Gaffney vs. Jackson?

[MKats31]

I want Jackon to emerge and take the #3 slot but I think that Gaffey will win the #3 job

 

[fgssand]

Gaffney is looking really good at camp as things progress.

The upside potential of this young third year guy is huge and if he can stay healthy, gain confidence, he will realize that potential this year.

He looks the part and starting to act the part, he knows where to go now and has been getting free and making catches.

Plenty of room for our four main, spectacular receivers.

 

[Deus Irae]

Gafney is enough of a deep threat.

He really isn't. He doesn't pass the eyeball test or the stats test.

Now you've fallen into the same trap JoeSixPat has. Gaffney was more than enough of a deep threat last season, and he certainly passed the stats test doing it. He was just a jack of all trades:

Catches behind line 6
Catches 1-10 yards 22
Catches 11-20 yards 3
Catches 21-30 yards 4
Catches 31-40 yards 0
Catches 41+ yards 1


So, even though he was only starting about half a season, he had 5 catches where the ball went 20+ in the air. T.J. Who's your Mamma, just for example had only 4 despite playing all season. Heck, Chad Johnson only had 9 himself, and he's his team's primary deep threat. I've broken down these numbers several times this offseason, so I'm not going through them all again, but the reality is that New England got plenty of deep production from wide receivers not named Moss last season, and I expect to see the same thing this year.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Now you've fallen into the same trap JoeSixPat has. Gaffney was more than enough of a deep threat last season, and he certainly passed the stats test doing it. He was just a jack of all trades:

Catches behind line 6
Catches 1-10 yards 22
Catches 11-20 yards 3
Catches 21-30 yards 4
Catches 31-40 yards 0
Catches 41+ yards 1


So, even though he was only starting about half a season, he had 5 catches where the ball went 20+ in the air. T.J. Who's your Mamma, just for example had only 4 despite playing all season. Heck, Chad Johnson only had 9 himself, and he's his team's primary deep threat. I've broken down these numbers several times this offseason, so I'm not going through them all again, but the reality is that New England got plenty of deep production from wide receivers not named Moss last season, and I expect to see the same thing this year.

Bravo - you've proven Gaffney was a deep threat that keeps defenses honest, preventing DBs from encroaching on the line of scrimmage.

Of course you know who else you've just proven to be a deep threat?

Reche Caldwell, who had 4 passes thrown/caught in excess of 20 yards in 2006.

Now, is there anyone here who watched a game in 2006 who believes that defenses feared Reche Caldwell as a deep threat WR? Is there anyone who didn't notices that defenses freely sent DBs close to the line of scrimmage to pressure TEs, RBs, short pattern WRs, as well as pressure the OL and worst of put extra pressure on Tom Brady?

If you buy Deus' statistical proof that Gaffney is a deep threat then you're asserting that Reche Caldwell is a deep threat too - and we all know that is not the case. At the very least, OPPOSING DEFENSES don't recognize Reche Caldwell as a deep threat and that's really the point here - not whether Deus Irae would send DBs back deep to cover Reche Caldwell.

As to the original point of the post, everytime this subject comes up I assert that people get to caught up with numbering the WRs.

IMO, WRs typically play different roles. Moss has with all around skills and deep speed and good hands serves as the #1, running the outside route and stretching defenses.

The #2 position will typically have similar skills, taking the outside route on the opposite side of the field - and should be prepared to assume #1 duties as a deep WR if #1 should be injured, being used enough of a deep threat to take some pressure and coverage off of your #1 (and again, Reche Caldwell/Gaffney numbers will not do that)

#3 is usually a slot/mid range or third down WR - and the #4 WR can have any or all of those skills on one's resume.

Everyone else is strictly depth at WR and probably special teams. The chances of them cathching a lot of balls past #4 is probably pretty low barring injury.

So what does this mean about Jackson vs. Gaffney?

