Who will be the third WR for the Patriots (1 Viewer)

[mjohnell]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?

Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

I'd think Gaffney easily already is the #3 WR on the team. He played well down the stretch run last year with Brady looking for him with confidence.

 

[Yitbos69]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

I am just not sure why you think that the #3WR for the Pats will put up better numbers that the #2WR did last year? The #3 guy last year put up 700/3 and he is better than Gaffney or Jackson.Wes Welker 112/1175/8 Donte Stallworth 46/697/3 Jabar Gaffney 36/449/5

 

[mjohnell]

If it is so cut and dry, how come no one talks about Gaffney being good value? Not disagreeing, just wondering.

 

[David Yudkin]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

 

[Yitbos69]

If it is so cut and dry, how come no one talks about Gaffney being good value? Not disagreeing, just wondering.

It really is not that cut and dry.......and the reason Gaffney is not being talked about as good value is because he is just not that good......his best season out of six was in 200441/632/2

 

[mjohnell]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

I am just not sure why you think that the #3WR for the Pats will put up better numbers that the #2WR did last year? The #3 guy last year put up 700/3 and he is better than Gaffney or Jackson.Wes Welker 112/1175/8 Donte Stallworth 46/697/3 Jabar Gaffney 36/449/5

I don't necessarily.

 

[Yitbos69]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

Not sure this makes much sense.....Welker was clearly the #2 option on the field(145 targets) and in production.....

 

[Warhogs]

Gaffney is the guy right now but you would have to think that Chad Jackson should have a great opportunity to step it up this season and could steal that role at some point in 2008. If Chad does not sieze the opportunity this year I am going to doubt if he can ever become a productive NFL WR.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Stallworth and Gaffney put up 82/1146/8 combined last year. If Jackson were to be clearly better than Gaffney he could be very relevant this year.

My guess is that the Pats will throw the ball 10-20% less this season and that Jackson is a lot better than Gaffney. So something along the lines of 50/700/6 for Jackson with Gaffney being an afterthought.

Agree with Warhogs too though... I own Jackson in every dynasty league I'm in and will probably drop him if he doesn't produce this year.

 

[David Yudkin]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

Not sure this makes much sense.....Welker was clearly the #2 option on the field(145 targets) and in production.....

In NFL terms, Moss was the WR1, Stallworth was the Wr2, and Welker was the WR3 in terms of how they lined up (Welker played in the slot). Most of the time, the wideouts put up the bigger numbers and slot receivers usually get the leftovers. So technically in NFL terms, Welker was the WR3 . . . it has nothing to do with how many targets he had or his level of production.

 

[saintfool]

jackson will be given an opportunity to supplant gaffney. he's younger and drafted him after all. moreover, they haven't invested that much money in gaffney. however, jackson has to earn it. gaffney has proven to be effective down the stretch last season. jackson hasn't proven that he can even take the field.

 

[mjohnell]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

What about the possibility of the Patriots drafting Bubba Caldwell at the bottom of the second? I'm sure Urban has been raving about him.

 

[David Yudkin]

I got in touch with my main Pats contact and I'm being told the Pats are not looking to add anyone else, so it appears that what you see is what you get. They could consider someone in the draft, but they have so many needs defensively that I'm guessing if they do draft someone it will be in the later rounds if at all.

 

[Yitbos69]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

Not sure this makes much sense.....Welker was clearly the #2 option on the field(145 targets) and in production.....

In NFL terms, Moss was the WR1, Stallworth was the Wr2, and Welker was the WR3 in terms of how they lined up (Welker played in the slot). Most of the time, the wideouts put up the bigger numbers and slot receivers usually get the leftovers. So technically in NFL terms, Welker was the WR3 . . . it has nothing to do with how many targets he had or his level of production.

I would have to say that in the case of Welker and the Pats the slot WR was the #2 option and by a large margin.......not to say that on most teams the 3rd WR usually plays the slot.....I have to disagree with you, the number of targets a WR get defines what on field option he is.....Welker was the #2 option and it was not close(#3WR got 75 targets). I think Welker was in the slot because it was the position that allowed him to run the quick slants and short underneath routes that he is so good at. Anyway I don't disagree that on most teams the #3 WR is in the slot....I am just saying that it was not the case with the 2007 Pats.

