Loss of Gaffney - Much Bigger Than We Thought?

[tombonneau]

As if Galloway's inability to pick up the offense wasn't enough of a sign of how much the Pats missed Gaffney, watching him make plays like he did on that tipped ball, just really hit home how important that consistent WR3 is in the Pats/Broncos offensive system.

I think most of us (myself included) sort of shrugged our shoulders when Gaffney wasn't re-signed -- no big loss, he'll be easily replaced -- but the reality is that isn't even close to being true.

Gaffney switches uniforms that game, and the Pats probably win. Hopefully a solid WR3 emerges, but as of now that void is probably one of the biggest problems on offense, and the Pats let the solution (to a problem that could have been avoided) simply walk.

Ironically, the Pats usually seem to know when to cut ties with vet FAs (who rarely go on to have success with other teams) but this is one case where they made a huge whoopsie.

 

[Ian]

As if Galloway's inability to pick up the offense wasn't enough of a sign of how much the Pats missed Gaffney, watching him make plays like he did on that tipped ball, just really hit home how important that consistent WR3 is in the Pats/Broncos offensive system.

I think most of us (myself included) sort of shrugged our shoulders when Gaffney wasn't re-signed -- no big loss, he'll be easily replaced -- but the reality is that isn't even close to being true.

Gaffney switches uniforms that game, and the Pats probably win. Hopefully a solid WR3 emerges, but as of now that void is probably one of the biggest problems on offense, and the Pats let the solution (to a problem that could have been avoided) simply walk.

Ironically, the Pats usually seem to know when to cut ties with vet FAs (who rarely go on to have success with other teams) but this is one case where they made a huge whoopsie.

Before anyone comes down on you, I'll let this additional Gaffney thread go due to the subject matter and your approach

Don't forget Gaffney had his fair share of drops last season - so he's not perfect by any means. I think the one thing to mention is the fact that like Cassel, we're watching the development of a young player in Edelman who I have to say that so far has exceeded many of our expectations. Unfortunately as we've learned in the past couple of years of free agency, guys are going to get offered big deals, and if you look at his contract they probably made the right decision by not throwing that much money his way and instead spent it elsewhere. As a result they're going to have to continue to develop younger players to fill their voids.

But let's not get too caught up in wishing they still had certain guys. Obviously they can't change previous FA transactions, draft choices, etc. - so let's try focus on who they do have and see how they'll improve in the coming weeks.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't know, 4 years/$10 mill ($3 mill guaranteed) seems like a lot to pay a 3rd receiver. He was $700K in 2008, so it's a noticable increase to keep him.

I am disappointed in Galloway though, thought he'd be an upgrade. And Gaffney made some plays yesterday, though I think a lot of that had to do with the huge cushion all of the WRs seemed to get.

We definitely need a 3rd WR though.

 

[hgelpke]

Agreed. We had 4-5 men on that tipped ball and somehow Gaffney comes away with it. He is as clutch for the Broncos as he was for us. I think it was Simms who said he was under-rated and after watching him yesterday, I have to agree. He is the most player from the 2007/2008 offense. Hopefully Tate turns out to be a machine, but I'd like Brady to get in sync with Moss first.

 

[SVN]

its not gaffeney. its the complete miss in the drafts at WR's that we have to rely on galloway and greg lewis experiments to happen. at some point they need to hit gold like with branch and givens.

 

[mfaith]

I really liked Gaffney. Is there a stat for clutch 3rd down receptions? He seemed to have a lot of those. But I have to admit it shouldn't be too hard to replace him either. Honestly, I don't think it's the WRs as much as it's TB and the lousy play calling.

 

[Ian]

its not gaffeney. its the complete miss in the drafts at WR's that we have to rely on galloway and greg lewis experiments to happen. at some point they need to hit gold like with branch and givens.

I was going to say of all the guys they've lost, I wish Givens was the one guy they had reached a deal with. It's clear he was a pretty good fit here, but obviously he didn't exactly make the most productive move for himself - but he got paid

 

[Pats726]

Hopefully a solid WR3 emerges, but as of now that void is probably one of the biggest problems on offense, and the Pats let the solution (to a problem that could have been avoided) simply walk.

Sorry..but many so called fans seem to see free agents who sign with another team as as teh Patriots allowing them to walk..That is HARDLY anything close to the truth..Gaffney wanted more money a longer contract..hardly walking. He may have had a connection with Josh and wanted to stay with him...This BS notion of allowing players to walk....which I have heard from way before AdamV to now is simpley NOT undesrtanding even teh mecganics of free agency. If you wish to discuss the economics of that fine..but please do not forget that a player USUALLY goes for the GREEN!! I think the Pats may have not made the right move with not signing him..but it's NOT that simple..what OTHER players might not have signed because of that signing. Wasn't it also a timing issue of WHEN Gaffney was signed?? If memory has it right...Gaffney signed BEFORE Cassell was traded, so they were strapped for money and signing anyone. There are a lot more factors than simple statements that you wish to dish out. At that time, they didn't have the money..simply put..and he wanted to sign right away. SO it's not even a sign Gaffney vs Galloway. I do agree a 3rd wide receiver is important, but it also takes time for any 3rd receiver to learn. I agree it is a problem...as it limits who Brady can go to.

 

[BelichickFan]

I don't buy it. He had a limited role and limited talent. The Colts can get low level guys like Garcon and Collie and not skip a beat, there is ZERO reason for us not to be able to replace Gaffney either with a draft choice or FA.

 

[Simkin]

Moss and Welker create Gaffney .

But yes, we need a # 3 WR

 

[tombonneau]

I don't know, 4 years/$10 mill ($3 mill guaranteed) seems like a lot to pay a 3rd receiver. He was $700K in 2008, so it's a noticable increase to keep him.

I am disappointed in Galloway though, thought he'd be an upgrade. And Gaffney made some plays yesterday, though I think a lot of that had to do with the huge cushion all of the WRs seemed to get.

We definitely need a 3rd WR though.

What was the price difference in Galloway vs. Gaffney? I seem to recall Galloway getting a nice chunk of change. I agree, Gaffney is making a nice bit of coin in Denver, but I don't know that it would have been too much in NE.

 

[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]

What was the price difference in Galloway vs. Gaffney? I seem to recall Galloway getting a nice chunk of change. I agree, Gaffney is making a nice bit of coin in Denver, but I don't know that it would have been too much in NE.

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]

Moss and Welker create Gaffney .

But yes, we need a # 3 WR

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]

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.

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.

 

[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 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.

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.