It means they are two different types of WRs with two different roles and skill sets. Jackson has the higher potential to be an all around WR - especially a deep WR. Gaffeney, if we're to look at the last two years - can play a very valuable role, but is as much of a deep threat statistically as Reche Caldwell in 2006. As such one hopes that Jackson can show that he's got the ability to transition not to the #3 WR (which is what I view Welker as) but as the #2 WR.

The team won't be bad with Moss at #1 and Gaffney at #2 - but if he shows he can be a deep threat, Jackson would give us more at #2 than Gaffney.

Now I'll just sit back and enjoy watching as Deus Irae statiscally proves that Reche Caldwell is a deep threat!

 

[Deus Irae]

Bravo - you've proven Gaffney was a deep threat that keeps defenses honest, preventing DBs from encroaching on the line of scrimmage.

Of course you know who else you've just proven to be a deep threat?

Reche Caldwell, who had 4 passes thrown/caught in excess of 20 yards in 2006.

Now, is there anyone here who watched a game in 2006 who believes that defenses feared Reche Caldwell as a deep threat WR? Is there anyone who didn't notices that defenses freely sent DBs close to the line of scrimmage to pressure TEs, RBs, short pattern WRs, as well as pressure the OL and worst of put extra pressure on Tom Brady?

If you buy Deus' statistical proof that Gaffney is a deep threat then you're asserting that Reche Caldwell is a deep threat too - and we all know that is not the case. At the very least, OPPOSING DEFENSES don't recognize Reche Caldwell as a deep threat and that's really the point here - not whether Deus Irae would send DBs back deep to cover Reche Caldwell.

As to the original point of the post, everytime this subject comes up I assert that people get to caught up with numbering the WRs.

IMO, WRs typically play different roles. Moss has with all around skills and deep speed and good hands serves as the #1, running the outside route and stretching defenses.

The #2 position will typically have similar skills, taking the outside route on the opposite side of the field - and should be prepared to assume #1 duties as a deep WR if #1 should be injured, being used enough of a deep threat to take some pressure and coverage off of your #1 (and again, Reche Caldwell/Gaffney numbers will not do that)

#3 is usually a slot/mid range or third down WR - and the #4 WR can have any or all of those skills on one's resume.

Everyone else is strictly depth at WR and probably special teams. The chances of them cathching a lot of balls past #4 is probably pretty low barring injury.

So what does this mean about Jackson vs. Gaffney?

It means they are two different types of WRs with two different roles and skill sets. Jackson has the higher potential to be an all around WR - especially a deep WR. Gaffeney, if we're to look at the last two years - can play a very valuable role, but is as much of a deep threat statistically as Reche Caldwell in 2006. As such one hopes that Jackson can show that he's got the ability to transition not to the #3 WR (which is what I view Welker as) but as the #2 WR.

The team won't be bad with Moss at #1 and Gaffney at #2 - but if he shows he can be a deep threat, Jackson would give us more at #2 than Gaffney.

Now I'll just sit back and enjoy watching as Deus Irae statiscally proves that Reche Caldwell is a deep threat!

Metaphors mistakenly asserted that Gaffney didn't pass the stats test and I was just showing that to be an error. I've already shown your argument to be wrong on multiple occasions. Why do you insist on continuing with your folly? You were wrong. Deal with it. Everyone is wrong sometimes, but your persistence in the face of such an error does you no credit.

 

[thebigv#75]

i can deff see jackson winning the 3rd receiver spot but they are obviously going to be using gaffney way more in the red zone.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Metaphors mistakenly asserted that Gaffney didn't pass the stats test and I was just showing that to be an error. I've already shown your argument to be wrong on multiple occasions. Why do you insist on continuing with your folly? You were wrong. Deal with it. Everyone is wrong sometimes, but your persistence in the face of such an error does you no credit.

I'm guesing Metaphors also doesn't think that Reche Caldwell, based on the stats (as well as the eyeballs) is a deep threat WR either.

I don't think that by proving Reche Caldwell caught 4 deep passes or Gaffney caught 5, you've proven either of them are deep threats.