 

[saintfool]

I got in touch with my main Pats contact and I'm being told the Pats are not looking to add anyone else, so it appears that what you see is what you get. They could consider someone in the draft, but they have so many needs defensively that I'm guessing if they do draft someone it will be in the later rounds if at all.

why are you more pro-jackson than gaffney?

 

[finito]

I got in touch with my main Pats contact and I'm being told the Pats are not looking to add anyone else, so it appears that what you see is what you get. They could consider someone in the draft, but they have so many needs defensively that I'm guessing if they do draft someone it will be in the later rounds if at all.

why are you more pro-jackson than gaffney?

Probably because of upside. We know what Gaffney brings to the table. He's okay. Jackson has far more potential than Gaffney, though we have no idea whether he will pan out or not.

 

[saintfool]

Probably because of upside. We know what Gaffney brings to the table. He's okay. Jackson has far more potential than Gaffney, though we have no idea whether he will pan out or not.

it's hard for me to be interested in a guy that has played 14 games and managed only 13/150 in two years. it's not like the patriots have a tremendous track record with the draft recently either. 2007 draft for them resulted in only 2 players being on the team, neither of which are starters.

 

[Boston]

Gaffney is a far better real WR than fantasy WR. He's a very solid player in the Patriot system but I don't see him ever being anything more than a spot starter in fantasy.

Jax has a ton of upside. Unfortunately he also has a ton of downside. Anyone who is counting on him in 2008 is taking a huge gamble. He definetly has legit physical skills but he has yet to prove he can stay healthy and there are serious questions about his attitude, maturity and work ethic. He's at an age where the lightbulb can definetly go on but I'm of the mindset that I'll believe it when I see it.

Right now I easily put Gaffney over Jackson as the #3 WR option for the Pats. You know what you have with him. That doesn't mean Jax can't get his act together and overtake him but he has shown nothing in the last two years that indicate that will occur (and as a Patriot fan I'm hoping it does). If he shows up in camp and looks like the player that the Patriots traded up to draft than this can be revisited but right now he's a wildcard.

IMO the big x-factor in the Patriot passing game (as the roster is currently constructed) is David Thomas. He showed some flashes in 2006 but was hurt for the 2007 season. He looks like he has the potential to be a reliable hands guy who can keep the chains moving. I would not be surprised at all to see him have 40+ receptions and be productive in the red zone. He looks like the type of guy that Brady can trust (like Welker) and if that happens Brady will find ways to get him the ball.

 

[travdogg]

This is kinda outside the box thinking, but I think Ben Watson will be the guy who steps up into a larger role. I could see 700-7 out of him.

Also, I think the running game will be used more often. I doubt any WR's other than Moss and Welker will be worth owning this year.

 

[Boston]

This is kinda outside the box thinking, but I think Ben Watson will be the guy who steps up into a larger role. I could see 700-7 out of him.Also, I think the running game will be used more often. I doubt any WR's other than Moss and Welker will be worth owning this year.

I disagree about Watson. His raw talent is intriguing but his hands just aren't reliable enough. He drops too many easy passes and I don't see him ever putting up yardage in the 700 yard ballpark. Also, he's no stranger to injuries and with Thomas returning this year I don't see Watson's role in the passing game increasing. In many ways he's traveling a path similar to Graham although I think Graham was a better blocker and Watson is a better receiver. Both looked like they had a chance to be big time threats at TE early in their careers but neither could be trusted enough to be consistently productive.

 

[cacksman]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

Not sure this makes much sense.....Welker was clearly the #2 option on the field(145 targets) and in production.....

In NFL terms, Moss was the WR1, Stallworth was the Wr2, and Welker was the WR3 in terms of how they lined up (Welker played in the slot). Most of the time, the wideouts put up the bigger numbers and slot receivers usually get the leftovers. So technically in NFL terms, Welker was the WR3 . . . it has nothing to do with how many targets he had or his level of production.

