Gaffney Released

[Rob0729]

I'm going to drop it, since this is drifting pretty far off topic, but I'd think that anyone who watched the secondary at any point last year would freely acknowledge how much of a disaster the safety position was. If that's not beyond debate, nothing is.

And what isn't for debate either is the 2012 WR situation is noting like the 2011 safety position. The Pats went season last year with one viable safety. The Pats are going into the season this year with three viable WRs, two of which could be Pro Bowlers.

You have a point that the secondary was disaster last year, but what you have failed to do is tie that last year to the WR situation this year. You are using the "this exactly like last year, now let me tell you how it is completely different" argument.

Here is your argument taking out the players names position. The Pats last year cut two of the best players at a position leaving them without a viable starter at one of the postions and no quality back up.

Here is what happened this year. The Pats cut two players, neither one of the two best at their position, leaving the Pats with two solid starters and a viable back up.

How is that remotely the same. Belichick last year not only destroyed the depth at the position of safety last year, but he left no starter opposite Chung. This year, he potentially has one of the best stating WR duos in the league and a pretty good back up who was the Pats' starter last year. Not ideal since the depth beyond that is questionable, but nothing like the safety situation last year. I will argue that the Pats have a better WR situation than most of the league right now.

Beside, this whole thread is going to look pretty silly if Gaffney is back on the roster by October 1st. And let's not forget the Pats were one minute away from winning the Super Bowl with the safety disaster of last year you described which has been addressed and a worse WR corp than we have now.

Also, I bet if the Pats never signed Gaffney (and he wasn't available) and went into this season with this WR corp, most people would be very happy with the Pats' WR corp.

 

[BradyManny]

Beside, this whole thread is going to look pretty silly if Gaffney is back on the roster by October 1st. And let's not forget the Pats were one minute away from winning the Super Bowl with the safety disaster of last year you described which has been addressed and a worse WR corp than we have now.

This is my point, I just come to a different conclusion than you. Obviously there were a million ways we could've won SB46 with the personnel we had - but what can Belichick do as a roster-builder to help put us over the edge? What's an easier personnel deficiency to address? Safety or wideout? Clearly it's wideout. It's simple. Jabar has played in this system and played well.

 

[ivanvamp]

This is my point, I just come to a different conclusion than you. Obviously there were a million ways we could've won SB46 with the personnel we had - but what can Belichick do as a roster-builder to help put us over the edge? What's an easier personnel deficiency to address? Safety or wideout? Clearly it's wideout. It's simple. Jabar has played in this system and played well.

I am not a believer in the "whatever Belichick does is automatically the right thing because he knows way more than we do" theory, because the fact is, he's made lots of mistakes. He does, however, tend to make fewer mistakes than the other guys, which is one reason he's been so successful.

That said, he *does* know more than we do, not only in terms of evaluating talent, but also in the day-to-day, knowing what's going on with his team and players. We don't know what his philosophy is, but he does. We don't know if he sees Hernandez as a WR this year and thus Gaffney is replaceable, but he does.

So with that, let me ask you, and everyone else this question: Why do you think Belichick cut Gaffney? There has to be a reason, right?

 

[BB4PRez]

This is my point, I just come to a different conclusion than you. Obviously there were a million ways we could've won SB46 with the personnel we had - but what can Belichick do as a roster-builder to help put us over the edge? What's an easier personnel deficiency to address? Safety or wideout? Clearly it's wideout. It's simple. Jabar has played in this system and played well.

Arguably the roster was at least as thin in depth at the TE position compared to WR. When Gronk was hurt, the team did not have any quality in the backup. As roster builder, BB may think it is better deeping that position. Also, Jabar was going to be at the back end of the depth chart and those guys are usually young guys. The young guys have updside and may know the system just as well as Gaffney if and when they get in. If not, it would not surprise me if Gaffney or Stallworth is still on the steet. Both Meriweather and Sanders got picked up pretty fast last year. Haven't seen that yet with these guys but clearly clearly if they are as good as some on this board believe they will get picked up soon.

 

[Kontradiction]

Last season, Branch caught 34 of his 51 passes on either the right or left sideline. Gaffney caught just 23 of his 68 passes on either sideline.

In 2010, with McDaniels as his coach, he caught 25 of 65 on either sideline, while Branch caught 34 of his 48 passes as a Patriot at the sideline.

And finally, in 2009, also in McDaniels' offense, Gaffney caught 23 of 54 passes at the sideline, while Branch, on the Seahawks, caught 24 of 45 at the sideline.