Why do you keep asserting they are?

Does anyone else here, other than Deus Irae, think that Reche Caldwell was a deep threat WR that streched defenses?

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm guesing Metaphors also doesn't think that Reche Caldwell, based on the stats (as well as the eyeballs) is a deep threat WR either.

I don't think that by proving Reche Caldwell caught 4 deep passes or Gaffney caught 5, you've proven either of them are deep threats.

Why do you keep asserting they are?

I'm not going to waste my time with you again. You're wrong. I've proven you wrong. I proved you wrong using your own 'stated' metrics, which you then conveniently claimed didn't prove anything. When you're ready to have an honest back and forth about this, let me know, because there's a drop of validity to your argument that gets lost in the sea of errors. Until you're ready to actually think and have an open discussion about this, you'll always be wrong because your approach to the issue is wrong, which makes your arguments not just wrong but silly.

 

[JoeSixPat]

i can deff see jackson winning the 3rd receiver spot but they are obviously going to be using gaffney way more in the red zone.

Again I'd just wonder who you view as the #2 WR - because some go by number of catches and give Welker that "title" whereas he's not the WR who typically plays on the outside opposite Moss.

If that's your view (its semantics how people want to number them - I'm just looking for clarification on people's classifications) then do you view Jackson competing for the outside WR opposite Moss, with Gaffney?

If that's the case I'd second your motion of hoping Jackson can win the spot - and I'd also second your perception of where Gaffney's value and role lie.

Not as a deep WR, but as the trusted receiver to make the 10-15 yard catch and use his skills to get his feet inbounds, either on the sideline or endzone, in critical situations.

That's where Gaffney has proven his worth - and I'd be surprised if Jackson stole that particular role from him.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm not going to waste my time with you again. You're wrong. I've proven you wrong. I proved you wrong using your own 'stated' metrics, which you then conveniently claimed didn't prove anything. When you're ready to have an honest back and forth about this, let me know, because there's a drop of validity to your argument that gets lost in the sea of errors. Until you're ready to actually think and have an open discussion about this, you'll always be wrong because your approach to the issue is wrong, which makes your arguments not just wrong but silly.

It kindof seems like you're avoiding explaining your own statistics. Is it because your stats seemed to have failed you so you just keep asserting that "you're right and I'm wrong" and that you've "proven it"?

That stats you say "prove" that Gaffney is a deep threat WR who stretches defense (isn't that the point of a deep threat WR?) is that he caught 5 deep passes.

Ergo - using your statistics - you've also proven that Reche Caldwell is a deep threat WR because he caught 4 deep passes in 2006.

Your own statistics have "proven" that Reche Caldwell is a deep threat as well.

Would you please explain this to us rather than just assert that "you're right" and Metaphors is wrong?

 

[cstjohn17]

Skimming through the posts, I have to laugh. I distinctly remember people telling me that the 06 WRs were good, according to some they were very good and there was no need to upgrade the position for 2007. Those were the days Reche, Gabriel, old man Troy Brown, those were the days.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again I'd just wonder who you view as the #2 WR - because some go by number of catches and give Welker that "title" whereas he's not the WR who typically plays on the outside opposite Moss.

If that's your view (its semantics how people want to number them - I'm just looking for clarification on people's classifications) then do you view Jackson competing for the outside WR opposite Moss, with Gaffney?

If that's the case I'd second your motion of hoping Jackson can win the spot - and I'd also second your perception of where Gaffney's value and role lie.

Not as a deep WR, but as the trusted receiver to make the 10-15 yard catch and use his skills to get his feet inbounds, either on the sideline or endzone, in critical situations.

That's where Gaffney has proven his worth - and I'd be surprised if Jackson stole that particular role from him.

In order to avoid cross purposes, let me start by putting it this way. I've said that I'd like to see Jackson get the 'extra' snaps to start the season. By that, I mean the snaps available when Moss, Gaffney or Welker rest for a play or two. I don't expect Jackson to win any spot coming out of training camp, and I really don't think him winning one is really the best thing for the team.

