Q. Hey Mike, my question concerns Wes Welker. Could this just be BB trying Julian Edelman in the starting role to have a better idea of Welker's importance to the team? If they can win with Edelman, BB would feel better about letting Welker go after the season. It feels like he learned from the Richard Seymour trade that you can't get rid of your stars unless you're sure other players can fill the hole. Thoughts? -- Justin (San Francisco)
A. Justin, call me naïve, but I truly don't believe this is anything but a result of a meritocracy. My first instinct was that it was a shame what was happening to Welker, who has done great things for the franchise from 2007 to 2011 but is being phased out because of the contract situation. Then I went back and re-watched the game with an attempt to remove any preconceived bias, reported a bit on the storyline with context going back to the spring, and came to the following conclusion: This is a bigger media issue than it is a football issue. I understand why, because it's interesting given some of the factors in play (contract, prior value to the team, etc.). I opined on the topic in this story, and I'm sure this will result in some calling me a homer, and that's fine. I feel confident that I've done my homework. The bottom line to me is that this offense is changing and the tight ends are doing some of the things Welker used to do, Edelman has closed the gap a bit, and that's going to scale back Welker's role from what we've seen in the past. Will it be the right decision in the end? We'll see, and we will opine when more results are there to analyze.
Q. Hi Mike, I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Boomer Esiason's opinion of the Welker situation on the blog. It's always nice to get the opinion of a national writer or commentator, but his thoughts reek of someone looking for attention or with no clue how this team operates (or some combination of both). Nobody understands better than Belichick that this game is a business, and that Wes Welker needs to do what is right for Wes Welker. If what's best for Welker isn't what's best for the Patriots, then so be it. The mere suggestion that Belichick would punish a player, the team and himself by benching a player because he wouldn't sign an extension he didn't feel was fair to him is simply absurd. Remember when Logan Mankins held out in 2010, and Belichick welcomed him back with open arms because he made the team better? And the situation in 2007 when I think we all understood Asante Samuel was gone as soon as somebody put some guaranteed money in front of him, but he played every game and made first-team All-Pro? Nobody is better at compartmentalizing contract issues and other off-the-field stuff than Belichick. There is something else going on with Welker here, and it may be a change in attitude or commitment, a sudden deterioration of skills, or something else behind the scenes that we will probably never find out about, but I will sleep soundly tonight with the comfort that Belichick is not doing anything that would hurt the team's chances of winning games to "send a message" to a player. -- Tim (Georgetown, Mass.)
A. Tim, this is no disrespect to the widely respected Boomer Esiason, but I feel the same way. I've given this a lot of thought, and it just doesn't make sense to me. We can point to the Lawyer Milloy release and Seymour trade as Belichick moves that made the team weaker in the short term but arguably aided the franchise from a long-term perspective. But has there ever been a time where Belichick willingly paid a player a top-5 salary at his position and then decided he would limit his role out of spite that a long-term contract couldn't be reached, thus creating a potential distraction? The fact some truly believe this is surprising to me.
there were many Maybes but i only listed a few...
