sign with Seattle. That has made him one of the top ten most expensive wide receivers in football the last two seasons. Branch has not played like a top-ten receiver, and even among those just paid like top-ten receivers, he's a clear step behind even Bernard Berrian. Seattle hasn't really suffered the cap hit. They've been active in free agency and not too strapped to sign a player they want. Branch's contract could have forced Seattle to unload Peterson and draft Curry, or could have taken Seattle out of the Chris Canty race and forced them to sign Colin Cole, and those are real consequences that hurt, but they are also hypothetical. They assume Seattle filled Branch's position some other way and that other way was much cheaper. And that might be stretch. 2007's free agent class was weak and even Kevin Curtis cleaned up signing a six-year, $32 million contract.
Ruskell traded Seattle's first round pick and signed Branch to a mega-contract because he thought he was signing a number one wide receiver. Maybe. Maybe Ruskell traded Seattle's first round pick and signed Branch to a mega-contract because he thought Branch was better and would be better sooner than a wide receiver Seattle could take in the 2007 draft. He thought Seattle had the cap space and that Branch was better than any other wide receiver available in the 2007 free agent class. Except for arguably Kevin Curtis, he was. And Ruskell thought Seattle needed that wide receiver to contribute in 2006 and needed that wide receiver to make Darrell Jackson expendable in 2007. If that's the case, and I think that is the case, then the Branch deal, if by no means a smash, has been a success.
0 recs |
63 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It seems like Branch's injuries and his replacements should somehow factor into any evaluation
While the Hawks were exceeding what a first rounder taken at that spot should be expected to produce with Branch in the line up they were likely severely underperforming when Branch turned into Keary Colbert.
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 2:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The AFS numbers account for injuries
in so far that yards represents total production and certainly some of the drafted wide receivers were also injured and if not injured incapable of receiving for whatever reason.
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The same way Vallos or Baraka Atkins facter into Chris Spencer's or Lawrence Jackson's play for us?
Deion Branch was trading for a 1st rounder in the neighborhood of the Spencer pick or Jackson pick, do you feel as though their backups factor into the equation when they get injured? A 1st round draft pick is not a 16 game guarantee of injury-free beastly production.
by cashless on Jul 7, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, you're both right
Although Branch has missed more games than what I assume is average (this would be an interesting stat to have).
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I take it back
Branch is being compared to a receivers average over his first 5 years in the league when, like Duke said below, he should be expected to perform at the fifth year level from year one. I also think that Branch has missed more games than you would expect a receiver to miss over a 3 year span, 33% of them.
Branch’s back up time over average (I’m just giving these away for free Farrar!) should lower his value and the standard he’s being compared against should be higher. The latter would skew this more than the former but I think they’re both relevant.
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His production still matters, even with games missed.
If he scores 10 TDs in 5 games and misses the other games, he was still more valuable than a younger WR who had 500 yards and 3 TDs. I blew up the numbers on purpose to make the point. Chris Spencer has missed plenty of games, and Lawrence Jackson has barely produced, out of similar draft slots. I’ll take Branch’s production when healthy over Jackson being available but not good enough to play all the time. And Jackson has time to change.
by cashless on Jul 7, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Branch's production has not been that far and away better than his comparison
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
I don’t believe he has outperformed a WR picked at that position. But he has not underperformed one either, and that despite missing many games.
My argument is not that he has been a steal for the DP, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes this. But I think John’s point is very valid.
by cashless on Jul 7, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One consideration that I think is relevant is this:
The bust or washout rate of drafted WRs in the NFL. Although this may qualify as another hypothetical, I think it can be stated with reasonable certainty that there is a significant chance that the 4th WR drafted could bust and not even produce the baseline/average production. I know the average talked of in the article somewhat covers that, I thought I’d bring up the possibility of if we used that pick on a rookie instead of Branch there is a all-out bust-factor to consider, as well, isn’t there?
