Is Gaffney good enough for our #2 WR?

[Deus Irae]

I share your thoughts on this and I'd have no problems should the Pats draft a day 1 receiver. If for some reason we were to lose Moss or Welker to an injury next season - think of all the big hits Welker took this year - I'm not all that confident Aiken or Gaffney are capable of putting up similar production given that opposing defenses and secondaries have less to contend with in a Moss-less or Welker-less offense.

Also, unless he's being sarcastic, I agree with PJ. I'd love to see Branch back here in a heartbeat if he's released from Seattle.

Lastly, I'm not sure where people came up with "Stallworth was benched in favor of Gaffney" idea.

Gaffney took over as the starter in the middle of the season. "Benched" in this case, doesn't mean that Stallworth never saw the field again.

 

[Synovia]

Actually according to ESPN's breakdown of Stallworth's contract, including the bonuses due, if we kept him in 2008 he would have been due $11 million.

Yes, and then due very little the rest of his contract. He wasn't cut because of the $11M. He was cut because he wasn't any good. The $11m didn't help.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Come on, you can't possibly be this clueless. The point is that you failed to understand the Moss dynamic from the beginning. I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you before you get it. Getting a faster receiver to replace Gaffney isn't going to magically draw teams away from doubling Moss, as we saw when Stallworth was with the team. Moss is a special player and, as long as he's a special player, teams will gamble on the other receivers rather than Moss, unless that other receiver is also a special player. Just being a "deep threat" isn't going to be enough to get it done as, again, Stallworth showed.

I don't know of anyone who says that the Patriots really, really want players that are too slow to beat opposing corners, be it on short, intermediate or deep routes. Hell, I've openly advocated trying to trade for Calvin Johnson. I do, however, know of many people who think that it's more important to have someone who can feast on intermediate routes than it is to have someone who can run 50 yards sprints opposite of Moss, and I happen to be one of them. Belichick, at least based upon his moves to date, seems to be one of them as well.

As for the 2006 group, I don't recall anyone who didn't want to upgrade if possible, although it's possible that someone said that. I do recall people pointing out that the corps at the time had been good enough to get to the AFCCG.

Let's refrain from the name calling please - it undermines your arguments - it doesn't bolster them.

The fact is that Stallworth HAD served as more than just a deep WR in his previous organizations - though he and his 18 ypc average among other stats also shows an ability to get open and go deep (Everyone be prepared for the accusation that I'm "solely" citing a YPC stat.)

Everyone knows the bread and butter for most WRs is the intermediate routes - but the ability to go deep can have some significant positive effects for the rest of the offense and forces defenses to adjust.

I think you might be suffering from selective memory issues regarding the 2006 and your citation of them as the #6 offense, but I'll let you slide on that one for now. It is worth noting however that there were consequences to having an offense that was strong in the short and mid-range, but fully lacking a deep threat WR - and Belichick took action to correct that.

There's also consequences to having a #2 WR who is not a deep threat - and it may be that there's an opportunity to improve that position as well.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Yes, and then due very little the rest of his contract. He wasn't cut because of the $11M. He was cut because he wasn't any good. The $11m didn't help.

Um - yeah I'd say it didn't help.

The $11 million is what he was going to be paid, and what his cap hit was.

If his contract was even only for $1 how would that be relevant?

 

[Deus Irae]

Let's refrain from the name calling please - it undermines your arguments - it doesn't bolster them.

The fact is that Stallworth HAD served as more than just a deep WR in his previous organizations - though he and his 18 ypc average among other stats also shows an ability to get open and go deep (Everyone be prepared for the accusation that I'm "solely" citing a YPC stat.)

Everyone knows the bread and butter for most WRs is the intermediate routes - but the ability to go deep can have some significant positive effects for the rest of the offense and forces defenses to adjust.

I think you might be suffering from selective memory issues regarding the 2006 and your citation of them as the #6 offense, but I'll let you slide on that one for now. It is worth noting however that there were consequences to having an offense that was strong in the short and mid-range, but fully lacking a deep threat WR - and Belichick took action to correct that.

There's also consequences to having a #2 WR who is not a deep threat - and it may be that there's an opportunity to improve that position as well.

I'm not suffering from any selective memory issue. Feel free to pull up the posts.

As for your alleged consequence since I'm assuming you're referring to Gaffney, that "consequence" was becoming the #1 scoring offense in NFL history.

Also, given that you've gone with "pathetic" and "obsess", I don't think I'll feel too much guilt over the use of "clueless".

