Reche Caldwell,Will he Start again next year?

[drpatriot]

Football Outsiders ranks the Pats passing offense at #8. Reche Caldwell is ranked as the #34 receiver for total value and #32 receiver for value per play, comparable to Givens last year (#29 and #35) and better than both Givens and Branch this year. I am not worried about Caldwell's performance in the future. Whether #32 is good enough for the Patriots is the question.

 

[Jimke]

If the Pats start the 2007 season with Caldwell, Jackson, Brown and Gaffney

as their wide receivers, I would be extremely disappointed. It would mean

that the front office had wasted another chance to improve the team

during the off season. The Pats need a good wide receiver to be their

primary go to guy. They also need to draft another wide receiver early

on day #2 of the draft. In fact, they should draft a wide receiver every

year to avoid a repeat of the Branch, Givens fiasco.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Caldwell played very well for us this year, so he will not be on the team for the 2007 season. They will pick up another WR off the scrap pile. That is the usual procedure for the front office.

 

[captain stone]

Great? You are an easy marker. He had 6 catches for 25 yards yesterday. Great is top ten, Caldwell is not even in the top 41.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=rec&sort=yds&league=nfl&season=2&year=2006

He is an adequate replacement for Givens and could potentially be a very good #3 or an ok #2.

As a unit they are the worst in the NFL, if they come back with Caldwell - Jackson - Gaffney - Brown they will remain near the bottom. Jackson could develop into a nice #2 but they need someone who can be a #1 or a #1A. If Brown comes back and can be a #5 WR then that is fine, anything more than that is a clear indication of a poor WR unit.

Bingo. Past time for the FO to do right by TB.

 

[cstjohn17]

How did the Pats receiving corps rank in 01 or 03? I bet not all that high b/c we, as we are now, relied on the RBs and the TEs for the passing game more than other teams do. The problem is the media has made such a huge deal of the Branch situation that we're so concerned with the wideouts stats, when we should just be concerned with Ws and Ls. So far, in our 4 Ls, you'd probably have just as good a chance of arguing that the OL, QB or RBs had as much or more to do with the loss then the WRs.

A refresher never hurts, they were nothing special in either 2001 or 2003. Not as bad as this group but especially in 2003 there is a parallel to this year. In both years they had a deep threat in Branch or Patten. Hopefully Jackson can emerge to stretch the defenses and Caldwell becomes as clutch as Branch and Givens were. That is what I remember most about them, they dropped a catchable pass and Brady really trusted them to run the right pattern.


2003
- Branch began to emerge towards end of season, finished with 800 yards (wasn't that the year Neal took him out on a Hail Mary?)
- Bethel, huge touchdown against Tennessee in play-offs (maybe Jackson can do the same)
- in the playoffs the WRs were great, Givens, Branch and Brown averaged over 6 catches a game (49 catches between the 3)
- Brady threw for almost 800 yards in 3 games

2001
- top end was better than I remember, Brown was sick (101, 1199) and Patten had a good year (51, 749)
- after those two big dropoff, next highest was Faulk at 30
- Playoffs, nothing special, Brady threw for 572 yards in 3 games, Brown caught 18, Patten 13, Wiggins 14

 

[captain stone]

Long-term I can see Caldwell in a David Givens type role. I think it would be crazy if this team didn't give brady a surefire #1 next season. Chad Jackson going from nonfactor to "the man" by next year is too much to ask. This team needs to focus on this position in the offseason, as with several other areas.

Yes indeed. A vet FA WR with #1A potential is a must. In other words, a Meion Branch type.

 

[captain stone]

If the Pats start the 2007 season with Caldwell, Jackson, Brown and Gaffney

as their wide receivers, I would be extremely disappointed. It would mean

that the front office had wasted another chance to improve the team

during the off season. The Pats need a good wide receiver to be their

primary go to guy. They also need to draft another wide receiver early

on day #2 of the draft. In fact, they should draft a wide receiver every

year to avoid a repeat of the Branch, Givens fiasco.

Hear, hear. If you have 8-10 draft picks, at least one of them should be used on a WR, every year.

 

[BradyisGod]

If the Pats start the 2007 season with Caldwell, Jackson, Brown and Gaffney

as their wide receivers, I would be extremely disappointed. It would mean

that the front office had wasted another chance to improve the team

during the off season. The Pats need a good wide receiver to be their

primary go to guy. They also need to draft another wide receiver early

on day #2 of the draft. In fact, they should draft a wide receiver every

year to avoid a repeat of the Branch, Givens fiasco.

I would bet a ten spot that they don't go near a receiver on day 1. You may get one day two.

The team has a philosophy about receivers and that is that a clear number 1 WR isn't necessary.