Another fine article of outside-the-norm quality Seahawks content. I love this place.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jul 7, 2009 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There's bust potential, but there's bust potential for a free agent too
I would guess the bust potential for a free agent is lower, but without studying it, I don’t know for sure.
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only problem with the comparison
to the projected production of a 4th overall selection, is that he wasn’t, coming to Seattle. While it’s fair to expect he perform like a 1st rounder, since that’s what they gave for him, it’s also reasonable to expect he perform like a 1st rounder coming into his 5th season, not starting from scratch. Seems like a generous comparison on John’s part. Nevertheless, another interesting read.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
by Dukeshire on Jul 7, 2009 3:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is that really the case?
If Branch was that sure of a thing, he would be worth more than a late 1st round pick, which is certainly no sure thing. If a 1st round pick in the 20s is not that big of a sure thing, then is it right to hold the player to a higher standard?
That is what we traded for him, so the comparison is correct in my opinion.
by cashless on Jul 7, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed with this, and also:
I think the factor of his age has something to do with it. Branch is turning 29 or 30 this August (my math stinks). Anyone we’d drafted in the spot we traded for Branch would be significantly younger and presumably hitting his peak. Should Branch not make snuff this year and fully recover, we could possibly part ways with him and have very little in return. A draft pick would be significantly more valuable, especially considering his comparitive cost.
Also, there’s something about the role Branch plays with the team. The fact that he cost a 1st rounder and was clearly seen as an instant solution by the FO means that he was a bit of a conundrum for the WR corps. Here’s a guy who’s supposed to be pretty much an instant fill-in player as a #1 or #2 receiver, and yet he can’t be counted on to produce due to injury, so the FO is constantly looking for cheaper alternatives to fill his spot rather than use an actual high draft pick or spend big bucks.
To me the Branch trade was a distinct misfire on Ruskell’s part. I don’t think Ruskell could have forseen the injuries, and I do think that a healthy Branch is a great weapon, but when you compare what kind of WR Ruskell got for a #1 with what some other teams got for a lot less it doesn’t look like good value at all.
by djafrot on Jul 7, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I concur with this sentiment.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 7, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The opposite is true as well, though.
“When you compare what kind of WR Ruskell got for a #1 with what some other teams got for a lot less it doesn’t look like good value at all.”
Yes, some teams have gotten great WRs for less (see: Moss, Randy – Patriots), but some teams have invested heavily for poor or mediocre results (see: Moss, Randy – Raiders).
by thebyron on Jul 7, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point of comparing him to a 1st round rookie is to look at the alternative;
If Seattle had instead drafted Branch with that pick instead of trading for Branch, what would the expected return be?
by abender20 on Jul 7, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruskell sacrificed youth, upside and money for present returns
It doesn’t make sense to compare a player acquired to perform now to a player’s learning curve years.
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does if your goal is to get a productive player in the short term.
He traded upside for what he thought to be a known quantity. Young wide receivers just aren’t that productive. While you can rail against him for spending a first rounder on Branch when Welker and Moss were acquired for cheaper, the fact remains that drafting players is inherently risky. I was never too happy with the move myself, but I understand the thinking behind it.
by abender20 on Jul 7, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand it as well, and I absolutely love Branch
I just don’t think you can call it a success. Yes the Seahawks got some immediate returns out of the deal but not to the point where it justified giving up a first round pick. It was good process and at least equal to other reasonable free agent alternatives but the result was not a success.
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as the belief that "drafting players is inherently risky"
Doesn’t become an underlying managerial philosophy ( ’Skins). I wonder what the offseason arguments would have been like had Branch been a wild success.
by Groundhog on Jul 7, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure how signing Branch sacrificed upside
And I would rather have a receiver for his age 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 seasons than his age 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 seasons.
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too.
However, you wouldn’t particularly want Branch for his 32, 33, 34 and so on seasons… whereas you could likely keep said draft pick for those 27+ seasons if you wanted to.
