Gaffney vs. Jackson?

[Deus Irae]

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.

Here you go again, trying to twist the truth. By your own metric, Gaffney and Stallworth did the job last year. I wasn't the one who came up with "ball in the air" as the defining metric. You couldn't accept that, so you tried to change your argument and definition. I simply didn't let you, so you had to start with the distortions.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Moving swiftly along

Gaffney has to start ahead of Jackson but we have a weak schedule this year and to be honest if a game is won in Q3 I dont want to see Brady going for 50TDs with Moss, I want to see Maroney run the ball more and guys like CJ and Aiken get some reps, Perfect way for Brady and Jackson to get on the page as we get deeper into the season

I hope we use Watson more too. Go watch how Indy uses Clark and Addai out of the backfield as the DB's are running about trying to cover Wayne and Harrison - hopefully McDaniels can use a few of those ideas as Watsons got the speed and agility over LB's as has LM out the backfield. Then maybe on the odd play send CJ deep and see how he does in single coverage - he's got the atheleticism to pull it off

 

[Bostonian1962]

This one is easy. Gaffney is the #3. Jackson is trying to make the team.

 

[bradmahn]

This one is easy. Gaffney is the #3. Jackson is trying to make the team.

Jackson is already on the team and any speculation otherwise is missing the forest through the trees.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Here you go again, trying to twist the truth. By your own metric, Gaffney and Stallworth did the job last year. I wasn't the one who came up with "ball in the air" as the defining metric. You couldn't accept that, so you tried to change your argument and definition. I simply didn't let you, so you had to start with the distortions.

So you ARE saying that Gaffney is a deep threat now? Because in the past, when I said, that you said that Gaffney was a deep threat, you got mad and said "That's not what I said and you know it"


But - regardless, overall I think I understand where the "stats" are failing you.

It's very convenient to start combining the stats of multiple players.

If you add the deep catches of Gaffney, Stallworth, Welker, Maroney, Watson - even Reche Caldwell - and the others you've mentioned in subsequent posts, and think of them as one player, then they do indeed have VERY impressive stats - and probably collectively are even more of a "deep threat" than Randy Moss.

The problem here - and this is where what others call the "eyeball test" - is that its rather difficult to roll all those players into one and have them all play WR at the same time.

This is why, regardless of how many players stats you combine, a defensive coordinator will not look at these players and say - "I'd better watch out and keep my DBs far back because its likely that their RB is going to catch a 30 yard bomb."

DCs look at each player and his tendencies and abilities - they don't look at the fact that "anyone, including a QB, can be a deep threat" and push their defenses back.

That's the general flaw of your premise.

 

[Metaphors]

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).

Yet you don't post any statistics on 30+ yard passes? Maybe because they don't support your argument. Gaffney has exactly 1 (a trick pass where he got deep only because nobody covered him). I imagine the others have better numbers than that where they beat a defender deep just using speed and acceleration (not a double lateral play). What do they call players who can do that??? Oh year, a deep threat.

By the way, just to help you out, I found all 5 of Gaffney's "deep" plays:
WAS - 21 yard pass from Cassel to the middle of the field
BUF - 31 yard pass from Brady in the right flat
PHI - 32 yard pass from Brady in the deep middle zone
PIT - 56 yard pass from Brady deep middle (trick play)
MIA - 48 yard pass from Brady on the left sideline (lots of YAC after DB had sure int go through his hands)

Hmmm...all of these except the double lateral play were passes in front of defenders less than 30 yards downfield...meaning not a single "deep" pass in the bunch.

He only had 11 catches in 2006 with a long of 33 yards, so I guess we have to look earlier for evidence of his deep ability.

2005 - 55 catches with a long (including YAC) of 29 yards
2004 - 41 catches, one 69-yard catch but otherwise a long of 30 yards
2003 - 34 catches with a long of 33 yards
2002 - 41 catches with a long of 27 yards

There is no way a reasonable person can look at his stats and see a deep threat.

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.