I would have to say that in the case of Welker and the Pats the slot WR was the #2 option and by a large margin.......not to say that on most teams the 3rd WR usually plays the slot.....I have to disagree with you, the number of targets a WR get defines what on field option he is.....Welker was the #2 option and it was not close(#3WR got 75 targets). I think Welker was in the slot because it was the position that allowed him to run the quick slants and short underneath routes that he is so good at. Anyway I don't disagree that on most teams the #3 WR is in the slot....I am just saying that it was not the case with the 2007 Pats.

Are you seriously arguing about this? First off, youre wrong. Secondly.... who cares?

 

[Sweet Love]

Here is a wild scenario, but it would definitely throw a wrench in the Pats passing game and projections as of today.

If BOTH Gholston and McFadden fall to the Jets at the 6th pick and they go with Gholston (I doubt both will fall to the Jets at this spot) the Pats may not be able to get a taker that quickly for McFadden or they may just decide to grab the best player on the board (who i believe would be McFadden). Again, this is not a very likely scenario, but the Pats did feel the impact when they lost Morris and they may also want to have a new wrinkle to their offense this season to keep everyone guessing. It would be a good deal of money to tie up in RB salary, but without looking my guess is that Maroney is a little cheaper now in his third year, so they may be able to swing it.

The result would be a two-headed monster at RB and less of a need to pass. My thoughts on this is that Moss and Welker would get theirs, but less going to the WR3 and WR4 than last year.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here is a wild scenario, but it would definitely throw a wrench in the Pats passing game and projections as of today.If BOTH Gholston and McFadden fall to the Jets at the 6th pick and they go with Gholston (I doubt both will fall to the Jets at this spot) the Pats may not be able to get a taker that quickly for McFadden or they may just decide to grab the best player on the board (who i believe would be McFadden). Again, this is not a very likely scenario, but the Pats did feel the impact when they lost Morris and they may also want to have a new wrinkle to their offense this season to keep everyone guessing. It would be a good deal of money to tie up in RB salary, but without looking my guess is that Maroney is a little cheaper now in his third year, so they may be able to swing it.The result would be a two-headed monster at RB and less of a need to pass. My thoughts on this is that Moss and Welker would get theirs, but less going to the WR3 and WR4 than last year.

Not gonna happen. I am SURE the Pats already have contingencies lined up and have explored (or are exploring) trade partners for the #7 pick based on who falls to that spot. So they will not be caught with their pants down and suddenly having the to think of a potential trade partner.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

Not sure this makes much sense.....Welker was clearly the #2 option on the field(145 targets) and in production.....

In NFL terms, Moss was the WR1, Stallworth was the Wr2, and Welker was the WR3 in terms of how they lined up (Welker played in the slot). Most of the time, the wideouts put up the bigger numbers and slot receivers usually get the leftovers. So technically in NFL terms, Welker was the WR3 . . . it has nothing to do with how many targets he had or his level of production.

Man, there are so many people on this board that just don't get that.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

If it is so cut and dry, how come no one talks about Gaffney being good value? Not disagreeing, just wondering.

It really is not that cut and dry.......and the reason Gaffney is not being talked about as good value is because he is just not that good......his best season out of six was in 200441/632/2

Maybe because he doesn't see the field that much.I think you need to look beyond the numbers here.He was a solid contributor when given playing time last season.

 

[Sweet Love]

Here is a wild scenario, but it would definitely throw a wrench in the Pats passing game and projections as of today.If BOTH Gholston and McFadden fall to the Jets at the 6th pick and they go with Gholston (I doubt both will fall to the Jets at this spot) the Pats may not be able to get a taker that quickly for McFadden or they may just decide to grab the best player on the board (who i believe would be McFadden). Again, this is not a very likely scenario, but the Pats did feel the impact when they lost Morris and they may also want to have a new wrinkle to their offense this season to keep everyone guessing. It would be a good deal of money to tie up in RB salary, but without looking my guess is that Maroney is a little cheaper now in his third year, so they may be able to swing it.The result would be a two-headed monster at RB and less of a need to pass. My thoughts on this is that Moss and Welker would get theirs, but less going to the WR3 and WR4 than last year.