I understand that it’s rare to keep a player for more than five or six seasons on your roster. But if you take Branch you’re pretty much guaranteed to only get so many good seasons out of him. By taking a WR that high, odds are decent that the guy is going to at least have a chance at becoming a viable 10+ contributor to the NFL.
by djafrot on Jul 7, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he is ever good.
A WR busts plenty in the NFL, including in the first round. At least we know Branch’s skill level is good if he comes back from his very bad injury.
by cashless on Jul 7, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the average fourth wide receiver taken starts for 4.7 years and averages ~530 yards a season
Branch’s 725 yards his first season in Seattle is considerably more than you would expect from a first rounder entering his fifth season.
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, is that the average career of the 4th WR taken
or the average for the first 4.7 years of the 4th WR taken? Because that would completely change my thought process.
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think people underestimate just how few even very good players a draft class produces.
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 4:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's more the amount of turnover in the NFL that gets me
by Nate Dogg on Jul 7, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I was looking at a MLB scoreboard and saw Villone and Tomko and was reading FanGraphs about Joel Pineiro
Football isn’t like that. One year you’re the MVP and the next you’re Shaun Alexander.
by John Morgan on Jul 7, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a longer season will correct this.
Once we move to a longer season and I mean 24+ games the exposure of the individual player will increase. This will also help mitigate the injury factor as in a 24+ game season you are likely to see many more injuries and as such the stigma behind injuries in relation to a players skill or worth will be reduced. All this will help create more lasting images of the players and there careers for people to attach to and relate to, here in creating the more loyal fan base of other sports.
by HereticHawk on Jul 8, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the players available for Seattle at the #24 pick that year:
- FS Brandon Meriweather
- T Joe Staley
- G Ben Grubbs
- WR Anthony Gonzalez
- G Arron Sears
- G Justin Blalock
Hard to say that I would rather have the pick back if it meant having these guys… Hindsight is 20/20.
by PoolNinja on Jul 7, 2009 5:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Did you notice 3 of the guys on your list are Guards?
Not to devalue the list, but traditionally very few guards are taken prior to the 24th pick, and none of them would come close to garnering the yardage that Branch has for us, even if injured.
I say that only 1/2 in jest— it would seem there was a belief a skill position player was needed, therefore a WR. So in truth, the only players you should list on here would be other WR’s… I for one would rather have Branch than Anthony Gonzalez, who is a solid if never spectacular WR— who happens to be paired with one of the greatest QB’s not only in the game today, but in the history of the game… if he can’t be more than slightly above average and solid with Peyton, what would he do with Hass (and last year’s debacle?)
Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Jul 7, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And did you notice our guards in '07?
Wrotto was a rookie, Chis Gray was 15 years deep, Womack ( i believe was hurt), Sims, and sometimes Ashworth. We couldn’t run nor protect Hass inside, we needed line help. I only threw in Meriweather because he was the actual pick, imagine him with D.Grant at SS. But for what was there at that pick, history schmistory, we should have picked Staley or Sears.
by PoolNinja on Jul 8, 2009 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Protect Hass inside?
He had his best statistical season throwing the ball because of that interior line. The run argument though, totally agree but we were still trying to play Shaun Alexander as if he could hit the outside sans roller blades.
by Built2Spill on Jul 8, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I noticed our guards...
but the fact remains that the Hawks deemed it at the time (whether true or false) to not be as critical a need. And it is still very early to pick a guard.
And of course, I would prefer to have Meriweather to Lord Byron, but every draft you can pick and chose guys below who you would like…
I wouldn’t mind Jon Beason on the team right now either… or Eric Wright… or Michael Bush… or even Adam Podlish…
However, the butterfly effect would certainly come into play with several of them, including future ripple effects (such as perhaps picking up an elite safety in next year’s draft.)
