Am I the only one who does NOT want Welker back?

DaBruinz said:

Could you please show me this "bigger outside receiver" that runs excellent routes at all difference levels of the field and earns the respect of other teams the way Welker does?

Click to expand...

Why is that the question?

The Pats need an overall mix of receivers.

They need guys who are great in the middle of the field. They need possession receivers. They need outside receivers.

Right now, they seem to have two guys who are great in the middle -- Gronk and Aaron. Aaron can play the slot reasonably well. And they also have Edelman and Wes in the slot/middle area.

They have RBs who can catch passes in the middle of the field, too.

They have Brandon who is really nothing more than a possession receiver with horrendous YAC.

They have no one who is a true outside receiver past 10-12 yards (as Brandon is almost always along the sidelines at 12 yards and in).

So the question, to me, is do they use the money on a player who has skils that other guys on the team have in some respects (not ignoring that Wes is incredibly special) or do they use it on an area that they don't have at all right now? And an area that the last two teams to beat the Pats in the last game of the season kind of exploited, as they both dared the Pats to go to the outside.

I am also loathe to see a player as awesome and unique as Wes go. I just don't know if they can afford to keep not having a great outside threat. Or whether they can have Wes AND such a player.

DaBruinz said:

Could you please show me this "bigger outside receiver" that runs excellent routes at all difference levels of the field and earns the respect of other teams the way Welker does?

Click to expand...

GREAT question, and too often overlooked. We know who and what Wes Welker is. The generic "great wide receiver who can stretch the field" isn't something you order in a catalog. Who is it? How do the Pats sign him?

It's like the endless call for a "stud pass rusher." Yeah, while we're asking for that, why not get two?

Sciz said:

What's wrong with Gronk or Hernandez as the #1 option?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, but wide receivers big and fast are a need in this offense. So tired of watching Brady have to make perfect throws to small receivers all the time, when Flacco can just heave the ball up and his receivers can grab it over defenders. Gronk is physical and can do that with his size, but I'm saying a wide receiver of that type is needed badly.

A big part of having a big wide receiver is the fact that the target radius is bigger and the throws do not have to be completely perfect. It also gives you more angles to throw into when throwing down field.

MoneyFX said:

Nothing wrong with that, but wide receivers big and fast are a need in this offense. So tired of watching Brady have to make perfect throws to small receivers all the time, when Flacco can just heave the ball up and his receivers can grab it over defenders. Gronk is physical and can do that with his size, but I'm saying a wide receiver of that type is needed badly.

Click to expand...

Just to point out....

The Flacco balloons didn't start working at all until Talib was gone and Arrington was in. Beyond that, for all the griping people are doing around here about big receivers and the like, the Ravens weren't accomplishing anything with those receivers until into the 3rd quarter. The Patriots took a 13-7 lead almost 9 minutes deep into that third quarter, despite poor playcalling, poor execution, the absence of Gronk and the injury to Talib.

Also, 6'3" Jacoby Jones had 1 catch for 6 yards in that game. The main offensive killers in that game were the decent height, but not towering (6'1") Boldin, and the TE Pitta.

aluminum seats said:

This is the problem with so much of the zero-sum thinking that goes on--not just here, but in sports generally.

Yes, it is correct that the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl with Wes Welker.

Click to expand...

The Pats haven't won a SB since giving up back to back SB drives that took up the entire length of the field in the last 2:30 of the game and resulted in backbreaking TD's.

On top of that, the other 3 losses out of the recent 5-5 playoff record were defensive performances of 33, 28, and 28 points....

Changing the offense is ridiculously absurd in my opinion. I have a feeling that Belichick does not buy into this whole "stretch the field" lack of talent that's holding us back, and that he sees defensive letdowns right in front of him.

That said, we'll probably be forced to swing in the draft at the WR position, simply due to the lack of actual receivers under contract more than there is a huge need for this so-called 'downfield' threat. However, retaining Welker and Edelman will not make that need nearly what it currently is, so those situations go hand in hand.

Shaking up what has allowed them to compete at a high level is just not the way to go, continuing to build up the defense and addressing/shoring up other positions on the team (which is done every year) IS..

MoneyFX said:

Nothing wrong with that, but wide receivers big and fast are a need in this offense. So tired of watching Brady have to make perfect throws to small receivers all the time, when Flacco can just heave the ball up and his receivers can grab it over defenders. Gronk is physical and can do that with his size, but I'm saying a wide receiver of that type is needed badly.

Click to expand...

You can have a strong desire for a big WR for all I care, but calling it a "need" is absolutely incorrect.

supafly said:

The Pats haven't won a SB since giving up back to back SB drives that took up the entire length of the field in the last 2:30 of the game and resulted in backbreaking TD's.