Not gonna happen. I am SURE the Pats already have contingencies lined up and have explored (or are exploring) trade partners for the #7 pick based on who falls to that spot. So they will not be caught with their pants down and suddenly having the to think of a potential trade partner.

That makes sense and you are correct, while we see 15 minutes to make a multi-million dollar decision on Draft day, they have been planning for months. With that said, any chance they take McFadden if he falls to them because they "flat out" want him?

 

[Spike]

This is kinda outside the box thinking, but I think Ben Watson will be the guy who steps up into a larger role. I could see 700-7 out of him.

Also, I think the running game will be used more often. I doubt any WR's other than Moss and Welker will be worth owning this year.

We Patriot fans have been waiting for/counting on this for a couple years now.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here is a wild scenario, but it would definitely throw a wrench in the Pats passing game and projections as of today.If BOTH Gholston and McFadden fall to the Jets at the 6th pick and they go with Gholston (I doubt both will fall to the Jets at this spot) the Pats may not be able to get a taker that quickly for McFadden or they may just decide to grab the best player on the board (who i believe would be McFadden). Again, this is not a very likely scenario, but the Pats did feel the impact when they lost Morris and they may also want to have a new wrinkle to their offense this season to keep everyone guessing. It would be a good deal of money to tie up in RB salary, but without looking my guess is that Maroney is a little cheaper now in his third year, so they may be able to swing it.The result would be a two-headed monster at RB and less of a need to pass. My thoughts on this is that Moss and Welker would get theirs, but less going to the WR3 and WR4 than last year.

Not gonna happen. I am SURE the Pats already have contingencies lined up and have explored (or are exploring) trade partners for the #7 pick based on who falls to that spot. So they will not be caught with their pants down and suddenly having the to think of a potential trade partner.

That makes sense and you are correct, while we see 15 minutes to make a multi-million dollar decision on Draft day, they have been planning for months. With that said, any chance they take McFadden if he falls to them because they "flat out" want him?

The Pats over time have shown that they are unpredictable in terms of who they draft. That being said, I doubt they would take DMac, as they need LB and secondary help. They traditionally have shown that they favor lineman on either side of the ball with their first round picks. I would not think they would take DMac with the intent to play him (so I suppose they could conceivably draft him and then trade his rights away).

 

[David Yudkin]

This is kinda outside the box thinking, but I think Ben Watson will be the guy who steps up into a larger role. I could see 700-7 out of him.

Also, I think the running game will be used more often. I doubt any WR's other than Moss and Welker will be worth owning this year.

We Patriot fans have been waiting for/counting on this for a couple years now.

Watson's numbers overall appear low, but his per game numbers would project out in the vicinity of 700/7. His problem is that he keeps getting nicked up. He's missed 23 games in 4 years in the league (the huge chunk in his rookie campaign).Overall Watson has to be considered a bit of a disappointment, as many people felt we would put up WR numbers and that obviously has yet to happen.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

The Pats over time have shown that they are unpredictable in terms of who they draft. That being said, I doubt they would take DMac, as they need LB and secondary help. They traditionally have shown that they favor lineman on either side of the ball with their first round picks. I would not think they would take DMac with the intent to play him (so I suppose they could conceivably draft him and then trade his rights away).

Bingo.Answer = Ryan CladyMcFadden will be gone... Oakland, imo.

 

[Yitbos69]

Moss is clearly the #1.

Welker is the #3 on the field but the #2 in production.

Jackson will be given the chance to be the on field #2 but is a totally shot in the dark at this point.

Gaffney will be available if needed but will not put up big numbers.

Washington could see more time on offense this year.

No one says the team is done adding players and they have had other WRs in for evaluation.

Reche Caldwell is still available and would be ceheap (but has knee issues).

If I were to suggest taking a flyer, at this point I would say Jackson over Gaffney.

Not sure this makes much sense.....Welker was clearly the #2 option on the field(145 targets) and in production.....

In NFL terms, Moss was the WR1, Stallworth was the Wr2, and Welker was the WR3 in terms of how they lined up (Welker played in the slot). Most of the time, the wideouts put up the bigger numbers and slot receivers usually get the leftovers. So technically in NFL terms, Welker was the WR3 . . . it has nothing to do with how many targets he had or his level of production.

