Gaffney Released

[Kontradiction]

As far as I'm concerned, the Pats are 50% better off now than last year. Last year, the Pats had 2 starting caliber WRs on the roster....now they have 3. And hopefully the same will be said about our TEs....assuming either/both Fells and Shiancoe make the team.

And don't forget Demps.....put him out wide, send him in motion, and watch the confusion as he crosses behind the LBs

Is there any evidence that Demps, at this point, is even remotely close to being on the same page with Brady as Gaffney was? Being really fast is one thing, but to make it work in this system, you have to be on the same page as Brady.

 

[BradyManny]

Then we're looking at crowded boxes and flooded fields all over again. Not only will that hurt the short passing game, it'll also hurt the running game.

I agree. It's why I have to think or hope Gaffney will be back - or we try and sign another receiver.

I find it hard to believe we would be so aggressive in addressing the WR position this offseason only to essentially go back to what we had last year but with a Lloyd-Ocho swap. Sure, that's an improvement, but you're one injury from the same problem again - as you point out.

And some are - perhaps rightly - going to point out that that "problem" only manifested itself in the final game of the year when our best weapon was banged up - but call me paranoid, but I just don't want to see it happen again. It's too simple a problem not to address. You can't fill every hole on the roster. But the ones you can, you should. Gaffney prevents us from ever running into the scenario in which we are handcuffed on the outside. Let him be #53 on the roster and a gameday inactive if need be, but it's worth it. The reward is too high, the importance of that role in our offense too large.

If Gaffney's injury was going to keep him out several weeks, cutting him now and re-signing him then makes sense. For all the talk about him having some poor performance in practice before the injury, I thought he was clearly one of Brady's top options when I was at camp a couple weeks before. He and Brady definitely had a chemistry.

 

[Rob0729]

I understand him and Stallworth have declined but Branch is just as bad if not worse, it must be favoritism. I assume we will need to rely on an improved run game and defense because we still have a weak WR unit.

Branch hasn't declined like Stallworth. Not even close. Stallworth was mediocre this preseason playing with the 2s and 3s. Branch is not a #2 WR, but can be a decent #3.

Also, this WR group is significantly better just with the addition of Lloyd. Lloyd is a massive improvement from Branch as the #2 WR and by sliding Branch to #3 he automatically becomes a massive improvement over last year's #3 WR (Ochocinco). So we have improved two of the three highest WR positions. Look around the league and tell me all the teams with a great #4 WR.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Is there any evidence that Demps, at this point, is even remotely close to being on the same page with Brady as Gaffney was? Being really fast is one thing, but to make it work in this system, you have to be on the same page as Brady.

Bingo! He certainly wasn't on the same page with Mallett either. That said, it's way too early to expect any pages from newbie Demps who still gets lost finding the way from the locker room to the practice fields.

 

[Rob0729]

People need to put things in perspective here. We are are 164 posts and counting deep discussing a guy who would have been a #3 WR at best, but possibly a #4 WR. If you bring Stallworth into the mix, we are talking a #4 WR.

I really like Gaffney and I hope he will be back in a few weeks, but even with him and Stallworth cut, this WR corp is still much improved from last year. Lloyd is an upgrade at #2 and Branch sliding from #2 to #3 makes it an upgrade at #3 too.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Branch hasn't declined like Stallworth. Not even close. Stallworth was mediocre this preseason playing with the 2s and 3s. Branch is not a #2 WR, but can be a decent #3.

Also, this WR group is significantly better just with the addition of Lloyd. Lloyd is a massive improvement from Branch as the #2 WR and by sliding Branch to #3 he automatically becomes a massive improvement over last year's #3 WR (Ochocinco). So we have improved two of the three highest WR positions. Look around the league and tell me all the teams with a great #4 WR.

I think Branch is finished, he was only decent due to Brady being an amazing QB last season. Lloyd hasn't played a game with us yet though I do think he will be solid, we improved one slot by adding him to Welker, so instead of one we have two good WRs. I wonder if Hernandez is ready to become a legit threat this year.

To me its not about the quantity, there are teams with guys who can make tough catches around the field when needed, we only have one guy who can do that, unless Hernandez steps up, Welker and Gronk are one trick ponies though VERY good ones. Sorry I just can't see anything regarding Branch as an 'upgrade', he prob will be done by the bye week.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Looking back, it's clear BB thinks that The Hut never should have put Princess Leia on that leash.
Payback time?

