Gaffney Released

[Rob0729]

Instead of responding to specific posts, here are some thoughts about some of the arguments:

• I agree that keeping a #4 WR primarily for insurance if one of the starters goes down is not feasible in today's NFL. I mean you look at other positions on this team and the Pats don't even have a back up the quality of Branch to step in if the starter goes down.
• Having two deep threats on the field is overrated. It is nice to have, but as Frezo pointed out it is only something you can really utilize a double deep threat a handful of times a game. Is it worth a roster spot for 2-5 plays?
• Gaffney if he was here or returns would likely play 15-20 plays a game, or as mgteich points out, might not be activated since he can't contribute to special teams. Belichick has to weigh that vs.other guys who might help out in more pressing areas.
• It has been 44 1/2 hours since Gaffney has been cut and there has been no action on him. Roscoe Parrish was signed very quickly. Either he is really injured which could mean he could be back in a few weeks (that is still my bet) or GMs don't think as highly of him as we do.

 

[BBass]

Instead of responding to specific posts, here are some thoughts about some of the arguments:

• I agree that keeping a #4 WR primarily for insurance if one of the starters goes down is not feasible in today's NFL. I mean you look at other positions on this team and the Pats don't even have a back up the quality of Branch to step in if the starter goes down.
• Having two deep threats on the field is overrated. It is nice to have, but as Frezo pointed out it is only something you can really utilize a double deep threat a handful of times a game. Is it worth a roster spot for 2-5 plays?
• Gaffney if he was here or returns would likely play 15-20 plays a game, or as mgteich points out, might not be activated since he can't contribute to special teams. Belichick has to weigh that vs.other guys who might help out in more pressing areas.
• It has been 44 1/2 hours since Gaffney has been cut and there has been no action on him. Roscoe Parrish was signed very quickly. Either he is really injured which could mean he could be back in a few weeks (that is still my bet) or GMs don't think as highly of him as we do.

All good points. I would only add to it that Gaffney is not much of a deep threat. He is actually one of the slower WR in the NFL. He has decent size but we have big TE's with likely the same speed.

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

Great. Let's talk about the WR corps and it's potential limitations. I think they have a great WR in Welker, and a potentially really, really good one in Lloyd. I think Branch is certainly a serviceable #3. I would like to have kept Gaffney. I really wonder why they didn't. Must have had a reason, but I guess I am not allowed to go there in this thread, even though it is about him being released.

After that, it appears that they have some holes. I'm not sold on Edelman, though I think he's a tough player with some skills. A reduced version of Welker, IMO. I would love to see them add another quality WR though. I'd mention that I think Hernandez probably will likely play a lot at WR this year, and that will help both the quality and the depth a LOT. But I won't go into that because Hernandez is actually listed as a TE and this discussion is only about players with the "WR" next to their name.

So, keeping with that theme, I think they should go out and acquire a guy like Mike Wallace. That would help both the quality and the depth of the position.

 

[Joker]

Wallace signed with Pitt two days ago...who is out there that compares to him?..

 

[ivanvamp]

Wallace signed with Pitt two days ago...who is out there that compares to him?..

They should trade for him.

 

[Deus Irae]

Great. Let's talk about the WR corps and it's potential limitations. I think they have a great WR in Welker, and a potentially really, really good one in Lloyd. I think Branch is certainly a serviceable #3. I would like to have kept Gaffney. I really wonder why they didn't. Must have had a reason, but I guess I am not allowed to go there in this thread, even though it is about him being released.

Of course the team had a reason for cutting Gaffney. It's been speculated on by several people, in fact. However, we don't know what that reason is, so we can only go on what we know.

After that, it appears that they have some holes.

That's what people have been saying.

 

[ivanvamp]

Of course the team had a reason for cutting Gaffney. It's been speculated on by several people, in fact. However, we don't know what that reason is, so we can only go on what we know.

I suspect part of the reason they cut him is b/c they anticipate Hernandez playing a lot at WR, and cutting Gaffney will open up another roster spot, allowing them to carry 4 WR. But you don't want to talk about how cutting Gaffney impacts, or is impacted by, the rest of the roster. Even if it could be the correct answer.

