Is Gaffney good enough for our #2 WR?

[Deus Irae]

I think I have to disagree with you and Deus that the only way to upgrade the #2 WR position is to bring in an expensive All-Pro.

Neither Ray nor myself made any such claim.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Gaffney started the last 6 games as the #2 WR, and Stallworth was the #4, and was more productive in the role. Are you saying the Pats played a less talented Gaffney during the season because they were going to have to pay Stallworth in the offseason? That makes no sense.

Let's put it this way - would you keep Gaffney if he were costing $6 million a year?

Depending on your answer I think you'll understand a very big reason as to why Stallworth was let go.

I'm not lamenting not keeping Stallworth, especially given this year's injuries - but to think that salary had nothing to do with Gaffney's 36 catches "beating out" Stallworth's 46 catches that season tends to miss the big picture.

Now that being said I tend to agree that Gaffney's a better all around WR than Stallworth - and very well suited as a #3 WR - but we have that with Welker already, and I think we could use an upgrade at #2.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Neither Ray nor myself made any such claim.

Then how is the point that we can't afford an All-Pro #2 WR relevant to a discussion of a possible upgrade over Gaffney?

Let me ask you the same question as blackglass: Let's say to keep Gaffney next season - you need to give him a $6 million bonus just for next season. Do you pay it and keep him?

Actually, Stallworth's salary for 2008 was slated to be $11 million. (... an option bonus of $6 million by Feb. 25, 2008, a subsequent roster bonus of $2 million due March 1, a second roster bonus of $1.6 million based on playing time, a base salary of $1 million and a $400,000 workout bonus. That totals an exorbitant $11 million for 2008). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2794615

Would you pay Gaffeny $11 million for one season, or do you think that even though he "beat out" every other WR on the roster for the #2 WR position, you might consider cutting him?

In answer to the other question about giving Gaffney more opportunities to earn the #2 spot over Stallworth (and again, I think Gaffney IS a better all around WR) the answer is YES - the Patriots DID KNOW that Stallworth's contract had that kind of money and they had a $11 million reasons why they wanted to see what they had in Gaffney.

When Stallworth was signed it was recognized by most everyone that it was effectively a one year contract given the money involved- and the signing of Moss pretty much ensured that was going to be the case. So I would absolutely say that anyone who thinks the $11 million salary for Stallworth didn't play a role in cutting him is really kidding themselves.

 

[Deus Irae]

Then how is the point that we can't afford an All-Pro #2 WR relevant to a discussion of a possible upgrade over Gaffney?

Let me ask you the same question as blackglass: Let's say to keep Gaffney next season - you need to give him a $6 million bonus just for next season. Do you pay it and keep him?

Actually, Stallworth's salary for 2008 was slated to be $11 million.

Would you pay Gaffeny $11 million for one season, or do you think that even though he "beat out" every other WR on the roster for the #2 WR position, you might consider cutting him?

You do love to deliberately change arguments and toss out silly hypotheticals when you make losing arguments. Stallworth was beaten out in the middle of the year and what he was going to make afterward has nothing to do with him being outplayed by Gaffney.

 

[WhiZa]

Caldwell was our #1 WR a few years back, and Gaffney beat him out. I would say he's good enough for #2.

 

[patsox23]

To answer the thread question succinctly: Absolutely not.

 

[Deus Irae]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/55327-wonder-how-stallworth-feels-about-moss-deal.html#post421297

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/56116-who-will-most-valueable-new-addition-team-year.html#post435796

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/56116-who-will-most-valueable-new-addition-team-year.html#post435886

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/58634-moss-vs-ad-vs-welker-vs-stallworth.html#post481925

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/71002-stallworth-has-been-bumped.html#post689268

You really need to stop with this argument of yours.

 

[blackglass3]

Let's put it this way - would you keep Gaffney if he were costing $6 million a year?

Depending on your answer I think you'll understand a very big reason as to why Stallworth was let go.

I'm not lamenting not keeping Stallworth, especially given this year's injuries - but to think that salary had nothing to do with Gaffney's 36 catches "beating out" Stallworth's 46 catches that season tends to miss the big picture.

Now that being said I tend to agree that Gaffney's a better all around WR than Stallworth - and very well suited as a #3 WR - but we have that with Welker already, and I think we could use an upgrade at #2.

So you're telling us that BB decided to bench Dante Stallworth in the middle of last season solely because he was going to cost $6mil in the offseason. I know you're not a brand new fan of the team, so does this sound like something the coaching staff does?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Caldwell was our #1 WR a few years back, and Gaffney beat him out. I would say he's good enough for #2.

Wow. I think equating Caldwell with a #1 WR probably needs its own thread.

You might recall that, technically, our #6 WR beat out Caldwell since he was cut the next year.

 

[JoeSixPat]

So you're telling us that BB decided to bench Dante Stallworth in the middle of last season solely because he was going to cost $6mil in the offseason. I know you're not a brand new fan of the team, so does this sound like something the coaching staff does?

Wow.