As for whom I view as the #2 receiver, that would be Welker. For the Patriots, the #2 receiver is, unusually, the slot receiver.

 

[Metaphors]

Now you've fallen into the same trap JoeSixPat has. Gaffney was more than enough of a deep threat last season, and he certainly passed the stats test doing it. He was just a jack of all trades:

Catches behind line 6
Catches 1-10 yards 22
Catches 11-20 yards 3
Catches 21-30 yards 4
Catches 31-40 yards 0
Catches 41+ yards 1


So, even though he was only starting about half a season, he had 5 catches where the ball went 20+ in the air. T.J. Who's your Mamma, just for example had only 4 despite playing all season. Heck, Chad Johnson only had 9 himself, and he's his team's primary deep threat. I've broken down these numbers several times this offseason, so I'm not going through them all again, but the reality is that New England got plenty of deep production from wide receivers not named Moss last season, and I expect to see the same thing this year.

The only trap I've fallen into is the truth. The stats you are quoting as proof are hardly the stats of a deep threat. The two longest Gaffney plays I can remember are the trick play against Pitt and the TD against Miami when the ball went through the DB's hands. Hardly a vertical display. Take out those 2 plays and dude averaged about 10 ypc...which is pretty much in line with his career numbers.

Cherry-picking one year of stats (a really bad Cincy team) and comparing CJ to Gaffney as a deep threat? Are you nuts?

The stats show Gaffney isn't a deep threat. Watching Gaffney run shows he isn't a deep threat. Seeing the routes the Pats have him run shows he isn't a deep threat. So that mean Elias, millions of eyeballs and the Pats coaching staff have figured this out.

 

[Deus Irae]

The only trap I've fallen into is the truth. The stats you are quoting as proof are hardly the stats of a deep threat. The two longest Gaffney plays I can remember are the trick play against Pitt and the TD against Miami when the ball went through the DB's hands. Hardly a vertical display. Take out those 2 plays and dude averaged about 10 ypc...which is pretty much in line with his career numbers.

Cherry-picking one year of stats (a really bad Cincy team) and comparing CJ to Gaffney as a deep threat? Are you nuts?

Nuts? No, just proving your argument about the stats to be wrong. Look, this really isn't difficult stuff. Gaffney (and Stallworth when he was a Patriot), in the Patriots system with the Patriots personnel, is able to get open downfield more often than most of the #2 outside receivers in the league. Statistically, that's just the way it is, and your argument was wrong. I wasn't cherry-picking, I was using last year's data, the most recent available.

The stats show Gaffney isn't a deep threat. Watching Gaffney run shows he isn't a deep threat. Seeing the routes the Pats have him run shows he isn't a deep threat. So that mean Elias, millions of eyeballs and the Pats coaching staff have figured this out.

No, that's not what the stats show at all, sorry. You've fallen into the same trap that JoeSixPat has, which is stubbornly refusing to see the obvious. If you don't like the Bengals example, feel free to look at other teams. You'll find the same basic thing, over and over.

 

[Metaphors]

No, that's not what the stats show at all, sorry. You've fallen into the same trap that JoeSixPat has, which is stubbornly refusing to see the obvious. If you don't like the Bengals example, feel free to look at other teams. You'll find the same basic thing, over and over.

OK, how many times did you see Gaffney get behind coverage (besides the Pitt trick play)? I can't remember one play in the year+ he has been with the Pats. Are you saying he is a deep threat because he can run a 22 yard out or curl pattern?

I don't have your receptions-by-depth data, but compare Gaffney to Galloway, Jennings, S.Holmes, Moss, B.Edwards...all guys that are universally considered deep threats. Now compare Gaffney to Booker, Josh Reed, H.Ward, TJ...all guys that are mid-range possession guys. I'd like to see data that supports the notion that Gaffney belongs more in the former group than the latter.

