Is Gaffney good enough for our #2 WR?

[RayClay]

I didn't realize Gaffney was a free agent. Did he sign a 1 year contract?

 

[VJCPatriot]

It would be nice to get a speedier receiver out there to stretch the field so D's wouldn't double down on Moss so much. Question is is it worth it to make a big effort to get a 3rd wr? I guess it all comes down to cost. Whether we're talking cap space or draft picks.

 

[JoeSixPat]

It would be nice to get a speedier receiver out there to stretch the field so D's wouldn't double down on Moss so much.

That's a pretty controversial statement to some people around here bubs.

 

[VJCPatriot]

That's a pretty controversial statement to some people around here bubs.

What's controversial about it? Name the SPEEDSTER receivers that can stretch a defense, the Pats have outside of Moss.

 

[ALP]

What's controversial about it? Name the SPEEDSTER receivers that can stretch a defense, the Pats have outside of Moss.

ohh, thats easy....its um.....of course its......well we have....

thats right, no one


but u are right, the upgrade may not be worth the money or the pick

 

[JSn]

I'm sticking with Gaffney unless Housh wants to move east for reasonable dough and some whale watching vouchers.

I'd take either of the Bengals WR's as a #2 (as in Moss + #2 = deep/intermediate threats, Welker = Wraith-Like Slot/YAC Man.

The real debate is this: our defense needs some tinkering and a few major enhancements. If we invest anything in offense, it needs to be a steal.

This offense was 8th in scoring and 6th in total offense - with Matt Cassel, first time starter. This team went 11-5 despite a sinking ship on defense.

I really think if Gaff is up for a reasonable payday, he'll stay put, subject to camp competition.

 

[JoeSixPat]

What's controversial about it? Name the SPEEDSTER receivers that can stretch a defense, the Pats have outside of Moss.

But you're forgetting that if both WRs could go deep that would make it easier on the defense!

(I don't know what that means either - but that's what I'm told.)

 

[Synovia]

Not that I think we need to cover this ground again, but you can't just say Gaffney "beat out" Stallworth and not consider their salary.

There was no way they were going to keep Stallworth at $6 mil a season when Gaffney had similar numbers.

If Welker's salary demands were $30 million a season, I guess it would be likely that Gaffney would "beat out" Welker too. But that would be a product more of the salary cap than a football decision.

Stallworth's contract wasn't 6 million a year. It had a $6m roster bonus and then was about $3m a year.


Gaffney, at the end of the season, had replaced Stallworth. Not because of money, but because he was getting open more often.





Welker is our #2. Watch some football guys: When the Patriots go 2 wide, its Welker and Moss, not Gaffney and Moss. Gaffney is the 3, despite the fact that Welker slides inside on 3 wide.

 

[Synovia]

What's controversial about it? Name the SPEEDSTER receivers that can stretch a defense, the Pats have outside of Moss.

They actually have a couple. Its just that none of them are any good yet.

 

[RayClay]

But you're forgetting that if both WRs could go deep that would make it easier on the defense!

(I don't know what that means either - but that's what I'm told.)

You play two safeties deep and leave the whole middle of the field between Welkers short territory and the deep area open, because good route running and open catches and runs in that area don't count.

Somebody thinks having a slightly faster receiver is going to keep Moss from getting doubled?

Maybe we could get Bethel Johnson or Chad Jackson back?

 

[Deus Irae]

You play two safeties deep and leave the whole middle of the field between Welkers short territory and the deep area open, because good route running and open catches and runs in that area don't count.

Somebody thinks having a slightly faster receiver is going to keep Moss from getting doubled?

Maybe we could get Bethel Johnson or Chad Jackson back?

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:

out of them all I look for Stallworth's versatility to be the most significant upgrade.

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

I'm not knocking Moss but I think he's a one trick pony - go fast, go deep, catch the ball.

Stallworth can do that too - but he can do much more. Stallworth was still a major deep threat when he was averaging 14 ypc in New Orleans - its just that he could do much more than just go deep. I think Brady and Belichick are really going to like the fact that he's more than just a deep threat.

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

 

[blackglass3]

Stallworth's contract wasn't 6 million a year. It had a $6m roster bonus and then was about $3m a year.

Gaffney, at the end of the season, had replaced Stallworth. Not because of money, but because he was getting open more often.

Welker is our #2. Watch some football guys: When the Patriots go 2 wide, its Welker and Moss, not Gaffney and Moss. Gaffney is the 3, despite the fact that Welker slides inside on 3 wide.

Don't bother, man. He is hellbent on thinking the FO didn't want to pay him and told the coaching staff to play Gaffney instead. Stallworth is incredibly valuble apparently...that's why he's on his 4th team in 4 years.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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

Stallworth's contract wasn't 6 million a year. It had a $6m roster bonus and then was about $3m a year.

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.

We've got a lot of resident cap experts here who are convinced that an $11 million cap hit had nothing to do with him being cut.

If you ask them if the numbers were switched who they'd keep - Gaffney with 36 catches and a cap hit of $11 million or Stallworth with 46 catches and a $1.2 million cap hit, they will do somersaults to avoid saying they'd cut Gaffney if the situation were reversed.

Everyone seems like they want to convince themselves that Stallworth was an utter failure. He wasn't. 46 receptions is nothing to sneeze at and defenses WERE double teaming Moss less at the beginning of the season when they thought that Stallworth and Moss both were going to be used as deep threats.