I would have to say that in the case of Welker and the Pats the slot WR was the #2 option and by a large margin.......not to say that on most teams the 3rd WR usually plays the slot.....I have to disagree with you, the number of targets a WR get defines what on field option he is.....Welker was the #2 option and it was not close(#3WR got 75 targets). I think Welker was in the slot because it was the position that allowed him to run the quick slants and short underneath routes that he is so good at. Anyway I don't disagree that on most teams the #3 WR is in the slot....I am just saying that it was not the case with the 2007 Pats.

Are you seriously arguing about this? First off, youre wrong. Secondly.... who cares?

Hey guy thanks for the input.........First off, why do you think I am wrong? Secondly......who cares!

 

[David Yudkin]

The Pats over time have shown that they are unpredictable in terms of who they draft. That being said, I doubt they would take DMac, as they need LB and secondary help. They traditionally have shown that they favor lineman on either side of the ball with their first round picks. I would not think they would take DMac with the intent to play him (so I suppose they could conceivably draft him and then trade his rights away).

Bingo.Answer = Ryan CladyMcFadden will be gone... Oakland, imo.

I don't think they will take Clady, at least not at #7. I doubt he will grade out high enough and would be a bit redundant in that he plays LT. Light is siigned through 2010. If they was a chance that they would take Clady it would be by trading down. And if they traded down I think they would be more likely to take a CB.The other consideration is Seymour, Wilfork, and Green on the OL are all signed through 2009. So IMO if they were to take a lineman it would probably be on the defensive side of the ball. The offense is a lot more shored up right now than the defense, so I have a hard time seeing them taking an offensive player that early (although as we all know anything can happen).

 

[Ron_Mexico]

The Pats over time have shown that they are unpredictable in terms of who they draft. That being said, I doubt they would take DMac, as they need LB and secondary help. They traditionally have shown that they favor lineman on either side of the ball with their first round picks. I would not think they would take DMac with the intent to play him (so I suppose they could conceivably draft him and then trade his rights away).

Bingo.Answer = Ryan CladyMcFadden will be gone... Oakland, imo.

I don't think they will take Clady, at least not at #7. I doubt he will grade out high enough and would be a bit redundant in that he plays LT. Light is siigned through 2010. If they was a chance that they would take Clady it would be by trading down. And if they traded down I think they would be more likely to take a CB.The other consideration is Seymour, Wilfork, and Green on the OL are all signed through 2009. So IMO if they were to take a lineman it would probably be on the defensive side of the ball. The offense is a lot more shored up right now than the defense, so I have a hard time seeing them taking an offensive player that early (although as we all know anything can happen).

We can objectively look at the SB loss to the Giantsand heap quite a bit of blame on the OLine.I think Clady will be a top 10 pick, but like you said,anything can happen when we are talking Patriots and Draft time.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Pats over time have shown that they are unpredictable in terms of who they draft. That being said, I doubt they would take DMac, as they need LB and secondary help. They traditionally have shown that they favor lineman on either side of the ball with their first round picks. I would not think they would take DMac with the intent to play him (so I suppose they could conceivably draft him and then trade his rights away).

Bingo.Answer = Ryan CladyMcFadden will be gone... Oakland, imo.

I don't think they will take Clady, at least not at #7. I doubt he will grade out high enough and would be a bit redundant in that he plays LT. Light is siigned through 2010. If they was a chance that they would take Clady it would be by trading down. And if they traded down I think they would be more likely to take a CB.The other consideration is Seymour, Wilfork, and Green on the OL are all signed through 2009. So IMO if they were to take a lineman it would probably be on the defensive side of the ball. The offense is a lot more shored up right now than the defense, so I have a hard time seeing them taking an offensive player that early (although as we all know anything can happen).

We can objectively look at the SB loss to the Giantsand heap quite a bit of blame on the OLine.I think Clady will be a top 10 pick, but like you said,anything can happen when we are talking Patriots and Draft time.