That's what people have been saying.

But maybe they don't have a WR hole. If Hernandez is going to play a lot at WR, it gives them a really good WR group: Welker, Lloyd, Branch, and Hernandez. Hernandez, btw, is bigger than Gaffney (6'2", 250 vs. 6'1", 205), and he's essentially just as fast (4.56 vs. 4.53 in the 40). And we know that Brady loves throwing to Hernandez. Last year Hernandez took 123 snaps at the WR position, second in the NFL among TE (to Jermichael Finley, who took 132 snaps at WR). In fact, he only had his hand down in the traditional TE role 29% of the snaps he was in. So most of the time he played standing up as a WR (outside or in the slot) or standing up in the backfield. We know he can play the WR position well.

But here we go again talking about the WRs in the context of other positions......

 

[Kontradiction]

I suspect part of the reason they cut him is b/c they anticipate Hernandez playing a lot at WR, and cutting Gaffney will open up another roster spot, allowing them to carry 4 WR. But you don't want to talk about how cutting Gaffney impacts, or is impacted by, the rest of the roster. Even if it could be the correct answer.



But maybe they don't have a WR hole. If Hernandez is going to play a lot at WR, it gives them a really good WR group: Welker, Lloyd, Branch, and Hernandez. Hernandez, btw, is bigger than Gaffney (6'2", 250 vs. 6'1", 205), and he's essentially just as fast (4.56 vs. 4.53 in the 40). And we know that Brady loves throwing to Hernandez. Last year Hernandez took 123 snaps at the WR position, second in the NFL among TE (to Jermichael Finley, who took 132 snaps at WR). In fact, he only had his hand down in the traditional TE role 29% of the snaps he was in. So most of the time he played standing up as a WR (outside or in the slot) or standing up in the backfield. We know he can play the WR position well.

But here we go again talking about the WRs in the context of other positions......

For one, Hernandez is not as effective at WR split wide as he is a TE on the LoS or in the slot. For another, Hernandez is nowhere near as effective as Gaffney is split wide.

 

[Deus Irae]

I suspect part of the reason they cut him is b/c they anticipate Hernandez playing a lot at WR, and cutting Gaffney will open up another roster spot, allowing them to carry 4 WR. But you don't want to talk about how cutting Gaffney impacts, or is impacted by, the rest of the roster. Even if it could be the correct answer.

:bricks:

The reason could also be that Gaffney was caught in a threesome with both Kraft's and Belichick's main squeezes. Gaffney could have told the Patriots that he's been mainlining heroin. Gaffney could have told the Patriots that he wants to act in La Cage Au Folles.

It could be any number of things. Since we don't know the reason, it doesn't make much sense to pretend we do.

But maybe they don't have a WR hole.

That's clearly not the case. What is the case is that the addition of Lloyd might fill some, though not all, of that hole, and that the addition might be the difference between a close playoff loss and a win.

 

[ivanvamp]

That's clearly not the case. What is the case is that the addition of Lloyd might fill some, though not all, of that hole, and that the addition might be the difference between a close playoff loss and a win.

It's not at all clear that it's clear that they have holes at WR. If you are limiting the discussion to players with the somewhat arbitrary label of "WR" next to their name, as you seem to be insisting we do, then yes, that does appear to be the case. But I think it's also clear that the Patriots do not see Aaron Hernandez as simply a TE, but also as a WR. He lined up the most last year as a WR, either in the slot or outside. Of his 1051 snaps last year, just over 300 of them were in the traditional TE role. 78 were in the backfield. The rest were as a standup WR.

To Kontra's point, maybe he's not as effective as Gaffney as a wideout, but he's obviously effective enough that the Patriots put him out there a hell of a lot. And he ended up with a monster season.

Let's look at it another way. The Pats seem to want to find room for Demps. Where is that roster spot coming from? They can't just have an extra guy on the roster, so they need to make room somehow. Let's say Gaffney's injury is just enough to get them to say, you know what, we're not totally convinced he'll work out here, and we really want to find a spot for Demps, who is electric. We know Hernandez can play WR - heck, we put him out there more often than not anyway. If we're not sold on Gaffney and we have a guy like Hernandez that can fill that spot, there's that open roster spot available for Demps.

