supafly

I think we would've loved to have kept Gaffney, we simply couldn't match the price that DEN put on him. IIRC, we had him for 1.1, while DEN offered him 2.5, more than double what he was signed to last yr.

I do agree with your assessment on Gaffney being a decent #3, it sometimes seems as though Tom simply tries to buy time until WW gets open, which luckily for us is quite often. Moss is always doubled, and we are relying on TE's and slot receivers. I would agree with the posters who may think we could use another 'true' receiver--someone who is going to run past the 10-15 yard mark, and not run underneath routes.

In hindsight, I believe most of us were sad to see Gaff go, though we expected a pretty easy replacement. That has not come yet, and I respectfully think it is going to be an important piece of the puzzle down the stretch. I know our offense had tremendous potential, but as of right now, there are many offenses running a lot tighter right now. Indy, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Atlanta, NY Giants, Philly, maybe even Denver, Baltimore, Cincinnati--although a couple of those could be a stretch.

The point is, the key variable they all have is the ability to go through many options, and that is something that we do not have right now it seems. Look at all of Big Ben's reads for example--Holmes, Ward, Heath Miller, hell, even Mike Wallace caught a 50 yd TD yesterday. Their offense looks pretty good so far, Roethlisburger has almost a 75% completion rate. They look powerful. Look at Indy, many options, etc, they look great on offense. IMO, we are not the elite offense that we were in the past. The more reads the closer our offense comes to looking explosive, something they haven't really done since the Philly game in the pre-season. I really think we need another WR, to open things up, unless we're going to use an average running game and a bunch of underneath routes all season. Especially now with Light going down, there may not be as much time to wait for Welker to get open.

supafly

IIRC, Galloway is right on pace for what we paid Gaffney last yr. I think around 1.1--1.5, somewhere right in that range.

jbb9s

The year before, Reche Caldwell and the dreaded former Oakland dude and 50 year old Troy Brown definitely didn't do Gaffney any favors but I liked Gaffney back then too. Look to who Brady was looking for in that 07 playoff run (06 season).

bbell31

no glad he is gone..we have missed many opportunities to score, but brady has missed alot of throws he usually would make

convertedpatsfan

According to Miguel's cap page, $1.15 mill plus $600K signing bonus, for $1.75 mill, so more than what we paid Gaffney last year, but less than what the Broncos paid this year.

The key though is it's a one-year deal. Gaffney got 4 years. Honestly, I wouldn't have objected to keeping him. But I can understand why they didn't want to spend the money.

MattyCMSB

He was a good third receiver, but his drop against the Colts last year turned out to be a very costly one for this franchise. He had more than his fair share of Hart Lee Dykes moments last season, and I thought Denver signed him to a fairly ridiculous contract. He knows the offense, but I doubt he makes it to year 3 of that contract.

__________________
Ranting 24/7 on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

mgteich

I keep on hearing how crucial Gaffney was and we how large a mistake we made by cutting him. Surely he was worth more than the paltry $2.5M a year ($3M a year) offered by DEN. We needed to bid more aggresively. Perhaps $3M a year might have gotten him to stay for four years! I would ahve been fine with Belichick's keeping Gaffney even at that price, but I certainly can understand if Belichick thought that Gaffney wasn't worth the money.

Who's kidding who? Belichick brought in Galloway and Lewis and Tate and Edelman. Edelman beat out Lewis for a roster spot and now has 15 catches. That projects to 48 for the year, and we expect the use of Edelman to increase. But even if it doesn't, didn't Gaffney catch 44 balls last year? As far as 2008 production, Edelman is already matching Gaffney, and the ROOKIE will improve, at about $2.5M a year less than Gaffney.

Galloway is still here and will probably be replaced by Tate. Between Edelman and Tate, I suspect that Gaffney's and Washington's 2008 production will be matched.

BOTTOM LINE - I don't see the loss of production going from Gaffney and Washington to Edeleman and Tate. And, of course, I see a much higher upside at a lower price.
Belichick's plan was Galloway and Lewis. It could still be Galloway and Edelman. In any case, I don't see the problem with the #3 receiver position. Watson is stretching the field and catching touchdowns.

patsfan-1982

samuel a corner that get's turn over's would have helped the last two yer's

not tradeing seymour and have him and wilfork eat up half of the O line so TBC can just go free to the QB would have helped

but come on Gaffney dose he relly make the pats a 5-0 team right now

why dont we bring back Reche Caldwell cause he's one season with the pats was better then any year Gaffney ever had

the problem is not a #3 WR

its brady not hiting the open man

its the D not geting to the QB and not geting INT

unoriginal

I'm on board with this train of thought.

The passing game's problems right now are mostly that of the QB's severe rust.

ausbacker

I'm hoping Tate comes along in leaps and bounds and creates that dynamic number 3 we need.