 

[BradyManny]

I really like Gaffney and I hope he will be back in a few weeks, but even with him and Stallworth cut, this WR corp is still much improved from last year. Lloyd is an upgrade at #2 and Branch sliding from #2 to #3 makes it an upgrade at #3 too.

Using Bedard's nomenclature as a guide:

2011:
X WR: Branch
X WR 2: Ocho
X WR 3: Slater
Z WR: Welker
Z WR 2: Edelman

2012:
X WR: Lloyd
X WR 2: Branch
X WR 3: Slater
Z WR: Welker
Z WR 2: Edelman

The red denotes the improvement.

The problem is, an injury to Lloyd, and we actually end up thinner than last year. Branch slides back to 1, Slater becomes second on the depth chart. Maybe this is where we have to start counting Hernandez as a WR. The Patriots had good health from their receivers last year, let's hope that continues this year.

 

[Kontradiction]

I agree. It's why I have to think or hope Gaffney will be back - or we try and sign another receiver.

I find it hard to believe we would be so aggressive in addressing the WR position this offseason only to essentially go back to what we had last year but with a Lloyd-Ocho swap. Sure, that's an improvement, but you're one injury from the same problem again - as you point out.

And some are - perhaps rightly - going to point out that that "problem" only manifested itself in the final game of the year when our best weapon was banged up - but call me paranoid, but I just don't want to see it happen again. It's too simple a problem not to address. You can't fill every hole on the roster. But the ones you can, you should. Gaffney prevents us from ever running into the scenario in which we are handcuffed on the outside. Let him be #53 on the roster and a gameday inactive if need be, but it's worth it. The reward is too high, the importance of that role in our offense too large.

If Gaffney's injury was going to keep him out several weeks, cutting him now and re-signing him then makes sense. For all the talk about him having some poor performance in practice before the injury, I thought he was clearly one of Brady's top options when I was at camp a couple weeks before. He and Brady definitely had a chemistry.

Agreed with everything you said except for the fact that it only manifested itself in the Super Bowl. It manifested itself a few times throughout the season and in the AFCCG. The trick is that the opposing defense has to be good enough to take advantage of it.

 

[zeroakuma]

This topic will soon become "I'll Always Remember Gaffney for...", so I'll go ahead and start.

I'll always remember the Statue Of Liberty play with Gaffney, where he was mistaken for Stallworth.

Speaking about the Statue, I'll be in New York and Massachusetts, after I help my brother move into his dorm at Wesleyan, Connecticut.

 

[Rob0729]

I think Branch is finished, he was only decent due to Brady being an amazing QB last season. Lloyd hasn't played a game with us yet though I do think he will be solid, we improved one slot by adding him to Welker, so instead of one we have two good WRs. I wonder if Hernandez is ready to become a legit threat this year.

To me its not about the quantity, there are teams with guys who can make tough catches around the field when needed, we only have one guy who can do that, unless Hernandez steps up, Welker and Gronk are one trick ponies though VERY good ones. Sorry I just can't see anything regarding Branch as an 'upgrade', he prob will be done by the bye week.

First, I don't know if Branch is finished. His time as a full time starter may be, but I think he could be a solid #3 WR. He did have a good game vs. the Broncos in the playoffs. He still seems to have enough to be a back up.

Second, we are talking about a position that in a good game might catch three to four balls at most and be on the field 30% of the offensive snaps. With Gronk and Hernandez on the team, the #3 WR only gets to see the field in 4 and 5 wide sets most of the time.

Third, if it isn't about quantity, then why are you complaining? Name all the teams' starting line up as good as Lloyd, Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez? Branch would probably beat out any of the #3 WRs in this division. He might beat out the #3s in about half the teams in the league.

 

[BradyManny]

Agreed with everything you said except for the fact that it only manifested itself in the Super Bowl. It manifested itself a few times throughout the season and in the AFCCG. The trick is that the opposing defense has to be good enough to take advantage of it.

Exactly. And depending upon the draw, the likelihood is that teams we face in January and February will have good enough defenses.

