Alan Branch - Page 2

Darkside · May 3rd, 2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardpa

It seems that once you get in Whiz's doghouse it's almost impossible to get out of it. I remember when James ended up there for half a season. Then in the playoffs he was so instrumental in running the ball because THT could not get it done.

I just wanted to comment on this portion of your post. Totally agree. I think that's Whisenhunt's major flaw. Once you're in the doghouse you're done on this team, I think that's been proven time and again. Nothing you can do, no matter how hard you work, absolutely nothing, will get you out of it. You're done at that point. It's like once he makes up his mind, he just sections you off into a part of his mind that is like, he's a total waste of time to even contemplate. I totally agree with that assessment, and as I said I think that's his one major flaw. He has other flaws, don't get me wrong, but that's a glaring one. There's no chance to redeem yourself.

As a side note, Beanie is a smart man, because I think he was on the edge of that, but last year he played hurt and played in pain and Whisenhunt was glowing about him afterwards. But I really had the feeling that if Beanie hadn't sacrificed everything he had Whis would have been done with him.

Dayman · May 3rd, 2012, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshmo

You don't have to question it. Branch went from a 3-4 defense to a 4-3 defense. Him uping his game could be as simple as that.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Branch wasn't a fit for this scheme. He's an incredibly talented 325 lb player, so I understand what Whis was thinking. But his skills are much better suited for a four-man line. I'm not surprised he's doing well in Seattle. I just wish we didn't pass on Lamar Woodley to get him.

RugbyMuffin · May 4th, 2012, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayman

I think this pretty much sums it up. Branch wasn't a fit for this scheme. He's an incredibly talented 325 lb player, so I understand what Whis was thinking. But his skills are much better suited for a four-man line.

He can't be that talented if he can only play one position, and one type of scheme.

You are correct on one thing, the Cardinals totally whiffed on picking Branch, and trading up for him no-less. There must have been a reason so many teams passed him in the draft, and IMO, he is showing why every season. Branch knows what's best, even if what he thinks costs him millions in pay, and production.

Crazy Canuck · May 4th, 2012, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assface

Branch was a penetrating type of DL in college and expecting him to become a NT who occupies several linemen just because of his size is stupid. You draft the player that they are, not the player you want them to be.

Precisely.

LarryStalling · May 4th, 2012, 07:28 AM

Never could figure out how trying to fit a square peg into a round hole could work, but the Card staff sure has a strong tendency to do just that. This draft hopefully will be a departure from that problem.

RugbyMuffin · May 4th, 2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryStalling

Never could figure out how trying to fit a square peg into a round hole could work, but the Card staff sure has a strong tendency to do just that. This draft hopefully will be a departure from that problem.

Agreed.

This draft they drafted versatile players, that can play where you need them. Thank goodness for it.

JeffGollin · May 6th, 2012, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryStalling

Never could figure out how trying to fit a square peg into a round hole could work, but the Card staff sure has a strong tendency to do just that. This draft hopefully will be a departure from that problem.

Didn't Branch get drafted while Pendergast was still our DC?

In the early days of the Wiz-era, our defense was in the very beginnings of transition from Dennis Green's 4-3 (NT/UT) defensive scheme to what would eventually be a Pittsburgh-style 34.

That transition typically does not magically occur at the push of a button because the two approaches require different prototypical players.

As I recall it, Pendergast eased us into a hybrid defensive employing both 4-3 and 3-4 fronts depending on the situation. (You could see brief flashes of dazzling plays being made, but equally as often, a defensive player would take a risk and get caught with his pants down).

Branch apparently did not fit the new scheme (He was originally drafted to become a NT in an eventual 3-4, but it turned out he was more effective playing defensive end in a 3-4 and apparently, he's even better-suited to play inside in a 4-3).

With the addition of more and more defensive players suited to the scheme, our defense continued to gradually morph each year into a more traditional (LeBeau-style) 3-4, but it wasn't until Horton arrived on the scene that the conversion was close to being fully implemented (We're still a couple of Woodley/Harrison-type OLB's away from fully fitting Horton's Pittsburgh model). But even so, our defense is operating at a higher level now than it has in recent history.

Crazy Canuck · May 6th, 2012, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffGollin

Didn't Branch get drafted while Pendergast was still our DC?

In the early days of the Wiz-era, our defense was in the very beginnings of transition from Dennis Green's 4-3 (NT/UT) defensive scheme to what would eventually be a Pittsburgh-style 34.

That transition typically does not magically occur at the push of a button because the two approaches require different prototypical players.

As I recall it, Pendergast eased us into a hybrid defensive employing both 4-3 and 3-4 fronts depending on the situation. (You could see brief flashes of dazzling plays being made, but equally as often, a defensive player would take a risk and get caught with his pants down).

Branch apparently did not fit the new scheme (He was originally drafted to become a NT in an eventual 3-4, but it turned out he was more effective playing defensive end in a 3-4 and apparently, he's even better-suited to play inside in a 4-3).

With the addition of more and more defensive players suited to the scheme, our defense continued to gradually morph each year into a more traditional (LeBeau-style) 3-4, but it wasn't until Horton arrived on the scene that the conversion was close to being fully implemented (We're still a couple of Woodley/Harrison-type OLB's away from fully fitting Horton's Pittsburgh model). But even so, our defense is operating at a higher level now than it has in recent history.

I think this often repeated point ignores the type and quality of our D-ends. At no point, to my recollection, did LeBeau have the talents of a DD and CC at his disposal. Horton has adjusted his scheme given this fact.

Duckjake · May 6th, 2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

That transition typically does not magically occur at the push of a button because the two approaches require different prototypical players.

Whisenhunt even said that they wanted to go to the 3-4 in 2008 but didn't have the proper personnel. Found that in a couple of articles researching Karlos Dansby's production when people were claiming he played ILB in a 3-4 in 2008.

Heck of a player, Dansby, first 5 years in the NFL he had 24.5 sacks, 9 interceptions, and 10 Forced Fumbles. And of course we all saw what he did vs Green Bay in the '09 playoffs. You'd be hard pressed to find many NFL LBs over the last 10 years who had those kind of number across the board. Oddly enough one LB who had similar type numbers was Joey Porter. 35.5 sacks 5 INTs and 10 FFs his first 5 seasons.

Glad we got to watch Karlos play for 6 seasons.