So, in total, over the past three seasons, 64% of Branch's receptions have been at the sideline, compared to Gaffney's 37%.

In no season did Gaffney have more total sideline catches than Branch, despite having more total receptions than Branch in all of them.

Just saying.

You should consider the way that the Patriots offense has been set up since 2010 as compared to where Gaffney was. With our two TE sets on top of having the premier slot receiver in the league, Branch was not needed to operate over the middle as much as he actually did. He was needed to threaten outside the numbers. With that in mind, it's of no surprise that the percentages are higher in his favor. The Broncos and Redskins didn't have that luxury. When you don't have that luxury and have guys like Gaffney, Stallworth, and Armstrong, the defense tends to try to take away routes outside the numbers and let you take what you can get between them. Here, he would have had a different role (and may still... hopefully) because the opposing defense is so heavily concerned with a slow death between the numbers at the hands of Gronk, Hernandez, and Welker (not to mention the RB's).

Regardless, though, this is a well formed argument with good use of statistics. However, it still doesn't disspell the fact that, even with everything considered, Gaffney was still able to threaten all levels of the field, including deep, better than what Branch was able to do on lesser teams with lesser QB's throwing him the ball.

The Patriots averaged 36.4 points per game in the 2nd half of the season vs. 27.7 in the first half. The Pats scored 30 points or less only once in the 2nd half of the season, as compared to four times in the first half.

The passing game went from averaging 8.4 yards per attempt to 8.8, an INT% of 3.1 as compared to 0.7, and a 100 passer rating to 112.

By all accounts, teams were actually having better luck against our offense earlier in the season rather than later.

I was actually talking about in the postseason, specifically against the Ravens and the Giants. But, in regards to this part of your post, we played an average ranking of 14th when it comes to pass defenses both through the first eight games of the season and the last eight games of the season. The can be attributed to any number of factors, but I would attribute it (personally) to an easier schedule of opposing offenses (giving our offense more opportunities with the ball, hence higher totals in all numbers referenced) as well as Brady coping with the various injuries that he had to his throwing arm (as is shown in your INT ratio difference).

 

[Rob0729]

This is my point, I just come to a different conclusion than you. Obviously there were a million ways we could've won SB46 with the personnel we had - but what can Belichick do as a roster-builder to help put us over the edge? What's an easier personnel deficiency to address? Safety or wideout? Clearly it's wideout. It's simple. Jabar has played in this system and played well.

The problem with your argument is that you are choosing to ignore the fact that with or without Gaffney, the Pats addressed the WR issue you are talking about with the addition of Brandon Lloyd. Gaffney was going to be or will be if he returns a 15-20 play a game guy. He was not going to be a starter and it looks like he was going to be the fourth WR.

I would agree with your premise if the Pats didn't add Lloyd, but he is the deep/outside WR missing from last year. You seem to think the Pats haven't addressed this area by cutting Gaffney

 

[BradyManny]

The problem with your argument is that you are choosing to ignore the fact that with or without Gaffney, the Pats addressed the WR issue you are talking about with the addition of Brandon Lloyd. Gaffney was going to be or will be if he returns a 15-20 play a game guy. He was not going to be a starter and it looks like he was going to be the fourth WR.

I would agree with your premise if the Pats didn't add Lloyd, but he is the deep/outside WR missing from last year. You seem to think the Pats haven't addressed this area by cutting Gaffney

I'm not ignoring that we signed Brandon Lloyd - I agree that they did address the issue by signing him. However, I also recognize that the Patriots were fortunate in the health of their receivers last year, and believe the issue is important enough to carry a contingency plan on the roster. I think sometimes we get so caught up in ST & versatility that we forget pure depth on the team can and should exist.

 

[Kontradiction]

This thread has strayed pretty far off topic, so let's get it back on topic. I'll weigh out the positives and negatives of having Gaffney in the fold...

Positives:
1. Guy that can threaten every level of the field.

2. Guy that can stretch the field on deep routes, inside and outside the numbers.

3. Guy that has a wealth of experience in the system.

4. Guy that has a wealth of experience with the quarterback (QB can count on him to be where Gaffney needs to be, when he needs him to be there).

5. Guy that can play in any personnel grouping, line up at any WR position on the field, and spell older vets like Branch depeding on situation or down and distance.

Negatives:
1. Suffered injury during TC, but injury doesn't sound season or career-threatening.

2. *MAY* have developed an attitude problem.

