Gaffney Released

[BradyFTW!]

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.

What's happening here doesn't look like overreacting to me. A week ago, we appeared to have excellent depth at WR. Now we're back to last year - one new outside WR that we hope catches on, and if not then it's a glaring weak spot on the offense that opposing teams will regularly exploit. Granted, Lloyd is a far better bet than Ocho, which is why I'm not in panic mode like I was after the safeties got purged last offseason, but some concern is absolutely warranted.

 

[ivanvamp]

What's happening here doesn't look like overreacting to me. A week ago, we appeared to have excellent depth at WR. Now we're back to last year - one new outside WR that we hope catches on, and if not then it's a glaring weak spot on the offense that opposing teams will regularly exploit.

Wait a minute. Just how did teams "regularly exploit" tha Pats' in WR corps last year? Let's remind ourselves of a few facts:

1. The Patriots had the 3rd highest scoring team in the league, averaging more than 32 points a game. It was one of the highest scoring offenses in NFL history.

2. The Patriots had the 2nd ranked offense by yards gained.

3. The Patriots had the #2 passing offense in the NFL, averaging more than 317 yards per game (including yards lost to sacks).

4. The Pats' #1 and #2 receivers combined for 173 receptions and 2271 yards.

5. The Pats went 13-3, won the AFC, and lost in the last minute in the Super Bowl.

So how exactly did teams regulary exploit the Pats' thin WR corps last year?

 

[PatriotReign]

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.

The Packers:

Greg Jennings
Donald Driver
Jordy Nelson
James Jones
Randall Cobb

No other team has as many legitimate options but still having some insurance at the position is warranted.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Packers:

Greg Jennings
Donald Driver
Jordy Nelson
James Jones
Randall Cobb

No other team has as many legitimate options but still having some insurance at the position is warranted.

Yep. And it's one reason the Packers' offense is so good. The Patriots can match them in terms of total targets though:

Jennings-Driver-Nelson-Jones-Cobb-Finley
vs
Welker-Lloyd-Branch-Gronkowski-Hernandez-Woodhead

I dunno...pretty close. Either way, both teams are elite with a capital "E" when it comes to offense.

 

[Sicilian]

I think people may have been a bit spoiled by 2007, where we added Moss, Welker, and Stallworth, and all three worked out (a pair of them unbelievably so). This year we bring in Lloyd, Gaffney, and Stallworth, and so far one of them is working out. The average may be somewhere in the middle, but 1 out of 3 flyers working out doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

And as has been mentioned, we're taking the same skill players who scored 32.1 points per game and came with a few minutes of winning the Super Bowl last year despite a below average defense... and adding Lloyd and Fells to that. I'm having a hard time really worrying about this.

 

[goheels22002]

Wait a minute. Just how did teams "regularly exploit" tha Pats' in WR corps last year? Let's remind ourselves of a few facts:

1. The Patriots had the 3rd highest scoring team in the league, averaging more than 32 points a game. It was one of the highest scoring offenses in NFL history.

2. The Patriots had the 2nd ranked offense by yards gained.

3. The Patriots had the #2 passing offense in the NFL, averaging more than 317 yards per game (including yards lost to sacks).

4. The Pats' #1 and #2 receivers combined for 173 receptions and 2271 yards.

5. The Pats went 13-3, won the AFC, and lost in the last minute in the Super Bowl.

So how exactly did teams regulary exploit the Pats' thin WR corps last year?

The discussion was about the wide receivers - the guys who line up outside the hashmarks. The wide receivers for the New England Patriots rang up just 854 yards on 70 catches in 2011. That includes Branch, Ouchocinco, Tiquan Underwood and Matthew Slater.

All of the other receptions came from slot receivers, running backs and tight ends. Branch accounted for 51 catches and 702 of those yards.

The wide receiver position was weak in 2011. Now we're looking at Branch, Lloyd, Slater and Holley? If Lloyd comes up with 800 yards - 50/game, the Patriots double their output. That's not a lot to ask.

 

[Rob0729]

What's happening here doesn't look like overreacting to me. A week ago, we appeared to have excellent depth at WR. Now we're back to last year - one new outside WR that we hope catches on, and if not then it's a glaring weak spot on the offense that opposing teams will regularly exploit. Granted, Lloyd is a far better bet than Ocho, which is why I'm not in panic mode like I was after the safeties got purged last offseason, but some concern is absolutely warranted.