On top of that, the other 3 losses out of the recent 5-5 playoff record were defensive performances of 33, 28, and 28 points....

Changing the offense is ridiculously absurd in my opinion. I have a feeling that Belichick does not buy into this whole "stretch the field" lack of talent that's holding us back, and that he sees defensive letdowns right in front of him.

That said, we'll probably be forced to swing in the draft at the WR position, simply due to the lack of actual receivers under contract more than there is a huge need for this so-called 'downfield' threat. However, retaining Welker and Edelman will not make that need nearly what it currently is, so those situations go hand in hand.

Shaking up what has allowed them to compete at a high level is just not the way to go, continuing to build up the defense and addressing/shoring up other positions on the team (which is done every year) IS..

Click to expand...

Don't let those last drives fool you

The giants had a bad secondary that could be exposed by fast receivers...the patriots had none

The patriots couldn't get into giants territory with 57 seconds left to go because they lacked a deep threat that stretch the field.


When the last time the patriots had a 4th quarter comeback win?

coolguy said:

Don't let those last drives fool you

The giants had a bad secondary that could be exposed by fast receivers...the patriots had none

The patriots couldn't get into giants territory with 57 seconds left to go because they lacked a deep threat that stretch the field.


When the last time the patriots had a 4th quarter comeback win?

Click to expand...

The major bulk of all Patriot playoff victories from the 96 SB year on through their 2007 SB appearance were due to holding the other team to scoring in the single digits and teens. It wasn't predicated on enormous offensive potential, which has recently failed us despite setting records year in and year out.

This offense is fine. It's worlds better than any of their SB winning ones.

The offense is absolutely tailor made to take advantage of all of the players' strengths (including Brady obviously) by completing high percentage passes that take advantage of one-on-one matchups in the shorter area, to make pre-snap adjustments based on everyone reading their assignments ahead of time, to take personnel mismatches and exploit them, and to prevent turning the ball over...which is the single most important factor of any statistic in a relationship to winning.

When the defense gave up 3 TD's in the last 20 minutes of Sunday's game when it was a 1 point game in the 4th quarter, the only thing you could think of was changing everything despite enormous success, and our "need" for a downfield threat?

Well I think there is no question that if Talib proved anything it is that we need a big athletic CB in that secondary. Not sure if it should be Talib but they must get that done. Given the dirth of FA options maybe Talib ends up being the guy.

coolguy said:

The giants had a bad secondary that could be exposed by fast receivers...the patriots had none

The patriots couldn't get into giants territory with 57 seconds left to go because they lacked a deep threat that stretch the field.

Click to expand...

First off, if the NYG secondary was playing so lousy and could be exploited by fast receivers, it surely was covered up in their postseason runs over powerful high scoring offenses like Green Bay, SF, Atlanta, etc.

At one point Brady completed 17 straight passes in the game, and yet you're trying to tell me that they didn't have the offensive potential to win? That's ridiculous. They were winning with 2:30 left in the game...again.

How about if Welker catches the pass? They easily win the game. How about if Eli doesn't pull one out of his butt again like the first matchup? They easily win the game.

Look, the "problem" with our offense is that Brady and Co. are expected to score 30+ points every single time, which isn't even partially reasonable. When you face better competition in the playoffs where the talent gap is narrowed and teams are riding momentum, you simply aren't going to be able to score 30+ points in every single game. That's absurd.

The defense needs to be able to hold onto a lead, not to mention the fact that they need to be able to win in close, low scoring matchups. That hasn't been getting done lately, as their defensive outputs are 33, 28, and 28 in three of their last four playoff losses.

Giving up 33, 28, and 28 is not an acceptable way to play in the season's most important games when the postseason rolls around. The odds of our team scoring 30+ in every single matchup fall dramatically at that time of the year due to many factors. I am unsure of why this is difficult to understand?

supafly said:

When the defense gave up 3 TD's in the last 20 minutes of Sunday's game when it was a 1 point game in the 4th quarter, the only thing you could think of was changing everything despite enormous success, and our "need" for a downfield threat?

Click to expand...

I said not having a deep threat made the two giants super bowls harder for the patriots offense.

"This offense is fine. It's worlds better than any of their SB winning ones." Also, Not as efficient as those sb winning ones in the postseason.

coolguy said:

I said not having a deep threat made the two giants super bowls harder for the patriots offense.

"This offense is fine. It's worlds better than any of their SB winning ones." Also, Not as efficient as those sb winning ones in the postseason.

Click to expand...

The Pats didn't have a deep threat in the first Giants Super Bowl?

coolguy said:

I said not having a deep threat made the two giants super bowls harder for the patriots offense.

"This offense is fine. It's worlds better than any of their SB winning ones." Also, Not as efficient as those sb winning ones in the postseason.

Click to expand...