You go ahead and add catches from Gaffney's career before 2007 and see if that makes your argument better. Good luck with that.

As for me being wrong, you are probably the only person in the world that can see a 22-yard out pattern, come back route or curl in front of zone coverage and consider that a "deep" pattern.

In the NFL, every wide receiver is fast enough to be a 'deep threat'.

Thus endeth the discussion. If your premise is that everyone is a deep threat and teams just choose not to send them deep, that point can't be argued. So that is your opinion and opinions are great things to have.

 

[satz]

This is thread is very misleading .
1)Gaffney had 1 session where moss and wes was out and caught every catch thrown his way .brady threw alot to him on 7-7 drill that day.Jackson has never had even 1 session like that. He has 1 catch here and their but never had a session where brady threw to him.
2)He had a few drops and we see pwf blog where it has been mentioned that after each time jackson missed a catch or ran a wrong route brady had a few words to say.
3)Fauria was on TV and one of the things he said is if you do not catch balls from brady and run bad routes even when you are a bit more open than a guy he trusts he will throw it to the other guy and not you.He said it is going to be hard for jackson to being to build this trust first with brady if he keeps doing a highlight catch followed by running bad routes and not catching balls.
4)Brady in the past has shown that if he trusts you he will throw it to that receiver more even if the other guy is open AKA stallworth after the mid point of the season.
5)Gaffney is on the 3rd year and how many key reception does he have ,when moss and wes get shutdown gaffney has made his catchs count a reason brady`s trust him.

problem is ofcourse is brady , if the coachs want to push jackson they can make brady throw to him but i believe they will not.its even more bad when aiken is making more plays than jackson which again goes to brady giving a chance and if aiken does a good job he will get more balls.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you ARE saying that Gaffney is a deep threat now? Because in the past, when I said, that you said that Gaffney was a deep threat, you got mad and said "That's not what I said and you know it"


But - regardless, overall I think I understand where the "stats" are failing you.

It's very convenient to start combining the stats of multiple players.

If you add the deep catches of Gaffney, Stallworth, Welker, Maroney, Watson - even Reche Caldwell - and the others you've mentioned in subsequent posts, and think of them as one player, then they do indeed have VERY impressive stats - and probably collectively are even more of a "deep threat" than Randy Moss.

The problem here - and this is where what others call the "eyeball test" - is that its rather difficult to roll all those players into one and have them all play WR at the same time.

This is why, regardless of how many players stats you combine, a defensive coordinator will not look at these players and say - "I'd better watch out and keep my DBs far back because its likely that their RB is going to catch a 30 yard bomb."

DCs look at each player and his tendencies and abilities - they don't look at the fact that "anyone, including a QB, can be a deep threat" and push their defenses back.

That's the general flaw of your premise.

The reason that you combine Stallworth and Gaffney is simply because there was a change at the #2 outside receiver position, with Gaffney beating out Stallworth. If you don't do that, you cannot get an accurate look at that position over the course of the full season, as you well know. Look, I know it hurts that your pet theory is crap, but your pet theory is crap. The two highest scoring offenses in NFL history were built around 1 deep man and 2 'short' men. The Cowboys and 49ers were built around the one "deep threat" concept as well. It's far more important and effective to threaten all areas of the field than it is to threaten deep on both sides of the line of scrimmage.

 

[Metaphors]

Look, I know it hurts that your pet theory is crap, but your pet theory is crap. The two highest scoring offenses in NFL history were built around 1 deep man and 2 'short' men. The Cowboys and 49ers were built around the one "deep threat" concept as well. It's far more important and effective to threaten all areas of the field than it is to threaten deep on both sides of the line of scrimmage.

What are you talking about? Have you shifted gears from "Gaffney is a deep threat" to "Gaffney isn't a deep threat, but so what"?

What I (and JSP too I believe) am trying to say is that the wide position opposite Moss ideally should demonstrate the threat of going deep. This keeps the defense (particularly the safety not shading Moss) from pressing the LOS and causing havoc...or enabling others to cause havoc.

