A Wes-less Offense

[ivanvamp]

I think you would find that most teams have worse statistics in their losses.

Very true. But there are many ways to lose (just as there are many ways to win). What we haven't really seen in the playoffs for the Pats is a shoot out loss. The one time that might qualify was the 2006 AFCCG loss to Indy, 38-34. But even then, the Pats scored 7 off a pick-six, and offensively they only mustered 17 first downs and 319 total yards. But even if we count that one, we've had none in the Welker era.

In other words, why haven't we seen a playoff loss whereby the offense rolls but the defense gets shredded? Why is it consistently the case that a playoff loss involves the offense seriously underperforming?

 

[Ring 6]

Very true. But there are many ways to lose (just as there are many ways to win). What we haven't really seen in the playoffs for the Pats is a shoot out loss. The one time that might qualify was the 2006 AFCCG loss to Indy, 38-34. But even then, the Pats scored 7 off a pick-six, and offensively they only mustered 17 first downs and 319 total yards. But even if we count that one, we've had none in the Welker era.

In other words, why haven't we seen a playoff loss whereby the offense rolls but the defense gets shredded? Why is it consistently the case that a playoff loss involves the offense seriously underperforming?

The Jets game in 2010.
Again, I don't see the value in comparing stats in losses to the regular season, leaving out the wins, and calling it an offense that isn't built for the playoffs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Good post, Andy. However, I disagree with your comment about Hernandez. Perhaps it is semantics. He has been playing WR for quite some time and rarely lines up as a tight end. When you say that moving him to WR would make him average, perhaps you are talking about a traditional outside WR. Hernandez as an inside WR is an ideal role for him and makes him way above average.

 

[DocHoliday]

It's not a playoff thing (aside from being injured by that point). It's just the teams we end up facing in the playoffs.

Because, surprise surprise, they're pretty good.

EDIT: The teams overall execution was suspect against the Ravens so perhaps it's a mental thing too. It is an extremely young team after all.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Jets game in 2010.
Again, I don't see the value in comparing stats in losses to the regular season, leaving out the wins, and calling it an offense that isn't built for the playoffs.

The Jets game doesn't qualify, like at all. They averaged 32.4 points a game that year but only had 14 points until 24 seconds were left in the game. Even with that garbage time TD they still underperformed by more than 11 points from their season average.

No, scoring 21 points in a loss doesn't qualify it as a "shoot out loss". Not even close.

And I haven't "called it an offense that isn't built for the playoffs." Again, you're making things up. I *am* wondering why there is a pattern of serious underperformance by the offense in their playoff losses. As I suggested earlier, maybe it's the match ups. Four of the five games were against teams (Bal and NYG) that seem to present matchup problems for NE. Maybe it's just as simple as that.

But maybe not. And only a fool simply chalks it up to that without examining other possible reasons.

 

[Deus Irae]

But Brady played well vs the Jets, but for the screen Int (that counted for nothing btw)
And that team had Crumpler at TE (dropping a TD) and BJGE. The offense has evolved since then. Remember that year Brady threw 10 fewer passes per game than this year.

No, Brady didn't play well in that game. He started off well, but he struggled after that once the Jets defense got its confidence and began to force things into the short middle. Brady was unable to find an answer for that. As for "counted for nothing, that's simply not true". That screen pass INT cost the team points. That sure as heck counts for something.

And I know that the team had Crumpler. They also had Gronk and Hernandez. My point was that health is not the only needed component. These playoff losses have been the product of failures on multiple fronts: Health, execution, playcalling, WR3 talent/non-talent, inability to stretch/widen the field, etc....

 

[DocHoliday]

No, Brady didn't play well in that game. He started off well, but he struggled after that. As for counted for nothing, that's simply not true. That screen pass INT cost the team points. That sure as heck counts for something.

And I know that the team had Crumpler. They also had Gronk and Hernandez. My point was that health is not the only needed component. These playoff losses have been the product of failures on multiple fronts: Health, execution, playcalling, WR3 talent/non-talent, inability to stretch/widen the field, etc....

If I recall The offense has expected man coverage but was instead faced with a new look zone.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nah, its not the first stretch of 3 games where Welker 'only' had 16 catches and 251 yards.
Your 'discussed here' response isn't really meaningful to me, because you talking about it a lot doesn't make it true.