 

[Frezo]

I am not a believer in the "whatever Belichick does is automatically the right thing because he knows way more than we do" theory, because the fact is, he's made lots of mistakes. He does, however, tend to make fewer mistakes than the other guys, which is one reason he's been so successful.

That said, he *does* know more than we do, not only in terms of evaluating talent, but also in the day-to-day, knowing what's going on with his team and players. We don't know what his philosophy is, but he does. We don't know if he sees Hernandez as a WR this year and thus Gaffney is replaceable, but he does.

So with that, let me ask you, and everyone else this question: Why do you think Belichick cut Gaffney? There has to be a reason, right?

Gaffney is injured. It appears to be a quad. This is something that could linger for a couple of months. IMO he was cut because of this uncertainty. BB didn't want to guarantee his salary if it was going to be an ongoing or lengthy problem. When he can pass a physical maybe he'll be rehired. It wasn't reported as a quad injury, but simply as a thigh injury on August 23rd. Hopefully it's a grade 1 injury and will be healed soon, but it could be a grade 2. It's not a grade 3 because he would have been seen on crutches. If it was simply a soft tissue bruise I don't think he would have been released because recovery time would be easy to predict. So there you go, my opinion on the JG thing. Right or wrong it seems to make sense.

 

[WinstonSmith]

This thread has strayed pretty far off topic, so let's get it back on topic. I'll weigh out the positives and negatives of having Gaffney in the fold...

Positives:
1. Guy that can threaten every level of the field.

2. Guy that can stretch the field on deep routes, inside and outside the numbers.

3. Guy that has a wealth of experience in the system.

4. Guy that has a wealth of experience with the quarterback (QB can count on him to be where Gaffney needs to be, when he needs him to be there).

5. Guy that can play in any personnel grouping, line up at any WR position on the field, and spell older vets like Branch depeding on situation or down and distance.

Negatives:
1. Suffered injury during TC, but injury doesn't sound season or career-threatening.

2. *MAY* have developed an attitude problem.

Not a bad start. I think you have the positives covered.

From a roster spot perspective I would add the following as Negatives:

• Not on special teams.
• Offense is TE heavy, which minimizes the role and importance of a 4th receiver.
• Josh McDaniels will place greater emphasis on the running game, which minimizes the role and importance of a 4th receiver.

 

[Kontradiction]

What is known:
Gaffney is injured and Lloyd isn't.

What's being assumed:
Gaffney won't be injured and Lloyd will be.

:confused2::confused2::confused2:

Literally nobody in this thread assumed that. If you believe so, please quote the posts where anybody said "Lloyd will be injured and Gaffney will be healthy". I'll wait.




Okay, now that you're back, you'll notice that what WAS said was more along the lines of "what happens IF Lloyd goes down to injury at any point in time? We go back to the same issues we had on offense that were exploited in the games leading up to the end of our season". Again, two guys that can threaten deep in this offense are > one.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not a bad start. I think you have the positives covered.

From a roster spot perspective I would add the following as Negatives:

• Not on special teams.
• Offense is TE heavy, which minimizes the role and importance of a 4th receiver.
• Josh McDaniels will place greater emphasis on the running game, which minimizes the role and importance of a 4th receiver.

The object of building a team is to build the best team possible with the most depth. Gaffney doesn't play special teams, but he adds another dimension that otherwise is there in limited capacity with Branch and provides depth in the receiving corps. With all of these considered, it's still possible to carry Gaffney, and we still might.

 

[Frezo]

Literally nobody in this thread assumed that. If you believe so, please quote the posts where anybody said "Lloyd will be injured and Gaffney will be healthy". I'll wait.




Okay, now that you're back, you'll notice that what WAS said was more along the lines of "what happens IF Lloyd goes down to injury at any point in time? We go back to the same issues we had on offense that were exploited in the games leading up to the end of our season". Again, two guys that can threaten deep in this offense are > one.

If that's the case then this is nothing more than what ifs and they can go on all day long. Actually it's been more that a day. Gaffney is injured and was released. What if he's done? What if Lloyd never gets injured?

I'd like to see JG on the roster too. He adds value. But, I don't want him here under the guise of a back up to Lloyd. In today's NFL I don't see him as a credible deep threat as its currently defined. If JG makes this roster at some point in time it should be because he's a good #4 WR and not because Lloyd might get injured. That would be a bonus to having him here as a #4. He's injured anyways. Let's give it some time...see what happens.

