The Patriots Might Be Better Off Without Wes Welker

[Kevin]

The offense wouldn't be better off, but the team as a whole could be if they were able to then focus the cap room they would save on Welker into the defensive side of the ball.

Thread over.

 

[Ring 6]

Patsfans.com would be better without that "article." I am still waiting for it to demonstrate how losing a guy who is on a HOF track makes them better. Hopefully the follow up, PATS DEFENSE BETTER WITHOUT WILFORK, will be better.

Your 3 sentence post is more insightful and informative than that entire article.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Welker puts up great regular season numbers which are great, but 8 yard out cuts are not going to get the job done in the playoffs. What I saw out of others teams this year in the playoffs was explosion plays or chunk plays.

Falcons, 49ers, and Ravens all have big fast wr's and the ball was pushed down the field with 20+ gains. Pats have no one besides Gronk who can get down field and present a big target.

They are if he catches them or if Gronk is active and healthy or Ahern doesn't have the dropsies not to mention brain farts. The Falcon's and 49'ers lost too. Even with those big fast WR's and the ball being pushed down the field. Maybe THEY need a quick and shifty midget slot receiver... And if you believe that a big, fast WR is what we need, the player that player should replace is probably Lloyd. Trouble is at least we know he knows the system.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The offense wouldn't be better off, but the team as a whole could be if they were able to then focus the cap room they would save on Welker into the defensive side of the ball.

They would have to...

The Patriots have been a top offense for the last decade, so its not going to change because of 1 player. Production would go down from Welker's position, but the offense as a whole could still perform at a high level if they found a replacement for him and made up for his production with a few receivers, like Edelman and Hernandez.

They have not been a top offense for the last decade, just for the last 6 seasons which just happend to coincide with Welker landing here.

I wouldn't pay him more than $8 million a year, even though he deserves more than that. Paying Calvin Johnson money on a WR better get you a Calvin Johnson and that isn't what Welker is. Hes the best slot receiver in the game and fits well into this offense, but if you plugged someone else in there, they could get 80-90 receptions in his place. Yes, that is a dropoff in production, but the drop off doesn't go from 110+ catches to 0 catches...

Calvin Johnson makes $16M per year. $8M is half of that for similar production. And Wes would be happy with $8 as long as it was for more than 2 years and as long as it didn't really mean $6...

The defense needs a "shut down" corner badly. When Talib went out with that injury, Boldin had a field day against the D, making plays all over the field and outjumping and outfighting DBs for the ball. Guys like Talib can reduce the number of times that happens and really free up the defense from a scheme perspective.

Talib is not a shutdown corner. He's just better (when healthy and on the field) than what we've had for the last 4-5 years with the exception of McCourty's rookie season. Shutdown corners are few and far between nowadays. Revis is as close as it gets these days and he wants Calvin Johnson money, too. All we need is an above average secondary and an above average pass rush. We don't need nor can anyone afford an elite player commanding a top 5 contract at every position. Welker is elite yet he's not remotely asking them for elite money.


It kills me to say it and it will kill me to see it happen, but because of what Welker will demand in FA makes him a player that they can no longer afford to keep on the roster. Just remember what happened to the Colts with Marvin Harrison, he was around Welker's age when he wanted his final big payday, and he ended up costing them big time on their salary cap as he aged to 34 or 35 years old and retired... They were hurting bad from that contract, because his production fell off as he aged and didn't match what he was making per year.

Marvin Harrison's situation has no comparative value. He was 32 when he signed the deal. Wes is 31 until this May. Harrison was several months older. The first three season he was a pro bowler/all pro. It was a typical Polian smoke and mirrors 7 year extension that allowed him to pay what at the time was top of the market to Harrison by using roster bonuses that could be converted to keep his cap hits down in the first 4 years while pushing dead money onto the backend caps.. At 35 he fell off the cliff, missing all but 5 games. The following season he had the worst season in his career. the following spring they cut him. Wouldn't have been an issue except Polian set his and Mannings deals up with a series of roster bonuses to be restructured. Otherwise his dead cap would have been $2M... As it was by then his salary was due to be $9M and his cap hit was $13.4M - the highest for any WR in the league in 2009.

Had they signed Welker to a 5 year $40M deal back in 2011 after he proved to them he could come back from an ACL just like his QB did, they'd be half way through that deal by now. As it is if they sign him for 3 more years he may fall off the cliff at 35 but it won't matter because he'll be off the roster at 34. And Harrison was an a first team all pro in 2006 at 34. And Indy won the Superbowl after our offense and defense both choaked away the AFCC... Of course the offense had a legit excuse, Reche Caldwell as it's #1 WR.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's happened quite a bit in recent years. A Welker-centric offense = playoff fail

Happened before he got here, too. And you could say the same about Gronknandez I guess...

