I keep on hearing how crucial Gaffney was and we how large a mistake we made by cutting him. Surely he was worth more than the paltry $2.5M a year ($3M a year) offered by DEN. We needed to bid more aggresively. Perhaps $3M a year might have gotten him to stay for four years! I would ahve been fine with Belichick's keeping Gaffney even at that price, but I certainly can understand if Belichick thought that Gaffney wasn't worth the money.
Who's kidding who? Belichick brought in Galloway and Lewis and Tate and Edelman. Edelman beat out Lewis for a roster spot and now has 15 catches. That projects to 48 for the year, and we expect the use of Edelman to increase. But even if it doesn't, didn't Gaffney catch 44 balls last year? As far as 2008 production, Edelman is already matching Gaffney, and the ROOKIE will improve, at about $2.5M a year less than Gaffney.
Galloway is still here and will probably be replaced by Tate. Between Edelman and Tate, I suspect that Gaffney's and Washington's 2008 production will be matched.
BOTTOM LINE - I don't see the loss of production going from Gaffney and Washington to Edeleman and Tate. And, of course, I see a much higher upside at a lower price.
Belichick's plan was Galloway and Lewis. It could still be Galloway and Edelman. In any case, I don't see the problem with the #3 receiver position. Watson is stretching the field and catching touchdowns.
