I understand your point, but his statistics are primarily a result of his lack of use. There is no way to judge his potential without playtime on the field. He is primarily in on run-blocking downs. From what I recall only three passes were thrown his way. Two of the passes were for first downs the other was nearly a great catch for a touchdown and that only failed because the ball was thrown just a little too far out.
Buress wasn't very good in Pittsburg and they were
trying to get the ball to him. My point is that I think London is better to have on your team than Hagan. I am not saying London is a substitute for Buress but he does offer some similar physical attributes to Buress (at least more than Hagan). With more play time, who knows what London's abilities would be, there is nothing on the field that shows he would not be able to produce. Hagan on the other hand has shown a consistant amount of inconsistancy and the ability to completely screw up a drive with his dropping of the ball. Keep in mind, I am not calling for London to become a starter, that is what coaches are supposed to evaluate.