It's never been just me, so your point is meaningless. Your unwillingness to admit what the team has said and the media has reported doesn't make your position true, it just makes further discussion of the issue not worth pursuing. When the point comes up, I continue to point out your error and you continue insisting you haven't made one. It's essentially become a cycle of life sort of thing.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is a bit of a stretch.

Go take a look at the team over the course of the season, and imagine Welker going down. I see 4 easy to find likely, or at least quite possible, losses:

Buffalo
Miami
Jacksonville
New York

I'd also look at the Denver game, where Welker played a very significant role, particularly with some big conversions early on, as a game that had the potential to be a loss without Welker.

 

[Deus Irae]

If I recall The offense has expected man coverage but was instead faced with a new look zone.

They also thought that Ryan was going to bring the house, but he sat back in nickel and defended the field. The Patriots would probably have blown the Jets out if they'd scored TDs on those first two drives, because the Jets were set up to crack mentally after 45-3, but once the score was held at 3-0, the Patriots were then held to a 3-and-out and the Jets went up 7-0, the difference in the confidence of the Jets was almost tangible.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

They also thought that Ryan was going to bring the house, but he sat back in nickel and defended the field. The Patriots would probably have blown the Jets out if they'd scored TDs on those first two drives, because the Jets were set up to crack mentally after 45-3, but once the score was held at 3-0, the Patriots were then held to a 3-and-out and the Jets went up 7-0, the difference in the confidence of the Jets was almost tangible.

You're talking about the Jets walking the fine line between despair and confidence here but it brings to mind this. Are we really sure that the Patriots have moved beyond that 2009 team that in BB's words to Brady was not mentally tough? I had thought so but the ravens loss made me wonder once again. I may be emotionally over reacting but both the the offense and the defense have exhibited behavior where they're doing fine for a portion of the game but once something goes wrong, a cascade of wrongs follow. The exact opposite of this took place during the Lombardi winning years. Pats would hang close and tough until that opponent turnover moment and thereafter the opponent would do the imploding. Even with Mayo & Wilfork, there still seems to be something still missing in the character of the 2012 team.

 

[I.M. Fletcher]

Go take a look at the team over the course of the season, and imagine Welker going down. I see 4 easy to find likely, or at least quite possible, losses:

Buffalo
Miami
Jacksonville
New York

I'd also look at the Denver game, where Welker played a very significant role, particularly with some big conversions early on, as a game that had the potential to be a loss without Welker.

This is still based on the concept that if you take Welker away from the team, the team would have performed the exact same way it did with him.

It doesnt work that way, and we have measurable to show what outcomes might have changed in the absense of one player. Similarily, would the team have won handily with the inclusion of Gronk vs. the ravens? There is no measureable for gameplans with or without specific members deactivated.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is still based on the concept that if you take Welker away from the team, the team would have performed the exact same way it did with him.

No, it's not. It's based on the concept that, if you took away the team's best/most productive player, it would have been tougher to win the close games that you almost lost with him there. Using obvious examples of where such absence would likely have been crucial is a means of demonstrating it. The reality is that this team probably loses those games if Welker isn't there. Your argument is little more than "But you can't prove it with 100% certainty". I concede that point, because it's theoretically possible that some major change in the team's favor was still possible. I still say the team would have been lucky to get 9 wins if Welker hadn't been there.

Hell, I didn't even take his PR duties or his impact in terms of freeing up the other receivers into account, and we're looking at 4-5 wins which could easily have flipped the other way.

It doesnt work that way,

Yes, it does, usually, in the sense that the loss of the player leads to a lesser performance from the team. History has demonstrated that rather conclusively. That's why teams try to mimic exactly that by taking that player away as an in-game option, as a matter of fact. Hell, Belichick's career is based upon the idea.

You are, however, welcome to think that scheme adjustments with players like Salas, Ebert and Aiken would have made up for the loss.

 

[ATippett56]

I personally don't think that having one receiver targeted as much as we've tareted Welker is a good idea. It makes the offense too predictable. I wanted Wes' work load to be decreased this year. Instead, with the injuries to the TEs, he was targeted as much or more than ever. While Welker deserves all the credit in the world for his toughness, durability and reliability, it's just not the way to make the offense less predictable and harder to defend in the playoffs. What this team needs is a Wes Welker circa 2007, a guy brought in to be a piece of the overall puzzle, not Wes Welker circa 2012. A young, inexpensive, complementary guy who will fit in as part of the offense.