 

[Deus Irae]

If the Patriots cut Brady, they'd free up $8.2 million in cap space. Just think of the defensive players they could bring in with that! Brady hasn't won anything in almost a decade anyway.....

 

[Deus Irae]

Happened before he got here, too. And you could say the same about Gronknandez I guess...

Re-signing those tight ends was a huge mistake. How many Super Bowls have they won?

 

[Nunchucks]

I think it is hard to deny that the Patriots offense has failed big time when up against good defenses. Is that because of the reliance of Welker or is it because Gronk has been hurt? I do not know, but I do know that when teams make an effort, they can limit Welker, especially in the redzone and the Patriots do not have an answer.

 

[tonyto3690]

Patsfans.com would be better without that "article." I am still waiting for it to demonstrate how losing a guy who is on a HOF track makes them better. Hopefully the follow up, PATS DEFENSE BETTER WITHOUT WILFORK, will be better.

Did you actually read the article? It's saying what I've been saying for months now. Our top 3 of all time offense that missed significant time from both Gronkowski and Hernandez does not need a big investment. Even without Welker it'll take a hit, but still be a top 5 offense. Brady has made far worse look passable in the past and we have Hernandez/Gronkowski locked in as our franchise players. It's time to act like they are.

If Wilfork was asking for 30 million a season, yes, we would be better off without Wilfork. Player talent and building in a team isn't built in a vacuum/Madden. You have to take things in context.

We are not even close to that limited. And Arrington isn't under contract either.

It was a minor exaggeration, but the point was that we simply do not have the resources to pay everyone.

There's this thing called a draft. . . .

I'd be extremely surprised if a day one starter CB fell to us this year.

 

[tonyto3690]

I think it is hard to deny that the Patriots offense has failed big time when up against good defenses. Is that because of the reliance of Welker or is it because Gronk has been hurt? I do not know, but I do know that when teams make an effort, they can limit Welker, especially in the redzone and the Patriots do not have an answer.

Expecting the Patriots offense to score 30 points a game in the playoffs to win a SB is a bad idea.

In my opinion the issue is that we simply don't have the running game/defense that can carry the team when Brady can't.

 

[Nunchucks]

Expecting the Patriots offense to score 30 points a game in the playoffs to win a SB is a bad idea.

In my opinion the issue is that we simply don't have the running game/defense that can carry the team when Brady can't.

How about 20 points? How many points did the 49ers put on the Ravens? How many points did the Patriots put up on the Ravens?

 

[Kontradiction]

 

[Ivan]

Did you actually read the article? It's saying what I've been saying for months now. Our top 3 of all time offense that missed significant time from both Gronkowski and Hernandez does not need a big investment. Even without Welker it'll take a hit, but still be a top 5 offense. Brady has made far worse look passable in the past and we have Hernandez/Gronkowski locked in as our franchise players. It's time to act like they are.

If Wilfork was asking for 30 million a season, yes, we would be better off without Wilfork. Player talent and building in a team isn't built in a vacuum/Madden. You have to take things in context.



It was a minor exaggeration, but the point was that we simply do not have the resources to pay everyone.



I'd be extremely surprised if a day one starter CB fell to us this year.

Yes, I read it and it was every bit as stupid as I maintained it was in my earlier post. The author claimed the Patriots could be better without Welker and then repeated every idiotic argument that relies on hope that player who haven't produced much will do so, and that players who don't stay healthy will stay healthy. In no way does it make the argument that they will actually be better, but instead suggests they may be able to weather the loss, and when you are entering the last seasons of Brady's career hoping that you can weather getting significantly worse offensively is an idiotic approach to winning championships.

The Patriots absolutely have the resources to offer Welker a 4/32/ 20 guaranteed deal, and that would almost certainly get it done, and that's without getting restructures done, which they will almost certainly do this offseason. And it is more than ironic that the same people claiming they can't afford Welker want to turn around and hand a big contract to a CB that couldn't stay healthy for a quarter of the season and who is one strike from a year long suspension, so their argument fails on it's face.

The offense is not "Welker centric" it is Brady centric, and Welker was brought here to give Brady immediate relief from blitzes and has ended up being the best receiver in the league since he came, and anyone who wants to debate that better come with the numbers to prove otherwise. The Patriots would be able to survive without Welker, just as they can survive without any player other than Brady, but they won't be better, and if the goal of the offseason is to get worse than they will achieve that goal early in free agency if Welker signs elsewhere. They could turn around and try to offset that loss but it will cost them dearly by using high draft picks or big money for free agents that could have been used to improve the team without the loss of it's 2nd best player.

