Every Friday during the NFL season, Tom E. Curran & Phil Perry will go head-to-head and offer their own takes on a Patriots or NFL-related question. This week, they debate the move to place Josh Gordon on injured reserve and effectively end his time with the Pats.
SHOULD THE PATRIOTS HAVE KEPT JOSH GORDON?
The Patriots won’t regret moving on from Josh Gordon. Though in one respect, I wish they would. That being that Gordon goes on to have a healthy and productive remainder of the season and a steady and dependable career after. But for right now, even with so many uncertainties in the pass-catching department for Tom Brady, detaching from Gordon was the right call.
It’s because of those uncertainties. We’ve been talking around it for a couple of days: the dependability of the injured Gordon as he nears return from his injured knee. From what I gathered, Gordon was showing up late to things. He wasn’t blowing them off, but the fact he seemed to be trending towards not being on the details was enough to signal
concern. Unfortunately for a player with Gordon’s history, tardy isn’t just going to mean tardy. It could hint at something more troubling in the offing. With Mohamed Sanu in the fold, N’Keal Harry close to his debut, Jakobi Meyers on the uptick, and Phillip Dorsett doing his consistent Phillip Dorsett bit, proceeding with Gordon while having trepidation about where his head was at or something the Patriots weren’t up for. Harry is faster. Harry is more athletic. Harry is going to show better stamina. Might as well get him up to speed as soon as possible.
Gordon certainly had limitations and was closer to average than elite. He wasn’t the Josh Gordon of 2013. He wasn’t the second coming of Deion Branch in terms of sharing a brain with Brady. But he caught 59 passes for 1,000 yards in his for 16 games with the team before he got hurt against the Giants. He didn’t suck. But I do understand why the Patriots opted out of it, and I believe Harry may make his release moot.
New England Patriots
Find the latest New England Patriots news, highlights, analysis and more with NBC Sports Boston.
******
This one might've, though.
They're piecing together the tight end position right now with players who -- while they provide some depth -- probably don't offer the same value Gordon would, even if Gordon was relegated to a reserve role upon Harry's return. There's also some uncertainty with Harry in that it's unclear exactly how much he'll be able to contribute after
missing most of training camp and the entirety of the first half of
his rookie season.
Why not try to maintain that receiver depth they've worked so hard to build? I understand that tardiness isn't something that's going to be tolerated at One Patriot Place. And I understand there were instances this season (as well as last season, obviously) when Gordon was not meeting the team's dependability standards. So I'm not even arguing
that the Patriots should've kept him for the entirety of the season. But why the rush to get him off the active roster?
I think it would've made sense to hold onto Gordon until the Patriots were sure they were fine without him at a position they've been trying to address for the better part of the last two years. Maybe they hold onto him through this weekend to make sure they like their depth upon Harry's return. Maybe they hold onto him until Harry established himself as a contributor. Either way -- acknowledging the team may have information we don't that would've necessitated an immediate move with Gordon -- I would've held onto him a little longer.
MORE ON GORDON IN PATRIOTS TALK PODCAST HERE:
Click here to download the new MyTeams App by NBC Sports! Receive comprehensive coverage of your teams and stream the Celtics easily on your device.