 

[RayClay]

The problem with the "get another deep threat" argument (and I realize that's not yours) is that they are really saying "get another great wide receiver who can get deep at will", and those players end up in Pro Bowls, or at least with pretty high salaries. Here's all you really need to know to understand their logic:

If I'm not wrong I think I implied that, you already said you didn't say it and I came out and said it, and so did you now.

That's the crux of it in one way. We do have other positions to fill. Gaffney runs good routes and can find holes left due to the dangerousness of the other two receivers.

A guy that can play all the receiver positions like Gaffney and burn the stop watch out of your hand would be very expensive and very underutilized. There is only one football.

We are so close to having completely filled the roles we need at receiver compared to LB, DB, TE, OL for starters, it's not even funny.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm not suffering from any selective memory issue. Feel free to pull up the posts.

As for your alleged consequence since I'm assuming you're referring to Gaffney, that "consequence" was becoming the #1 scoring offense in NFL history.

That's not the reference I was making but boy, you really don't disappoint. There's no need for an upgrade over Gaffney - in fact he must be responsible for the #1 offense in NFL history! (Tom who? Randy who? Wes who?)

Heck - Reche Caldwell was a key cog in 2006's #6 offense. But since we've learned in this thread that having to cover WRs who go deep actually makes it EASIER on Defense, why bother upgrading over him!

Maybe I SHOULD pull up some of your quotes... maybe I'll put them in my Signature Line to show everyone how smart I am by mocking YOUR statements and predictions!


Of course, I wouldn't do that - doing so would really make ME look petty and insecure.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's not the reference I was making but boy, you really don't disappoint. There's no need for an upgrade over Gaffney - in fact he must be responsible for the #1 offense in NFL history! (Tom who? Randy who? Wes who?)

Heck - Reche Caldwell was a key cog in 2006's #6 offense. But since we've learned in this thread that having to cover WRs who go deep actually makes it EASIER on Defense, why bother upgrading over him!

Maybe I SHOULD pull up some of your quotes... maybe I'll put them in my Signature Line to show everyone how smart I am by mocking YOUR statements and predictions!


Of course, I wouldn't do that - doing so would really make ME look petty and insecure.

No, you really should. Otherwise you might just deliberately misstate my posts like you usually do. This post of yours is yet another example, since I never said that Gaffney was responsible for the #1 offense in NFL history.

 

[RayClay]

Let's refrain from the name calling please - it undermines your arguments - it doesn't bolster them.

The fact is that Stallworth HAD served as more than just a deep WR in his previous organizations - though he and his 18 ypc average among other stats also shows an ability to get open and go deep (Everyone be prepared for the accusation that I'm "solely" citing a YPC stat.)

Everyone knows the bread and butter for most WRs is the intermediate routes - but the ability to go deep can have some significant positive effects for the rest of the offense and forces defenses to adjust.

I think you might be suffering from selective memory issues regarding the 2006 and your citation of them as the #6 offense, but I'll let you slide on that one for now. It is worth noting however that there were consequences to having an offense that was strong in the short and mid-range, but fully lacking a deep threat WR - and Belichick took action to correct that.

There's also consequences to having a #2 WR who is not a deep threat - and it may be that there's an opportunity to improve that position as well.

As I recall, Stallworth rarely caught much of anything deep. His forte was YAC. He played a similar role to Gaffney, but had greater speed after he caught it. He also didn't go after contested balls and seemed he chose the wrong route at times. Gaffney seemed to run the right routes when the QB had trouble, maybe that's why he played more late season.

I believe "stretch the field" has to head my list of most annoying catch phrases. The field stays the same size. Moss draws double coverage usually. A smart receiver that can find holes in the zone or vacated spots due to Moss coverage, get open and be where the QB expects can prosper. Stallworth had some trouble with this.

There are a lot of catches to be made in the middle of the field. They require precise route running, toughness to fight for the ball and synchronization with the QB. Changing receivers to get someone faster could likely be counter productive. There is a lot more than speed to being an effective WR.

Just ask Jerry Rice.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Gaffney took over as the starter in the middle of the season. "Benched" in this case, doesn't mean that Stallworth never saw the field again.

To me, it really doesn't matter that much who started at WR in any given game. I seem to recall that in the second half of last year, Gaffney started at least one game ahead of Welker, but I assume we'd agree that Welker's role and importance to the offense was greater than that of Gaffney's.

Said this, your point is fair especially considering that Gaffney's offensive participation surged ahead of Stallworth's beginning with the Pitt game in Week 14 if memory serves. I think that in part had something to do with Watson getting dinged up followed by Kyle Brady whereby the offense either had no TEs or were forced to employ O'Callahan as the 2nd blocking TE. Gaffney's a better blocker than Stallworth. That aside, I agree that it also suggest Gaffney had moved ahead of Stallworth in his role with the offense.