If you look at ypc (a readily available stat), the comparison is clear. But since I can't account for YAC, feel free to provide better numbers. Before you throw out his stunning 5 catches that were in the air longer than 20 yards, I've already discounted 2 of them as not being proof of "deep threat" ability...and that was just from memory.

 

[bradmahn]

Now you've fallen into the same trap JoeSixPat has. Gaffney was more than enough of a deep threat last season, and he certainly passed the stats test doing it. He was just a jack of all trades:

Catches behind line 6
Catches 1-10 yards 22
Catches 11-20 yards 3
Catches 21-30 yards 4
Catches 31-40 yards 0
Catches 41+ yards 1


So, even though he was only starting about half a season, he had 5 catches where the ball went 20+ in the air. T.J. Who's your Mamma, just for example had only 4 despite playing all season. Heck, Chad Johnson only had 9 himself, and he's his team's primary deep threat. I've broken down these numbers several times this offseason, so I'm not going through them all again, but the reality is that New England got plenty of deep production from wide receivers not named Moss last season, and I expect to see the same thing this year.

Without context, these prove very little, certainly not that Gaffney is (or was used) as a deep threat.

As Metaphors just said, what are the stats of other players considered deep threats? How about targets, I'd say that means a lot here. How many times were they thrown to "deep"?

All in all, the best way to judge whether he is a deep threat or not is by watching film and diagnosing his routes. Without that you shouldn't be acting as if you've proved anything definitively - especially when the statistics you are relying on are incomplete, at best.

If you can remove two of someone's thirty six receptions and their avg. per reception drops to 10 yards, well, that is a pretty big indictment against his "deep threat" ability.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK, how many times did you see Gaffney get behind coverage (besides the Pitt trick play)? I can't remember one play in the year+ he has been with the Pats. Are you saying he is a deep threat because he can run a 22 yard out or curl pattern?

No, I'm saying that you were wrong when you made the claim about Gaffney and statistics.

I don't have your receptions-by-depth data, but compare Gaffney to Galloway, Jennings, S.Holmes, Moss, B.Edwards...all guys that are universally considered deep threats. Now compare Gaffney to Booker, Josh Reed, H.Ward, TJ...all guys that are mid-range possession guys. I'd like to see data that supports the notion that Gaffney belongs more in the former group than the latter.

Why on earth would I compare Gaffney to the #1 deep option of other teams? That would be just stupid when there's a Randy Moss on the team, as well as it being outside the scope of your mistake. However, just to please you despite the mismatching of roles and Gaffney getting only 7 starts, looking at "ball in air" distances:

Holmes: 9 catches of 21+ yards
Jennings: 7
B. Edwards: 13
Galloway: 8
Moss: 13

Thank you for helping to reinforce my point with your 5 examples. Despite only starting 7 games and being in a role that was not that of the primary deep threat, Gaffney was within easy striking distance of 3 of the 5 names you listed. (To be fair, it should be noted that Holmes only started 13 games).

If you look at ypc (a readily available stat), the comparison is clear. But since I can't account for YAC, feel free to provide better numbers. Before you throw out his stunning 5 catches that were in the air longer than 20 yards, I've already discounted 2 of them as not being proof of "deep threat" ability...and that was just from memory.

Yes, your argument will look much better if you just ignore the numbers and take catches away because you wish to. Hell, I could just add 50 catches and make my argument look better. However, in context, I'm constrained by the argument you made about stats, as are you. You were wrong.

The problem with the arguments of both you and Joe is that you're both ignoring the blatantly obvious and stubbornly clinging to false arguments. In the NFL, every wide receiver is fast enough to be a 'deep threat'. How an individual's skills are used within a particular system and with particular personnel determines just how effective that player is at carrying out the job. Players like, for example, Alvin Harper, are perfect illustrations of just that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Without context, these prove very little, certainly not that Gaffney is (or was used) as a deep threat.