Again, unless Lloyd is a completed bust, we are nothing like last year. We had one legitimate, consistent starting WR last year. If Welker went down last year, the Pats would have had to hold radio contests "win a starting WR job with the Patriots". Other than Welker and Branch last year, the Pats didn't have a WR who would be a #4 on any other team other than for their special teams contribution. This year the Pats have two legitimate starters both potentially capable of being the #1 WR.

And again, last year's safety position was completely different too because the Pats not only didn't have a legitimate #3 safety, they didn't have a legitimate starter opposite Chung. So they had one NFL quality safety and a bunch of crap. The only way it would remotely close to what we had last year is if the Pats cut Branch and traded away Welker.

Besides, last year Brady threw for over 5,000 yards and 39 TDs. The only thing the Pats was really missing from that team was an outside/deep threat which is filled by Lloyd and wouldn't be helped much by Gaffney.

WR depth is really low on my concerns on this team. I thought it was a wealth of riches when the Pats still had Gaffney and Stallworth, but I still think it is an above average receiving corp without them (and one or both could be back at some point). I am still far more concerned about the depth at OT and the secondary than I am about who is going to be the #4 WR.

 

[Sicilian]

The discussion was about the wide receivers - the guys who line up outside the hashmarks. The wide receivers for the New England Patriots rang up just 854 yards on 70 catches in 2011. That includes Branch, Ouchocinco, Tiquan Underwood and Matthew Slater.

All of the other receptions came from slot receivers, running backs and tight ends. Branch accounted for 51 catches and 702 of those yards.

The wide receiver position was weak in 2011. Now we're looking at Branch, Lloyd, Slater and Holley? If Lloyd comes up with 800 yards - 50/game, the Patriots double their output. That's not a lot to ask.

The Patriots primary formation last year was 2 WR, 2 TE, and 1 RB, most prominently Branch, Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and Woodhead (for passing situations). In those plays, two of those players were playing outside the hashmarks, whether they ran the back out there, Hernandez lined up wide, or Welker (yes, Welker) played wide receiver with Hern in the slot. It's not quite as simple as "Welker is primarily a slot receiver, thus all of his receptions should be credited to the slot position"

 

[doesntmatter1]

I also feel the giants have a pretty strong core as well. They have for a few years now even when they lose guys like steve smith and manningham.

hakeem nicks
victor cruz
dominic hixon
ruben randle
rames barden
jerel jernigan
and they seem to always have a decent tight end

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wait a minute. Just how did teams "regularly exploit" tha Pats' in WR corps last year? Let's remind ourselves of a few facts:

1. The Patriots had the 3rd highest scoring team in the league, averaging more than 32 points a game. It was one of the highest scoring offenses in NFL history.

2. The Patriots had the 2nd ranked offense by yards gained.

3. The Patriots had the #2 passing offense in the NFL, averaging more than 317 yards per game (including yards lost to sacks).

4. The Pats' #1 and #2 receivers combined for 173 receptions and 2271 yards.

5. The Pats went 13-3, won the AFC, and lost in the last minute in the Super Bowl.

So how exactly did teams regulary exploit the Pats' thin WR corps last year?

If the Patriots had a single WR who could regularly threaten opposing defenses downfield, they probably would have had the top offense in NFL history, and Brady would probably have a fourth ring right now.

 

[Rob0729]

The Packers:

Greg Jennings
Donald Driver
Jordy Nelson
James Jones
Randall Cobb

No other team has as many legitimate options but still having some insurance at the position is warranted.

I did mention them, but when you count Hernandez and Gronk who are legitimate receiving threats who put up WR type numbers, the Pats and Packers are pretty even as long as Lloyd comes close to what we expect him to be. Of course, you gotta include Finley on the Packers' end for the same reasons.

 

[Rob0729]

Wait a minute. Just how did teams "regularly exploit" tha Pats' in WR corps last year? Let's remind ourselves of a few facts:

1. The Patriots had the 3rd highest scoring team in the league, averaging more than 32 points a game. It was one of the highest scoring offenses in NFL history.

