Why no talk about Randall Gay?

[Bostonian1962]

It's mildly interesting to me that there is so much talk about Hobbs, Samuel, Hawkins, and Co., and to an even larger degree the need for a CB in the draft, and yet not alot on the skills of Randall Gay.

He was our starting CB for our last Super Bowl winning season, and is only 23. Is this simply an out of sight, out of mind situation?

I'm not one to say that everybody the Pats sign is great, and everyone that leaves us stinks. Not at all. I do happen to really like what Gay brings to the table.

I'll say this, the Pats need a WR more than they need a CB. They need a LB more than they need a CB.

Always remember, and never forget: Before you even consider one of our draft picks after this upcoming draft, remember that if you take the team that was fielded against Denver, you can add a starting LT (Light), C (Koppens), CB (Gay), and if we are REALLY lucky SS (Harrison) to the team for the 2006 version (not to mention the fact that Bruschi, Graham, and Dillon were hobbling greatly. If all 7 are healthy, isn't that alot of firepower?

But, back to my point, Gay was a starter and will be back in the mix. That's not insignificant in this man's opinion. Agree? Disagree? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[BrianPat]

I agree, I think it's a good signing !!

I think he's going to come along and be a strong player for the Patriots

 

[patsfan13]

It's mildly interesting to me that there is so much talk about Hobbs, Samuel, Hawkins, and Co., and to an even larger degree the need for a CB in the draft, and yet not alot on the skills of Randall Gay.

He was our starting CB for our last Super Bowl winning season, and is only 23. Is this simply an out of sight, out of mind situation?

I'm not one to say that everybody the Pats sign is great, and everyone that leaves us stinks. Not at all. I do happen to really like what Gay brings to the table.

I'll say this, the Pats need a WR more than they need a CB. They need a LB more than they need a CB.

Always remember, and never forget: Before you even consider one of our draft picks after this upcoming draft, remember that if you take the team that was fielded against Denver, you can add a starting LT (Light), C (Koppens), CB (Gay), and if we are REALLY lucky SS (Harrison) to the team for the 2006 version (not to mention the fact that Bruschi, Graham, and Dillon were hobbling greatly. If all 7 are healthy, isn't that alot of firepower?

But, back to my point, Gay was a starter and will be back in the mix. That's not insignificant in this man's opinion. Agree? Disagree? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I agree 100%, I am happy with our situation at CB, and the entire secondary, I would like to see WR help, a couple of LB's (espically a 6'4" 260+ replacement for McGinest) and a RB.

 

[fgssand]

I agree 100%, I am happy with our situation at CB, and the entire secondary, I would like to see WR help, a couple of LB's (espically a 6'4" 260+ replacement for McGinest) and a RB.

I love Gay's play and potential. I am pretty excited about our depth at CB. I think we will also draft a CB or two.

HOWEVER - do we have a shutdown corner in this group? Can we win a SB without one? Could that be what BB is saying to Mr. Law??

 

[fgssand]

I agree 100%, I am happy with our situation at CB, and the entire secondary, I would like to see WR help, a couple of LB's (espically a 6'4" 260+ replacement for McGinest) and a RB.

I love Gay's play and potential. I am pretty excited about our depth at CB. I think we will also draft a CB or two.

HOWEVER - do we have a shutdown corner in this group? Can we win a SB without one? Could that be what BB is saying to Mr. Law??

 

[Patjew]

It's mildly interesting to me that there is so much talk about Hobbs, Samuel, Hawkins, and Co., and to an even larger degree the need for a CB in the draft, and yet not alot on the skills of Randall Gay.

Maybe it's because he has the worst selling jersey in the league.

 

[Pats726]

Firstly...I think we all assumed he would be back..as an ERFA?? (Whatever..) SO xxxing him in was almost a no-brainer. I like that he is back and certainly will be in the mix..his injury was worsened because of his use earlier than should be..but I hope he has improved and learned in watching. A big year for him!! But why no talk?? I think we all assumed he would be in the mix..(hardly a signing of note..)

 

[Welker83]

It's mildly interesting to me that there is so much talk about Hobbs, Samuel, Hawkins, and Co., and to an even larger degree the need for a CB in the draft, and yet not alot on the skills of Randall Gay.