If the perception that the workload is too great for Wes Welker, then look no further than the injuries to the receiving corp this year. As for a young, inexpensive, complementary guy there are no guarantees whatsoever that a rookie collegiate wide receiver will produce in the New England Patriots offense: Bethel Johnson, P.K. Sam, Chad Jackson, Brandon Tate, Taylor Price, Jeremy Ebert

The passing game is incredibly efficient, but it is not very explosive and it is very predictable. It's entirely predicated on moving the chains and being able to convert on 3rd down a high percentage of the time, and on relatively good red zone execution, in part due to Gronk. When those things struggle - either due to injury, a bad day in terms of execution, or good defenses being able to key down on the predictable targets more effectively - the offense struggles big time. That happens a couple of times a season, and so far it has happened at least once in each of the past 3 playoffs. With Brady and Welker getting older, the "solution" isn't to keep doing the same thing, hoping for better health and/or better execution, and a few lucky bounces. It's to diversify and balance the offense - more effective running on a consistent basis, more effective outside passing, more big plays, more consistent use of all of the weapons, more creative play calling, - and make the personnel changes necessary to do that.

Tom Brady is not a great deep ball thrower. So let's the make New England Patriots less efficient for the sake of diversification.

The OL is one key. I think the team needs to invest in some young turks on the OL. Maybe a Jonathan Cooper or DJ Fluker. Maybe Marcus Cannon will emerge as a starting caliber lineman this year, as 2012 was essentially a rookie year for him. Move Dan Connolly back to center. But I agree with Manx about the loss of Welker putting more pressure on the OL. We've been using Welker and the quick passing game to cover up a lot of deficiencies, but then they come back to bite us in the ass come playoff time. It's time to address those deficiencies and try a different approach.

This is pathetic. You're looking for a scapegoat and missed the target completely. The New England Patriots offensive line did not fall apart against the Baltimore Ravens. Tom Brady had an off day and everything else with the New England Patriots offense is now the problem.

The running game needs to be used more as a "mainstay" of the offense on a consistent basis, and less as a "wrinkle", to use Manx's terms. The line has to be able to give Brady enough time to find a receiver more than 15 yards downfield, the team has to invest in some young guys with the size and/or speed to work the sidelines, and Brady has to buy into that. There are still plenty of short/intermediate options: Hernandez, Edelman, Vereen, Demps and Woodhead (depending on whether Edelman and Woodhead are re-signed, of course).

The New England Patriots offense ranked second in rushing attempts during the 2012 NFL Season.

Getting more of a "home run" threat is also important. Our 4 most productive offenseive skill players - Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Lloyd - dont have the speed to be breakaway threats. And certainly not Branch since he returned. They can sometimes break some big gains, but they aren't the kind of guys who will take it to the house when they get a step on the defense, with rare exceptions. Vereen and Edelman offer more of that capability. Demps obviously would if he makes the step to be an offensive weapon.

A "home run" threat is not necessarily the answer.

But the offense needs both a faster "move" option who can be that kind of threat (Tavon Austin, Marquise Goodwin) and a bigger outside option who can stretch the field.

Tavon Austin might not be around when the New England Patriots select with the #29 overall selection nor may wide receiver be the number one priority for the New England Patriots in the 2013 NFL Draft.

The objective shouldn't be to "make up" for Welker's production. The objective should be to diversify the offense to make it less dependent on one guy, less predictable, and harder to defend come playoff time. I personally think that's easier to achieve without Welker than with him, great as he is, because we keep getting stuck in the rut of going to our "security blanket" over and over again as long as we have him, right up until the time when it fails us in the playoffs and we go home disappointed for the season. Time to try a different approach, both for money reasons and because, great as the security blanket has been, it ultimately hasn't provided enough security from the bogeymen.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". We've had the same result: a highly prolific offense that sets all kind of regular season records, and then which struggles in the playoffs. Every time there's a discussion of diversifying the offense and being more committed to a running game, the response is "why fix what isn't broke". Well, it's broke IMHO, as far as winning in the playoffs goes. Time to fix it. Saying that it isn't broke and we just needed to execute better (just like we needed to do in 2007, 2010, and 2011) just condemns us to the same result next year, and the year after. Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

