Caldwell or Gaffney - Who would you rather have? - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

***pats1*** · 05-31-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

I agree let's look at their entire track record:

Code:

               +--------------------------+-------------------------+
                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 2002 hou |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    41    483  11.8    1 |
| 2003 hou |  16 |     1     13   13.0    0 |    34    402  11.8    2 |
| 2004 hou |  16 |     4     30    7.5    0 |    41    632  15.4    2 |
| 2005 hou |  16 |     4     13    3.2    0 |    55    492   8.9    2 |
| 2006 nwe |  10 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    11    142  12.9    1 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   |  74 |     9     56    6.2    0 |   182   2151  11.8    8 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Code:

          +--------------------------+-------------------------+
                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 2002 sdg |  14 |     2      9    4.5    0 |    22    208   9.5    3 |
| 2003 sdg |   9 |     5     39    7.8    0 |     8     80  10.0    0 |
| 2004 sdg |   6 |     4     45   11.2    0 |    18    310  17.2    3 |
| 2005 sdg |  16 |     2     10    5.0    0 |    28    352  12.6    1 |
| 2006 nwe |  16 |     1      5    5.0    0 |    61    760  12.5    4 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
|  TOTAL   |  61 |    14    108    7.7    0 |   137   1710  12.5   11 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

So Gaffney has had the most "impressive" body of work.

Bear in mind, Gaffney was having to play on one of the worst teams in the league with no offensive threats, whereas Caldwell was on a team with Brees, Tomlinson, and Gates.

Huh? The only year that Chargers team made the playoffs was in 2004, when Caldwell tore his ACL.

FYI, they had the #1 pick in 2004, after their disastrous 2003 season. They drafted Manning, er, Rivers. Brees didn't become what he was until the 2004 season. In 2005, Caldwell found himself caught in the meat of the Chargers' WR depth chart after returning from his injury, so he didn't exactly have access to the new Brees.

If anything, having LT around would take away touches from the WRs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

Had Gaffney been signed earlier in the year, I have ZERO doubt he would at a minimum have replicated Caldwell's stats.

That's your opinion and I respect that. But it's downright strange.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

And yes, I'm basing my Gaffney over Caldwell almost entirely on Caldwell choking horribly.

That's good to know. It makes someone look worse, and it certainly isn't me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

IMO, both are a wash, they are JAG WRs who bring nothing special to the table. To that end, give me the guy who has not yet proven to choke.

I certainly haven't heard of too many 61-catch JAG WRs in the NFL.

And if you're looking for that "special" flair, perhaps the Colts are a good match for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

And DaBruinz, you and I both know no matter what the Pats do on offense, between Moss, Stallworth, Welker and Watson, the #4 WR is not going to put up any kind of numbers.

I don't think the Patriots' philosophy of spreading the ball around has changed because the acquisition of a player or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

Even on the most pass happy teams in the league, you will be hard-pressed to find a WR4 with more than 25-30 catches.

Just spot checking the top 3 passing teams of last year (Colts, Saints, Eagles) here are their WR4 #s:

Colts - Moorhead/Stokely (8) -- This is actually skewed bc Stokely got hurt. Wilkins was the #4 most of the year and had ZERO catches

Saints - Copper (23)

Eagles - Baskett (22)

I think we'd all agree NE is more likely to look like NO or PHI. So even if NE is in the top 3 in passing yards, the WR4 is looking at 20-25 catches. Again, marginal, and I'll take the guy who hasn't choked.

I don't think any of us are expecting the #4 WR to put up big numbers.

But I'd prefer to have that #4 WR be someone who has been consistently solid, not someone who was AWOL most of the season before showing up for a big game or two.

***pats1*** · 05-31-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

I don't know. I'm actually kind of confused as to why we are now arguing about Wiggins.

Don't back away, now.

The point was loud and clear.

***pats1*** · 05-31-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seymour93

Do you not see the problem here? If it was a half decent comparison then Gaffney would have had to have left the Pats during this offseason and subsequently gone to a mediocre team with a 38 year old starting QB. Obviously the Pats value Gaffney differently than how they evaluated Wiggins's services some five years ago.

It's been awhile since I've seen someone miss the point of a comparison like you have this evening.

A question for you:

Did the Patriots, following the 2001 season, feel that Wiggins 2002 performance would be worth keeping him around on minimum salary for based on his 2001 playoff performance?

tombonneau · 05-31-2007, 07:10 PM

Well, at this point, we'll just have to waaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttt and see what happens.

I just pray that after a big game mid-season I'm not going to have to make an I-told-you-so post about Caldwell.

tombonneau · 05-31-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

Don't back away, now.

The point was loud and clear.

No, I honestly have no idea what Wiggins has to do with it. He had a decent game in the Snow Bowl due to inclement conditions. That's hardly the same as a WR who caught on mid-season hitting his stride in prime time and having a huge playoff run.

If you honestly feel comfortable with Brady throwing to Caldwell in the clutch after that abortion of a game in Indy, be my guest.

Fool me once ......

***pats1*** · 05-31-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tombonneau

Well, at this point, we'll just have to waaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttt and see what happens.

I just pray that after a big game mid-season I'm not going to have to make an I-told-you-so post about Caldwell.

If any part of your outrageous extrapolation from Caldwell's dropped pass comes true, I'll be astounded.

***BelichickFan*** · 05-31-2007, 07:13 PM

Caldwell for me despite his chock job in the AFCCG. He was more consistently productive, admittedly with the advantage of being signed months earlier. I don't want either of them starting and, barring injury, that shouldn't be the case.

tombonneau · 05-31-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

I don't think the Patriots' philosophy of spreading the ball around has changed because the acquisition of a player or two.

But I'd prefer to have that #4 WR be someone who has been consistently solid, not someone who was AWOL most of the season before showing up for a big game or two.

It's more like 3-4, but regardless, the Pats #4 WR only had 13 catches last year. 19 in 2005. 17 in 2004. So that's with spreading the ball around.

So again, WR4 will have marginal statistical impact, thus consistancy is irrelevent.

Besides, Gaffney was able to product consistantly in Houston. I would hardly call having to learn the offense in Week 8 and catch up being AWOL. It's not like he signed with the team in June.

Patriotic Fervor · 05-31-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

I don't think the Patriots' philosophy of spreading the ball around has changed because the acquisition of a player or two.

I don't think any of us are expecting the #4 WR to put up big numbers.

But I'd prefer to have that #4 WR be someone who has been consistently solid, not someone who was AWOL most of the season before showing up for a big game or two.

In the past, the Pats' philosophy of spreading the ball around was largely a consequence of necessity. They didn't have much in the way of true game breakers, so the offense was designed to spread the largess, spread the risk, so as to keep opposing defenses from keying one one or two players, and whoever they might have been in the lineup, they were most assuredly mortal.

This year's WR corps promises to be different, giving Brady weapons he has never had before. The name of the game will be exploitation. When you've got the horses, you ride them.

I have no idea, really, whether Caldwell or Gaffney stays, or if indeed either one does, but one thing is readily obvious - this season will feature a new and improved high octane game plan. When you have a Lamborghini ready to go, you don't want to pick up your date in a Volkswagen Rabbit.

Seymour93 · 05-31-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

It's been awhile since I've seen someone miss the point of a comparison like you have this evening.

A question for you:

Did the Patriots, following the 2001 season, feel that Wiggins 2002 performance would be worth keeping him around on minimum salary for based on his 2001 playoff performance?

No. As DaBruinz said they let him walk. But what does it have to do with Gaffney? The Pats have not let Gaffney go this offseason so the point is moot and the comparison doesn't make sense.