The Pats had 3 Pro Bowl linemen this year and set an all-time mark for team scoring. I would think that they would draw conclusions on the sstate of affairs from 18 games over that of a single game. The Pats did not play as well in the SB as their other games. But IMO that does not mean they have OL issues.I agree that Clady should be a decent lineman, but in terms of NE they have many, many more pressing needs more than their OL. In fact, I'm pretty sure almost all other teams would kill to have the Pats OL.

 

[twitch]

The Pats over time have shown that they are unpredictable in terms of who they draft. That being said, I doubt they would take DMac, as they need LB and secondary help. They traditionally have shown that they favor lineman on either side of the ball with their first round picks. I would not think they would take DMac with the intent to play him (so I suppose they could conceivably draft him and then trade his rights away).

Bingo.Answer = Ryan CladyMcFadden will be gone... Oakland, imo.

I don't think they will take Clady, at least not at #7. I doubt he will grade out high enough and would be a bit redundant in that he plays LT. Light is siigned through 2010. If they was a chance that they would take Clady it would be by trading down. And if they traded down I think they would be more likely to take a CB.The other consideration is Seymour, Wilfork, and Green on the OL are all signed through 2009. So IMO if they were to take a lineman it would probably be on the defensive side of the ball. The offense is a lot more shored up right now than the defense, so I have a hard time seeing them taking an offensive player that early (although as we all know anything can happen).

We can objectively look at the SB loss to the Giantsand heap quite a bit of blame on the OLine.I think Clady will be a top 10 pick, but like you said,anything can happen when we are talking Patriots and Draft time.

The Pats had 3 Pro Bowl linemen this year and set an all-time mark for team scoring. I would think that they would draw conclusions on the sstate of affairs from 18 games over that of a single game. The Pats did not play as well in the SB as their other games. But IMO that does not mean they have OL issues.I agree that Clady should be a decent lineman, but in terms of NE they have many, many more pressing needs more than their OL. In fact, I'm pretty sure almost all other teams would kill to have the Pats OL.

Agree, DY. The line played horribly, but that scheme and inability to make any kindof protection adjustments were more to blame than simply the 5 up front. Who really knows who theyll take. The certainly have a history of taking big guys with their higher picks during Belichick's tenure. Their 2 highest picks have been Seymour and Warren. But there's not precedent for them taking a lineman this high. We'd agree that theyre likely to be working on moving down if their 'guy' isnt there. But Im almost developing a gut feeling that if they cant come off the pick, it may very well be Cromartie. That height and speed are a rare combo for the position. And a player with natural skill like that in the hands of BB would be something Id look forward to watching. But again, who knows. I can see them going Oline as well. Noone knows what Neal's status is entering next season.

 

[switz]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

Gaffney, no question.Jackson may be cut from what I've heard.

 

[cstu]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

Gaffney, no question.Jackson may be cut from what I've heard.

Gaffney had a decent season, but remember he was outplayed by Jackson in 2006. IMO, the Patriots brought in Stallworth after Jackson hurt his knee because they didn't think Gaffney could be the #2/#3. Now that Stallworth is being let go, I don't see why the Pats would also cut Jackson. The only way I see him getting cut and not getting the chance to prove himself is if he still isn't recovered from his knee injury.

 

[Boston]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

Gaffney, no question.Jackson may be cut from what I've heard.

Gaffney had a decent season, but remember he was outplayed by Jackson in 2006. IMO, the Patriots brought in Stallworth after Jackson hurt his knee because they didn't think Gaffney could be the #2/#3. Now that Stallworth is being let go, I don't see why the Pats would also cut Jackson. The only way I see him getting cut and not getting the chance to prove himself is if he still isn't recovered from his knee injury.

