Gaffney Released

[Rob0729]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

Chiefs
Chargers
Steelers
Ravens

They can match the Patriots WRs in terms of going 3 deep or better, and that's just in the AFC. The Broncos may be their equal in that, as well. The NFC has more competitive groups than the AFC.

 

[Kontradiction]

Shalize Manza Young was on the radio the other day saying he was struggling and looked lost at times. The host (I can't remember who) said he heard rumors that Gaffney came into camp with a sense of entitlement and didn't put in the effort because he felt the roster spot was a lock. Again it is a rumor so I wasn't going to bring it up. I have seen Bedard say that Gaffney started strong and then fell off quickly.

I won't touch the second sentence because it seems like hearsay. As for the first sentence, everyone in camp has had off days. Gaffney would be included in that. The third sentence could most likely be attributed to injury. For example, Branch started strong in 2011 and fell off quickly.

 

[Rob0729]

Chiefs
Chargers
Steelers
Ravens

They can match the Patriots WRs in terms of going 3 deep or better, and that's just in the AFC. The Broncos may be their equal in that, as well. The NFC has more competitive groups than the AFC.

You were complaining beyond three deep. None of those teams have the TEs to compliment the WRs.

I don't get your point. I never said the Pats have the best receiving unit. I said it is above average. You named three out of 11 other teams in the AFC that may be as good or better in their top three WRs. Kinda backs up my assertions.

 

[ivanvamp]

Chiefs
Chargers
Steelers
Ravens

They can match the Patriots WRs in terms of going 3 deep or better, and that's just in the AFC. The Broncos may be their equal in that, as well. The NFC has more competitive groups than the AFC.

So help me...what's the argument again? That other teams have better/deeper WR corps than the Patriots do? That's not much of an argument. I mean, it's obviously true.

But so what?

Other teams have a better stable of RBs than the Patriots do, too. Nobody has a better group of TEs, and very few teams have a QB in Brady's class. The Pats' offense looks a little different than anyone else's, because of the unique players they have. It's also one of the most dynamic and productive offenses the NFL has ever seen (last year's group was the 12th highest scoring team in league history). Would it be nice to have the best and deepest group of QBs, PLUS the best and deepest group of RBs, PLUS the best and deepest group of WRs, PLUS the best and deepest group of TEs, PLUS the best and deepest group of OL? Sure, in a perfect world, yeah. But that's impossible. A team can't be the best and deepest everywhere.

So they have chosen to spend their $$ on having the best and deepest group of TEs, to go along with a really good (but not the very best in the league) group of WRs. Last year it was a pretty successful formula. We'll see how it pans out this year.

 

[Rob0729]

I won't touch the second sentence because it seems like hearsay. As for the first sentence, everyone in camp has had off days. Gaffney would be included in that. The third sentence could most likely be attributed to injury. For example, Branch started strong in 2011 and fell off quickly.

No he fell off before the injury. It may have been nothing since Lloyd dropped off too, but maybe Belichick and McDaniels saw something.

Again, the Pats wanted Gaffney enough to give him a multi-year deal and a decent signing bonus. They went right after him when he was cut from Washington. He was a guy who McDaniels loved enough to give him an above market deal at the time to bring him to Denver in 2009.

Unless there is a wink and a nod deal to bring him back after week #1, they saw something that they didn't like about the guy. They didn't cut him on a whim. If they thought he could help the team, they would have given him a roster spot. Again, it could be that he isn't going to be ready to play week one and will be re-signed week 2 or beyond.

I just don't get that people seem to be far more concerned about the #4 WR than far more pressing concerns like OT. Gaffney can make this team better in my opinion, but I think the receiving corp will be fine without him. We have a first year starter at LT (at least at that position) and a player who missed 10 games last year at RT. And yet we are all talking about Gaffney.

 

[BradyManny]

So they have chosen to spend their $$ on having the best and deepest group of TEs, to go along with a really good (but not the very best in the league) group of WRs.

Money is not the issue with Gaffney - his deal was 2 years, $2.3 million, very affordable.

 

[Deus Irae]

You were complaining beyond three deep.

You were the one talking about Patriots depth as being superior. :bricks:

None of those teams have the TEs to compliment the WRs.

And, again, you try to move the goalposts. TEs, RBs, irrelevant to this discussion...