He was our starting CB for our last Super Bowl winning season, and is only 23. Is this simply an out of sight, out of mind situation?

I'm not one to say that everybody the Pats sign is great, and everyone that leaves us stinks. Not at all. I do happen to really like what Gay brings to the table.

I'll say this, the Pats need a WR more than they need a CB. They need a LB more than they need a CB.

Always remember, and never forget: Before you even consider one of our draft picks after this upcoming draft, remember that if you take the team that was fielded against Denver, you can add a starting LT (Light), C (Koppens), CB (Gay), and if we are REALLY lucky SS (Harrison) to the team for the 2006 version (not to mention the fact that Bruschi, Graham, and Dillon were hobbling greatly. If all 7 are healthy, isn't that alot of firepower?

But, back to my point, Gay was a starter and will be back in the mix. That's not insignificant in this man's opinion. Agree? Disagree? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Your equation is missing a few variables:

A + B - C = D

A= Team that lost to Broncos
B= Players Re-gained from injury
C= Players lost through FA/TRADE/RETIREMENT

Gain: Light,Koppens, Gay, Harrison
Lost: Vinateri, Mcginest, Ashford, Givens, Dwight,

Thus..you will need more than just your guys coming off injury....

 

[Welker83]

Maybe it's because he has the worst selling jersey in the league.

And it was banned for a while...

 

[Alk]

I love Gay's play and potential. I am pretty excited about our depth at CB. I think we will also draft a CB or two.

HOWEVER - do we have a shutdown corner in this group? Can we win a SB without one? Could that be what BB is saying to Mr. Law??

If that's the case, we're going to be looking for an awful long time for a "shutdown" corner. Unless Belichick invents the time machine and goes back about 10 years and grabs Neon Deon.

 

[cubedoggy]

Your equation is missing a few variables:

A + B - C = D

A= Team that lost to Broncos
B= Players Re-gained from injury
C= Players lost through FA/TRADE/RETIREMENT

Gain: Light,Koppens, Gay, Harrison
Lost: Vinateri, Mcginest, Ashford, Givens, Dwight,

Thus..you will need more than just your guys coming off injury....

A = Poor execution was to blame. I will never admit that better team won, because it didn't. The Pats gave that game away.
B = Is far more important than you care to admit. Let's see you guys lose your starting LT, C, Nickel, and SS to injury this year and see how well you do.
C = Depth (at K, OLB, OL, WR, Returner) + Draft = No problem.

It's Ashworth, BTW.

 

[ilduce06410]

"shutdown corner" may be too costly

I love Gay's play and potential. I am pretty excited about our depth at CB. I think we will also draft a CB or two.

HOWEVER - do we have a shutdown corner in this group? Can we win a SB without one? Could that be what BB is saying to Mr. Law??

if ty's willing to come up here for 'five dollars', and miichael irvin put it, pats will have a shutdown corner.
shutdown corners are in short supply, tho.
we seem to have a number of CBs who play well when they're off the ball. that is to say they don't do press coverage well, but they can mimic the WR's moves with about a 2-yard cushion. it puts the CB in a position to swipe a ball if his footwork is good enough (and IMO that separates good from elite).
ty is a cover corner of the elite, or shutdown, variety. he can stick to a WR throughout the route. with commentary i guess.
i'm not sure we NEED a shutdown corner. everybody WANTS one.
what we need is a couple cover guys. not of the ty law standard, but players who want to stick to the WR. we don't have a DB like that rite now.

 

[Welker83]

A = Poor execution was to blame. I will never admit that better team won, because it didn't. The Pats gave that game away.
B = Is far more important than you care to admit. Let's see you guys lose your starting LT, C, Nickel, and SS to injury this year and see how well you do.
C = Depth (at K, OLB, OL, WR, Returner) + Draft = No problem.

It's Ashworth, BTW.

I will definatly agree that poor execution was to blame. The problem though is you can't just say execution will be fixed. We saw various occasions when the Pats completely melted down (KC, SD, DEN). Now whether execution was related to injury is an endless debate. OR it could be you have problems with the AFC West.