Was Stallworth worth keeping at $11 million? No of course not - and even when he was signed it was recognized - as noted in the ESPN article - that it was a 1 year contract... not even a "show me" contract as it'd be near impossible for him to show a value of $11 million.

But did giving Gaffney as much time, if not more time, than Stallworth, adversely effect the Patriots? I'd say no - especially since they decided they weren't going to use Stallworth deep, and that the offense was going to be VERY Moss oriented (something Belichick and McDaniels eventually admitted they thought they had overdone, and sought a more balanced offense in 2008) In fact, as I said previously (though people want to ignore that and twist my words) Gaffney is a better all around WR than Stallworth.

Typically fans want to look at 3 or 4 games rather than an entire season and draw conclusions - and bolster that conclusion by the fact that a player, due to receive $11 million was cut due to performance issues rather than salary. And if they looked at some of those games they might even see that with winds blowing at 30 mph it might make sense to give Gaffney the bulk of playing time rather than a WR who is more suited to a non-existent deep game in that wind.

But I digress - the question at hand is whether the Patriots could upgrade their #2 spot (meaning the outside, opposite WR to Moss rather than a half a dozen other definitions of what a #2 WR is).

I'd say the answer is YES but much depends on other cap priorities and available players.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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:



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

Didn't you post that before in this thread?

Upset you didn't get enough responses to that so you need to post it again?

That's a little pathetic, don't you think... especially since you're pulling quotes from BEFORE the 2007 season ever started and before Moss and Stallworth had even played ONE DOWN for the Patriots in an attempt to supposedly show that I think Stallworth had a more successful 2007 season than Moss.

If you'd like to obsess about me some more and go back and search my quotes you'll actually see that I made a post saying that I was wrong about Moss being a one trick pony and that it was HE who showed it was an all around great WR... obviously. If you ask me who the better DEEP WR is I'll still say a healthy Stallworth was better deep than Gaffney.

 

[PatsFan2]

Anbody who says Jabar Gaffney is better than Donte' Stallworth was for the N.E. Patriots is just kidding themselves. Donte' Stallworth would have caught all those balls Gaffney dropped.:snob: I for one would be very surprised if Gaffney was resiged...there is ten times better out there is FA and the Draft.

 

[Deus Irae]

Didn't you post that before in this thread?

Upset you didn't get enough responses to that so you need to post it again?

That's a little pathetic, don't you think... especially since you're pulling quotes from BEFORE the 2007 season ever started and before Moss and Stallworth had even played ONE DOWN for the Patriots in an attempt to supposedly show that I think Stallworth had a more successful 2007 season than Moss.

If you'd like to obsess about me some more and go back and search my quotes you'll actually see that I made a post saying that I was wrong about Moss being a one trick pony and that it was HE who showed it was an all around great WR... obviously. If you ask me who the better DEEP WR is I'll still say a healthy Stallworth was better deep than Gaffney.

Actually, the fact that you didn't know how it would play out, but you got the Stallworth/Moss dynamic completely wrong is what I was pointing to. Your lack of understanding of the dynamics involved is why your argument fails. It's not because you guessed wrong. It's because you completely fail to understand the dynamics involved in having Randy Moss on the field.

Furthermore, the irony of you talking about "obsess" is amusing. You started the thread, but my response was to RayClay, who was posting about both receivers going deep as opposed to one taking a shorter route. You then responded to me. After I answered you, you began talking about BB sitting Stallworth because Stallworth was going to make more money than Gaffney. In your mind, Stallworth had the better season, but BB sat him down anyway, because of money that would be due the following year.

Obsession is correct. The claim as to which of us has it is simply mistaken.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Actually, the fact that you didn't know how it would play out, but you got the Stallworth/Moss dynamic completely wrong is what I was pointing to. Your lack of understanding of the dynamics involved is why your argument fails. It's not because you guessed wrong. It's because you completely fail to understand the dynamics involved in having Randy Moss on the field.

I understand. You think that if one doesn't have 20/20 foresight then their hindsight must be just as myopic!

I was wondering how you were going to rationalize that!

As far as whether we could upgrade over Gaffney, I seem to recall a similar argument going into 2007 when a great deal of effort was made to use statistics to show that the 2006 WR Corps was more than adequate - #6 in the NFL no less - and that no upgrade was necessary.

Thank goodness Coach Belichick and I saw eye to eye on that one!

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand. You think that if one doesn't have 20/20 foresight then their hindsight must be just as myopic!

I was wondering how you were going to rationalize that!

As far as whether we could upgrade over Gaffney, I seem to recall a similar argument going into 2007 when a great deal of effort was made to use statistics to show that the 2006 WR Corps was more than adequate - #6 in the NFL no less - and that no upgrade was necessary.

Thank goodness Coach Belichick and I saw eye to eye on that one!

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.

 

[goldenaleus]

I'd have Gaffney back at a reasonable rate and I have no problem with him as a #2 WR.

I feel that our Receiving Corp really needs improvement at the TE spot.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

I think that Gaffney is a good option, but I believe that Aiken will battle for the spot, as well. Barring some young talent coming onto the team, I think that Gaffney and Aiken will battle for the 2/4 spot.

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.