patsox23
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 60
Before you jump all over me, let me say this: I like Wes Welker. He's a nice little player. He may very well develop into Troy Brown 2.0. He's got the BB/Pioli stamp of approval, and that counts for a lot. I wasn't a big fan of what we gave up to get him, but that's a point for another day/thread.
THIS THREAD is meant to explode a myth I've noticed is being constantly peddled around here - that Wes Welker is, in addition to being the ideal slot WR, a great "playmaker" and a top return man, both on KO's and punts. It simply isn't true.
Does he have versatility? Sure. CAN he do those things - catch the ball, return kicks, return punts? Looks like it, yes. But is he REALLY good in the return game, is that ANOTHER way in which he marks a sure-fire improvement on the Patriots? No.
Wes Welker averaged a pedestrian 22+ yards per KR last season. Lots of stuff goes into that, including and especially the other S/Ters paving the way (or not) for him as he goes (22 measly yards) up the field. Maybe on the Pats he would've averaged the 28 yards-per-return that Maroney did. But here's the thing: HE DIDN'T. Know what else he didn't do? Average 10.6 yards-per-punt return, like Kevin Faulk did. Wes averaged 9.2 yards per PR last season. Again, poor S/T blocking may have played a role in that.
Welker may end up being a FANTASTIC returner for the Pats. I just think, to keep it real, people need to relax a bit about this guy. He's an UDFA hustler - we love those types. And we should. And maybe Welker will be "all he can be," and we'll love him even more. But people are peddling this nonsense about how awesome he is before he's actually every really DONE that on the field.
You want to go off on Adalius Thomas and guarantee/assume his potential impact? Go for it. That's based on something. But Wes Welker has never been what people here seem to think he IS. Except for one day, in one game against the Pats last year. If he matches that from game to game, terrific, give my best to Hanolulu. I'd just like to suggest we temper our enthusiasm, just a bit, in exchange for a dose of reality, while keeping a mug of hopeful on the side, where it belongs.
THIS THREAD is meant to explode a myth I've noticed is being constantly peddled around here - that Wes Welker is, in addition to being the ideal slot WR, a great "playmaker" and a top return man, both on KO's and punts. It simply isn't true.
Does he have versatility? Sure. CAN he do those things - catch the ball, return kicks, return punts? Looks like it, yes. But is he REALLY good in the return game, is that ANOTHER way in which he marks a sure-fire improvement on the Patriots? No.
Wes Welker averaged a pedestrian 22+ yards per KR last season. Lots of stuff goes into that, including and especially the other S/Ters paving the way (or not) for him as he goes (22 measly yards) up the field. Maybe on the Pats he would've averaged the 28 yards-per-return that Maroney did. But here's the thing: HE DIDN'T. Know what else he didn't do? Average 10.6 yards-per-punt return, like Kevin Faulk did. Wes averaged 9.2 yards per PR last season. Again, poor S/T blocking may have played a role in that.
Welker may end up being a FANTASTIC returner for the Pats. I just think, to keep it real, people need to relax a bit about this guy. He's an UDFA hustler - we love those types. And we should. And maybe Welker will be "all he can be," and we'll love him even more. But people are peddling this nonsense about how awesome he is before he's actually every really DONE that on the field.
You want to go off on Adalius Thomas and guarantee/assume his potential impact? Go for it. That's based on something. But Wes Welker has never been what people here seem to think he IS. Except for one day, in one game against the Pats last year. If he matches that from game to game, terrific, give my best to Hanolulu. I'd just like to suggest we temper our enthusiasm, just a bit, in exchange for a dose of reality, while keeping a mug of hopeful on the side, where it belongs.
Last edited: