supafly

It's a very interesting development for sure, and one that we'll all keep a close eye on, but if I had to choose one way or another I would definitely lean towards Talib not being here for the future. Unless of course, he is willing to take a deal that allows him to have a chance to prove himself over the course of next year where he would get paid less money than on the open market.

If he is willing to do that, then kudos to him and I wish him the best. I'd also be very excited to have him retained at a reasonable cost, and I'd be even happier to see that the 4th round pick could be utilized in a positive way moving forward, although we'll all be just as happy if the 4th rd pick pays off enough to lead to a SB appearance too.

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

zipster9

I'm not sure how we went from Welker, to Talib? I assume this was still the Welker thread? No?

supafly

After 43 pages it's always likely that other topics are brought up.

In this case many had compared some of the other players who are FA's with retaining Welker, so the names of Talib, Vollmer, Edelman, Woodhead are very likely to get brought into the equation.

Many had brought other names into it several pages into the thread, and it has continued from there...much like any other thread.

__________________
Patiently waiting to defend the next "bubble" player in this summer's training camp.....

Deus Irae

Here are the problems:

1.) You're looking at the numbers of outside receivers and comparing them to Welker (with Welker winning the comparisons, by the way), while you're not arguing that Welker should be paid at the top of the outside WR charts, along with Fitzgerald and Johnson. You're basically arguing that even though his numbers are better than a select list of all-time greats, he should take a crappy deal. That makes no sense.

2.) You avoided answering my questions, when they went to the point of current and recent productivity for the sake of determining future worth.

3.) Your examples:

Herman Moore was done before he ever reached 30 years of age. From age 30-33, he totaled 60 catches.

Jerry Rice played until he was 41, and he had a 92 reception season at the age of 40. He also had 3 straight 100 catch seasons from age 32-34, and the reason that he had a drop off at age 35 was that he suffered an ACL/MCL injury and missed almost all of the season, so he's clearly buttresses the Welker case as opposed to undermining it.

Marvin Harrison, while not reaching 100 catches again after the age of 30 (something Welker's obviously not had a problem doing), still had a pair of 90+ catch seasons and a pair of 80+ catch seasons from age 31-34. His precipitous decline after that, like Rice's, came as the result of a knee injury which cost him most of the season (Unlike Rice, Harrison had an injury from which he never really rebounded).

Chris Carter, like Harrison, never got past 100 catches after age 30. Again, Welker's had no problem doing so. Carter, however, played until he was 37, and had 3 90+ catch seasons, an 89 catch season and 2 seasons with 70+ catches before his final season.

I could go on, but I think the point is obvious:

Welker, who's done something nobody has ever done, is in the kind of company that shows he's likely to have mulitiple years of high production left in his career. Now, I'm not saying that he should be paid like a Fitzgerald/Johnson, because I think he's essentially created a second type of WR who should be paid at a slightly different level, but he deserves significant remunerations for his efforts, and the desire of people here to low ball him is an embarrassment.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

patfanken

OK, we are on page 43 in a thread that will easily pass 50 pages. We are closing in on close to 450 posts. So what have we learned amid all the often rancorous, tumult of differing opinions.

1. People have made a strong cases to keep Wes Welker. They have noted his past production, his importance to the offense, and his durability. They have made reasonable comparisons to other receivers who have had success as 32-35 year old WR's (his approximate age for the years of a new contract for Wes)

2. And though I am loath to rile up the Welker Nazis, who attack any notion of a Welkerless Patriots. There have been reasonable cases made for a Patriots offense that would survive his loss, if his contract demands reach a point where they adversely affect the overall salary structure. The Pats offense has thrived many different sets of receivers over the Brady era. None had even close to the talent we currently have.

3. I thought Tip made a compelling argument NOT to re-sign Volmer. I'm not sure I agree with him, but like Welker there comes a point where a contract brings diminishing returns. I think we all agree that Volmer is a top 5 RT in this league, and the OL is better with him on it, but is it $8MM better? In other words would the drop off from Volmer, to say, a Marcus Cannon who is Coached up by Dante be that great that it is worth paying him $8MM more than what you are paying Cannon.

Tip pointed out all the right tackles the Pats have had over the very successful Brady era, and we didn't have to play $9MM/yr for any of them. Do we need to pay for one now? Plus there are the health issues as well. Now I'm not really sure I fully agree with him, but like Welker, I'm hoping the Pats sign him....but not at any price, and if they didn't I would understand why they didn't.

4. People have also made similar good arguments for signing Talib and for letting him walk.

5. In the end I think we can all agree that Pats are better off if all are re-signed. But I also think we can all agree that the final decision of what they are willing to pay these players will be determined by more than just their past production. How those contracts fit within the entire salary structure, and how they will impact the Pats ability to sign or re-sign people down the road, will also be significant considerations as well.

6. Finally, we can argue pros and cons forever. But we should know by now that the Pats know right now, plus or minus 5%, what they are willing to play these players, and who they are willing to let go. And what we think isn't going to influence them, or drastically reduce the effectiveness of the team. Kinda makes you wonder if all this effort and aggravation on our part has been worth it.

aluminum seats

Well, of course it's not "worth it" in terms of influencing anything--time to shut the board down if that's the measuring stick.

__________________
"So I'm going to throw myself against the wall...
'Cause I'd rather feel bad than not feel anything at all."

Ivan

And once again Ken crosses the line with another world class douchebag post. The people arguing to pay Welker a fair deal are "Welker Nazi's," but those who want to pay him minimum wage, but really want to replace him with a guy who can't carry his jock are making "reasonable cases for the offense without him.

The truth of the matter ken is that not one person has suggested paying him a ridiculous amount of money, everyone has been under 50 million dollars, which is half of what his numbers dictate in a free market as the only 2 receivers in football who are in his class of production the last 3-5 years are CJ and Fitzgerald, and they get 120 million and 125 million respectively. Not one person opposed to paying Welker has been able to demonstrate how paying him 10 million a year for the next 3-4 years is going to hamstring them from paying the players they wanted to sign, and the ones they cited, Gronkowski and Hernandez have now been re-done while Welker was under a tag, which makes it harder to sign players not easier. Now they have moved the goalposts to players like Vollmer and Talib, and while you have been steadfast in wanting to pay Welker dogsh.t you literally jumped at the idea of 30 million for 4 for Vollmer and paying 8 million a year to a CB who has literally played 2 games for the Patriots. It's disgusting and ignorant, and even though your "Edelman can easily replace him" argument has been thoroughly destryoed over and over you still cling to it like a child's doll and continue to play the "can't afford to pay him" argument while refusing to demonstrate why and jumping at ideas to pay players who aren't anywhere near his value to this team. You even went so far as to call him a UDFA jag in a recent post, which truly demonstrates that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about.Stick to Madden ken, it suits you much better, you don't know jack about the real thing.

Ivan

And it is those who claim the Patriots can't afford Welker who want to give big money to Talib. Dumbest argument ever.

Double TE

If money is equal I'd rather have Mike Wallace otherwise pay Wes.

__________________
If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?

kennyb

Just because welker hasn't slowed down much doesn't mean he won't in the near future. It could be a cliff like fall and they don't want that.

I'd kind of like to see them let him test the waters. And when he finds out he wouldn't make much more elsewhere, he'll stay here...give him some incentives so if he can be 100+ for 3 years he'll make 8M / year with 15M guaranteed.

He should feel very, very grateful that the pats rescued him from a miami team and gave him the opportunity to win multiple SBs, play with a HOF QB and possibly even make the HOF himself. AND pay him good money both in the contract coming out of Miami and in getting the 9M this year.