The importance of extending Gaffney and Caldwell - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

***cstjohn17*** · 02-04-2007, 10:10 PM

Objective as usual. Rhetorical question: Has there ever been a situation that the Patriots FO misjudged a situation or could have done a better job?

I wasn't analyzing the moves from a cap or personnel standpoint, the original question was that the FO would consult with Brady (or any other player) when making roster decisions. My response was that the FO does not factor player "feelings" when making moves. And based on the roster turnover each year continuity is not a especially important. Of the players from the 2004 Superbowl 53 man roster, 22 are no longer on the team.
http://slam.canoe.ca/StatsFBP/BC-FBP...LANDROS-R.html

A lot can happen between now and 2008, at least 1, maybe 2 new WRs will be brought into the mix this year. It is way too earlier to assume that Jerry Rice Caldwell or Terry Holt Gaffney are the long term answer. Both guys played well in 2006 but are hardly irreplaceable and this is far from a priority off-season move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

6) If this season proved ANYTHING, its that there needs to be some continuity at the receiver position. A wholesale changeover like what happened this year can't happen again after the 2008 season. If it does, then the Pats are in for a world of hurt.

***jczxohn1*** · 02-04-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BionicPatriot

Well, the FO isn't the one throwing the ball, is it? At some point, Brady has to go to the FO and say he needs some continuity on the offensive side of the ball. Thse guys has their chances, this should be their home. Extending them will be very cheap. They know this is the only system they have succeeded in. Lock them up, hope Jackson emerges, bring a solid addition to our WR core and our troubles on the offensive side of the ball are gone. That's assuming Daniels continues to improve as a coach as well.

Agree for the most part. Brady does need the contnuity of having these guys around again, they both improved dramatically by the end of the year. Would like to see Caldwell get over his drops at times of stress before we marry him, tho. CJ has a lot of promise and BB has voiced confidence in him. I'm a little leery of how effective Troy would be if he does come back. Would like to see a FA slot rec. Welker would be ideal, IMO. Brandon Stokely, a long shot coming off an IR year, could be a cap casualty. Also, Mills may show some ability in that role. May pick up a sleeper in the draft as well. Really don't see us having more than 2 wides on the field all that much. Watson and Thomas should see plenty of opportunities, whether Grahm stays or not.

***nescott*** · 02-04-2007, 11:20 PM

I hope both are resigned and we go get a free agent we should be in great shape.

***mgteich*** · 02-04-2007, 11:36 PM

Why is it so important for the patriots to have continuity at the reeiver position to have an effective offense? I would suggest that you consider one of the best offenses of 2006, the New Orleans Saints. What continuity did they have? I submit that it is not continuity that is needed, simply better receivers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBruinz

This shows you haven't followed this team worth a damn. Particularly mentioning Milloy and Vinatieri.

1) ALL of the players mentioned could have stayed with the Patriots. They were offered VERY lucrative deals.

2) Since you need to be reminded, the Pats were hit with a TON of injuries prior to the end of Training camp in 2003. Because of all the players on IR, the Pats were roughly 2 million OVER the cap. The only player who hadn't redone their contract and the Pats felt they had enough depth at the position was Milloy and his 5+ million cap hit. It was a business move.

3) Vinatieri - liar said he wanted to come back but then refused to even give the Pats a chance to match an offer. Therefore, he doesn't know where the Pats would have been with their counter.

4) Willie McGinest - The Pats offered to restructure his deal to keep him in a Pats uniform for the rest of his career. Rumor has it that WIllie KNEW he was going to be cut and his agent had already orchestrated a deal with the Browns.

5) Branch and Givens - Branch felt he deserved to be treated better than Brady and Seymour. Givens wanted the chance to be a #1. Branch lied to everyone and said he'd play out his contract. The Pats drafted Jackson and signed Caldwel, figuring that Branch was a man of his word. You keep blaming the Pats for that, but its just frigging absurd that you blame the Pats because of your acknowledged ignorance of the situation.

6) If this season proved ANYTHING, its that there needs to be some continuity at the receiver position. A wholesale changeover like what happened this year can't happen again after the 2008 season. If it does, then the Pats are in for a world of hurt.

***jczxohn1*** · 02-04-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

Why is it so important for the patriots to have continuity at the reeiver position to have an effective offense? I would suggest that you consider one of the best offenses of 2006, the New Orleans Saints. What continuity did they have? I submit that it is not continuity that is needed, simply better receivers.

Bad example. They also had a new QB and coach.

***BelichickFan*** · 02-04-2007, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

I submit that it is not continuity that is needed, simply better receivers.

People here have become amazingly content with total mediocrity at WR.

I expect a first day WR to combine with Jackson to give us some upside for 2007 and also potential starters for 2008. Caldwell and Gaffney are OK but there's a reason teams attack our run game like they don't give a crap about our WR - it's because they don't. Best case, Jackson develops and starts with Caldwell bumping Gaffney to #3 with Brown and a first day rookie at 4 & 5.

unoriginal · 02-05-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

People here have become amazingly content with total mediocrity at WR.

I expect a first day WR to combine with Jackson to give us some upside for 2007 and also potential starters for 2008. Caldwell and Gaffney are OK but there's a reason teams attack our run game like they don't give a crap about our WR - it's because they don't. Best case, Jackson develops and starts with Caldwell bumping Gaffney to #3 with Brown and a first day rookie at 4 & 5.

Mediocrity? Phil Simms quoted Belichick before the Jets playoff game as saying the passing game was looking as good as it had ever looked.

Then we came out and, in three very well played playoff games, our passing offense looked pretty damn good. Especially Gaffney.

Obviously with the cap space and upcoming draft there are lots of options on the table for us. However, I feel two of the best options are to extend the contracts of Gaffney and Caldwell (presumably on the cheap). The hit/miss rate on highly rated wide receivers is 50% - it gets worse as you go deeper in the draft, and you have to wait a couple years for the good ones to pan out anyway. Veteran wide receivers also have a hit/miss ratio of 50% on this team, as for every Gaffney there is a Gabriel, and for every Caldwell there is Hayes. There aren't many wide receivers out there that out-talent Caldwell and Gaffney, and who knows if they'd pick up the offense.

So I look for the Pats to extend one, if not both. of these receivers. From there they hope Jackson develops, ask Troy Brown to return as the #4, and maybe take a mid-round guy to be #5, if they're high on him. They can always "red-shirt" him if they find another veteran they like (Jonathan Smith? Kevin Johnson? Bam or Kight?), plus put another low-round guy on the practice squad (and Bam is still PS eligible). I think having two rookies, plus red-shirt rookie Chad Jackson, at the position is stretching the position thin next year.

Of course, it may be that neither Caldwell nor Gaffney want to be extended, and instead use their newfound glory as de facto starters in the Pats offense as the springboard to their BIG SECOND (or third and fourth, respectively) CONTRACT. It may well turn out that the Pats will have to prepare for massive receiver turnover again next year, and will grab the high rookie WR this year to compensate, but I don't think the Pats will let that happen willingly. They'll try to lock up their wide receivers this offseason.