The reality is that I think the offense played well enough to win in the Super Bowl in the limited chances it had the ball. I also think the offense executed better than it's given credit for in the Baltimore game, and that Brady was just a little off the mark that day. It scored on five of its first seven possessions, excluding a kneeldown. On a complete tangent, what no one mentions about that game is that towards the end of the first half, Gronk picked up a first down inside the ten yard line and the refs blew the call saying he was out of bounds, potentially cost us a TD instead of the FG we ended up with. Completely changed the game. We could've gone into halftime up 17-10, getting the ball to start the 3rd with a chance to go up two possessions.

But that's all besides the point, and I really digress. Life would've been a whole lot easier in both games with a deep threat helping dictate the way defenses covered us. I anticipate Lloyd's impact being big. But again, if he's injured, that dynamic is just gone.

 

[Rob0729]

Using Bedard's nomenclature as a guide:

2011:
X WR: Branch
X WR 2: Ocho
X WR 3: Slater
Z WR: Welker
Z WR 2: Edelman

2012:
X WR: Lloyd
X WR 2: Branch
X WR 3: Slater
Z WR: Welker
Z WR 2: Edelman

The red denotes the improvement.

The problem is, an injury to Lloyd, and we actually end up thinner than last year. Branch slides back to 1, Slater becomes second on the depth chart. Maybe this is where we have to start counting Hernandez as a WR. The Patriots had good health from their receivers last year, let's hope that continues this year.

The thing is discussing injuries is kinda moot at this point. We haven't waited to see if the other shoe will fall. What happens if Gaffney is re-signed mid to late September? What if the Pats pick someone off of waivers? What if the Pats pull a trade before the season starts? What if Ebert turns into the next David Givens?

Sure Lloyd could go down to injury, but I don't see this team anymore thin than last year if Branch (who was in Lloyd's role last year) went down to injury. You gotta compare apples to apples. That means if you are talking about an injury to Lloyd you need to compare it to what it would look like last year to the player playing in his role. So I kinda disagree with your premise. I mean if Welker goes down to injury this year, this team is thinner at WR this year even if the Pats re-sign Gaffney in a couple of weeks.

 

[BradyManny]

What happens if Gaffney is re-signed mid to late September? What if the Pats pick someone off of waivers? What if the Pats pull a trade before the season starts? What if Ebert turns into the next David Givens?

Sure Lloyd could go down to injury, but I don't see this team anymore thin than last year if Branch (who was in Lloyd's role last year) went down to injury. You gotta compare apples to apples. That means if you are talking about an injury to Lloyd you need to compare it to what it would look like last year to the player playing in his role. So I kinda disagree with your premise.

No disagreement with any of the above, really. I just think the depth at WR last year was inadequate, so anytime we compare it to last year, we're comparing it to something inadequate. We're trying to avoid that lack of depth. I'd just feel more comfortable if a healthy Gaffney is re-signed in a few weeks.

 

[goheels22002]

Along with OG, OT, DT, CB especially considering all the impending unrestricted free agents on the New England Patriots roster:

Brian Waters
Donald Thomas
Sebastien Vollmer
Wes Welker
Deion Branch
Julian Edelman
Danny Woodhead
Ron Brace
Myron Pryor
Trevor Scott
Bobby Carpenter
Niko Koutouvides
Kyle Arrington
Marquice Cole
Patrick Chung

Only four of these guys are "must-sign" free agents in my book - Welker, Vollmer, Arrington and Chung. That's not bad. the Pats enter next spring in pretty good shape.

Let's assume one of these guys gets the franchise tag. If Arrington or Chung take the next step as an elite DB, the Pats will probably tag one of them and deal with the others by dangling hometown friendly contracts.

Welker may decide he wants out of Dodge to test the FA market. He should definitely do that no matter what the Patriots do. 2013 will be his last shot at the brass ring and he should get the best deal he can. It may only be a 2-year $15 million deal in which case the Pats could do that and guarantee the most money.

Vollmer will probably be a bargain because of his medical issues. Arrington and/or Chung will be able to command big contracts, but may take the dangling offer since they are both young enough to take a another bite of the apple in four or five years.

The 600-pound gorilla in the locker room is one Thomas Patrick Brady who skyrockets from $8 million against the cap in 2012 to $21.8 million in 2013 and $21.8 in 2014.

I have no idea what might be possible with his deal as far as restructuring - add some years? That doesn't make much sense.

 

[Deus Irae]

The thing is discussing injuries is kinda moot at this point. We haven't waited to see if the other shoe will fall. What happens if Gaffney is re-signed mid to late September? What if the Pats pick someone off of waivers? What if the Pats pull a trade before the season starts? What if Ebert turns into the next David Givens?