It's black and white with everyone isn't it?

Salary played no role whatsoever? The team had no interest in seeing if Gaffney could assume Stallworth's role given his $11 million pricetag the next year?

Again - answer this question

It's the 2007 offseason and the situations between Gaffney's contract and Stallworth's contracts are flipped.

Jabbar Gaffney is going to cost you $11 million next season. He caught 36 passes, many of which came in a stretch where he was given time over Stallworth.

Stallworth who caught 46 passes is going to cost $1.2 million.

Who are you taking?

 

[blackglass3]

Your question has no bearing on anything, it's just more of the "IF" game, which is why no one is answering it.

Now I know why we lost Super Bowl 42, I guess. Because the coaches didn't want to play the guys with the big contracts coming up, they wanted the lower salary guys on the field. I wish our coach would have played the best players!

But seriously, why would next years salary base who the coaches play the most of in the current year? By your rational, wouldn't Asante Samuel have been the 3rd or 4th CB on the team, since we knew he was going to need big bucks to resign him?

 

[RayClay]

I think I have to disagree with you and Deus that the only way to upgrade the #2 WR position is to bring in an expensive All-Pro.

Well, we need a receiver to find the holes in the zone, run those intermediate routes and develop a chemistry with QBs. If he also has to have elite top end speed, why wouldn't a guy like that be all pro? Plus I guess he'd need size (Gaff is 6'1" 200).

Gaffney was picked 33rd, exactly one spot from a 2st round pick, so we're not talking chopped liver here.

 

[RayClay]

Let's put it this way - would you keep Gaffney if he were costing $6 million a year?

Depending on your answer I think you'll understand a very big reason as to why Stallworth was let go.

I'm not lamenting not keeping Stallworth, especially given this year's injuries - but to think that salary had nothing to do with Gaffney's 36 catches "beating out" Stallworth's 46 catches that season tends to miss the big picture.

Now that being said I tend to agree that Gaffney's a better all around WR than Stallworth - and very well suited as a #3 WR - but we have that with Welker already, and I think we could use an upgrade at #2.

Welker is a midget slot receiver. Saying he is interchangeable with 6'1" 200 lbs. is absurd. Of course we can't afford 6 million dollars for a complementary receiver. You're arguing against yourself now.

 

[RayClay]

Then how is the point that we can't afford an All-Pro #2 WR relevant to a discussion of a possible upgrade over Gaffney?

Let me ask you the same question as blackglass: Let's say to keep Gaffney next season - you need to give him a $6 million bonus just for next season. Do you pay it and keep him?

Actually, Stallworth's salary for 2008 was slated to be $11 million. (... an option bonus of $6 million by Feb. 25, 2008, a subsequent roster bonus of $2 million due March 1, a second roster bonus of $1.6 million based on playing time, a base salary of $1 million and a $400,000 workout bonus. That totals an exorbitant $11 million for 2008). Stallworth might spend just one year with Patriots - NFL - ESPN

Would you pay Gaffeny $11 million for one season, or do you think that even though he "beat out" every other WR on the roster for the #2 WR position, you might consider cutting him?

In answer to the other question about giving Gaffney more opportunities to earn the #2 spot over Stallworth (and again, I think Gaffney IS a better all around WR) the answer is YES - the Patriots DID KNOW that Stallworth's contract had that kind of money and they had a $11 million reasons why they wanted to see what they had in Gaffney.

When Stallworth was signed it was recognized by most everyone that it was effectively a one year contract given the money involved- and the signing of Moss pretty much ensured that was going to be the case. So I would absolutely say that anyone who thinks the $11 million salary for Stallworth didn't play a role in cutting him is really kidding themselves.

Gaffney is very good at his job. He is also affordable. sure, he's had cold streaks, he's had hot streaks Too. You're trying to fix something that's not broke, that's why you're tying yourself into logical knots.

Stallworth has some skills our other receivers don't. Nevertheless, he won't get enough passes to exploit those skills here unless they start throwing two balls every play. He'll get more work amd more money elsewhere.

We might find another receiver to reliably fill Gaffney's role affordably. I doubt it, though, so I'll take the bird in the hand.

Of course receivers, especially those wading through the trash looking for open space like Gaffney's role, benefit tremendously by working with the same quarterback over time. That's a benefit we totally lose by auditioning new receivers.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Your question has no bearing on anything, it's just more of the "IF" game, which is why no one is answering it.

Now I know why we lost Super Bowl 42, I guess. Because the coaches didn't want to play the guys with the big contracts coming up, they wanted the lower salary guys on the field. I wish our coach would have played the best players!

But seriously, why would next years salary base who the coaches play the most of in the current year? By your rational, wouldn't Asante Samuel have been the 3rd or 4th CB on the team, since we knew he was going to need big bucks to resign him?

No - the reason no one will answer it is because it illustrates a very simple fact:

If Gaffney were to cost the Patriots $11 million in 2008 and Stallworth were to cost $1.2 million which one would you cut and which one would you keep?