As Metaphors just said, what are the stats of other players considered deep threats? How about targets, I'd say that means a lot here. How many times were they thrown to "deep"?

All in all, the best way to judge whether he is a deep threat or not is by watching film and diagnosing his routes. Without that you shouldn't be acting as if you've proved anything definitively - especially when the statistics you are relying on are incomplete, at best.

If you can remove two of someone's thirty six receptions and their avg. per reception drops to 10 yards, well, that is a pretty big indictment against his "deep threat" ability.

Metaphors made an argument about Gaffney regarding statistics. I've shown before, on multiple threads, that particular argument to be wrong. I laid out Gaffney's numbers here. Metaphors didn't actually go look at the data to compare, but tossed out names of #1 deep threats as a counter. I used those to show that Gaffney's numbers match up fine despite the poor comparison. Watching film has nothing to do with Metaphors' mistake.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Without context, these prove very little, certainly not that Gaffney is (or was used) as a deep threat.

Depending on the day of the week Deus might say that Gaffney is a deep threat as he does today, or deny that he ever said that as he has on other occasions.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=80690&highlight=deus

Dude...
You're the one who said Gaffney was a deep WR - not me. Don't run away from that now.

That's not what I said, as you well know.

And then at other times he asserts that our RBs and even QBs are also deep threats.

100% of the NFL wide receivers, tight ends, running backs and quarterbacks are a 'viable deep threat' under the right conditions.

So its clear that he just has a different definition of what a deep threat is than most other people - making him right and everyone else wrong.

But personally, I'm not going to hold my breath expecting that opposing DCs are going to keep their DBs deep in the backfield because they think a deep threat WR like Lawrence Maroney is going to catch a 40 yard pass.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look, you guys arguing with me are starting with a flawed premise and building upon that error. Rather than continue down that road, let's look at this in a more appropriate way.

All NFL receivers have the capability of running fast. It's part of the job. Whether a receiver runs a 4.3 40 or a 4.5 40 is of little difference in this matter. Now, obviously a 4.3 is faster than a 4.5. However, I invite you to go do the math and find out what the grand difference in feet covered per 4 seconds is for 4.3 vs. 4.5. You'll find that there is a difference, but it's relatively marginal and not enough to make the difference between a "deep threat" and a "possession receiver". Something other than pure speed is needed to be a "deep threat".

Looking at receivers, you can break down what they do into 4 basic areas of expertise:

Deep receiver
Medium receiver
Short receiver (underneath being a subset)
Inside receiver

Some players can fill the role of one or more of these areas. Very few are comfortable and excel at all of them. Moss and T.O., probably the two best receivers in the game right now, have issues going inside, just for example.

Most teams want to have a receiver who's expertise is putting deep pressure on a defense. That's what's generally called a "deep threat". They also want a player who can excel in the short game, particularly inside. Finally, they look for a receiver who can get the middle yards, both inside and out. When you look at Boston, you see Welker and Gaffney, who both are best at the short and underneath game. You also see Moss, who's at his best pressing defenses long, while also excelling at the intermediate game on the outside. Last year, the team also had Stallworth, who is another deep specialist. Ben Watson is the 'receiver' who's best at the intermediate game over the middle. These roles can be pretty well defined, but they are not exclusive. And, if you break down the geometry of the football field, you can easily see why teams want this sort of balance rather than having all deep receivers or all short receivers.

Watson is fully capable of breaking downfield, as are Welker and Gaffney, just as Moss is perfectly capable of making short catches. This all fits into scheme and personnel. Just by having a Moss on the field, for example, you end up with a more open field on the other side. This allows a player like a Watson or Gaffney to work against lesser coverage on the other side, and allows them to succeed despite not being as skilled in the long game as a Moss (although who is as skilled at it as Moss, really?). Jackson tantalizes people because his college career showed him to have the potential to thrive at all types of receiver, from deep to short, from inside to outside, and it's why he gets a lot of slack from some fans (along with the injury and age situations).