 

[PatsSteve1]

With this type of question, my answer is always going to be that I hope the Patriots get better players. That actually goes with every guy on the roster even though that's obviously unlikely with many players. I still don't see Caldwell as better than a #3. I really don't care how he compares to what's been here before. My hope is that we have much better at WR than Reche Caldwell next year however that can happen.

 

[BradyisGod]

Hear, hear. If you have 8-10 draft picks, at least one of them should be used on a WR, every year.

Why? I think that is kind of short sighted. What if you have gaping holes elsewhere? What if you keep all these guys that have developed a repore with Brady over this year?

What if by bringing in a new set of receivers this next year, you just end up repeating the mistakes of this year by having too much "newness".

I don't think blanket statements like this can be made.

 

[pats1]

If the Pats start the 2007 season with Caldwell, Jackson, Brown and Gaffney

as their wide receivers, I would be extremely disappointed. It would mean

that the front office had wasted another chance to improve the team

during the off season. The Pats need a good wide receiver to be their

primary go to guy. They also need to draft another wide receiver early

on day #2 of the draft. In fact, they should draft a wide receiver every

year to avoid a repeat of the Branch, Givens fiasco.

How would that avoid a WR leaving for more money? How would neglecting other needs help?

This post gets my vote for "WTF?" post of the year.

 

[BradyManny]

2003
- Branch began to emerge towards end of season, finished with 800 yards (wasn't that the year Neal took him out on a Hail Mary?)
- Bethel, huge touchdown against Tennessee in play-offs (maybe Jackson can do the same)
- in the playoffs the WRs were great, Givens, Branch and Brown averaged over 6 catches a game (49 catches between the 3)
- Brady threw for almost 800 yards in 3 games

2001
- top end was better than I remember, Brown was sick (101, 1199) and Patten had a good year (51, 749)
- after those two big dropoff, next highest was Faulk at 30
- Playoffs, nothing special, Brady threw for 572 yards in 3 games, Brown caught 18, Patten 13, Wiggins 14

Good post! I think I need to go back and watch the DVDs!

 

[captain stone]

Why? I think that is kind of short sighted. What if you have gaping holes elsewhere?

>> Then use all the other picks you have, too. I'm not saying that a 1st Day pick be used on a WR every year, or even any year; just one pick, somewhere, on draft weekend.

What if you keep all these guys that have developed a repore with Brady over this year?

>> Aside from Troy, and - to a lesser extent - Caldwell, nobody else has developed a rapport with Brady this year. But if they did, then place your rookie WR on the PS, since he was probably a low-round pick, anyway, if all of your WRs are that good. Or place him on "Injured" Reserve.

What if by bringing in a new set of receivers this next year, you just end up repeating the mistakes of this year by having too much "newness".

>> I'm not saying that you bring in a new set of WRs next year, or any year. In a perfect world, you would need just one, every year or two. Besides, competition and depth are good things.

I don't think blanket statements like this can be made.

Think of it like this: 10% of your roster are WRs. It would seem logical, therefore, that 10% of your draft picks should also be WRs. This idea is not to be set in stone, of course. But it is a good rule of thumb.

 

[D-cleater]

I would bet a ten spot that they don't go near a receiver on day 1. You may get one day two.

The team has a philosophy about receivers and that is that a clear number 1 WR isn't necessary.

Before last year, posters on this forum said the FO had the same philosophy about RB's. The year before that, posters on this forum said the FO had the same philosophy about Offensive lineman.

If there is value at the WR position in any of the day one draft picks, and they like the player, we will have a first day WR.

 

[pats63]

They keep us guessing at draft day,always......

 

[frankiesfly]

he wont make it through the next off season.

 

[Patriots4Ever]

he wont make it through the next off season.

As long as he stays healthy,I see NO way that this happens.He's a pretty hard worker and has proven that he can be in the lineup.If not as a 1 or 2,Than a pretty nice Slot.

 

[Jimke]

You have to draft wide receivers every year because you are only

guaranteed to have their services for 4 years under the CBA. In

2010, Chad Jackson will be fully trained and probably playing for

another team.

 

[pats1]

You have to draft wide receivers every year because you are only guaranteed to have their services for 4 years under the CBA.

The same goes with quarterbacks...and running backs...and tight ends..and linemen...and linebackers...and defensive backs...

 

[patsox23]

I'm not sure who said it, but someone implied that the Patriots just ALWAYS let effective WR's go after one year. They've never done that at any time during the BB era. Patten was here and productive for multiple years. Ditto Givens and Branch. The only guy who was supposed to be a starter and left after one year was Donald Hayes, and we all know why that happened. I guess it's true of Gabriel, too, but neither of those guys even approached being regularly productive.