CJack provides this threat in theory. Gaffney does not. That doesn't mean Gaffney can't play outside. He can and he has. It means that defenses can leave a #2 CB alone on Gaffney (or shade their deep zone away from his side of the field) without much fear of consequence.

Now CJack can't instill this fear in the opposing defense from the sideline or if Brady doesn't have confidence in throwing to him. Thus the "in theory" comment above. If CJack can get on the field, the Pats will truly be able to attack all areas of the field. He isn't going to run just fly routes all day. In fact, he would likely be the target of hot routes or WR screens much more than anything deep. But the threat of going deep forces the defense to account for that area of the field. That is one less player to blitz Brady, attack Welker, etc.

 

[PatsFan2]

Re: Gaffney vs. Chad "Bethel" Jackson?

This one is easy. Gaffney is the #3. Jackson is trying to make the team.

The best post in the entire thread...i don't know why people even think that Chad Jackson have made this Team. He will get his opportunity in Preseason, but if is only average he's out of here. I hope Jackson is atleast decent in running a few routes...if he's a one trick vertical pony he outta here! Those guys are very easy to cover and you can fid them on the streets ie...see Bethel Johnson.

 

[Deus Irae]

What are you talking about? Have you shifted gears from "Gaffney is a deep threat" to "Gaffney isn't a deep threat, but so what"?

What I (and JSP too I believe) am trying to say is that the wide position opposite Moss ideally should demonstrate the threat of going deep. This keeps the defense (particularly the safety not shading Moss) from pressing the LOS and causing havoc...or enabling others to cause havoc.

CJack provides this threat in theory. Gaffney does not. That doesn't mean Gaffney can't play outside. He can and he has. It means that defenses can leave a #2 CB alone on Gaffney (or shade their deep zone away from his side of the field) without much fear of consequence.

Now CJack can't instill this fear in the opposing defense from the sideline or if Brady doesn't have confidence in throwing to him. Thus the "in theory" comment above. If CJack can get on the field, the Pats will truly be able to attack all areas of the field. He isn't going to run just fly routes all day. In fact, he would likely be the target of hot routes or WR screens much more than anything deep. But the threat of going deep forces the defense to account for that area of the field. That is one less player to blitz Brady, attack Welker, etc.

What I've said about your posts is that your argument about Gaffney and statistics was wrong. The new twist to your argument is just the same rehashing of JSP's argument, ignoring the reality that every single receiver in the NFL can "demonstrate the threat of going deep".

The "deep threat" argument is pointless because the team can already attack every area of the field precisely because Moss demands so much attention. The reality is that there are only a handful of receivers in the NFL that would make opposing teams drop defenders off of Moss in fear of the #2 guy. Moss beats triple coverage, so teams aren't going to game plan by saying "We've got to stop Stallworth/Jackson/etc. here. We'll let Moss get his." So, unless you think the team is going to get T.O., Chad Johnson or someone else of that level, your argument won't hold. Of course the ideal is that you want someone who consistently threatens the entire field. However, the players who do that are rarer than truth in a political campaign. Even Moss and T.O. don't really threaten all 9 receiving zones, and they are the best receivers in the league.

As for leaving a #2 CB alone on Gaffney, that has nothing to do with his ability to go deep, or lack thereof. That has to do with his overall talent level, short or deep. If your argument is that you think Gaffney is really a good #3 rather than a solid #2, I can see where you're going with that, but that's a different issue.

 

[bradmahn]

What I've said about your posts is that your argument about Gaffney and statistics was wrong. The new twist to your argument is just the same rehashing of JSP's argument, ignoring the reality that every single receiver in the NFL can "demonstrate the threat of going deep".

The "deep threat" argument is pointless because the team can already attack every area of the field precisely because Moss demands so much attention. The reality is that there are only a handful of receivers in the NFL that would make opposing teams drop defenders off of Moss in fear of the #2 guy. Moss beats triple coverage, so teams aren't going to game plan by saying "We've got to stop Stallworth/Jackson/etc. here. We'll let Moss get his." So, unless you think the team is going to get T.O., Chad Johnson or someone else of that level, your argument won't hold. Of course the ideal is that you want someone who consistently threatens the entire field. However, the players who do that are rarer than truth in a political campaign. Even Moss and T.O. don't really threaten all 9 receiving zones, and they are the best receivers in the league.