That is incorrect. Gaffney was not brought in until late in the season. One of the reasons he was brought in was because Jackson was either injured or not playing well all season long. By the end of the year (especially the playoffs) Gaffney was very productiv and their most reliable target. Jackson did not outplay anyone in 2006.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, Jackson is the one with his fate in his own hands. The job is his to win or to lose. Gaffney will be whatever Jackson IS NOT. I do not believe that Gaffney can secure the starting spot based on exemplary play. So the job is Jackson's to win or lose and Gaffney is along for the ride. I'm pretty sure that Jackson is viewed by the team as having much more upside. However, at this point the team has legit concerns about Jackson's health and work habits. Gaffney certainly trumps him in both those areas at this point, but a healthy and motivated Jackson should be leaps and bounds ahead of Gaffney. The question is whether Jackson can a) stay healthy, b) show something on the field more than just his potential, and 3) give 100% in practice and on game day. Since Jackson at this point has not shown the ability to provide those, Gaffney is by default the choice for now, but that could easily change by Opening Day.

 

[twitch]

I'll go ahead and bet my lunch money that Chad Jackson wont get cut. He's no Donte Stallworth. Heck, he's not even Reggie Wayne. But he's certainly not going to be cut. Some of us need to tighten up our sources.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

I'll go ahead and bet my lunch money that Chad Jackson wont get cut. He's no Donte Stallworth. Heck, he's not even Reggie Wayne. But he's certainly not going to be cut. Some of us need to tighten up our sources.

 

[cstu]

I'll go ahead and bet my lunch money that Chad Jackson wont get cut. He's no Donte Stallworth. Heck, he's not even Reggie Wayne. But he's certainly not going to be cut. Some of us need to tighten up our sources.

twitch is a Pats fan which means he's as deluded about Wayne as he is about the Pats cheating.

 

[twitch]

I'll go ahead and bet my lunch money that Chad Jackson wont get cut. He's no Donte Stallworth. Heck, he's not even Reggie Wayne. But he's certainly not going to be cut. Some of us need to tighten up our sources.

twitch is a Pats fan which means he's as deluded about Wayne as he is about the Pats cheating.

Just a sarcastic poke at anyone out there thinking Stallworth is as good a receiver as Wayne. For the record, Im certainly not one of those people. Believe it or not, such people exist.

 

[trader jake]

So the job is Jackson's to win or lose and Gaffney is along for the ride. I'm pretty sure that Jackson is viewed by the team as having much more upside. However, at this point the team has legit concerns about Jackson's health and work habits.

Interesting. That's really all I need to know. If Jackson proves me wrong, so be it.

 

[cstu]

Moss, Welker (in the slot), and who?Whoever it is could potentially put up 1000/10 type numbers. I'm thinking Jackson gets another shot.

Gaffney, no question.Jackson may be cut from what I've heard.

Gaffney had a decent season, but remember he was outplayed by Jackson in 2006. IMO, the Patriots brought in Stallworth after Jackson hurt his knee because they didn't think Gaffney could be the #2/#3. Now that Stallworth is being let go, I don't see why the Pats would also cut Jackson. The only way I see him getting cut and not getting the chance to prove himself is if he still isn't recovered from his knee injury.

That is incorrect. Gaffney was not brought in until late in the season. One of the reasons he was brought in was because Jackson was either injured or not playing well all season long. By the end of the year (especially the playoffs) Gaffney was very productiv and their most reliable target. Jackson did not outplay anyone in 2006.

I stand corrected - Gaffney joined the team Oct. 10 after the week 5 game and they had a bye the following week and actually outplayed Jackson who struggled with hamstring issues most of the year. Here are the stats from week 7 through the rest of the season:Gaffney - 11/142/1Jackson - 9/101/2 Gaffney also had two big games in the playoffs.

 

[cstu]

IMO, Jackson is the one with his fate in his own hands. The job is his to win or to lose. Gaffney will be whatever Jackson IS NOT. I do not believe that Gaffney can secure the starting spot based on exemplary play. So the job is Jackson's to win or lose and Gaffney is along for the ride. I'm pretty sure that Jackson is viewed by the team as having much more upside. However, at this point the team has legit concerns about Jackson's health and work habits. Gaffney certainly trumps him in both those areas at this point, but a healthy and motivated Jackson should be leaps and bounds ahead of Gaffney. The question is whether Jackson can a) stay healthy, b) show something on the field more than just his potential, and 3) give 100% in practice and on game day. Since Jackson at this point has not shown the ability to provide those, Gaffney is by default the choice for now, but that could easily change by Opening Day.

I agree.