 

[Deus Irae]

<sigh> I'll try one last time (why, I don't know). You aren't simply discussing the wide receivers. You are discussing the merits of keeping or cutting one particular receiver, Jabar Gaffney, and, in light of cutting him, what that did to the quality and depth of the Pats' WR corps.

Ok? Understand that? You were discussing, really, not the wide receivers, but *ROSTER DECISIONS INVOLVING WIDE RECEIVERS*.

And if you're discussing roster decisions involving wide receivers, then it's pretty dumb to do that in isolation of the rest of the roster, because, as was pointed out earlier, if you keep Gaffney (or anyone else), you need to cut someone else, and maybe BB decided that he's very comfortable with the WR group, b/c maybe Demps is showing him something, or maybe Hernandez will be used more outside, or whatever, and that flexibility allows BB to keep another player *at a different position* that he thinks will help the team more than Gaffney would.

I don't think language exists that could communicate this more clearly. If you think you were simply talking about which receiver is better than another, and comparing WR groups just for fun, ok, fine, yes, you can do that without mentioning nose tackles or kickers. But this thread is titled, "Gaffney Released" - it's about...you know...a roster move involving a wide receiver.

I'm glad you're making this the last time, because I'm tired of pointing out that your argument is meaningless in the context of discussing the wide receiver position and what the players offer. You can keep harping about Gaffney impacting the 5th safety all you want. It's not going to change the fact that we weren't discussing that, but were discussing the current/potential limitations of the WR corps.

 

[Kontradiction]

If that's the case then this is nothing more than what ifs and they can go on all day long. Actually it's been more that a day. Gaffney is injured and was released. What if he's done? What if Lloyd never gets injured?

I'd like to see JG on the roster too. He adds value. But, I don't want him here under the guise of a back up to Lloyd. In today's NFL I don't see him as a credible deep threat as its currently defined. If JG makes this roster at some point in time it should be because he's a good #4 WR and not because Lloyd might get injured. That would be a bonus to having him here as a #4. He's injured anyways. Let's give it some time...see what happens.

He'd be on the roster to fill multiple needs (which is the reason why he was signed in the first place) and play multiple roles. Backing up Lloyd would be just one of those roles. I'm not going into the others again as I've explained them numerous times throughout the thread.

 

[Frezo]

He'd be on the roster to fill multiple needs (which is the reason why he was signed in the first place) and play multiple roles. Backing up Lloyd would be just one of those roles. I'm not going into the others again as I've explained them numerous times throughout the thread.

I read what you said and agree with a lot of it. I do feel that you are overestimating JG's ability to replace Lloyd's production as a deep threat. Lloyd is an effective receiver anywhere. JG can adequately replace him anywhere except deep.

 

[Kontradiction]

I read what you said and agree with a lot of it. I do feel that you are overestimating JG's ability to replace Lloyd's production as a deep threat. Lloyd is an effective receiver anywhere. JG can adequately replace him anywhere except deep.

I think he could, and the stats bear that out. However, my main argument isn't centered around his ability to replace Lloyd. My main argument is centered around the fact that having two guys that can threaten deep alleviates even more of the heat from Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez and also forces the secondary to cover more space.

 

[mgteich]

You are presuming that Gaffney would have been active instead of Branch. Gaffney couldn't beat out Branch for the #3 WR position. Personally, I would be fine with Gaffney as an inactive backup. I don't think Belichick is willing to pay a full season's salary for that luxury.

I think he could, and the stats bear that out. However, my main argument isn't centered around his ability to replace Lloyd. My main argument is centered around the fact that having two guys that can threaten deep alleviates even more of the heat from Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez and also forces the secondary to cover more space.

 

[Kontradiction]

You are presuming that Gaffney would have been active instead of Branch. Gaffney couldn't beat out Branch for the #3 WR position. Personally, I would be fine with Gaffney as an inactive backup. I don't think Belichick is willing to pay a full season's salary for that luxury.

Gaffney suffered a quad injury while Branch did not. I'm sure that had something to do with it. Again, there's a good reason why he was signed in the first place. Outside of the injury being bad, this move is a head scratcher.

 

[Frezo]

I think he could, and the stats bear that out. However, my main argument isn't centered around his ability to replace Lloyd. My main argument is centered around the fact that having two guys that can threaten deep alleviates even more of the heat from Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez and also forces the secondary to cover more space.

Agreed as long as they don't send two WRs deep at the same time more than once or twice a game. It's not what this team is built for. This is a quick hit hurry up offense whose bread and butter lies elsewhere and JG could contribute to that.