2. The Patriots had the 2nd ranked offense by yards gained.

3. The Patriots had the #2 passing offense in the NFL, averaging more than 317 yards per game (including yards lost to sacks).

4. The Pats' #1 and #2 receivers combined for 173 receptions and 2271 yards.

5. The Pats went 13-3, won the AFC, and lost in the last minute in the Super Bowl.

So how exactly did teams regulary exploit the Pats' thin WR corps last year?

Yeah, I don't get the argument that cutting Gaffney is significant because the Pats are in danger of having one of the most dominant receiving corps in the league.

Personally, the only place the Pats were hurt last year was the lack of a consistent outside/deep threat and that concern is filled by Brandon Lloyd and Gaffney isn't suited to fill that role.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, I don't get the argument that cutting Gaffney is significant because the Pats are in danger of having one of the most dominant receiving corps in the league.

Personally, the only place the Pats were hurt last year was the lack of a consistent outside/deep threat and that concern is filled by Brandon Lloyd and Gaffney isn't suited to fill that role.

WR and TE are two different positions. I don't know why you and Ivanamp seem intent on merging the two.

 

[Sicilian]

If the Patriots had a single WR who could regularly threaten opposing defenses downfield, they probably would have had the top offense in NFL history, and Brady would probably have a fourth ring right now.

The funny thing is, neither Gaffney nor Stallworth were going to provide that. I'm sorry, but Gaffney was basically another Branch, and Stallworth for all his speed got most of his big plays with yards after the catch in 2007 (when he was 5 years younger), NOT by burning people deep. People are romanticizing these two players based on what we thought they could be, ignoring both what they actually are and what they showed (or didn't show) in preseason.

 

[brdmaverick]

Wow, we've released more talent (Gaffney, Stallworth, Ocho, and Gonzalez) than the Browns even started with.


This is definitely unfortunate though. I was looking at Branch to be a solid #4/5 receiver, but now he is #3.

I was hoping for a true 5 WR ranking of

Welker
Lloyd
Gaffney
Branch
Stallworth

(Edelman and Slater special teams)

So much for greatest offense of all time.


With how deep our WR was at the beginning of camp it's a shame to think that if Lloyd doesn't pan out (like Ocho) or gets injured that we will be in the exact same situation as last year. Not to say last year was terrible by any means, but we certainly can do better htan Branch as #2.


Is Plaxico still available?

 

[Sciz]

So much for greatest offense of all time.

The Pats still have two of the last three 1400 yard receivers in the NFL, the best TE duo in NFL history, and the best QB in the NFL right now. If everything works out, there's no reason they can't set records.

 

[Deus Irae]

The funny thing is, neither Gaffney nor Stallworth were going to provide that. I'm sorry, but Gaffney was basically another Branch, and Stallworth for all his speed got most of his big plays with yards after the catch in 2007 (when he was 5 years younger), NOT by burning people deep. People are romanticizing these two players based on what we thought they could be, ignoring both what they actually are and what they showed (or didn't show) in preseason.

Gaffney's not another Branch. They are different players. Gaffney's a versatile receiver, who can line up anywhere and can run any pattern at any depth, although he's best under 20 yards. Branch is a short-middle specialist who's more of a zone buster than a manbeater at this point in his career.

There's still time to make adjustments at WR, and there's still time for Ebert to shine. As of right now, though, the Gaffney release is a head scratcher unless he's coming back post-injury.

 

[PatsFan2]

Guys was Anthony Gonzalez cut?

 

[doesntmatter1]

With our outside the box coach, i am surprised that he doesn't sift threw the thousands of scrub corners and see if one of them could pick up our offense. Most teams want big wideouts but we prefer midgets and i am convinced that the guys bb is looking for are playing cornerback. You don't often see receivers that can match welker's quickness but there are many cbs that can. I feel someone like darius butler could have been our desean jackson. I really do.

 

[Sicilian]

Gaffney's not another Branch. They are different players. Gaffney's a versatile receiver, who can line up anywhere and can run any pattern at any depth, although he's best under 20 yards. Branch is a short-middle specialist who's more of a zone buster than a manbeater at this point in his career.

I probably wasn't specific enough. How they get there is different, but both players attack the same area of the field (10-20 yards), which means Gaffney is not BradyFTW's answer to the true deep threat.