- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 49,634
- Reaction score
- 28,355
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?
Good retort, but a few rebuttals:
1.) Even if the Pats pick up another outside/deep threat, you are rarely see him on the field with Lloyd. The Pats have too many guys you can't take off the field and there are only so many 4 and 5 wide sets you can run. You are probably talking 2-5 plays a game. Nice to have, but not neccessary especially with the trends in the NFL to attack the center of the field.
2.) The Pats were any one of a half dozen plays from winning the Super Bowl. A healthy Gronk probably would have made the difference.
3.) I don't know if a deep threat would have made a difference in the Super Bowl since the Pats were pressuring Brady with a four man rush consistently. So it doesn't matter if you had Larry Fitzgerald if you are sacked before the deep threat gets down the field. In fact, Gronk had his guy beat on the deep pass interception that Brady was just way off.
4.) I never said Branch was an outside or deep threat.
5.) Again, I hope Gaffney is back, but on the grande scheme of things the WR depth is a minor concern for this team. Right now the o-line (particularly the OT depth) and secondary are far bigger concerns. I think the RB position is a bigger concern because we don't even know if we have the RBs to do a RB by committee if Ridley goes down. Vereen has shown flashes, but he certainly hasn't shown he can take the lead back role if Ridley is out a few games or a month. Heck, Ridley hasn't shown he can be the lead back yet.
Last edited: