Law - Gaffney - Dan Morgan any word?

[Metaphors]

Re: Law - Gaffney - Dan Morgan any word ?

I agree with you on every point except that the #4 and #5 WRs aren't likely to play a vital role on this team.

Actually didn't mean to suggest that. My point was the #4-5 are likely to make a bigger mark on ST than on the field. I think you will see less 4-5 wide formations this year and more 2 TE and TE/RB.

I don't think Belichick was completely comfortable with the chuck-n-duck formations Brady was so often lined up in...but how could he argue with the production? More rushing. More TE and RB catches. More max protect. Less naked backfield (sorry ladies).

 

[Lampshade]

Re: Law - Gaffney - Dan Morgan any word ?

What do the numbers indicate? How much they are paid? How many catches/TDs/yards they get?

#1 and #2 generally refers to your Z/flanker and X/split end (or the reverse, can't remember). #3 is your Y/slot guy. Any numbers bigger than that are backups to #1-3. Not sure if that is what your numbers mean, but I'll refer to the WR spots that way in this post.

Moss is the clear #1 and Welker is the clear #3. You can debate all you want about who should be opposite Moss, but it is a natural fit for CJackson. Assuming the Pats only want to keep 5 wides, I think they are done shopping. Washington and Aiken fill out the position and are standouts on ST. #4-5 aren't going to get many touches on offense unless injuries strike so strong ST play would seem to be a requirement.

If Gaffney is signed and makes the 53, I think he becomes the #2 opposite Moss and CJackson starts looking in the classifieds. It makes little sense having both of them.

I think it's a virtual lock that both Aiken and Washington make the roster, but imo it will be with 4 other receivers (Moss, Welker, Gaffney, Jackson).

I think we'd be daft to go into the season with Washington and Aiken as #4 and #5 on the depth chart. While I'm sure they will both be given the opportunity to earn more time at receiver, it still leaves the team one injury away from starting a receiver who caught 0 balls last year despite playing in 14 games. Too risky for my blood.

edit: and now I see you answered it as I typed!

 

[kkpat]

they did because Law was on his way to Kansas and received BB's phone call.

I think he was talking about the time he signed with Chiefs 2 years back.

 

[patsfanofNC12]

Re: Law - Gaffney - Dan Morgan any word ?

There is always Reche, aka bug eyes

 

[NE39]

I'm sorry, people are selling Gaffney short. He came up huge in the playoffs in '06, and if they make one more first down against the Colts he might be playoff MVP.

IMO, Gaffney's production is pretty impressive when you consider the snaps he got. I'd put him up against a lot of the crap out there in FA. I think the guy has great hands. He isn't a burner, but he seems to be one of those guys who does a lot of things well but nothing great. The sum is greater than the parts, IMO, and I want him back unless he gets way overpriced.

As for Morgan, can't we sign him and get him fitted for one of those special mouthpieces from Marvin Hagler's dentist?