I don't get your point. I never said the Pats have the best receiving unit. I said it is above average. You named three out of 11 other teams in the AFC that may be as good or better in their top three WRs. Kinda backs up my assertions.

My list doesn't back up your assertions at all, since it was a depth point and not an overall talent point. Since you've only been arguing 3 deep, it didn't make sense to argue more than that. After all, half the point is that the Patriots are no longer as deep as they could have been (the other half being that the cut player was one of only two on the roster who was an accomplished outside threat).

 

[Deus Irae]

So help me...what's the argument again? That other teams have better/deeper WR corps than the Patriots do? That's not much of an argument. I mean, it's obviously true.

But so what?

Other teams have a better stable of RBs than the Patriots do, too. Nobody has a better group of TEs, and very few teams have a QB in Brady's class. The Pats' offense looks a little different than anyone else's, because of the unique players they have. It's also one of the most dynamic and productive offenses the NFL has ever seen (last year's group was the 12th highest scoring team in league history). Would it be nice to have the best and deepest group of QBs, PLUS the best and deepest group of RBs, PLUS the best and deepest group of WRs, PLUS the best and deepest group of TEs, PLUS the best and deepest group of OL? Sure, in a perfect world, yeah. But that's impossible. A team can't be the best and deepest everywhere.

So they have chosen to spend their $$ on having the best and deepest group of TEs, to go along with a really good (but not the very best in the league) group of WRs. Last year it was a pretty successful formula. We'll see how it pans out this year.

1.) Take a look at all the money BB has now pissed away in this offseason. From Addai to Fanene to Gaffney, there's been a lot of it wasted.

2.) Gaffney's total money would not have been a problem to carry

3.) You're now pulling a Rob, by tossing out straw men and red herrings. Again, the discussion is about the WRs, not the TEs, RBs or waterboys.

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

There are plenty of ways that the Pats could have carried and utilized Gaffney. He could have spelled Lloyd, Branch, Hernandez, or Welker. Granted, the latter two he would have spelled much less, but there are still plenty of personnel groupings where we could have fit Gaffney on the field again, depending on situation and down and distance.

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.

Two of those plays were bombs that were thrown out there for what looked to loosen up the coverage underneath. One resulted in a safety, the other an INT.

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.

That's debateable for the Super Bowl. The Giants had a lot of success flooding the middle of the field and making life miserable for Hernandez and Welker. But, for the Super Bowl, and for the 2012 season's sake, let's say we have a personnel grouping of Lloyd-Welker-Hernandez-Gronk-Gaffney. Between Lloyd and Gaffney, there's at least three DB's accounted for by them. Lloyd will more than likely demand the double teams. Either one of Welker or Gronk (most likely Welker) will also demand two guys. That's five guys tied up. Now let's look at a personnel grouping of Lloyd-Welker-Hernandez-Gronk-Branch. Again, Lloyd and either Welker or Gronk will take up two guys. But that's four DB's that need to account for them. Hernandez and Branch will most likely see single coverage. Now, based on the numbers, you tell me which personnel grouping looks better. Again, one threat outside the numbers is good. Two is better. They make the defense have to cover more space and open things up even more for guys like Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez.

4.) I never said Branch was an outside or deep threat.

No, you didn't. I'll give you that. But you did try to equate his ability to threaten outside the numbers with Gaffney's.

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.

Given the way defenses played our offense to end last season, I'll just end things by saying that I disagree that WR depth is a minor concern.

 

[Kontradiction]

No he fell off before the injury. It may have been nothing since Lloyd dropped off too, but maybe Belichick and McDaniels saw something.

Again, the Pats wanted Gaffney enough to give him a multi-year deal and a decent signing bonus. They went right after him when he was cut from Washington. He was a guy who McDaniels loved enough to give him an above market deal at the time to bring him to Denver in 2009.

Unless there is a wink and a nod deal to bring him back after week #1, they saw something that they didn't like about the guy. They didn't cut him on a whim. If they thought he could help the team, they would have given him a roster spot. Again, it could be that he isn't going to be ready to play week one and will be re-signed week 2 or beyond.

I just don't get that people seem to be far more concerned about the #4 WR than far more pressing concerns like OT. Gaffney can make this team better in my opinion, but I think the receiving corp will be fine without him. We have a first year starter at LT (at least at that position) and a player who missed 10 games last year at RT. And yet we are all talking about Gaffney.

