- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Messages
- 33,218
- Reaction score
- 44,411
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Gaffney was/is a threat all over the field, especially in our offense. Where you're getting that from, I'm not sure.
That was certainly apparent in the AFCCG and Super Bowl, and throughout points of last season as a whole. It's the reason why BB went out and signed guys like Lloyd and Gaffney.
You're assuming that Gaffney can still play. He had a great season last year, but we've all seen veterans drop off the map before.
I think it's possible he's injured and could return later in the season, so they don't have to guarantee his contract; they've done that before with guys like Gerard Warren. Let's see if Gaffney shows interest in any other teams.
Either way, t's safe to say the Patriots have more information than we do. It definitely sucks to lose two outside threats at the same time, but there's probably more going on than we know.
Sure, and there's also the possibility that the team has seen Ebert work enough to think he can be a threat downfield and outside the numbers. However, we can only go by what we know.
If the Patriots had a single WR who could regularly threaten opposing defenses downfield, they probably would have had the top offense in NFL history, and Brady would probably have a fourth ring right now.
Again, I don't know how the whole keeping them honest outside changed much from yesterday to today. Stallworth if he had anything left might have helped there, but not Gaffney. Gaffney isn't much different than Branch in his playing style and not much of an outside receiver.
Branch G GS rec yds y/r tds
2002-2012 130 107 502 6499 12.9 39
Gaffney G GS rec yds y/r tds
2002-2012 155 104 443 5622 12.7 24
More like stone hands.
By all accounts, it was looking more and more like Gaffney would more or less split time with Branch depending on the in-game situation. At the very least, he would have been there for injury insurance. But, no matter how you cut it, with Gronk, Hernandez, and Welker, an offense like our's is ultimately more potent with two guys that can threaten outside the numbers instead of just one.
I sincerely hope that Gaffney is brought back. I'm not saying that this release was a HUGE mistake by any measure (a huge mistake would be letting Sanders and Meriweather go because Sergio Brown had a better camp than either of them last year), but it's definitely ill advised.
*Fully aware that Meriweather and Sanders are irrelevant and I'm not trying to go down that road and de-rail the thread. Just bringing up an example of a huge mistake.
Per FootballOutsiders: 27% of his catches were in the shorter area of the field, 39% were in the mid/intermediate level, 22% were deep, and 12% were bombs. As I said, Gaffney threatened the entire field and the stats back that up. Roughly 34% of his catches were deep or bombs, IE outside the numbers... and that was with Rex Grossman and John Beck throwing him the rock.
Gaffney caught 1 ball over 40 yards and 5 balls 30-40 yards in 2007 and ZERO balls over 30 yards in 2008 for the Pats. In fact, he only caught two balls in 2008 over 20 yards (granted it was with Cassell). That is better than Branch, but that is not a deep threat.
Jabar Gaffney Stats, Splits - ESPN
Jabar Gaffney Stats, Splits - ESPN
One thing I will give you is that he is more of an outside threat than I gave him credit for, but Branch does those types of numbers too.
As for what was apparent with the Super Bowl was that without a healthy Gronk, they needed another consistent receiving threat which they got with Lloyd.
Besides, I still think a deep threat is one of the most overrated things people want. Sure if you have a guy like Fitzgerald it can be huge, but in most cases probably not that much more than a guy Welker who demands just as many double teams and gameplanning.
Personally, I would love to have a Gaffney or someone comprehible as the #4 WR, but I think people have unrealistic standards for what a a depth chart for WRs looks like these days. The #4 WR is usually a special teamer who can be on the field for 5-15 plays and catch one ball a game.
The New England Patriots will not be facing the aforementioned teams in the 2012-13 AFC Playoffs. Let's not as Patriots fans lower ourselves to those low standards.I had high hopes for him and I hope they re-sign him after week 1, but I think concerns about the #4 WR is still a relatively minor concern for any team. Branch could probably start on any of our AFC East bretherin and he is back up. Right now he is better than Stephen Hill, Donald Jones, or Legdu Naanee (all the #2 WR on their team). Heck, I think he may be good enough to be the #1 WR for the Dolphins.
Actually depending on reports, Gaffney was a disappointment during training camp. It looked like he was going to be definitely behind Branch.
I had high hopes for him and I hope they re-sign him after week 1, but I think concerns about the #4 WR is still a relatively minor concern for any team.
Tremendous post and the best argument in this thread so far.1. Gaffney wasn't needed in the stictly outside the numbers role in those years like he would have been this year. That was for Moss, so it isn't a surprise that he flourished elsewhere. Regardless, that doesn't disspell my argument that he's a threat all over the field.
2. See my last post where I listed his 2011 splits.
Sure he does, but not nearly as much as Gaffney.
Branch 2011: 37% short, 49% mid/intermediate, 11% deep, 4% bomb.
Branch caught 15% of his passes outside the numbers and deep as compared to Gaffney's 34%. And with Branch, Tom Brady was throwing him the ball and not Grossman or Beck.
Even with a healthy Gronk in the AFCCG, the Ravens were still flooding the middle of the field and slowing us down.
The difference is that with MULTIPLE guys that can threaten outside the numbers, the defense has more space on the field than they have to account for as opposed to having just one guy that can do that, or no guys (as is the case in 2011). More is better everytime. That's why, outside of horrific injury, this move is a head scratcher.
Gaffney provides/provided:
1. Second threat to every level of the field.
2. Body to spell guys like Branch depending on down and distance/situation.
3. Injury insurance to guys like Lloyd or Branch.
Again, more is better. You even stated yourself earlier in the thread that you want to see Gaffney back and are hoping to see him back. Why are you now attempting to argue against that?
Can you reference these reports? Because, from everything I heard (this includes posters here), Gaffney was having a solid camp before injury and his connection with Brady was still very good.
See the reasons I listed in my last post as being reasons for valid concern. But I do agree with you that I hope they bring him back.
This is a discussion about Gaffney and the WRs. It's not a discussion about TEs or RBs, and any attempt to bring them into the conversation is just an attempt to avoid the actual topic at hand by conflating positions and roles.
This battle was fought all season long. It's disappointing to see posters have already begun to willfully ignore the results.
The New England Patriots will not be facing the aforementioned teams in the 2012-13 AFC Playoffs. Let's not as Patriots fans lower ourselves to those low standards.
Let's not kid ourselves:My point was just showing the Pats' WR depth compared to teams around the league. BTW, the Pats could face the Bills or even the Jets in the AFC playoffs.
A quadricep(s) injury can slow down any football player.I have seen Bedard say that Gaffney started strong and then fell off quickly.