You missed the mark completely. The issue is not diversification, the issue is depth. I guess you completely forgot about the number of unrestricted free agents the New England Patriots signed during the 2012 NFL off-season:

Anthony Gonzalez
Jabar Gaffney
Donte Stallworth
Daniel Fells
Visanthe Shiancoe

In addition, I guess you completely forgot about the 2012 NFL Draft:

Jeremy Ebert

Furthermore, I guess you forgot about the trade with the St Louis Rams just prior to the 2012 NFL Season:

Greg Salas

The New England Patriots organization made every conceivable attempt to improve the depth at the wide receiver position and tight end position during the 2012 NFL off-season. Either accept the fact Tom Brady had an off day against the Baltimore Ravens or the injury to Rob Gronkowski (and to a lesser extent Julian Edelman and Donte Stallworth) finally caught up to the New England Patriots offense.

 

[Observer]

. Even with Mayo & Wilfork, there still seems to be something still missing in the character of the 2012 team.

I believe this too. The problem is not just talent, I believe this team had sufficient talent and experience to win this year. The problem is on the one hand injury- they need to figure out how to manage the roster to minimize these because nowadays it's pretty much a certainty that one or more key players on the team will miss playoff games.
The second problem is intensity. They can't seem to cope with teams that will hit harder, fight tooth-and-nail, and take their chances. it's almost as though they get shocked when the normal things don't work and they simply don't know how to fight back.

 

[1%er]

I know there are a lot of Welker threads and discussions going on. I believe the sensible move is to keep Welker. But the intention of this thread is what do they do if Welker is let go.
Objectives:
1) It would be silly to think the offense without Welker could continue to run the same scheme and be nearly as good. Welker is a once in a generation player, and no team has anyone who can step into his role, much less us being able to acquire one.
2) I'm not big on the point of view that the offense isn't equipped to win in the playoffs or against good defenses. I think that viewpoint simply ignores a)that every team does worse vs good defenses and b)ignores the many good games as if they never happened. c) as soon as the offense has a bad game that means that team played the same style of D whether it did or not. I'm going to approach it from what could be improved in our scheme by a scheme change. Of course the caveat here is that improving on one of the best offense to ever exist is much easier said than done.
3) The acquisitions can't break the bank, because the only point in moving on is the money.


The offense we have run since 2007 has run through Welker. The route combinations play design and calls, gameplanning, and scheme were centered around Welkers ability to get open being the primary advantage we have (aside from TFB) on offense. Defenses start gameplanning by accounting for Wes. We have implemented hurryup, spread, 3 wide, 2 TE, and fit many different players around that central cog. We have had Moss as a great deep threat, Gronk as the record setting TE, had top 5 in history scoring offenses with Maroney, BJGE and Ridley at RB, and been one of the best offenses in NFL history all the while.
The evolution of the offense without Welker will not be putting someone else in his role. You just can't do that effectively. Some player or group of players will take his spot on the field, but the role where the passing offense revolved around his function is done.
The first step is that this will mean we need more weapons to spread the ball around to. The idea that the TEs can take a larger role is dubious because when they have played together their combined role has been greater than any TE duo in NFL history. It's like waiting for mortgage rates to go down, when they are the lowest in the history of the country. The idea that Hernandez becomes Welker is simply ludicrous. His value is being a mismatch with speed, quickness and agility as a TE. Put him at WR and you take all of that away, and make him medocre. The idea of running more to compensate is also faulty since we ran the 2nd most times in the league this year.

