Keegs

Hi. My name is Keegs. I have some very strong opinions when it comes to Mr. Reche Caldwell and I was wondering what everyone else was thinking.

So I thought putting it to a vote would be the best way to see exactly what everyone on this site thinks.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pats1

Hi Keegs, nice to meet you.

Would you happen to be the same Keegs who has strong opinions about Reche Caldwell from this thread?

Keegs

yes....

And it's a Keegs that's on his best behavior on this thread

I actually was going to vote for option 6 but that is kind of just a joke and it's in the best interest of the pats to at least trade him and get some Value.

thanks for voting.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OhExaulted1

150 catches, 2500 yards and 30 touchdowns.

BHSL2

I Caldwell should be a number 4/5 receiver. Yes, he did have 2 big drops in the AFC Championship game, but I remember some of his great plays: the Titans catch, that incredible TD reception against the Jets during mid-season, the SD game-clincher. I think his familiarity with the system would make him a decent guy to have in the game once the starters have to rest.

patsox23

I like Caldwell and thinks he gets a bad rap here. He ended up being quite valuable last year. That said, I'd love to deal him as one of our surplus of quality WRs.

pats1

The first epic Caldwell thread was prior to the Moss trade. At that time, a Stallworth/Caldwell starting lineup was in the Pats' best interest.

The second epic Caldwell thread was after the Moss trade but prior to the Brown signing (or prior to the Brown agreement - he hasn't officially signed yet). At that time, a Moss/Stallworth starting lineup with Caldwell at #4 seemed most logical.

The thing is, if Caldwell is not in the #2 spot, he immediately slips down to the #5 spot, as Welker and Brown would conceivably lock up the two slot/situational slots.

The #5 WR spot is one of the more interesting spots on an NFL roster. A team has to decide what kind of player they want there. Usually, a team chooses a kick return specialist for their #5 (or #6) spot. But in this case, Welker is actually the returner at 3, along with Faulk, Maroney, Hobbs, etc. Assuming Caldwell can adequately perform in other special team roles as a #5 WR (i.e. Jackson as a gunner - and Jackson is a whole other story we'll be watching over the next few weeks), then that leaves the Pats with another option at #5: depth. And Reche Caldwell would easily be the best #4 WR in the league, nevermind the #5. So having Caldwell there at #5 would provide the Pats with superior depth if anyone from 1-4 were to go down or not perform.

Therefore, I think the Patriots will assess the situation as it progresses in camp. A lot depends on how Jackson does, if the Patriots feel they have the capacity to carry 6 WRs, and how Gaffney and Washington perform. And in the end, Bioli will decide if trading Caldwell or having him as depth will be better for the New England Patriots football team now and in the future.

MetalBleachers

I can't figure out how last year's no. 1 receiver would get cut. After the Triad (Moss, Stallworth, Welker) isn't Caldwell the best option? Troy Brown's back, and Chad Jackson will get more time to make an impression (PUP or otherwise), but I don't see Gaffney or Washington beating out Caldwell.

He's a perfect no. 4 WR who performed decently as a top guy last year.

Keegs, on behalf of Reche, some slack please.

MetalBleachers

What pats1 said. Battle b/t Jackson and Washington will be interesting regarding ST duties (Jackson as returner, Washington as gunner).

Va_Pats_Fan

I see the roster shaking out as

Moss, Stallworth, Welker, Brown, Gaffney, Caldwell and Jackson starting on PUP. I don't see the "value" in Washington long term. This makes for a very deep WR corps.

Gaffney and Caldwell have value as they have 1 year in the system, and low cap hits (less than 2 million between them)