To get back to the point of the thread though, I seem to recall a similar thread in this forum from a year ago. Following the release of Stallworth, something I agreed with given the terms of his subsequent signing with the Browns and I always felt Moss would be resigned, the general consensus here was that a quartet of Moss, Welker, Chad Jackson and Gaffney would be formidable if not one of the best in the league. I can't say I agreed with that and I really can't say I'm all that reassured with the thought of Gaffney as the #2 on the WR corp. I think he's a solid journeyman #3 and nothing more.

 

[Deus Irae]

To me, it really doesn't matter that much who started at WR in any given game. I seem to recall that in the second half of last year, Gaffney started at least one game ahead of Welker, but I assume we'd agree that Welker's role and importance to the offense was greater than that of Gaffney's.

Said this, your point is fair especially considering that Gaffney's offensive participation surged ahead of Stallworth's beginning with the Pitt game in Week 14 if memory serves. I think that in part had something to do with Watson getting dinged up followed by Kyle Brady whereby the offense either had no TEs or were forced to employ O'Callahan as the 2nd blocking TE. Gaffney's a better blocker than Stallworth. That aside, I agree that it also suggest Gaffney had moved ahead of Stallworth in his role with the offense.

To get back to the point of the thread though, I seem to recall a similar thread in this forum from a year ago. Following the release of Stallworth, something I agreed with given the terms of his subsequent signing with the Browns and I always felt Moss would be resigned, the general consensus here was that a quartet of Moss, Welker, Chad Jackson and Gaffney would be formidable if not one of the best in the league. I can't say I agreed with that and I really can't say I'm all that reassured with the thought of Gaffney as the #2 on the WR corp. I think he's a solid journeyman #3 and nothing more.

Gaffney starting over Welker doesn't matter. Gaffney starting over Watson doesn't matter.

However, given that Gaffney and Stallworth were playing the same role, Gaffney starting over Stallworth does matter, especially since he had more receptions over the last 7 games, when he had 24 of his 36 receptions compared to Stallworth having 18 of his 46 catches.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

However, given that Gaffney and Stallworth were playing the same role, Gaffney starting over Stallworth does matter, especially since he had more receptions over the last 7 games, when he had 24 of his 36 receptions compared to Stallworth having 18 of his 46 catches.

To me it really doesn't matter considering Stallworth, unlike Gaffney, is not even in the running for the #3, #4 or whatever WR spot for the '09 season.

 

[Deus Irae]

To me it really doesn't matter considering Stallworth, unlike Gaffney, is not even in the running for the #3, #4 or whatever WR spot for the '09 season.

I understand, but it matters given JSP's arguments, and it matters given the likelihood of Brady's return.

I'm with you on Gaffney, and I expected Caldwell to be kept over him, but he's been adequate as the team's #4 receiver (behind Moss, Welker and Faulk) with the exception of those drops. While I'd love to have an upgrade at that spot, I put that upgrade way down towards the bottom of the Patriots "to do" list.

Ideally, in my opinion (barring trading for Calvin Johnson), the Patriots will get a first round pick for Cassel, and use one first rounder on a tackle and the other on another ILB, followed by a safety in the second round and a guard, OLB and either a scat back or a corner with the 3 other picks that would be in the top 3 rounds.

 

[Synovia]

Um - yeah I'd say it didn't help.

The $11 million is what he was going to be paid, and what his cap hit was.

If his contract was even only for $1 how would that be relevant?

Because overpaying a guy in one year is not a big deal unless it breaks the cap. Its a smart move, if you can pull the money forward, then the player counts very little in future years.


If Stallworth had put up great numbers, and we took the option, then he would have made $11M this year... and then we'd have an elite receiver for $3m a year for the next 4 years. one year overpaid, 4 years underpaid.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Because overpaying a guy in one year is not a big deal unless it breaks the cap. Its a smart move, if you can pull the money forward, then the player counts very little in future years.


If Stallworth had put up great numbers, and we took the option, then he would have made $11M this year... and then we'd have an elite receiver for $3m a year for the next 4 years. one year overpaid, 4 years underpaid.

OK - so you say Stallworth's $11 million one year contract wasn't a factor in why he was cut.

You might be interested in knowing that the franchise tag salary for a WR was $7.8 million in 2008.

So what kind of numbers do you think Stallworth, or any WR would have to put up in one year to be worth a one year $11 million contract?