As for leaving a #2 CB alone on Gaffney, that has nothing to do with his ability to go deep, or lack thereof. That has to do with his overall talent level, short or deep. If your argument is that you think Gaffney is really a good #3 rather than a solid #2, I can see where you're going with that, but that's a different issue.

I'm convinced you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Deep threats don't average 12 yards per catch, regardless of what other statistic you care to cite.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm convinced you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Deep threats don't average 12 yards per catch, regardless of what other statistic you care to cite.

This is just a silly notion. Your YPC does not dictate the type of threat you are. It dictates the type of yardage you AVERAGE. Big difference. Moss and Stallworth both averaged 15.2 YPC last season. Are you going to claim that they were even as far as being deep threats? Was Anthony Gonzalez of the Colts (15.7 YPC) more of a deep threat than both Moss and Stallworth?

 

[bradmahn]

This is just a silly notion. Your YPC does not dictate the type of threat you are. It dictates the type of yardage you AVERAGE. Big difference. Moss and Stallworth both averaged 15.2 YPC last season. Are you going to claim that they were even as far as being deep threats? Was Anthony Gonzalez of the Colts (15.7 YPC) more of a deep threat than both Moss and Stallworth?

The one has no bearing on the other.

Having a high ypc doesn't definitively say you are a "deep threat" (although it's tough to argue against it but I'm sure you'd try); having a low one (12.4 yards per catch, for instance) means that a great deal of your passes were for under 13 yards. You're not getting behind coverage or being thrown to deep if that is the case - especially when his two largest gains were on a gimmick play and a play where the defender was on him, missed a play on the ball, and Gaffney some how pulled it down and ran free.

Defenders are confident in putting one corner on Gaffney and cheating the safety near the line of scrimmage - they don't consider him a threat to beat them deep, either.

And only you, who have clearly been ignorant of the concept of contextualization, would think that averaging 15.7 yards on 37 catches is a valid comparison to someone who had a 15.2 ypc on 98.

 

[Deus Irae]

Having a high ypc doesn't definitively say you are a "deep threat" (although it's tough to argue against it but I'm sure you'd try); having a low one (12.4 yards per catch, for instance) means that a great deal of your passes were for under 13 yards. You're not getting behind coverage or being thrown to deep if that is the case - especially when his two largest gains were on a gimmick play and a play where the defender was on him, missed a play on the ball, and Gaffney some how pulled it down and ran free.

I love your argument. Gaffney's not able to get deep because he's generally used for shorter plays and because he was open on a 'gimmick' play and a play where he beat a defender. Sheer genius. What's next "Brady isn't great because the ball gets caught by the receiver and not Brady himself?" Let's try this one more time, since you can't seem to grasp this simple notion:

Moss = Best deep threat in the NFL, capable of beating triple teams

ANY NFL QUALITY PLAYER OPPOSITE MOSS: Facing single coverage, should be able to get open short, medium or deep often enough to help the team.

Gaffney last season: Had several catches that fit JSP's definition of "deep", however he made them.

Defenders are confident in putting one corner on Gaffney and cheating the safety near the line of scrimmage - they don't consider him a threat to beat them deep, either.

Did you watch the games last season? I'm just curious, since the Patriots went 16-0 and set a record for most points scored in a season. They did this with Gaffney, whom people here keep denigrating, supplanting Donte "Deep threat" Stallworth as the team's #2 outside receiver. I'm not even a big Gaffney fan, but I'm giving him his due. You people really need to put the Super Bowl behind you. It's embarrassing to watch you allow 3 minutes of a football game rob you of your intelligence.

And only you, who have clearly been ignorant of the concept of contextualization, would think that averaging 15.7 yards on 37 catches is a valid comparison to someone who had a 15.2 ypc on 98.