I just don’t get too bent out of shape when it comes to rehashing the draft with woulda coulda shoulda’s… it’s like talking about whether you should have raised or called instead of folding a poker hand. There is little upside, it’s just a wishing for different results from past actions…
BUT, I do say 24 is early for a guard, so “reaching” for guys that at the time went many picks later is Hutch was drafted 17th and he was quite high for the position (when not taking into account tackles who slide in.) Grubbs was in the pick range, but none of the other guards were, so they would have been “huge reaches.”
Now, all that aside, I still think the trade was a good one, and I believe THIS YEAR Branch will be great—- just as he has been in practically every game he’s played in Seattle while moderately healthy.
Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Jul 8, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree that it would have been a reach...
at that time, but man could we have used one of those linemen last year. I agree also that this is one of those “shoulda, woulda, coulda” articles but it just sucks that the trade we made in ’06, might finally pay off in ’09. And if you look at the bottom portion of the 1st round to the top of the 2nd round, you might think otherwise on this trade, in hindsight. One of those guys could of solved the many problems we had in ’08, or at least lessened them.
by PoolNinja on Jul 8, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why Staley?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he's better as a player than Branch.
by Mullester on Jul 9, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really.
Branch’s issues have stemmed for injury, not performance. Staley is an average at best tackle.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 9, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Staley in '08
9th most blown blocks in NFL with 6.5.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jul 11, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gave up nearly 9 sacks too,
I’m being lenient because he’s young and obviously could improve.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 12, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The real question is: Who would have Tim Ruskell actually drafted?
I had the same thoughts about the 2007 draft, and I looked at all the players drafted from #24 right up to where the Seahawks took Josh Wilson in the 2nd round (#55). It’s easy in hindsight to now say who is good and who isn’t, but who would the Seahawks actually picked at #24, knowing only what we knew up until that draft over 2 years ago?
While Walter Jones was already aging back then, it would be unlikely that we’d draft a tackle with our #1 pick, with a still-healthy Jones and Sean Locklear in the mix. And since we just signed Deon Grant (yeah!) and Brian Russell (BOOOO!!!) that same offseason, we probably wouldn’t take a safety, either. I also don’t think any of the guards drafted after #24 were graded (at that time) high enough to be picked that high, and when you got Lofa, Leroy and Julian still on the roster (and two of them still dirt cheap), you’re not drafting a linebacker that high, either.
Since we traded for a receiver (Branch) the year before with this pick, and would have probably kicked Darrell Jackson to the curb no matter what, WR is high on the list (assuming the Branch trade never happened). Since we picked a Defensive End with our 2008 1st round pick, then it’s likely we’d also scoop one up in this draft, too. I also think we’d have scooped up a Defensive Tackle or Cornerback if one rated high enough were available.
When you also factor Ruskell’s love affair with players from successful college programs, I think these are the most likely players the Seahawks would have picked at #24 (in no particular order):
Anthony Gonzalez, WR OSU
Dwayne Jarrett, WR USC
Anthony Spencer, DE Purdue
Robert Meachum, WR Tennessee
Greg Olsen, TE Miami
LaMarr Woodley, DE Michigan
Alan Branch, DT Michigan
Actually, that list does look pretty good, in that if we were to choose just from that list I’d say we’d have had a more than 50% chance of getting a valuable contributor. We could have also reached for a guy like Drew Stanton, too. Who knows? Since we got Branch almost a year before this draft even happened, who knows how it would have turned out.
by J.L. White on Jul 7, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind,
What if our pick had been Alan Branch? Maybe we don’t draft Mebane in the 3rd if that happens. Or if we get Olsen we don’t draft Carlson last year. There is just no way to know what the ripple effect would be if you reversed history. I’m pretty happy with the young players we’ve brought in over the last few years, so if I could go back in time and mess with it by undoing the Branch trade, I wouldn’t risk it.
by Mind of no mind on Jul 7, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea if a butterfly flaps its wings in central park.........
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Jul 8, 2009 5:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Staley would have been a better option, indeed
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 8, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Staley gave up 2 sacks to Lawrence Jackson, the only 2 he had all season.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a bit unfair to cherry pick the 'good picks'.