It's not that people are more concerned about Gaffney than the OT position. It's that the WR position was fine with him and people don't see any reason, outside of horrific injury, that he should have been released... especially when his skillset would help the offense and guys like Hernandez, Welker, and Gronk tremendously when teamed up with Lloyd.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No he fell off before the injury. It may have been nothing since Lloyd dropped off too, but maybe Belichick and McDaniels saw something.

Again, the Pats wanted Gaffney enough to give him a multi-year deal and a decent signing bonus. They went right after him when he was cut from Washington. He was a guy who McDaniels loved enough to give him an above market deal at the time to bring him to Denver in 2009.

Unless there is a wink and a nod deal to bring him back after week #1, they saw something that they didn't like about the guy. They didn't cut him on a whim. If they thought he could help the team, they would have given him a roster spot. Again, it could be that he isn't going to be ready to play week one and will be re-signed week 2 or beyond.

I just don't get that people seem to be far more concerned about the #4 WR than far more pressing concerns like OT. Gaffney can make this team better in my opinion, but I think the receiving corp will be fine without him. We have a first year starter at LT (at least at that position) and a player who missed 10 games last year at RT. And yet we are all talking about Gaffney.

If the Patriots had an OT who could fill the perceived hole on the roster, and then went and cut him for no readily apparent reason, I'd be similarly perplexed and worried about depth going forward.

 

[ATippett56]

I just don't get that people seem to be far more concerned about the #4 WR than far more pressing concerns like OT.

You are straying off topic. The topic of this thread is Jabar Gaffney.

Gaffney can make this team better in my opinion, but I think the receiving corp will be fine without him.

Releasing Jabar Gaffney, at his point in time, makes no sense. You just admitted, in the bolded passage, the New England Patriots are a better team with Jabar Gaffney on the roster.

We have a first year starter at LT (at least at that position) and a player who missed 10 games last year at RT.

Who did the New England Patriots just cut from the roster at the offensive tackle position that weakened that position?

 

[Rob0729]

It's not that people are more concerned about Gaffney than the OT position. It's that the WR position was fine with him and people don't see any reason, outside of horrific injury, that he should have been released... especially when his skillset would help the offense and guys like Hernandez, Welker, and Gronk tremendously when teamed up with Lloyd.

But the WR position is fine without him too. It is better with him no doubt. There are plenty of positions on every team where if one player goes down, that team is in some serious trouble at that position. I think the Pats are better at WR right now in terms if one starter goes down than they are at OT, LB, RB, and QB.

 

[ivanvamp]

1.) Take a look at all the money BB has now pissed away in this offseason. From Addai to Fanene to Gaffney, there's been a lot of it wasted.

So you expect him to not make any mistakes? Ok, that's reasonable. :bricks:

2.) Gaffney's total money would not have been a problem to carry

Says you. Obviously if they felt Gaffney was worth keeping, they would have. Listen, again, I'm with you...I am surprised and disappointed they aren't keeping him. You seem to have me confused with someone arguing otherwise.

3.) You're now pulling a Rob, by tossing out straw men and red herrings. Again, the discussion is about the WRs, not the TEs, RBs or waterboys.

No I'm not. You're a moron if you think that you can just look at the WRs in isolation. I don't think you're a moron, so I really don't get why you're insisting on isolating the situation like this.

What if the answer is what I suggested a few posts ago: that they have been doing some things with Demps and they think he can provide for them some dynamic play outside. Who cares if he's a RB? He's *way* faster than Gaffney, and if he can run a few simple long routes and can catch the ball, he can be a huge threat for us at less money than Gaffney was slated to make.

Again, if what you're arguing is that you wish the Patriots had a better, deeper group of WRs, I don't think you'd really get much of an argument from anyone. I also wish they had a better, deeper group of RBs, and a better, deeper group of DBs, and a better, deeper group of OL. Why aren't we having discussions about those positions in isolation of the rest of the team?

 

[Deus Irae]

...No I'm not. You're a moron if you think that you can just look at the WRs in isolation...

Given your position here, which is insane, there's no use in continuing this.

 

[Rob0729]

You are straying off topic. The topic of this thread is Jabar Gaffney.