Deus? blackglass? Anyone?

Which one?

You're clear in your opinion that Gaffney with his 36 receptions outplayed Stallworth and his 46.

So that should even be MORE of a slamdunk for keeping Gaffney, right? Salary doesn't enter into the equation, right?

Or are you beginning to think that, gee, maybe Stallworth's $11 million DID play a minor role in the decision to let him go? And maybe, knowing that there was NO WAY the Patriots would be bringing back Stallworth at $11 million (as the ESPN article acknowledges, it was effectively a one year contract) you don't think it would make sense for a coach to see what Gaffney could do as a starter, when he knew Stallworth wouldn't be back the next season?

But again - answer the question. Gaffney at $11 million and Stallworth at 1/10th as much. Who do you keep and who do you cut?

 

[blackglass3]

No - the reason no one will answer it is because it illustrates a very simple fact:

If Gaffney were to cost the Patriots $11 million in 2008 and Stallworth were to cost $1.2 million which one would you cut and which one would you keep?

Deus? blackglass? Anyone?

Which one?

You're clear in your opinion that Gaffney with his 36 receptions outplayed Stallworth and his 46.

So that should even be MORE of a slamdunk for keeping Gaffney, right?

Or are you beginning to think that, gee, maybe Stallworth's $11 million DID play a minor role in the decision to let him go?

Dude, no one is saying the money he was owed had something to do with him being let go. We all knew when he signed his contract it was a "Prove It" deal. What *I* am saying is his money had NOTHING to do with his loss of playing time to Jabar Gaffney. He finished the season as the #4 WR because Gaffney worked harder and is a better route runner. He didn't prove he was worth the $6 million he was owed and the team let him go.

What *you're* saying (as I am understand it) is that Bill Belichick didn't play Stallworth BECAUSE he was going to be getting that big pay raise at the end of the year. And that makes no sense at all...why would the team sign him to a prove it deal and then bench him?

To answer your question, I would keep NEITHER. Jabar Gaffney is not worth 11 million dollars, and Dante Stallworth is lazy and not a real "Patriots" type of guy. Now, please, answer my question...do you honestly think he was sitting on the bench because of his upcoming contract?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Welker is a midget slot receiver. Saying he is interchangeable with 6'1" 200 lbs. is absurd. Of course we can't afford 6 million dollars for a complementary receiver. You're arguing against yourself now.

What's absurd is the number of different definitions people have of what a #2 and #3 and #4 WR is.

Now we have "midget slot receiver" working into the mix?

Does that make Moss a "Giant WR" and therefore anyone subject to terming him a #1 WR is subject to derision?

 

[Lampshade]

No - the reason no one will answer it is because it illustrates a very simple fact:

If Gaffney were to cost the Patriots $11 million in 2008 and Stallworth were to cost $1.2 million which one would you cut and which one would you keep?

Deus? blackglass? Anyone?

Which one?

You're clear in your opinion that Gaffney with his 36 receptions outplayed Stallworth and his 46.

So that should even be MORE of a slamdunk for keeping Gaffney, right? Salary doesn't enter into the equation, right?

Or are you beginning to think that, gee, maybe Stallworth's $11 million DID play a minor role in the decision to let him go? And maybe, knowing that there was NO WAY the Patriots would be bringing back Stallworth at $11 million (as the ESPN article acknowledges, it was effectively a one year contract) you don't think it would make sense for a coach to see what Gaffney could do as a starter, when he knew Stallworth wouldn't be back the next season?

But again - answer the question. Gaffney at $11 million and Stallworth at 1/10th as much. Who do you keep and who do you cut?

When they were both under contract Gaffney ended up getting Stallworth's playing time. How much they were owed the following year is irrelevant. It's a red herring, a straw man, a whatever. Gaffney proved to be a better option for this offense than Stallworth.

 

[stinkypete]

A couple of questions to consider...

1) Is Gaffney going to be that expensive to keep? I don't see why. He's a complimentary player who has had some clutch catches and some high profile drops. He's been unsuccessful in the west coast offense, and he couldn't hang around with a crappy Houston team. Has he really stood out enough to warrant a big payday? Is another team going to go after Gaffney with their sights set on him starting?

2) Is there an improvement available? Gaffney plays a role in this offense. He runs routs underneath the safeties, he runs sideline routs, and plays a 3rd read/possession receiver type. Replacing him with a speed demon isn't necessarily going to improve the team. The only potential free agents who seem to fit that role who won't be totally cost prohibitive are Bryant Johnson and Reggie Williams. Are either of those players better than Gaffney?

 

[ikeman20]

I'm happy with him as #2. He certainly seems content in the role, knowing that he may not get a pass his way for an entire game, but he's also good enough to take advantage when Welker/Moss are getting extra attention.

Also, importantly, Brady and Cassel both seem to have confidence in him.

Its not welker/moss. It will never be welker/moss. Its Moss/welker. Get it right buddy. I know its petty but am saying...I hope Brady will be there to restore order to the position starting week 1. Amen