If Welker and his 110+ catches per year leave, what do people here think will happen? Do we really think that the Patriots' offense will lose 110 catches and 1300 yards of offense?
Consider 2005. They had an aging and diminishingly effective Corey Dillon at RB, and the receiving corps was Branch, Givens, Brown, Watson, Graham, and Tim Dwight. I'm sorry, but that entire group of skill players pales in comparison (at that point in their careers, anyway) to a group consisting of Ridley, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ballard, and Edelman. I'd take the latter group in a heartbeat.
But what were Brady's numbers in 2005 vs. 2012?
2005: 335-550 (63.0%), 4110 yds, 7.8 ypa, 26 td, 14 int, 92.3 rating
2012: 401-637 (63.0%), 4827 yds, 7.6 ypa, 34 td, 8 int, 98.7 rating
If you project Brady's 2005 numbers out to the number of passes he threw in 2012, you get this line: 388-637 (63.0%), 4760 yds, 30 td, 16 int
In other words, other than the interceptions, the numbers are remarkably similar. So Brady has shown that he can be extremely effective passing the ball with a lesser receiving corps.
It's kind of like when we picked up Lloyd - some people here thought we were adding 70 receptions and 900 yards to the offense. Which is ridiculous. The Patriots weren't going to pass for 6,000 yards. It just meant that the production would be spread out among a more talented group of players and the offense as a whole would benefit. Including the running game.
I think if they don't have Welker the offense will go down some, that's for sure. But they'll still put up tons of yards and tons of points. They are so far ahead of the rest of the league in offense that they can afford to lose quite a bit and *still* be the best offense in the league.
The hope, of course, would be that the money saved from losing Welker would go to improve, say, the defense. If they can bring the defense up about 7-8 spots in the rankings, while the offense stays #1 (or at least in the top 3), the team as a whole is probably going to be better.