Sure Lloyd could go down to injury, but I don't see this team anymore thin than last year if Branch (who was in Lloyd's role last year) went down to injury. You gotta compare apples to apples. That means if you are talking about an injury to Lloyd you need to compare it to what it would look like last year to the player playing in his role. So I kinda disagree with your premise. I mean if Welker goes down to injury this year, this team is thinner at WR this year even if the Pats re-sign Gaffney in a couple of weeks.

You say that it's got to be a comparison of apples to apples, but the problem is that last year's "apples" weren't very good, which is why people were thrilled that the team went out and got all the replacements in the first place.

 

[goheels22002]

You say that it's got to be a comparison of apples to apples, but the problem is that last year's "apples" weren't very good, which is why people were thrilled that the team went out and got all the replacements in the first place.

It looks a lot like last year's apples. The only difference is replacing Ochocinco with Lloyd - hopefully an upgrade. Also, the previous poster made mention of replacing Welker should he get hurt. Edelman is now the prime suspect for that role along with Hernandez.

I feel like what appeared as a wealth of talent and experience at WR is now only possibly better than last year. I have a feeling that one more wideout will be added after cutdown day. The good news is that there are nine days until the Titans game from the 53 cutdown day.

 

[Rob0729]

You say that it's got to be a comparison of apples to apples, but the problem is that last year's "apples" weren't very good, which is why people were thrilled that the team went out and got all the replacements in the first place.

But this year's apples seem to be a heck of a lot better. Again, we are squabbling over the #4 WR on the roster. Can you name a team with a great #4 WR?

Unless Lloyd falls way below everyone's expectations, this WR corp is still above average. Other than maybe Green Bay and San Diego (although I ain't in love with the Chargers' starters), who has a WR depth chart that is very deep? I'm sure there are a few, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Most teams really start to fall off after their #3 WR.

Personally, I would love to have a Gaffney or someone comprehible as the #4 WR, but I think people have unrealistic standards for what a a depth chart for WRs looks like these days. The #4 WR is usually a special teamer who can be on the field for 5-15 plays and catch one ball a game.

 

[Rob0729]

It looks a lot like last year's apples. The only difference is replacing Ochocinco with Lloyd - hopefully an upgrade. Also, the previous poster made mention of replacing Welker should he get hurt. Edelman is now the prime suspect for that role along with Hernandez.

I feel like what appeared as a wealth of talent and experience at WR is now only possibly better than last year. I have a feeling that one more wideout will be added after cutdown day. The good news is that there are nine days until the Titans game from the 53 cutdown day.

If Lloyd is anything like we expect, it is nothing like last year's apples. Last year it was basically Welker and Branch and nothing else at WR. Branch was the #2 WR except he isn't consistent enough to be more than a #3 and a fill in starter at this point. Now the Pats have a WR who is capable of matching Welker's numbers starting opposite of him and Branch as the #3 WR. That is a huge difference.

The only way this year's WRs looks like last year's WRs is if Lloyd becomes another Ocho and catches one ball a game if you are lucky forcing Branch to be the starter again. Otherwise, people are overreacting here.

 

[Deus Irae]

But this year's apples seem to be a heck of a lot better.

No, they don't. At this moment, and other than Lloyd for Johnson, it's the same apples. And one of those apples (Branch) is clearly past ripe.

Again, we are squabbling over the #4 WR on the roster. Can you name a team with a great #4 WR?

Packers

Unless Lloyd falls way below everyone's expectations, this WR corp is still above average.

Even if we take your assertion as true, that's not a justification for the cut.

Other than maybe Green Bay and San Diego (although I ain't in love with the Chargers' starters), who has a WR depth chart that is very deep? I'm sure there are a few, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Most teams really start to fall off after their #3 WR.

So what?

Personally, I would love to have a Gaffney or someone comprehible as the #4 WR, but I think people have unrealistic standards for what a a depth chart for WRs looks like these days. The #4 WR is usually a special teamer who can be on the field for 5-15 plays and catch one ball a game.

They just had Gaffney on the team. I'm not sure you even know what you're posting here, to be honest. You're basically saying "I'd love to have Gaffney, but you can't expect the Patriots to have Gaffney" when they already had him.