The change that would take place would be to eliminate the role that the offense has revolved around and replace it with something else. No doubt we will stay a base 1/2/2 lineup because of Gronk and Hernandez. We are going to need to get another outside WR to replace Welker who can run every route, and be a traditional WR. Paired with Llllloyd, you will have 2 outside guys catching around 70 passes for around 900 yards a piece. The offnese will move somewhat to a more downfield throwing offense, with more running from traditional run sets rather than shotgun draw plays. The RBs will become a much bigger factor in the passing game. Different will be different, not necessarily worse, with one HUGE exception. In 3rd down and 2 minute situations we will be lacking the best weapon in football. We were #1 in 3rd down conversions this year, in large part because we have THE player in the NFL most likely to get himself open on 3rd down. This will be a challenge, and the result may be that we need to put TEs and RBs in the pattern more heavily on 3rd down, putting bigger risk on the sack. Additionally, Welker not only gets open better, but gets open QUICKER than anyone, so the pass rush risk increases as well.
Positives? It has always troubled me that on days our offense does poorly it always seems to be 'just misses' on 3rd down, on plays we normally make that are the undoing. I could never pout my finger on what caused that. As I left the AFCCG it occured to me that while I felt the exact same way, we converted a bunch of 3rd downs. After looking back we were 7/15 which is a league leading level of 46% and there were at least 5 conversions that were drops, flukes or plays we always make. Thats when I realized, the problem wasn't missing 3rd down, it was needing to make so many of them because we spent the whole day moving in small chunks and being in 3rd down.
This seems to happen from time to time, but iut seems to me, more often in big games. It may be possible that we have created such a potent offense relying on the short pass that we go into big games saying 'stick to what we do best' and create a game plan even more heavy on short passes, and running to 'stay on schedule' to down and distance, and therefore turn into a bend but don't break offense. Eliminating Welker could be addition by subtraction by forcing the coaching staff out of that strategy. I'm not sure I buy that myself.
The other positive, frankly is really only theoretical, but I'll mention it. If we eliminate a highly paid offensive player, we can put more money into defense, leveling the field a bit to accept a lesser offense for a better defense. In reality we still need a WR, and the few bucks left over won't have much real impact on the defense.
Please do not respond by discussing the merits of keeping Welker vs letting him go, but only about thoughts about what to do if he leaves.

Great outline Andy..

The offense changed mostly through a combination of Moss leaving, O'Brien as OC and the additions of the tight ends. WW was very productive in the season in which we featured a vertical offense. So IMO this offense is not designed around WW skill set I think it features underneath routes and screens that will continue to be in the offense with or without WW.

If WW left in 2013 I'd expect us to continue to run a 1/2/2 set as are base offense. I do think that set would consist of more Gronk and Ballard as the 2 TE and see more of AH playing the WR position.

There is no replacing WW so it would require running more underneath routes through are RB and TE. Edelman could be used in the slot but it is foolish to believe that we can just plug him into the same spot as WW and expect him to do all the same things. It would be foolish to believe a FA or a rookie could do that either.

I think we'd need to add an outside receiver who was comfortable running the intermediate routes and coming across the middle without fearing contact. Lloyd is a good route runner but he is only a sideline receiver who is usually on the ground before the tackler even arrives.

I do not think the offense needs to change. I think you can still have the same routes and patterns I just think Brady is going to have to be more willing to throw down the field and to the outside because like you said WW does get open better than the people who would be running the patterns now.

They can continue to run the ball more which could put us in more play action situations allowing us to get players open better.

With or without WW this is going to be a top 1-2 offense next season. These owed to WW threads and posts are more about fans being scared of change than the reality of the offense. We have a ton of talent in Gronk, AH, Ridley, Vereen and then nice secondary players in Ballard, Lloyd.

Lets call it what it is this offense is what it is because of TB12 and just like all the Denver WR's had breakout years this year with Manning anybody we put out on the field is going to succeed with TB12 if he wants them too. Johnson didn't because TB12 didn't need him if he had needed him to succeed Johnson would of made the pro bowl in 2011 and still be with his wife.

 

[supafly]

They can't seem to cope with teams that will hit harder, fight tooth-and-nail, and take their chances. it's almost as though they get shocked when the normal things don't work and they simply don't know how to fight back.

You're talking about the Jets walking the fine line between despair and confidence here but it brings to mind this. Are we really sure that the Patriots have moved beyond that 2009 team that in BB's words to Brady was not mentally tough? I had thought so but the ravens loss made me wonder once again. I may be emotionally over reacting but both the the offense and the defense have exhibited behavior where they're doing fine for a portion of the game but once something goes wrong, a cascade of wrongs follow.

I think that we saw some examples this year that actually proved contrary to some of this thinking. There were many examples where the team did look mentally tough, and they fought back from adversity in several of the losses.