 

[Nunchucks]

I believe the Patriots should be a run first ball-control offense that protects the defense. The same kind of offense that won the Patriots 3 Superbowls (though maybe not the first).

 

[Jimke]

Yes, I read it and it was every bit as stupid as I maintained it was in my earlier post. The author claimed the Patriots could be better without Welker and then repeated every idiotic argument that relies on hope that player who haven't produced much will do so, and that players who don't stay healthy will stay healthy. In no way does it make the argument that they will actually be better, but instead suggests they may be able to weather the loss, and when you are entering the last seasons of Brady's career hoping that you can weather getting significantly worse offensively is an idiotic approach to winning championships.

The Patriots absolutely have the resources to offer Welker a 4/32/ 20 guaranteed deal, and that would almost certainly get it done, and that's without getting restructures done, which they will almost certainly do this offseason. And it is more than ironic that the same people claiming they can't afford Welker want to turn around and hand a big contract to a CB that couldn't stay healthy for a quarter of the season and who is one strike from a year long suspension, so their argument fails on it's face.

The offense is not "Welker centric" it is Brady centric, and Welker was brought here to give Brady immediate relief from blitzes and has ended up being the best receiver in the league since he came, and anyone who wants to debate that better come with the numbers to prove otherwise. The Patriots would be able to survive without Welker, just as they can survive without any player other than Brady, but they won't be better, and if the goal of the offseason is to get worse than they will achieve that goal early in free agency if Welker signs elsewhere. They could turn around and try to offset that loss but it will cost them dearly by using high draft picks or big money for free agents that could have been used to improve the team without the loss of it's 2nd best player.

Welker is Tom Brady's 3rd down security blanket. He can always be counted on to get open on third down to keep the drive going. His replacement
won't come with this guarantee.

 

[LasVegasPatsFan]

I hope the Pats sign Welker but if he leaves, its time to move on. The sky will not be falling. The Pats never won a SB with Welker and have 3 trophies without him. I'm sure the Pats will be just fine either way. Its a team sport and I could care less who is on the team, JUST WIN A 4th.

 

[Ivan]

Welker is Tom Brady's 3rd down security blanket. He can always be counted on to get open on third down to keep the drive going. His replacement
won't come with this guarantee.

Couldn't agree more, and if he walks then Brady is going to take hits he never should have. Personally I think that Patriot fans are grossly overblowing the cost of re-signing Welker and impact it would have on their ability to improve the team. They are well under the cap right now and could easily double that room by restructures with Brady, Mayo, Wilfork, and possibly Mankins, and they should use that approach and an agressive approach to the offseason to position this team for the next 3-4 years. My approach would be to get 3-4 of those restructures done and free up another 10 million in cap space and then go after a CB in free agency. Re-sign Welker at 4-32-20 guaranteed and then draft a WR in the first 2 rounds to give them a deep threat to go with the rest of their offense. Re-sign Vollmer if possible and Woodhead. Let Edelman and Talib walk unless Edelman will accept vet minimum, he hasn't earned anything more than that in terms of production.

This is the last quarter of Brady's career, they should go for it and do everything they can to maximize their opportunities for rings during that run, and re-signing Welker is the first step in that process, and adding a true deep threat the second imo.

 

[JackBauer]

Re-sign Welker at 4-32-20 guaranteed

Unless you're looking at junk years this is too much, IMO.

 

[Ivan]

Unless you're looking at junk years this is too much, IMO.

I'm not looking at junk years at all, I believe Welker will play at a really high level for another 4 years. And even if he started to decline in his 3rd year it he would still be producing at a high level and the cap hit from parting ways would be minimal.

On the other hand if you are looking solely at production then the deal suggested is paltry, he's actually earned much more and he would be taking a serious home town discount to actually sign it. I only suggest it because i think he wants to be with this organization so much that he would sell himself short to do it.

 

[Ring 6]

Unless you're looking at junk years this is too much, IMO.

Lets be real here. Welker from 2010-2011 was worth $10,000,000 a year. There is no doubt about that. The only reason paying him 10mill a year would be unwise (other than the reason that you can get away paying less) is the chance that he declines or doesn't finish the contract.
If 4/32 is say, 14 mill signing bonus and salaries of 1mill, 3, 6, 8 then in the first 2 you have taken 11 mill in cap hits. The 3rd is 9.5. Thats 3 years for 20.5 in cap hits with a 3.5 mill dead money hit in year 4 if he is cut.
If Welker is Welker for 2 years and more limited version who has slowed a little but is still effective because of guile, that is an excellent deal.