We had a downfield threat in the 2007 SB. He had one of the most dominant years ever for any kind of outside threat in the history of the game, and set records doing so.

And if you look at the offensive numbers and scoring output, you'll clearly see that this current offense is indeed, more efficient than the SB winning ones.

Maybe you need a memory refresher during those SB years?

2001

Won 16-13 vs OAK in the divisional round

Won 24-17 vs PIT in the AFCCG (defense scored a ST TD, so offense scores 17)

Won 20-17 vs STL in the SB (defense scored a TD, so offense scored 13)

2003

Won 17-14 vs TEN in the divisional round

Won 24-14 vs IND in the AFCCG

2004

Won 20-3 vs IND in the divisional round

Won 24-21 vs PHI in the SB




There are SEVEN games in that era where the defense gave up an average of 14 points a game, and won ALL 7 of them.

In comparison, the offense scored an average of 18.7 points in those 7 games, all which were wins.

When you look at 7 key wins during that 3 yr stretch of the dynasty, and see that we won on average by a score of 18.7 to 14, I fail to see what you are getting at?

Defense and timely offense win championships. The 01-03-04 offenses didn't have the talent or regular season production the current teams have had, but they made the plays when it counted most. I remember Belichick going for it on 4th down at about our own 45 yard line on an opening drive in the Peyton Manning 4 INT snow game, because he was that confident we would get the job done, and if we didn't, would make a stop on defense.

This team will be a SB contender as long as Belichick and Brady are on the team, but in 01-04, especially 03 and 04, we're forgetting, we had the best team in the league by far. I don't know about you guys, but I watched those games just knowing that we were going to win because no one was even on our level. And that was due to the dominating, physical defense and a more timely offense.

Welker to me represents what's wrong with the current team...puts up a bunch of regular season numbers and makes drops when it matters the most. Overpaying him would be a tragedy.

The Ravens beat us the same way we used to beat the Colts. The Ravens offense wasn't anything amazing, they just didn't turn the ball over and capitalized on their opportunities. That's the formula for a championship more often than not.

A lot of people were upset at the "we physical, they finesse" comments by the Ravens players before the game, but that's the same thing we used to say about the Colts.

Sciz said:

The Pats didn't have a deep threat in the first Giants Super Bowl?

Click to expand...

Randy moss was a terrible route runner and was taken out of the postseason as a patriot
1 reception against the jaguars
1 reception against the chargers
5 receptions for 48 yards against the ravens
5 receptions for 62 yards and a touchdown in the superbowl

Brady needs a fast receiver that can run routes.

coolguy said:

Randy moss was a terrible route runner and was taken out of the postseason as a patriot
1 reception against the jaguars
1 reception against the chargers
5 receptions for 48 yards against the ravens
5 receptions for 62 yards and a touchdown in the superbowl

Brady needs a fast receiver that can run routes.

Click to expand...

Moss was "taken out", as you say, by teams doubling and tripling him. Despite that, he was still getting open.

My biggest fear with Welker is brain damage. He has been hit so hard so many times. Sometimes it is like he is zoned out and his performance is very streaky now which I fear is a result of this. I would rather see him retire for his own sake.

coolguy said:

Randy moss was a terrible route runner and was taken out of the postseason as a patriot
1 reception against the jaguars
1 reception against the chargers
5 receptions for 48 yards against the ravens
5 receptions for 62 yards and a touchdown in the superbowl

Brady needs a fast receiver that can run routes.

Click to expand...

Is this guy fcking serious?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I think the first point of emphasis on defense for the Jaguars, Chargers, Ravens, and Giants was to take away the long bomb to Moss...

dannydyn said:

I never said Lloyd is useless. But if I had to let one loose.... Lloyd would be the one. Sorry... WW has been more valuable and productive than Lloyd.

Click to expand...

Lloyd makes peanuts yet he was the #28 WR in the NFL in terms of yardage. That means he should be the #1 WR option on at least 4 NFL teams. Yet he is the 4th option on offense behind Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, and still produced 911 yards.

Just a few names that Lloyd beat out with his ACTUAL production:
Torrey Smith, Jeremy Maclin, Mike Wallace, Dwayne Bowe, Sidney Rice

NFL Stats: by Player Category

Lloyd is already paid for until the end of 2014. With Welker we are looking at 10M per year. That's the question, is Welker worth that money. Lloyd has nothing to do with it and considering that he produces as much as some #1 receivers, he is a hell of a #2 to have in the back pocket.

BTW if there's one player I'd want to replace Welker it would be Larry Fitzgerald, and the Cards might just be forced to trade him. I think he would be worth it if we're giving up a late 1st round pick. And he just might want out of St. Louis.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...lds-father-says-pathetic-cardinals-have-quit/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...mand-trade-consider-joining-these-5-nfl-teams