One I can think of is the ARZ game, where we forced a fumble when they were running the clock out. Then they really in essence came back to win that game in multiple ways. Unfortunately we saw one of the cheapest holding calls of the entire year on Gronk, which then led to Gostkowski missing a relatively easy FG.

Another was the BAL game (one) where they lost 31-30. I saw a lot of very good fight in that game, considering that it's very tough to win down there. The main problem was the defensive breakdown, the late game changing DPI call on McCourty, and then the 2 "shaky" FG calls--either one which went our way.

Then we had the SEA game...once again, one of the toughest places to play on the road in all of football. Had it not been for a weird late first half error that negated the FG attempt, they'd have hung a minimum of 26 in that house of terrors, and were still up 23-10 with about 7 minutes remaining. Once again we saw a defensive breakdown on 2 back to back late game drives, both which led to TD's. The second one or gamewinner shouldn't have happened in pee-wee football, as T.Wilson's one and only assignment was to keep his man in front (he then went on the repeat the same exact mistake on the very first drive of the next game and spent a good portion of the year in Belichick's doghouse).

Another example was the 49ers game. We were losing 31-3 in the thrid quarter..in the pouring rain. Absolutely getting trounced. It was embarrassing on all levels, but the team pulled together and showed some resiliency to the highest degree. Once again, we end up tying the game at 31. The whole 49'ers team is in shambles, Harbaugh has one of the most stunned looks I've ever seen on a coach....and then, the late game defensive collapse kicks in.

Which brings me to the most recent example...last Sunday vs BAL. A Bernard Pollard late hit sends the ball from the NE 36 all the way to the BAL 25 on one play. The Ravens are freaking out. They are quickly losing composure and are already down 13-7 halfway through the third quarter. It appears as though this game is going to be broken through by the Pats on this particular play....but, they fail to pick up a 1st down, the wind forces them to once again punt in an area that normally would be FG range, and BAL then marches down the field to take a 14-13 lead. Once again, we see a late game defensive collapse which allows BAL to score 21 unanswered pts in the last and most crucial 20 minutes of the game.

Even then the offense kept fighting. They moved the ball quickly down the field on the following 2 possessions, but then we saw the Ridley knockout fumble and then a batted ball at the LOS, which resulted in back to back turnovers. The game was lost in that fashion, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with "not having enough moxy, or being able to fight back, etc."

What I think the common theme here was, is late game defensive collapses of the highest level. That is what needs to stop. There could be some argument that some of the physicality that you see the team lacking needs to be found on defense. Something has to change there.

 

[patfanken]

If that is all you think Welker does, there is no wonder you are so incredibly wrong on this topic.

No, you are just being terribly literal. Of course that's not all Welker, or any other slot receiver does. Where you err is your seeming insistence that Welker is the only one in the league who can do what he does. He might be the best at it right now, but he's not irreplaceable. Victor Cruz, Percy Harvin, would just be the start of long list of slot receivers who would be replacements for Wes Welker. He's great at what he does, but he's not "unique"

The scheme of the offense revolves around Welker. The week to week play calling is within the framework of that scheme.

That might have been true for the a lot of THIS season,due to the injuries, but it certainly wasn't last season, and your continued assertion that it does, won't make it so.

[/QUOTE]13 points is not enough to win. Yards do not win games. The red zone is a huge part of what an offense produces. Yards between the 20s and no points is useless.[/QUOTE] Thank you for repeating the point I already made in my OP. Its gratifying when others confirm your opinion

There is nothing to buy into, it is a fact. Regardless of who is catching the passes, the role of Welker is the center of the play design, the way the team is defended, and the game planning. If teams take away Welker, that creates the opportunities for other players. Ken, you have more knowledge than you are allowing yourself to show here, because you don't like the answer that knowledge leads you to.

Again, repeating an opinion as if it were a fact, and hoping it eventually becomes the truth is hubris. When the receiving corp is healthy, there are as many plays designed to go through Gronk, Hernandez. and Lloyd as there would be for Welker....and you know it. Your assertion that "the offense goes through Welker" is simply another of your OPINIONS that you try and pass off as fact.

They were higher in 2011 when all of those players were healthy, so exactly what are you basing this on? Every shred of evidence says that Welker gets open better than anyone in the NFL. .

