A little early, but: should the Patriots try to re-sign Wes Welker? - Page 30 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 01-04-2013, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JarOfMayo51

Yea but that is also because Welker was on the field and taking a majority of the targets. Edelman filled in nicely that year that Welker went down in the Texans game with his knee injury and had 11 catches and like 2 TDs against the Ravens in the playoffs.

He rang up some stats in a blowout. Edelman is not a Welker replacement.

JarOfMayo51 · 01-04-2013, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyb

Welker should have the good sense to realize that he isn't worth as much anywhere else. He has a great QB throwing to him now, where's he going to go to get that? 18M / 3 years with 12M guaranteed shoujld be more than enough...he should take one for the team.

Sometimes when he catches the ball it looks like the ball is about to swallow him up he's so tiny. All it takes is for him to slow down a bit and he'll be pedestrian. I like the guy too, but he needs to be realistic, he's not going to get paid like the true #1 guys.

Welker and his agent would be fools to agree to a contract that small. Also, no he should not take one for the team, because hes already been taking one for the team for the last 5 years on his slave contract that the Patriots got him with in the trade with Miami.

Welker deserves to be paid top dollar and he won't get it from the Patriots. They will either franchise him for the year and try to make another run with him, trade him, or just let him go and we'll get a 3rd round compensatory pick for him.

There is no home town discount, Welker is one of the greatest slot receivers to ever play the game and he hasnt had his big contract yet in his career.

JarOfMayo51 · 01-04-2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrickPat

I don't disagree with this but as much as I hate to admit it Felger made a good point with his "the cap is crap" schtick in citing the Manning lead Colts. They never seemed impacted by the dreaded cap when it came to retaining their quality players.

Ha, the Colts gambled with those contracts, they had so much money tied up in such few players, if they sustained an injury to any one of them they were screwed.

Oh, and Marvin Harrison's contract haunted them and their cap for years after he retired.. dont even kid yourself.. The Colts had ZERO depth on that team and it was directly the result of their poor cap management to keep all the big name players

***AndyJohnson*** · 01-04-2013, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivan

The Patriots had other options on the DL if they wanted to keep Seymour, such as not paying Warren, so the speculation that it was a decision to sign Wilfork that led to Seymour leaving is just that, speculation.

Everything is speculatoin, but this is pretty obvious.
Warren wouldn't have touched the amount of money.
It was Seymour or Wilfork, not accepting that is simply being in denial.

Quote:

While making mistakes is always a part of personel decisions there are riskier decisions, such as Ocho and Haynesworth that really don't need to be made, and if the only thing blocking them from getting Welker done is that they will have a little less money to take those risks then i have no problem with that.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Those were risks at positions of need where there was cap room to use. Why do they have anything to do with what we are discussing? Your argument seems to be the cap isn;t a problem if you only never make a mistake, which is silly.

Quote:

To me maximizing Brady's remaining years is the priority, not cap frugality.

Huh? Do you understand the cap? Who has ever suggested being a worse team in order to not spend money?
The cap is about choosing between options, not saying spend or don't.

Quote:

that doesn't mean they should blow money left and right like the Yankees or dodgers, it just means they should be more aggressive with their highest quality players to make sure they don't lose them.

It sounds like you support a top heavy salary structure. I don't think that is the best way to build the best team today.
Again, Im not sure you understand the cap.

Quote:

Teams should take different approaches depending upon the situation they find themselves in and my position in this all along has been that they are poised for championships and should solidify their position and improve it, not deliberately get worse.

Who deliberately gets worse? Are you supporting mortgaging the future? Are you talking about a Dan Snyder approach? Sounds like it

Quote:

As i said before, I think we agree on his value.

So what is the gripe?

***AndyJohnson*** · 01-04-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JarOfMayo51

Yea but that is also because Welker was on the field and taking a majority of the targets. Edelman filled in nicely that year that Welker went down in the Texans game with his knee injury and had 11 catches and like 2 TDs against the Ravens in the playoffs.

So Welker only sets records because he gets the chance to be on the field and anyone else can do that? 1 game 4 years ago makes him equal to the best ever at his role? Your argument is foolish.

Quote:

I think that Edelman could take over Welker's role and be productive, but obviously not quite as productive as Welker.. But thats just the thing, do you pay Welker $10M a year for 110 catches, or pay Julian Edelman $1M a year for 90 catches and use that $9M in savings on signing/extending multiple players, or going after a big bodied, deep threat like Bowe to add an extra dimension to our passing attack.

Lets save 19mill at QB, because clearly Mallett can replace Brady at a fraction of the cost too.
90 catches, lol. He doesnt have that in his career.
We dont need another dimension, we have the best offense in the NFL.

Quote:

The case can be made, I don't think the Front Office will be wrong either way, what they should have done was extend Welker years ago to avoid all of this, but I can see them going either way, either moving on from Welker or paying him a decent contract for 3-4 years.

Why would they have done that? According to you a guy who caught 11 passes in 2010 and 2011 COMBINED (yes that is less than Welker caught in a signle game twice this year and last as well) could easily replace him. Trade him for a 7th.

Quote:

Personally I won't be shocked to see Welker playing in another teams uniform next year sitting on a mega contract with lots o guaranteed monies

Lets hope BB is smarter.

