Who would you rather have? Porter or Branch?

[packers11]

Lets say we could come to an agreement with both teams.. Which one would you rather have?? I know we will not get the option but I am just curious....

Porter - 6`2 220
Branch - 5`9 193

At 5`9 I would consider branch a small reciver and watching him very often (living in NE) I would say he is good for short passes and thats about it.. He is no Javon leaping walker but he does have JETS to make up for lost height....
Porter on the other hand is a bigger reciever with slower speed but he can make some leaping catches, I think he would fit well in the WCO and Favre would have a blast with him...

Thoughts?? (dont flame, i'm just a curious person)

[BallHawk]

Porter on potential. Branch on production.

[retailguy]

Porter hands down.

TT will never agree on compensation though. Either scenario is pie in the sky.

I like Porter's intangibles better, his size allows Favre the flexibility he had with Walker. We already have our Branch, his name is Donald...

[digitaldean]

Porter, but not by much.

Both have produced but lately Branch has been at a higher level.

Porter's size is what GB needs though.

[red]

wheres the neither option?

[retailguy]

wheres the neither option?

C'mon Red, he said don't flame him..... Just pick one, it'll be fun...

[retailguy]

double post, sorry...

[red]

well i don't want either one, but if i had to pick it would be porter

he's bigger

we just cut a pretty damn good wr that was aroung 5'9 because we said he was too small, even though he did everything we asked of him

[retailguy]

we just cut a pretty damn good wr that was aroung 5'9 because we said he was too small, even though he did everything we asked of him

I was saying this the other day in another thread, and you'd think I told Harvey that chatman was HOF bound....

While I'm stunned we agree, , it is nice to know I'm not the only one that Harvey thinks is crazy.

I think Jennings will easily surpass or equal Porter in 2007 and I'm willing to wait, I agree we won't be getting either one, the price is just too high....

[]{ilr]3]

I dont want either of them as well. But since you want me to pick I am thinking Porter would be the better choice. Based on the assumtion That I think the Raiders run a west coast offense like ours and he would be more of a plug in than Branch would be.

[OS PA]

I'd offer Ferguson and a 4th to NE for Branch, and go into the season with a WR core that looks like this

1. Driver
2. Branch
3. Jennings
4. Gardner
5. Martin

Driver is our leaper, Branch is our burner, and Jennings is for slot first downs.
Gardner and Martin are both big targets for the endzone.

If those were our starting three opposing defenses would have to double up on coverage, the shiftyness of all three would allow Favre to pick apart zone offenses and all three have the strength to break a man to man coverage. With that many threats on the field our running option would open up even further. The best thing that can happen to our O-Line other than getting a QUALITY veteran at guard is to have our passing attack to be feared by the D.

Throw in our Tight-Ends and we've got ourselves an offense.

[Tarlam!]

Branch plays for the Pack?

Shucks.

[Homer Jay]

I believe if you offered Ferguson and a 4th for Branch, first NE would laugh, and then they woud hang up.

I'd be surprised if either of these guys end up on different teams.

[MadtownPacker]

Branch cuz he has shown he can hang on to the ball in the cold (supermodel brady should be thankful).

[Bretsky]

Porter, but not by much