highly doubt he will be cut... if that was even a  possibility, why would we have not tryed to deal him out for some picks? he's a young second round pick and his arrow is pointing up, we could have probably gotten a 3rd or a 4th for him easy....cutting him makes no since to me.

 

Exactly. If the Jags simply "cut" Branch, they would be [BLEEP]. He would be traded, I'd think. But I don't see any trade happening unless it is the already discussed Dion Jordan for Branch deal that is probably a remote chance of happening anyway. 

---

almost all of his sacks were him running free with no blockers, don't think he's gonna get so lucky 10 times

---

almost all of his sacks were him running free with no blockers, don't think he's gonna get so lucky 10 times

you can say that about almost anyone... few guys truly smoke a guy for every one of their sacks.

---

you can say that about almost anyone... few guys truly smoke a guy for every one of their sacks.

 

This ^^^. Lots of pass rushers get the kind of sacks Branch got last year. I mean, shoot.....does anyone care "how" pass rushers get them?? If you can get home to the QB thats the important thing. 

---

I'm really interested why people think it matters how well he does on beating his man 1 on 1. You don't get as many sacks as he did without agility and speed to rush the passer which is talent. So what if he doesn't get them the conventional way? A sack is a sack.

---

I'm really interested why people think it matters how well he does on beating his man 1 on 1. You don't get as many sacks as he did without agility and speed to rush the passer which is talent. So what if he doesn't get them the conventional way? A sack is a sack.

 

Apparently there are style points awarded for doing it a certain way.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

It's not about style points it's about being consistent. A DL is good when he beats his opponent consistently, not when a coach must manufacture sacks for him (and create obvious weak points in the defense) because he's a non factor when an OL touches him. It's not surprising that he has so few pressures, I don't expect him to sustain his sacks total.

---

If we only keep 3 LEOs i wouldnt be surprised if he got cut. Look at a stat sheet all you want, his sacks came from being unblocked not beating his man.

He beat Duane Brown 1-on-1 for a sack

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Schemes only work if your players can execute said schemes. 

 

Some people need to get this through their brains.

---

It's not about style points it's about being consistent. A DL is good when he beats his opponent consistently, not when a coach must manufacture sacks for him (and create obvious weak points in the defense) because he's a non factor when an OL touches him. It's not surprising that he has so few pressures, I don't expect him to sustain his sacks total.

Is a manufactured sack less valuable?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Is a manufactured sack less valuable?

For the team? It's just fine, but to give Andre Branch credit for it, is ridiculous. You telling me our 3rd stringer couldn't run freely to the QB? I think he could. 

---

Schemes only work if your players can execute said schemes. 

 

Some people need to get this through their brains.

Or until Offensive Coordinators and OL coaches get the trick and shut it down. Gimmick stunts are good and fancy and Branch has the athleticism to pull them of. Bradley used what Branch can do well, but I don't think it is sustainable.

---

ugh.....some of our fans....

---

Or until Offensive Coordinators and OL coaches get the trick and shut it down. Gimmick stunts are good and fancy and Branch has the athleticism to pull them of. Bradley used what Branch can do well, but I don't think it is sustainable.

 

Once you have coaches game planning to stop an area of your defense, that's when you know that area is effective.

 

Not only that, it leaves openings in other areas.

---

Is a manufactured sack less valuable?

 

It is for the player who got the sack.   A manufactured one can be accomplished by a significantly higher number of players than one where the player created it on their own.  If more people can do it, you become easier to replace.  Thats a scary proposition in a profession with high turnover rate.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

Once you have coaches game planning to stop an area of your defense, that's when you know that area is effective.

 

Not only that, it leaves openings in other areas.

Like the defenses who adapted to the wildcat ? When you know a stunt is coming, you don't expose yourself trying to blocking it.

---

For the team? It's just fine, but to give Andre Branch credit for it, is ridiculous. You telling me our 3rd stringer couldn't run freely to the QB? I think he could. 

 

He still has to go out there and actually make the play, right?  I mean, the scheme isn't making the sack.  It's still coming down to the player executing it correctly, yes?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The scheme helps, because it plays to Branch's strengths. But Branch also executes. Not sure why it matters if he's aided by the scheme as long as the QB hits the ground.


Schemes dont work if you don't have the talent to execute.

---

It is for the player who got the sack. A manufactured one can be accomplished by a significantly higher number of players than one where the player created it on their own. If more people can do it, you become easier to replace. Thats a scary proposition in a profession with high turnover rate.

This sounds like a rationalization to justify an opinion. If a player makes a play or collects a stat, then it's probably easier to just say "well the *team* allowed him to make that play" rather than entertain the prospect that your opinion might need to be re-evaluated.

---

I'm condescending. That means I talk down to you.

This sounds like a rationalization to justify an opinion. If a player makes a play or collects a stat, then it's probably easier to just say "well the *team* allowed him to make that play" rather than entertain the prospect that your opinion might need to be re-evaluated.

 

Seriously.  Isn't a game plan a scheme to set players up to make plays? Should we abandon game plans to avoid padding stats too?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.