PatriotReign
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,692
- Reaction score
- 1,989
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.I disagree, and I'd like to cite the injury to a man-child by the name of Gronkowski in last season's Super Bowl as exhibit "a". Then again, I'm considering this season's Super Bowl as long-term for purposes of this discussion.
Don't you think that's actually an argument for keeping Shiancoe over Gaffney? If your standard formation is 2 TEs 2 WRs and you have RBs with WR-like receiving skills, a 4th TE should be at least as valuable as a 5th WR.
No, because they've already got the TE3 covered with Fells (or Schiancoe, depending on which they keep). A 4th TE wouldn't be needed in the scenario. However, if Lloyd goes down, this team is back to last year's problem, with no middle-deep threat.
Unfortunately, I don't recall any point in the past month when Gaffney actually looked like a middle-deep threat. If he did, he would have been WR3, not WR5.
But why? Now were back to old man Branch, Eldelman , Slater , Holley, and Ebert.
my guess is that the inj to gaffney is not healing the way it should... and they needed to cut him before week 1... i think he may be back.. i dont like the depth at wr.... brandon lloyd is not randy moss where he can stretch the field.. but he is a upgrade over ochostinko...
I disagree, and I'd like to cite the injury to a man-child by the name of Gronkowski in last season's Super Bowl as exhibit "a". Then again, I'm considering this season's Super Bowl as long-term for purposes of this discussion.
Deion Branch hasn't been the picture of perfect health either.The depth at WR is very scary, especially considering that Lloyd is very injury prone. We're all excited to have him, but the guy has not been the most durable player throughout his career.
I dont like the cut for depth reasons...it doesnt make sense to me. gaffney is coming off his best season of his career
Not sure if this has been talked about but you have to think about the gameday active roster when building a 53 man roster IMO. If the coaches saw that Branch had beat out Gaffney for the #3 spot, Gaffney is a #4 WR that doesn't have special teams value. With Slater and Edelman locks to play each week, that's 5 WRs right there. There's no way we can activate 6 WRs, considering the multiple TE looks we want to use each week. Do you keep Gaffney to be an inactive every week, or do you try to get a young player you can develop on the roster?
Looking at the cuts - Extra Points - Boston.comI don't expect Taylor to make the 53. He's likely here as a body for the Giants game and perhaps goes to the practice squad.
No, because they've already got the TE3 covered with Fells (or Schiancoe, depending on which they keep). A 4th TE wouldn't be needed in the scenario. However, if Lloyd goes down, this team is back to last year's problem, with no middle-deep threat.
If Lloyd goes down, the Pats will just have to make do with the Welker/Gronk/Hernandez/Branch combo with which they had one of the best offenses in the league las season. In today's NFL, you can't really expect any better depth than that.
Maybe Gaffney stays on if he's not hurt, and maybe he gets resigned when he gets healthy, but for now, it really just doesn't make sense to use a roster spot on an injured 4th-or-5th stringer who even when healthy doesn't have a lot ST value.
yeah...and we're signing T.O.!!!
Gaa Gaa Gaa!!!
TO would definitely add to the circus atmosphere already entrenched with the NY Jets.Leave that to the Jets.
They just had better depth than that.
It's setting up for him to return, but I have to evaluate based upon the known (or at least anticipated and supported) information. So, as of right now, I have to put this down as another suspect decision.