It would mean that, in the Patriots' mind anyway, it's very possible that they see the WR corps being really more like: Welker, Lloyd, Hernandez, Branch, Edelman, and Slater. If that's the case, where is the hole? They have the great slot guy in Welker, the deep guy in Lloyd, the veteran route-runner in Branch, the do-pretty-much-everything-big-target in Hernandez, and the last two spots are what most teams have at the end - guys who can give you some snaps at WR but who are key special teams guys.

Where are the holes at receiver *if this is how New England thinks*?

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

1) Nobody said that the WR position in 2012 is like the safety position in 2011. You stated that there's no real precedent for cutting a player coming back to haunt the Patriots. I provided Meriweather and Sanders as counterpoints. Not sure why you keep harping on the fact that the WR depth isn't as bad as the safety depth was last year. You could remove Lloyd from this team and we'd still be better off at WR than we were at safety last year, so that kinda goes without saying. If we all agree that the safeties were awful last year, and they would have been better if at least one of Sanders/Meriweather had been kept, then we're all in agreement there and there's no need to keep discussing it.

2) As long as you act like all wide receivers are created equal, and there is no difference between outside-the-numbers threats and guys who work solely in the middle of the field, then you'll continue to not understand why there is, in fact, a depth problem to be concerned about.

We are currently one injury away from being basically incapable of threatening a huge portion of the field, just as we were last year. This is a significant shortcoming in any offense, and last year it limited what the Patriots could do offensively. Now, we're reduced to hoping that Lloyd doesn't get hurt, despite the fact that history indicates that he likely will, because he's the only player on the roster who can fill this very important role.

When you have a player who can consistently beat single coverage outside, defenses have to pick their poison, and no matter what they do, someone who should demand a double team will be single-covered. As long as Lloyd's healthy, we'll see this in action, to some extent. The end result will probably be that opposing defenses will put a safety over the top to help on Lloyd--something that they never had to do last year--which will give Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez a lot more room to operate in the middle of the field.

If Lloyd goes down--and again, history indicates that he's pretty likely to miss at least some time--we'll be right back to square one (2011). There will be no dilemma for opposing defenses - they'll just put single coverage on Branch and anyone else who happens to be lining up outside, and have their safeties concentrate primarily on all of the middle guys.

Given how passing rules are set up today, it will still be possible for the Patriots' offense to win out on superior talent and perfect execution, which they'll do a whole lot of the time because of how good Brady, Welker, Gronk and Hernandez are. But you're essentially forcing these guys to be perfect and beat opposing defenses even as they know what's coming. It's adding a degree of difficulty that you didn't need to add, since it wouldn't have been hard at all to just keep Gaffney, and as a result have depth at WR that allows you to threaten defenses outside the numbers even if Lloyd goes down.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's not at all clear that it's clear that they have holes at WR. If you are limiting the discussion to players with the somewhat arbitrary label of "WR" next to their name, as you seem to be insisting we do, then yes, that does appear to be the case.

End of story, despite your attempt to pretend that WR and TE are the same thing. I suggest that you read BradyFTW's post here for some more clarity.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3120901

The only thing to add to that is that the Patriots still don't have a true burner, but Lloyd should be able to be a consistent deep threat even without that level of speed, if he can repeat his play of the past couple of years.

 

[ivanvamp]

End of story, despite your attempt to pretend that WR and TE are the same thing. I suggest that you read BradyFTW's post here for some more clarity.

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

The only thing to add to that is that the Patriots still don't have a true burner, but Lloyd should be able to be a consistent deep threat even without that level of speed, if he can repeat his play of the past couple of years.

I agree with this last point, unless Demps can be used in that role, which remains to be seen. Certainly he has the speed for it if they want to give it a try. I think he's the fastest player in the NFL right now.