While you calling me ignorant about pretty much anything is an amusing irony, I wasn't the one who pointed to YPC: you were. Your argument was invalid because YPC is an average based upon a combination of factors and not just a barometer of "deep threat" ability. I simply exposed that for what it is.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The reason that you combine Stallworth and Gaffney is simply because there was a change at the #2 outside receiver position, with Gaffney beating out Stallworth.

Now you're really stretching - you're almost trying to make it seem like Gaffney played half a season and Stallworth played half a season - when in fact they both played a FULL SEASON and yet you want to combine their stats as if they were one player who had the cumulative stats of two guys who only played in 8 games.

Or, looked at another way, you want to treat a full season of stats for Gaffney and a full season of stats for Stallworth as each having the equivilent of only a half season simply because they flip flopped #2 and #3 positions, although they both played for a full season each.

Sorry Deus - it doesn't work that way. You can't just double the statistics for them and deem them something they are not. They each played a full season - their stats are what they say they are.

You've moved well beyond statistical analysis into some make believe world where we just cannot follow, nor does it appear is this something that can be discussed with you logically.


Now one more matter that still needs to be addressed:

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae
That's not what I said, as you well know.

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

Are you saying that Gaffney IS or IS NOT a deep threat? Because before you very strongly seemed to say he WAS NOT - nor have you addressed the issue of why you changed your mind.

 

[bradmahn]

ANY NFL QUALITY PLAYER OPPOSITE MOSS: Facing single coverage, should be able to get open short, medium or deep often enough to help the team.

You're okay with Moss facing triple coverage because it means that "ANY NFL QUALITY PLAYER OPPOSITE MOSS" can get open against single coverage? (For the sake of the argument, I'm willing to accept the absurdity of this blanket statement). This offense is not dependent on, nor should it be the goal, to simply make it easier for the third best receiver on the team to get open when one of the all-time greats is an option. A receiver who is capable of forcing teams to respect the other deep half of the team would allow for Moss to work against "only" two defenders at a time.

The fact that throughout the second half of the season and into the playoffs teams consistently double and triple teamed Moss, when we also saw an upswing in Gaffney's playing time, would seemingly disprove any claims of effective and consistent deep threat ability that you attempt to make regarding Jabar Gaffney, would it not?

He isn't a deep threat because the other team doesn't respect that threat, otherwise Moss wouldn't have to beat triple coverage as often as you think he actually does.

They do not need someone to run go routes all the time, they need someone who can, with some degree of regularity, beat an opponent, one-on-one, for a deep completion to draw the safety away from Moss's side of the field. Gaffney can take advantage of the intermediate and short stuff, but he doesn't make anyone else better and that is what this discussion is about. For you to argue that he does is ridiculous.

 

[dhamz]

Great - the seemingly endless "deep threat" debate has shown up here and replaced the question the original poster asked.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Gaffney without a doubt. He knows how to be an NFL WR right now.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Great - the seemingly endless "deep threat" debate has shown up here and replaced the question the original poster asked.

It's very much a related question, because ideally you want the #2 WR to have legitimate deep threat capabilities (i.e. not the deep threat that anyone, including a QB, can be in the right situation)... not just to give Brady an alternative deep threat and draw deep coverage to both sides of the field - but to fill in as the primary deep threat WR if Moss should become injured.

If Jackson can put his talent into actual practice on the field that will be a great thing - but to this point, Gaffney is the one who has the rapport, timing, and trust of Brady. Jackson's not yet earned that - and thus, not the spot on the roster, let alone #2 WR.

Don't get me wrong - the team will do great with Moss at #1 and Gaffney at #2. I think a lot of fans would just like to see a #2 with the deep play abilities to be a #1 WR in case Moss should tweak a hamstring and miss a few games or worse.

So I guess one deciding factor might be is if you feel confident about our WR corps without Moss and with Gaffney as the #1 deep threat WR, which I guess technically is what he was as of the end of 2006.