Ivan · 01-04-2013, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Everything is speculatoin, but this is pretty obvious.
Warren wouldn't have touched the amount of money.
It was Seymour or Wilfork, not accepting that is simply being in denial.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Those were risks at positions of need where there was cap room to use. Why do they have anything to do with what we are discussing? Your argument seems to be the cap isn;t a problem if you only never make a mistake, which is silly.

Huh? Do you understand the cap? Who has ever suggested being a worse team in order to not spend money?
The cap is about choosing between options, not saying spend or don't.

It sounds like you support a top heavy salary structure. I don't think that is the best way to build the best team today.
Again, Im not sure you understand the cap.

Who deliberately gets worse? Are you supporting mortgaging the future? Are you talking about a Dan Snyder approach? Sounds like it

So what is the gripe?

Your the one with the gripe Andy, not me. I have been making the case that the Patriots can afford to pay Welker 4-40 and you chimed in supporting those who were arguing with me. You believe that the decision was between Wilfork and Seymour and I believe Seymour wanted more than they were going to pay him and traded him for that reason. And yes, the people I have been arguing with want them to get rids of Welker rather than pay him a fair deal, and Edelman to replace him, which would absolutely make them worse. I believe paying welker that money won't hurt them and see keeping him as vital to success for Brady's stretch run. And yes Andy, despite your constant snark I do understand the cap and don't beleive paying Welker is going to hurt them and if it costs them a few million they can't use elsewhere i am more than willing to sacrifice that. If you need any more answers than that you can read the 1,000 posts I have made on it, because my position has been clear and it has been out there through this whole debate.

zipster9 · 01-05-2013, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JarOfMayo51

Yea but that is also because Welker was on the field and taking a majority of the targets. Edelman filled in nicely that year that Welker went down in the Texans game with his knee injury and had 11 catches and like 2 TDs against the Ravens in the playoffs.

I think that Edelman could take over Welker's role and be productive, but obviously not quite as productive as Welker.. But thats just the thing, do you pay Welker $10M a year for 110 catches, or pay Julian Edelman $1M a year for 90 catches and use that $9M in savings on signing/extending multiple players, or going after a big bodied, deep threat like Bowe to add an extra dimension to our passing attack.

The case can be made, I don't think the Front Office will be wrong either way, what they should have done was extend Welker years ago to avoid all of this, but I can see them going either way, either moving on from Welker or paying him a decent contract for 3-4 years.

Personally I won't be shocked to see Welker playing in another teams uniform next year sitting on a mega contract with lots o guaranteed monies

First of all, you will be mistaken if Edelman will sign a new contract for $1M a year. Pure fantasy.

It is not to say Edelman is a bad slot receiver. He is probably an average+ slot receiver. But, only when healthy. Which is the key. Past history does indicate future health (in most cases). The more Patriots played Edelman this year, the more he became fragile.

Can you say that about Welker?

Nothing is guaranteed, but, again, past history does give a peek at future health.

supafly · 01-05-2013, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipster9

First of all, you will be mistaken if Edelman will sign a new contract for $1M a year. Pure fantasy.

It is not to say Edelman is a bad slot receiver. He is probably an average+ slot receiver. But, only when healthy. Which is the key. Past history does indicate future health (in most cases). The more Patriots played Edelman this year, the more he became fragile.

Can you say that about Welker?

Nothing is guaranteed, but, again, past history does give a peek at future health.

Which is also the main concern regarding a player like Danny Amendola, for those who feel that he may be a better long term move, not that I believe the Rams would part ways with him anyways.

***goheels22002*** · 01-05-2013, 12:38 PM

If the cap is pretty much the same as 2012, Welker's gone. The Pats can go out there and get three quality guys for what they'll have to pay him.

With 7 coaching changes and new GMs around the league, all sorts of quality veterans will be expunged as teams build for new systems. Welker's $10 million/year can be much better spent on some younger guys who can contribute immediately and three/four years down the road.

$10+ million/year is just too much to sink into the slot position at the expense of other positions.

JarOfMayo51 · 01-05-2013, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

He rang up some stats in a blowout. Edelman is not a Welker replacement.

I never said he would be a replacement for Welker, I said he would replace some of his production for a lot less money.

Again, do you pay Welker $10M/YR for 110+ catches, or do you pay Edelmen $1-2M/YR for 90 catches and use those savings to strengthen the team in other areas?

What helps the team more:

Wes Welker

or

Aqib Talib + Danny Woodhead?

Granted Woodhead may not be a great example because our RB position is very deep, but I think that Woodhead is a special player for us and is often undervalued. Hes like a white version of Kevin Faulk, he always seems to be able to gash defenses for huge chunks of yardage and is a great 3rd down back. Demps and Vereen though could be used to replace his production as a tandem, but Woodhead is a great player.

Its going to come down to how much of WWs production they think they can replace with Edelman. They know that they won't be able to replace all of it obviously, hes one of the best ever at what he does, but they can replace some of it. They won't go from 110 catches to 0, there will be a falloff but the amount of money they would save could be used somewhere else on the team. Sure it might not relate directly to offensive production from that position, but the team as a whole could still improve overall if the money was used wisely and not spent on wastes of oxygen like Ocho and Haynesworth.