But to your first point, you're being willfully obtuse. Let's compare 2011 numbers between Gaffney and Hernandez. (stats are from their respective espn.com player pages)

Outside the numbers (as defined by "left sideline" and "right sideline" receptions):

- Gaffney
- Left sideline: 9 rec, 140 yds, 16.1 ypc, 0 td
- Right sideline: 14 rec, 171 yds, 12.2 ypc, 1 td
- TOTAL: 23 rec, 311 yds, 13.5 ypc, 1 td
- Hernandez
- Left sideline: 10 rec, 101 yds, 10.1 ypc, 0 td
- Right sideline: 12 rec, 160 yds, 13.3 ypc, 3 td
- TOTAL: 22 rec, 261 yds, 11.9 ypc, 3 td


How about deep balls (defined as a pass thrown 21+ yds downfield):
- Gaffney: 6 rec, 184 yds, 30.7 ypc, 1 td
- Hernandez: 2 rec, 60 yds, 30.0 ypc, 0 td

So advantage Gaffney on deep balls, but on passes outside the numbers, they're very similar. Gaffney with an edge on ypc, but Hernandez with the edge on td. They're not the same receiver, obviously, and I don't think NE would run a lot of plays for Hernandez deep down the sideline. But he's a very capable outside receiver, obviously.

Question: Do you think Belichick looks at his WR group in isolation, or do you think he evaluates them and plans for them, in the context of other pass-catchers, like the TEs?

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with this last point, unless Demps can be used in that role, which remains to be seen. Certainly he has the speed for it if they want to give it a try. I think he's the fastest player in the NFL right now.

But to your first point, you're being willfully obtuse. Let's compare 2011 numbers between Gaffney and Hernandez. (stats are from their respective espn.com player pages)

Outside the numbers (as defined by "left sideline" and "right sideline" receptions):

- Gaffney
- Left sideline: 9 rec, 140 yds, 16.1 ypc, 0 td
- Right sideline: 14 rec, 171 yds, 12.2 ypc, 1 td
- TOTAL: 23 rec, 311 yds, 13.5 ypc, 1 td
- Hernandez
- Left sideline: 10 rec, 101 yds, 10.1 ypc, 0 td
- Right sideline: 12 rec, 160 yds, 13.3 ypc, 3 td
- TOTAL: 22 rec, 261 yds, 11.9 ypc, 3 td


How about deep balls (defined as a pass thrown 21+ yds downfield):
- Gaffney: 6 rec, 184 yds, 30.7 ypc, 1 td
- Hernandez: 2 rec, 60 yds, 30.0 ypc, 0 td

So advantage Gaffney on deep balls, but on passes outside the numbers, they're very similar. Gaffney with an edge on ypc, but Hernandez with the edge on td. They're not the same receiver, obviously, and I don't think NE would run a lot of plays for Hernandez deep down the sideline. But he's a very capable outside receiver, obviously.

I'm not being obtuse, as you well know. You're trying to expand the discussion beyond its boundaries and I'm not willing to go there. And I'm not going to get into the TE thing with you. Others have already covered it. You have conceded my point, so there's no need to continue with this. I'm done having this discussion with you.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm not being obtuse, as you well know. You're trying to expand the discussion beyond it's boundaries and I'm not willing to go there. And I'm not going to get into the TE thing with you. Others have already covered it. You have conceded my point, so there's no need to continue with this. I'm done having this discussion with you.

Ciao.






- - - - - - -

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't think that it's inherently unfair to bring TEs into the discussion -- if we do, in fact, have TEs who threaten the intermediate/deep outside portion of the field, then that would solve the problem.

The thing is, we don't have that. All of our tight ends--and pretty much all tight ends, for that matter--do their damage primarily in the middle of the field. It's largely a function of where they typically line up. If they primarily lined up at split end, then they wouldn't be tight ends; they'd be wide receivers.

As a result of that, the problem with discussing TEs as a Gaffney replacement is pretty much the same as the problem with discussing Welker or Branch as a Gaffney replacement. Yeah, they catch a lot of footballs, but where they catch them does matter.

Spacing is important. You could make a pretty compelling case that offensive and defensive philosophy are primarily about spacing: how to create it, and how to take it away. When you don't have someone who can consistently threaten outside the numbers, your ability to create horizontal spacing is severely diminished, which allows the defense to cover less space with more defenders. No offense wants that, and the only reason why we can get away with it to the extent that we can is because of how good our personnel is.