Andy there were 7 other receivers who had more yardage and 2 who had more catches so the phrase "better than anyone else is ludicrous) and none of them had the top QB in the league throwing to them. But that's a nitpick in reaction to your penchant for dealing in absolutes

There is no question that Welker is the kind of receiver who creates issues for the defense and makes things easier for the other receivers around him. No one is trying to deny that Welker is an exceptional receiver. EVERY receiver of that quality makes life easier for everyone else. The Pats are lucky to have 2 others as well, plus an additional "good" receiver in Lloyd.

[/QUOTE] Welker, Hernandez, Lloyd, Vereen, Woodhead, Hooman, Branch, Ridley were all 'receiving options'. Your point seems to prove Welkers value as he had 248 receiving yards in those 2 playoff games.[/QUOTE] Taking nothing away from Welker but it also points to a disturbing habit of Brady sometimes falls into of forcing balls to players who are covered while others are wide open, as he did on several of those 3rd down situations vs the Ravens. I can think of at least 3 times were I could see on the TV feed a WIDE open RB being ignored, only to see him try and make a tough throw to a tightly covered Welker, Hernandez, or Lloyd, Its not the first time Brady's fallen into the habit of relying too much on just a limited amount of receivers. He might be the best of all time, but he isn't perfect.

They were not consistently getting open. Although you have been arguing it for years now, the fact is you can't just assign a pass pattern to a jag and he automatically gets open.

Ridley and Woodhead are EXCELLENT receivers, and Ridley is adequate. Evidently you thought they were covered all the time, my eyes told me different. Fair enough. Someone who gets the all 22 would have a better picture of who is right.

3rd and 2 is a passing down for almost every team now.

Which is a dynamic I find disturbing as a former coach. Maybe I'm too old, but while I acknowledge the reality of today's passing game, I know for a fact that, as someone who played and called defenses, it ALWAYS easier to defend a team when they tell you in advance they are going to pass. Common sense would tell you that it would be tougher to defend a 3rd and short situation if the defense were faced with a viable run threat as well. I'm not saying run the ball in that situation all the time, but at least make the defense THINK its a possibility. Again this isn't 3rd and 8, its 3rd and short

We converted 46% of 3rd downs. 3 drops, a conversion called back by a penalty, and Brady running into the ref were plays there to be made, which would have made up 80%. 3rd down play calling was not close to the problem in this game.

Your point here is fairly made, but here's my problem. Forget about the drops, fumble, and picks. Over 300 yds passing, over 100 yds rushing, over 440 total yds, a 46% 3rd down conversion rate......and only 13 points. That would lead me to believe that there was some kind of "disconnect" in the play calling, because generally those stats would result in 30 points not 13. Maybe the play calling wasn't the problem, but something was.

You are simply reaching here.

Not really - One of the big issues with paying ANY player a 7 figure salary is the injury factor. The Jets paid over 22MM to 2 guys who played about 5 games combined last season. The fact is that any player is only one play away from the IR or a long period of inactivity.

There is no question that Welker's durability is a key factor in his past success. Its a credit to his toughness. But the examples I gave are just 3 off the top of my head of players who have had longer periods of health and still got hurt.

Making a big financial decision on Welker, the injury risk has to be factored in, and just because Welker hasn't missed games due to injury up to this point, there is no guarantee that it will continue.

NO ONE said that.

BS, Andy, that was a common topic, especially in the discussions of Moss' impact soon after he left. Maybe someone who knows how to search old topics from back then can either confirm or deny my assertion.

Moss wasn't even trying in 2010.

Yet he still had 3 TD's in 4 games, including one where he wasn't targeted once. But that's nitpicking and really not the point. My point, in case I wasn't clear, was that this offense is better when the ball is spread around to several receivers and not just 2 or 3. Prior to 2010 the passing offense really did focus on Welker and Moss, and when Moss left and Branch, Gronk ,and Herandez were added to the mix, the ball was spread around more and the offense has run smoother

Its when the Brady's focus become more narrow, whether its by habit or injury, does the offense begin to get stagnant. Given all the injuries to the OL and receivers, its probably surprising it didn't happen more often

Who cares? Its not about numbers, its about havng the best offense we can.

