Bedard: Marriage between Welker and NE looks strong

[Deus Irae]

A nice misinformation campaign



Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

There's no misinformation about it, as I've demonstrated to you multiple times. You made a really poor argument about Welker, consistently got your ass handed to you about it, and just can't admit that you were wildly off the mark.

Deal with it and move on. I'm not getting into this with you again.

 

[Deus Irae]

We know Welker was scaled back for one and a half games. We don't know why or if it would have continued much long than it did if Herbandez got hurt or not. All that stuff is based on pure speculations and no facts to support it.

Again, McDaniels acknowledged it. It's just the way it is. The argument of "But they scrapped it real quick!" doesn't change the fact that it was happening.

 

[patfanken]

The point is that they were scaling back Welker's role in the offense. You can argue why until the cows come home. The "Why" is irrelevant to the fact that there are still people here who insist that the scaling back wasn't happening even though McDaniels acknowledged it..

They SHOULD be scaling back Welker's role....and that would be a good thing. Good for the Pats AND good for Welker. Do you think if Hernandez, Gronk, and Edelman don't miss a combined 20 games that Welker's numbers would be as high as they were.

Don't you think that, assuming the Pats and Welker come to an agreement, that as he gets older that his workload gets smaller as well. It would be virtually impossible for him to equal his current numbers with a healthy Gronk, Hernandez, and hopefully additional future outside WR threats, and RB's become reliable targets and rushing threats going forward.
If next season, Welker wound up with 80 catches and 900 yds. That would more likely be a product of a maturing and more diverse Pats offense than a decline in Welker's skill,
.
With all the injuries the Pats have had Welker has certainly been the most critically important receiver the Pats have, this year. He's the "go to guy, and probably will be throughout the playoffs. But maybe next year, he won't be.

 

[Ivan]

Maybe next year the Patriots will suck and Borges will finally be right.



Nothing better than an argument based on repeating the same thing year after year and concluding that someday you will be right.

 

[Rob0729]

Again, McDaniels acknowledged it. It's just the way it is.

When did McDaniels acknowledge that they were punishing Welker for his contract situation or planning to totally phase him out of the offense. He may have acknowledge that they were trying different things on offense other than Welker, but he never mentioned why other than maybe they were trying somethings or how long it would have gone on. No way would McDaniels or Belichick say that it was contract related or disciplinary whether it was or not. Belichick has never addressed any of the famous benching situations throughout the years. Why would he now?

Again, the speculated reasoning that Welker was benched as a punishment or contract related is just that - speculation.

 

[Shockt327]

The point is that they were scaling back Welker's role in the offense. You can argue why until the cows come home. The "Why" is irrelevant to the fact that there are still people here who insist that the scaling back wasn't happening even though McDaniels acknowledged it.

This is the second time that you've made this claim recently. You got called out on it before and conveniently decided not to back it up.

So, again, provide a link to this alleged quote from McDaniels trying to phase out Welker. Cite your source.

 

[Rob0729]

They SHOULD be scaling back Welker's role....and that would be a good thing. Good for the Pats AND good for Welker. Do you think if Hernandez, Gronk, and Edelman don't miss a combined 20 games that Welker's numbers would be as high as they were.

Don't you think that, assuming the Pats and Welker come to an agreement, that as he gets older that his workload gets smaller as well. It would be virtually impossible for him to equal his current numbers with a healthy Gronk, Hernandez, and hopefully additional future outside WR threats, and RB's become reliable targets and rushing threats going forward.
If next season, Welker wound up with 80 catches and 900 yds. That would more likely be a product of a maturing and more diverse Pats offense than a decline in Welker's skill,
.
With all the injuries the Pats have had Welker has certainly been the most critically important receiver the Pats have, this year. He's the "go to guy, and probably will be throughout the playoffs. But maybe next year, he won't be.

I agree. The best thing that could have happened was the minimized role of Welker produced two or three new offensive weapons for Brady. To some extent it did. Lloyd over the last month was a product of the growing pains early in the season.

My guess was that the Pats figured they had a soft schedule early and they could work on a few things and not burn out Welker for the playoffs. I can't see Belichick franchising Welker and then benching him for more than maybe a series or a quarter for petty reason.

Belichick is pretty emotionless when it comes to personnel decisions that are best for this team. That means when he lacks sentimentality when he trades away Seymour or cuts Milloy, he is unlikely to let a grudge play into his football decisions.

 

[Deus Irae]

When did McDaniels acknowledge that they were punishing Welker for his contract situation or planning to totally phase him out of the offense.

Since I've I never made any comment about the "why" in the thread, I'll just say that I'm not following the red herring this morning. There's a simple reality:

The Patriots were admittedly, consciously, purposefully and deliberately scaling back Welker's role in the offense.

 

[Shockt327]

Since I've I never made any comment about the "why" in the thread, I'll just say that I'm not following the red herring this morning. There's a simple reality:

The Patriots were admittedly, consciously, purposefully and deliberately scaling back Welker's role in the offense.

Once again, where is your link?

 

[Deus Irae]

This is the second time that you've made this claim recently. You got called out on it before and conveniently decided not to back it up.

So, again, provide a link to this alleged quote from McDaniels trying to phase out Welker. Cite your source.

This is the second time I've told you that it's in the early Welker threads. In this thread, you've now got Bedard telling you it was going on, so you've got a media link. If that's not enough, you can feel free to use either the site's search function or Google. My post noting it should be PM'd was to back the notion that the action happening was, in fact, pointed out by the media and not just the creation of a few people on a message board, because some here were still erroneously claiming that it didn't happen. It was not a desire to re-fight a battle already won and long since made irrelevant by circumstances.

 

[Shockt327]

This is the second time I've told you that it's in the early Welker threads.

No. You cite your own sources. You are the one making the claim. You have made it repeatedly. You dig it up.

In this thread, you've now got Bedard telling you it was going on, so you've got a media link.

Uh, Berdard is a member of the media, and that's precisely where this entire story was manufactured from; media speculation.

That's why I want to see this alleged quote from McDaniels. Put up or shut up.

 

[Ring 6]

There's no misinformation about it, as I've demonstrated to you multiple times. You made a really poor argument about Welker, consistently got your ass handed to you about it, and just can't admit that you were wildly off the mark. Deal with it and move on. I'm not getting into this with you again.

Aha you are going with your famous you are right because you say you are right argument.
Sorry, i know better.

 

[Rob0729]

Since I've I never made any comment about the "why" in the thread, I'll just say that I'm not following the red herring this morning. There's a simple reality:

The Patriots were admittedly, consciously, purposefully and deliberately scaling back Welker's role in the offense.

I'm not throwing a red herring at all. Since I didn't see the quote, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming he did say it. Now that he said it, what does it mean? For all we know, it could be injury related or a temporary thing to give Lloyd and Edelman more targets against lesser opponents. I kinda find rehashing this whole thing 15 games later is useless without that information.