Releasing Jabar Gaffney, at his point in time, makes no sense. You just admitted, in the bolded passage, the New England Patriots are a better team with Jabar Gaffney on the roster.

Who did the New England Patriots just cut from the roster at the offensive tackle position that weakened that position?

So are you saying that even though Gaffney is one of Brady's and McDaniels' binkies that they suddenly got stupid and know less than the fans and didn't fight Belichick to cut him.

Again, it is highly likely this was a see you in a few weeks when you have healed type of deal where the Pats re-sign him when he is healthy. If not, Gaffney did something to force himself off the roster.

It isn't like Belichick trolled Jets Insider and say Ray Ray and SG3 say Gaffney sucks and say to himself "Hey, you know they are right". Either he is injured and the Pats intend to re-sign him when he is healthy or he wasn't good enough to make the roster. If he isn't healthy, he isn't going to help the Pats taking a roster spot and riding a bike in practice.

I still don't think losing the #4 WR is that big of a deal. The Pats still have more receiving weapons than last year. I think he would a nice luxury to have though if healthy and he is good as must of us think.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So are you saying that even though Gaffney is one of Brady's and McDaniels' binkies that they suddenly got stupid and know less than the fans and didn't fight Belichick to cut him.

Again, it is highly likely this was a see you in a few weeks when you have healed type of deal where the Pats re-sign him when he is healthy. If not, Gaffney did something to force himself off the roster.

It isn't like Belichick trolled Jets Insider and say Ray Ray and SG3 say Gaffney sucks and say to himself "Hey, you know they are right". Either he is injured and the Pats intend to re-sign him when he is healthy or he wasn't good enough to make the roster. If he isn't healthy, he isn't going to help the Pats taking a roster spot and riding a bike in practice.

I still don't think losing the #4 WR is that big of a deal. The Pats still have more receiving weapons than last year. I think he would a nice luxury to have though if healthy and he is good as must of us think.

Appeals to authority won't accomplish anything. Logical fallacies 101.

Not to mention that the Patriots have proven to be plenty fallible in personnel evaluation over the past few years, and at least a couple of those failings were apparent even as they were happening.

 

[ivanvamp]

Given your position here, which is insane, there's no use in continuing this.

Please explain my insanity. I AGREE with you that I wish the Pats had kept Gaffney. Do you understand that? You and I are in agreement. We are also in agreement on the following:

- We would love to see the Pats have a better and deeper group of WRs.
- The Pats don't have the best or deepest WR group in the NFL.

Ok, do you get that? We see exactly eye-to-eye on these things. I am not disputing any of those three points.

Our disagreement apparently comes when I say that I don't think you can look at the WR in isolation from the rest of the team, because decisions need to be made on who to cut and who to keep. Money is a factor, position flexibility is a factor, health and performance are factors, team philosophy is a factor. I'm simply suggesting that BB must have a reason for cutting Gaffney. Maybe Gaffney pissed in his Cheerios one day. Maybe Gaffney got hurt and BB doesn't want to risk keeping him. Maybe Demps has shown them some things that make them think that they can do better than Gaffney. Maybe they want to cut some $$ to free up to put towards a Welker extension. Maybe there's another WR they expect to be cut from another team that they would rather have. Maybe they envision Hernandez taking the majority of his snaps from the WR position and so they think they're perfectly fine in the WR depth department, and they'd rather have another DL or DB or whatever on the roster.

That's why I say you can't look at this simply in isolation. And for that, you think I'm insane.

:bricks:

 

[Kontradiction]

But the WR position is fine without him too. It is better with him no doubt. There are plenty of positions on every team where if one player goes down, that team is in some serious trouble at that position. I think the Pats are better at WR right now in terms if one starter goes down than they are at OT, LB, RB, and QB.

1. QB is obvious. Pretty big drop off going from the GOAT to Hoyer.

2. This team is a RBBC pass-first team. Losing any one of Ridley, Woodhead, Vereen, Bolden, or Demps isn't going to hurt as bad as losing a Lloyd or a Welker.

3. I like the depth currently at LB. Could it improve? Sure. But there's more depth there than there is at WR right now. So I'll just disagree there.

4. Given what Cannon has looked like, I think OT can be comparable to WR in the event of injury to either Vollmer or Solder as compared to Lloyd or Welker. The difference is that the team hasn't released Cannon.

Given the bolded, though, I'll drop it at this time.