Andre Branch

What a terrible deal that was

Ok guys, I have learned my lesson… If I want to have a discussion, I need to use less words and use less provocative words. I don’t understand why people would blast me for a “wall of text”, but I’m a big boy and can adjust.

Anyway, another issue I wanted to get into was the constant hate I see for the Andre Branch deal. It almost feels like unanimous dislike for it, even amongst us fans, but I think that is misguided for these reasons:

0) Before we even start, while the deal was reported as 3yr/$27M deal, it was actually a 3yr/$24M deal with incentives. If he meets those incentives, I assure you no one will be mad that he makes that extra ~$3M. So let’s all get on the same page and start from there…

1. First off, people just need to understand that pass rushers (like QBs, LTs, & CBs) are just high-value players, because its harder to find those guys (simple supply & demand) and they are important to the on-field success of the team in today’s pass-happy NFL. Realistically, ~$7M was probably his salary floor, as I don’t envision other teams offering less than that for a 27-year-old guy (starting his “prime”), playing a value position, and with his arrow trending up. For comparison, he got a similar deal to Jabaal Sheard, who is a similar age and has averaged 6.5 sacks the last 2 years. Another comparison – he’s making ½ of what OV is making per year. In that light, he’s a bargain, imo. Yes, I know we could have signed a primo OG for that money, but OGs will never single-handedly win you a football game (Not that Branch will, but a DE in general can, hence why they make more $).

2. Listen to how his teammates and coaches talk about him... they genuinely seem to love the guy! The coaches talk about him being a leader on and off the field and his importance to the “team chemistry”. Could they have found another guy and paid him ~$2-3M less? Possibly. But would that guy have been the team leader and locker-room presence they know they’d get from Andre Branch? They certainly wouldn’t be getting a guy that they already know how he fits in the locker room. Quite frankly, that’s worth a premium, especially when you are a first-year regime trying to establish “your culture”.

3. I’ve also seen many folks make the mistake of saying ‘Well, we got Hayes and Harris now, so we’re overpaying for a guy we didn’t need’. But we re-signed Branch before we made those other acquisitions, so that’s not proper hindsight. What if we didn’t re-sign Branch, then the Hayes deal didn’t come through? That would have left the team reaching for either another FA (which again, we don’t know how he would fit & there weren’t many great options in FA anyway [see Sheard deal again]) or another DE in the draft (which who knows how much they could contribute in this year). With 20/20 hindsight, I think the Branch deal actually helped set us up to have the successful draft that we did, by allowing the team to be flexible position-wise.

Now I’m also not saying it was the best deal in the world either, just that it wasn’t a terrible one. But please, tell me why I’m wrong... or right!

Tl; dr – The Branch deal (3yr/$24M) wasn’t terrible because 1) DEs are expensive, 2) Branch is already a fit for the team, and 3) It gave us the flexibility to make other moves in the offseason. What say you?