Luckily you had Depth at all of those positions lost to injury last year except SS... you do not however have depth at LB, K, WR, Returner... Thus those losses are a little more painful than you think.


Sorry bout the spelling...

 

[Welker83]

if ty's willing to come up here for 'five dollars', and miichael irvin put it, pats will have a shutdown corner.
shutdown corners are in short supply, tho.
we seem to have a number of CBs who play well when they're off the ball. that is to say they don't do press coverage well, but they can mimic the WR's moves with about a 2-yard cushion. it puts the CB in a position to swipe a ball if his footwork is good enough (and IMO that separates good from elite).
ty is a cover corner of the elite, or shutdown, variety. he can stick to a WR throughout the route. with commentary i guess.
i'm not sure we NEED a shutdown corner. everybody WANTS one.
what we need is a couple cover guys. not of the ty law standard, but players who want to stick to the WR. we don't have a DB like that rite now.

There are no more Shut-down Corners..They have been re-named as Pass-interference Corners....

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Here's my pet peeve going into the "physical corner" versus "shutdown corner" debate (which I am not sure reflects a reality, at least not one that cannot be corrected with coaching and scheme...)

When Warfield shows up as the leading tackler on (until recently) the Chiefs, he sucks in coverage (yet is somehow still around to always get to the receiver, leading the team in tackles because he is an inept corner.)

When Law shows up as the leading tackler in a game, and this too happened from time to time, he is a "cover corner" who somehow let the guy get the ball specifically to also be a "physical corner" and lean into him with a forearm.

Okay, not to compare the two - Law gets to the ball more, a la Wesley of the Chiefs, as well as clocking his share of receivers. But that's just comparing good to great.

I remember Law's rep B.B. (before Belichick) - good, but will never be great. A frustrated safety. I wonder if a few years of Foxborough Finishing School can make a Law out of a Warfield. I also wonder whether "Make a Law out of a Warfield" was a slogan the U.N. ever toyed with. But I digress.

The main point - when it's Warfield, too many tackles means "out of position," whether opposing QBs are contained or not. When it's Law, the tackles means he's tough and physical as well as a classic shutdown guy who never lets his man near the ball.

You can argue that Law is capable of being either on every given day, but he can't be both on the same day.

I'm starting to see the point about flexible definitions around here.

PFnV

PS, to the 'Phins guy - for a Dolphin, Welker is great! What did he do, score a TD, kick the PA, then kick off and make the tackle on his own kickoff? I forget. But that kid's got some heart.

That said, you guys are so screwed this year. Think if Williams is out you can pick up The Whizzinator?

PFnV

 

[shakadave]

But, back to my point, Gay was a starter and will be back in the mix. That's not insignificant in this man's opinion. Agree? Disagree? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Agree! Great post, '62! I've been posting in various places, saying it in various ways, that we don't need another DB. (There was even the "We Don't Need Another DB" thread.) And Gay was an important part of my calculus.

I really liked him in 2004, not that he was flashy or a star or anything. Remember, with his Saban/LSU background he has more experience "in the system" than we think!

 

[AzPatsFan]

I love Gay's play and potential. I am pretty excited about our depth at CB. I think we will also draft a CB or two.

HOWEVER - do we have a shutdown corner in this group? Can we win a SB without one? Could that be what BB is saying to Mr. Law??

We did win one without a "shutdown" corner. In fact we won one with personnel viewed at that time as "scrubs"!

 

[RayClayborne]

makes it a collectors item

And it was banned for a while...

what's it going for on ebay?

 

[RayClay]

what's it going for on ebay?

If you could find a Ray Clayborne that would be a collectors item.

I'd like to buy an "e" Pat.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

"shutdown corner" and "roadgrader" will be the 2 most overused terms you hear in the next 2 weeks.

gay is a great signing... he was a starting CB for a superbowl winning team... as to law, what did he do last year to warrant a big contract? nothing. he had more pass interference calls than int's... remember, when a CB is really good, they wont get many int's, because the opponents fear them and throw away from them... we have plenty of CB's... the last thing we need is a defensive back; i dont know why the pundits think we need one.