We could just as easily have drafted Bob Meachem, Craig Davis, Kevin Kolb, etc.
If you look at a list of players you could’ve drafted, almost every draft pick is a failure. There is almost always a better player taken later in the draft.
by LantermanC on Jul 8, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're absloutely right, those were cherry-picked players, however...
After reviewing those picks from the 2007 Draft, from picks 24 through 54, those were the only players I though Tim Ruskell would have been most likely to select; college players with good reputations even before they were drafted, who playd at successful, big-time programs like USC and Ohio State, as well as positions of need for us in 2007 (WR, DE & DT). Some of the guys I mentioned, like Dwayne Jarrett and Anthony Spencer, really haven’t done that much in the NFL.
I don’t have an agenda; I don’t think trading from Branch was a bad idea, especially when you only consider the facts that were present in September of 2006. I was just going for a “If we kept the 24th pick, who would we have picked?” angle. Based on who was available and what we know of Ruskell, I think those would have been the most likely selections, that’s all.e
by J.L. White on Jul 8, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose, but it's tough to say who Ruskell would have drafted.
I didn’t think he’d draft Spencer, Jennings, or Lawrence Jackson.
by LantermanC on Jul 8, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless he traded out of the 1st
and grabbed a Lofa, a Hill, a JC or a Mebane.
by ninjasocks on Jul 9, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't have any problem with this trade.
Just look at what Dallas gave up for Roy Williams, and compare what he’s done in his career to Branch. Their Career stats are not that far appart when you look at the time they were traded (both entering their 5th year at the time of the trade), and what little Branch lacked in regular season success, he more than made up for in postseason success.
I’d say we got better value in our trade than Dallas did, they had to give up a higher first, as well as a 3rd (if we had given a 3rd, that would have been the pick we used on Mebane).
While it hasn’t worked out the way I expected, I like what I see in Branch when he’s healthy, and he’s still young enough that he could still put together a couple good years for us.
by Mind of no mind on Jul 7, 2009 9:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Williams is the ONLY WR trade, off the top of my head, I see as worse than the Branch one.
Though Williams was a much, much more valued commodity at that point than Branch was, or so it seemed. Maybe much of that was due to his draft position.
by djafrot on Jul 7, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i concur with this statement
Branch had the benefit of playing with a montana-like QB (accuracy wise). The patriots ran the closest thing to a spread offense back then, and frankly if he were that good the Patty’s would have wanted more in return. I think the Seagirls were suckered, however he could have his best season as a girl, if healthy, with the acuisition of housh!
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 8, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your team drafted Alex Smith, Vernon Davis, Kentwan Balmer, and Joe Staley.
Your own front office is ‘suckering’ the 49ers into the ground.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whats wrong with Balmer or Staley?
What’s so great about Kelly Jennings or Chris Spencer?
by Mullester on Jul 9, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember when all this injury stuff started.
it was a 10 am start in sunny Pittsburgh. Man I hate Ike Taylor.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Jul 8, 2009 5:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A 5 year contract is a long term investment
and that should be judged in its entirety, not after a year or two. Good analysis, John, in that you encourage some perspective on what trade-offs Ruskell had to consider. Critics of the trade “assume Seattle [could have] filled Branch’s position some other way and that other way was much cheaper. And that might be stretch.” I would agree.
Also, I think this trade got more than its fair share of scrutiny since it followed the Super Bowl loss and began to be assessed during the first seasons Post-Hutchinson, with Alexander hobbled, and the offense falling apart. It became easy to gripe about the Branch trade, along with everything else.
On balance, what Ruskell did is avoid the risk of spending a high draft pick on a WR while he moved a declining DJack off the team and replaced him with a proven contributor with five good years left. I think that’s good work for a GM.
by Stevo's on Jul 8, 2009 8:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought Branch didn't play until week 3 due to a contract holdout.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wait nevermind.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