 

[saintfool]

Gaffney had a decent season, but remember he was outplayed by Jackson in 2006. IMO, the Patriots brought in Stallworth after Jackson hurt his knee because they didn't think Gaffney could be the #2/#3. Now that Stallworth is being let go, I don't see why the Pats would also cut Jackson. The only way I see him getting cut and not getting the chance to prove himself is if he still isn't recovered from his knee injury.

how can a player with 13 receptions and 150 yards total outplay ANYONE? seriously, gaffney had in 2006 11/142. that's outplaying? that's a pretty high standard for "outplaying".all i know is that gaffney was actually on the field in 2007. he caught passes thrown to him both in the regular season and playoffs. he looked pretty good as i recall in the process too. jackson, after coming off PUP, took the field for kick offs and returns in a few regular season games and a playoff. that's it. jackson has the upside and the mystique. gaffney has the ho-hum history and some decent games under his belt. draft accordingly.

 

[az_prof]

jackson will be given an opportunity to supplant gaffney. he's younger and drafted him after all. moreover, they haven't invested that much money in gaffney. however, jackson has to earn it. gaffney has proven to be effective down the stretch last season. jackson hasn't proven that he can even take the field.

The other thing to consider is upside. While I think Gaffney has the inside track of starting this year with Welker and Moss, he is not likely to do any better than Stallworth in that role and so he has little upside. Jackson, on the other hand, may have less of a chance of being the WR2, but if he gets it he may change the ratio of numbers and take some of Welker's looks. I like Jackson better than Gaffney in dynasty because of that upside. I also am not as sure as some of Welker's owners are that he is a lock to get over a hundred receptions for the next eternity. I think he had a career year and I think he is likely to disappear somewhat the same way Brandon Stokeley did after his big year in the slot in Indianapolis.

 

[David Yudkin]

Gaffney had a decent season, but remember he was outplayed by Jackson in 2006. IMO, the Patriots brought in Stallworth after Jackson hurt his knee because they didn't think Gaffney could be the #2/#3. Now that Stallworth is being let go, I don't see why the Pats would also cut Jackson. The only way I see him getting cut and not getting the chance to prove himself is if he still isn't recovered from his knee injury.

how can a player with 13 receptions and 150 yards total outplay ANYONE? seriously, gaffney had in 2006 11/142. that's outplaying? that's a pretty high standard for "outplaying".all i know is that gaffney was actually on the field in 2007. he caught passes thrown to him both in the regular season and playoffs. he looked pretty good as i recall in the process too. jackson, after coming off PUP, took the field for kick offs and returns in a few regular season games and a playoff. that's it. jackson has the upside and the mystique. gaffney has the ho-hum history and some decent games under his belt. draft accordingly.

Gaffney's best selling point is that he has done fairly well when given the change to play for the Pats. While his regular season numbers were very forgettable in the 2006 regular season. (Bear in mind that joining a team with a complex offense and learning on the fly is pretty tough to accomplish.)However, in the 2006 post-season he played 3 games and posted a combined 21 receptions, 244 receiving yards, and 2 TD (including 2 games with 100+ yards).In 2007, he mostly served as a WR4 until very late in the season when he suplanted Stallworth as the WR3. From Thansgiving on he did have games with 87, 122, and 82 receiving yards and scored 4 times late in the year (and scored another TD against SD in the playoffs).All that being said, I don't see Gaffney as being a regular NFL starter for NE unless they have no other option. He's good at being there when they need him but I do not think that he is their long term solution (re-signing him to only a one year deal should go a long way to deciphering what they view him as).NE dreams of Jackson staying healthy, learning the offense, working hard, and putting up decent WR2 numbers. That would leave Gaffney as their WR4, a guy with some smarts to get open with decent hands to make catches when Moss, Welker, etc. are covered. But I do not see him putting up big fantasy numbers ***IN MOST*** fantasy leagues. I play in mega sized leagues where 100+ WRs are drafted, so he would have some value there. But in 10- or 12-team leagues I would not invest a ton to acquire him, as I really don't see him producing enough on a consistent basis to merit playing him unless people were in dire straits at WR.