Again we are in complete agreement. That's why I stated the best offense we could have would be one with a healthy group of Welker, Gronk, Hernandez, Lloyd, and Edelman/high pick rookie. But that might not be possible

How? They ran the 2nd most in the NFL, and have the GOAT at QB.

They still threw the ball 54% of the time, so there is still room for an additional emphasis on the run game. The Niners only passed the ball at a 44% rate. And the Seahawks who were #1 in rushing attempts passed the ball at a 42% rate. I think that high number of rushes the Pats had were more a function of the huge numbers of snaps they took each game, than the any huge change in commitment to the run.

We are still a pass first team, and it showed up clearly in the playoffs when we increased the passing percentage to over 63%

 

[patfanken]

Why? Because you want to list that as an argument? There is no evidence this is happening.

What was the OP, Andy? You asked the question what WOULD be the result of a Welkerless offense. An added emphasis on the RBs in the offense was part of my response. Why so argumentative?

[/QUOTE] Again, your ignorance of the offense creates a silly question that is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Stop being such a **** and insulting people. There is no need. You do that much more often lately. Tell me, Andy at what point did you turn into DI? I think you argued with him so often, you BECAME him.

This isn't an issue about MY ignorance....unless of course you are opining that any opinion other than your's is IGNORANT. Again you have completely forgotten about your OP. I'm just speculating that with a bigger emphasis on the running game, a healthy set of TE's and WR's would lead to fewer targets for Welker and less personal production. Both Gronk and Hernandez's production was cut almost in half, mostly due to injuries. Its illogical to conclude that their absence didn't help add more targets to Welker.

Just because you could point out that Welker did well in 2011 when both were healthy, the opposite could be said in 2010, when he had his worse year as a Pat. I also don't deny that having a healthy Gronk and Hernandez, makes it a lot easier for Welker to get open, as defenses can't concentrate specifically on him, which can explain the close to 2 ypc increase when they were healthy.

You must factor in the cost. What they think of him includes a price tag.

That's the key point of my arguments in ALL the discussions on who gets resigned and who doesn't. Maybe the offense wouldn't be as good without Welker, but would the TEAM be better with "only" a top 5 offense, BUT with a top 10 defense? In Volmer's case: Maybe Volmer is a better RT than Cannon, but is he $7MM/yr better....with a shaky injury history, than what Cannon can be next season?

There are just so many factors that have to be taken into consideration BEYOND the "market price" and talent of the individual player.

Considering Lloyd is the only WR under contract (legit one) virtually the entire position is being rebuilt (the same or differently).

Absolutely, but that is partly mitigated by our unique TE situation. Despite the fact that the WR position is going to be revamped, the Pats still have under contract 3 of the their top 4 targets. It may be small comfort, but its better than nothing.

In this event, Edelman would not see much of the field. He wont play ahead of the 2 TEs, or Lloyd or the 6'3+ outside receiver.

Your lips to god's ear on the 6'3 WR, but in a Welkerless offense that has Edelman on it, I can see him as the principal slot receiver, but in a different style. More like the Giants us Victor Cruz. In other words, less of a chain mover and more of a explosive down field threat. Fewer receptions, but a larger ypc. (btw- I understand that Cruz is a top 2 target for the Giants, and Edelman wouldn't be that here, but I hope you get the idea.)

You just said the offense was fine because it had 440 yards????????
I don't know how you get a higher scoring offense by taking away the most productive player from an offense that has been top 5 in history in scoring 3 timjes in 6 years. ..../QUOTE] I didn't say the offense was "fine", just the opposite. I said it failed DESPITE the 440yds, because the yards weren't turned into points.

Randy Moss scored FIFTY TD's in his 3.2 years as a Patriot before he was let go. That's quite a lot of scoring production to lose, yet the Pats managed to be a top 5 scoring team every year since he's been gone. Clearly Welker's production would have to be replaced, but to say it would critically effect the scoring production can't be proven, and history tells us that it "likely" isn't true.

BTW- despite getting pissed at your "tone" during this. I DO appreciate your taking the time to respond in detail to my post. However, if you feel I am now too "ignorant" to be worthy of your imperious notice, feel free to "ignore me".

 

[naF staP]

Um, no! The Patriots need to sign Welker! PERIOD!