But even Brady can't be perfect all the time. If you ask him to predictably throw into the middle of the field when most of the coverage is dedicated to taking exactly that away, you're going to see a whole lot more incompletions, turnovers, and coverage sacks than you ever should when you have guys as talented as Brady, Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez.

 

[ATippett56]

To put the wide receiver issue in perspective, the New England Patriots carried six wide receivers on the roster during the 2011-12 NFL Season:

Welker
Branch
Ochocinco
Price/Underwood
Edelman
Slater

Currently, the New England Patriots have five wide receivers on the roster for the 2012-13 NFL Season:

Welker
Branch
Lloyd
Edelman
Slater

The recent addition of Jeff Demps as a "joker" in the New England Patriots offense may have swayed the thought process of the New England Patriots coaching staff with regard to a sixth wide receiver on the 53 man roster.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't think that it's inherently unfair to bring TEs into the discussion -- if we do, in fact, have TEs who threaten the intermediate/deep outside portion of the field, then that would solve the problem.

The thing is, we don't have that. All of our tight ends--and pretty much all tight ends, for that matter--do their damage primarily in the middle of the field. It's largely a function of where they typically line up.

As a result of that, the problem with discussing TEs as a Gaffney replacement is pretty much the same as the problem with discussing Welker or Branch as a Gaffney replacement. Yeah, they catch a lot of footballs, but where they catch them does matter.

Spacing is important. You could make a pretty compelling case that offensive and defensive philosophy are all about spacing: how to create it, and how to take it away. When you don't have someone who can consistently threaten outside the numbers, your ability to create horizontal spacing is severely diminished, which allows the defense to cover less space with more defenders. No offense wants that, and the only reason why we can get away with it to the extent that we can is because of how good our personnel is. But even Brady can't be perfect all the time. If you ask him to repeatedly throw into the middle of the field when most of the coverage is dedicated to taking exactly that away, you're going to see a whole lot more incompletions, turnovers, and coverage sacks than you otherwise would.

Good post. Makes total sense. But if you know this, and I can make sense of this, don't you think that Belichick knows it? And if Gaffney was a key to creating this kind of space, why on earth did he cut him?

Honestly, and I know I'm just shooting in the dark here, but I wonder if Demps may be part of the solution here. Obviously he's a burner - fastest guy in the league right now. He's not just a burner, he's a great athlete overall. Strong, compact. I don't know if he is a good receiver and I have no idea if he would be good as an outside WR. But if he has any ability at all there, teams will HAVE to respect his speed, right? I mean, he'll be able to get by any defender within a few yards most likely. Especially if they line him up in the backfield initially, which forces a safety or LB on him, and then they send him in motion wide, isolating him on a much slower player. The D will have to roll coverage that way, right? Wouldn't the mere threat of him out wide open up all kinds of field for the other receivers?

Now, maybe BB isn't thinking like that whatsoever. None of us knows the plan.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think that it's inherently unfair to bring TEs into the discussion -- if we do, in fact, have TEs who threaten the intermediate/deep outside portion of the field, then that would solve the problem.

If I'd been in a threadline where we were discussing the entire receiving corps, I'd agree with you. We were discussing the WRs, though, so the TEs don't apply.

I really didn't want to get into the whole "Welker will be less important because he runs in the same area of the field that Gronk and Hernandez do" type of discussion again. The last two years should have settled a lot of arguments, with WR inability to threaten middle-deep being one of them.

 

[ivanvamp]

To put the wide receiver issue in perspective, the New England Patriots carried six wide receivers on the roster during the 2011-12 NFL Season:

Welker
Branch
Ochocinco
Price/Underwood
Edelman
Slater

Currently, the New England Patriots have five wide receivers on the roster for the 2012-13 NFL Season:

Welker
Branch
Lloyd
Edelman
Slater

The recent addition of Jeff Demps as a "joker" in the New England Patriots offense may have swayed the thought process of the New England Patriots coaching staff with regard to a sixth wide receiver on the 53 man roster.

You were good right up until that last sentence. You can't bring up Demps in a discussion about the wide receivers! He doesn't have a "WR" next to his name. Geez......