A Wes-less Offense

[DocHoliday]

Do you know if Welkers drop percentage varies over the course of the season? (increases?)

 

[Frisbetarian]

I do not, DocH. I could figure it out by going through the games week by week I suppose, but today work beckons and time is decidedly not on my side. As I recall, however, and please don't hold me to this, Welker had a ton of drops early this season (through game 10), then went a handful of games with just a few (maybe games 10 - 16), before the 4 he had in the two playoff games.

Sorry I couldn't provide a more definitive response.

 

[Sciz]

I do not, DocH. I could figure it out by going through the games week by week I suppose, but today work beckons and time is decidedly not on my side. As I recall, however, and please don't hold me to this, Welker had a ton of drops early this season (through game 10), then went a handful of games with just a few (maybe games 10 - 16), before the 4 he had in the two playoff games.

Sorry I couldn't provide a more definitive response.

Yeah, that's about right. I remember reading somewhere that Welker's drops were way down in the last four or five games of the season (1 total or something like that), but the problems picked right back up with I believe two in each of the playoff games.

 

[Ivan]

You know, with Edelman at a robust 21 receptions this season they can easily replace Welker by adding only 5 more Edelman's.

Shouldn't be a problem. 6 Edelman's should only cost them about 15 million per. If they can get a waiver from the league to play all of them at once there shouldn't be any significant drop-off. Unless of course they are all hurt.

 

[ivanvamp]

1.) Jennings plays a different role in the offense. He's not a bigger "big-play threat" than Welker. He's a downfield threat. Welker makes big plays in pretty much every game he's in. People just like to ignore the fact that converting a 3rd and 10 is a big play. I don't think that's what you were doing, as I think you were just using a common term, but I think it needed to be pointed out that Welker racks up big plays pretty much every game.

2.) Jennings has played a full 16 game season just once in his NFL career. Welker has done it 6 times in 9 years.

3.) Jennings last two seasons consist of 21 combined games. In those 21 combined games, he's gotten 1315 yards. That's less than Welker's yardage totals for 3 of the last 4 years, with that 4th year being the one where Welker was coming back from the ACL surgery.

4.) Even going back to the years before Jennings recent down seasons, since Welker's arrival in 2007, he's racked up 7459 receiving yards compared to Jennings' 5905 yards, a difference of about 1500 yards, or one really good year's worth of extra yardage.

Whether you look catch totals, yardage or ability to actually stay on the field, Welker is the clearly suprerior choice. The areas that Jennings really beats Welker are where you'd expect a downfield threat to do that, which are YPC and TD. Change here wouldn't be about getting the better player or better value. You'd lose out on both. Change here would be either about a straight money savings or an overhaul of the offensive philosophy.

Good points. One of Welker's best strengths is his durability. Big check mark in his column.

My premise here is that Welker would cost you probably several million dollars a year more than Jennings, so it really would be a case of Jennings + another improvement vs. Welker.

If they could have Jennings plus, say, a quality defensive player, or Welker alone, which is the better value? Which would help the Patriots more?

I guess related to this is this question: Do you think the Patriots' offense would still be excellent if they had Jennings instead of Welker?

 

[Synovia]

....

Welker is, as I stated above, still a very good player. He puts up huge counting numbers and stays healthy, something which should not be discounted. There is pretty clear evidence, however, that his skills are regressing, and have been since the injury. Welker has been a huge part of the offense, but I wonder, at 32, if it makes sense to sign him to a big money multiple year contract, or to use the franchise tag on him.

Fantastic, fantastic post.

I think that last paragraph comes to the crux of thigns: We all know Welker is a very good player. We also all know that hes getting a little older, hes seeing some decline, and hes going to want an enormous deal.

I think, in a vacuum, losing Welker hurts the team, but in an environment where hes going to take up >8% of your resources for his age 33-38 season, that 8% could be used better. 8% is an awful lot of money when you need to fit 53 guys on a roster.

Welker is tough to find comps for. He's really the first premier player at a new position in the NFL. Since 2000, there are 29 seasons where a guy greater than 32 years old has had 1000 receiving yards. Of those 29 seasons, only 11 are for guys over 34.

The (total) list has a bunch of guys with multiple season:
Jerry Rice (2), Jimmy Smith (3), Tim Brown (2), Joey Galloway (3), Marvin Harrison (2), Derrick Mason (3).

Most of these guys, the years aren't sequential. So I think that any deal to Welker has a big chance of paying a whole lot of money to watch him decline. There simply isn't a whole lot of precedent for WRs aging gracefully.

 

[patfanken]

Yeah, that's about right. I remember reading somewhere that Welker's drops were way down in the last four or five games of the season (1 total or something like that), but the problems picked right back up with I believe two in each of the playoff games.

Thanks for taking the time to dig up all that information and presenting in is such an unbiased form. I don't think that will protect you from the more rabid Welker-ites, but you soon learn you have to be thick skinned here.

Again thanks for the info - more food for a debate that doesn't seem have a clear answer.

 

[supafly]

Fantastic, fantastic post.

I think that last paragraph comes to the crux of thigns: We all know Welker is a very good player. We also all know that hes getting a little older, hes seeing some decline, and hes going to want an enormous deal.

I think, in a vacuum, losing Welker hurts the team, but in an environment where hes going to take up >8% of your resources for his age 33-38 season, that 8% could be used better. 8% is an awful lot of money when you need to fit 53 guys on a roster.

Welker is tough to find comps for. He's really the first premier player at a new position in the NFL. Since 2000, there are 29 seasons where a guy greater than 32 years old has had 1000 receiving yards. Of those 29 seasons, only 11 are for guys over 34.

The (total) list has a bunch of guys with multiple season:
Jerry Rice (2), Jimmy Smith (3), Tim Brown (2), Joey Galloway (3), Marvin Harrison (2), Derrick Mason (3).

Most of these guys, the years aren't sequential. So I think that any deal to Welker has a big chance of paying a whole lot of money to watch him decline. There simply isn't a whole lot of precedent for WRs aging gracefully.

That's why in a perfect world we'd resign him to a 2-3 yr deal moving forward. That takes him through the age of 34, and basically guarantees that the offense continues at its record setting pace for at least another 2-3 seasons.

I understand the concerns, but I don't think we've seen enough to warrant as much as some would like to think.

I'm not condoning breaking the bank for him (depending upon your definition), but I see no reason why a "fair" deal of 3/26 thru 3/28 cannot be reached in this instance, assuming that he wants to stay of course. Even if he wanted to try and receive more money on the open market, I still think that the offer specified would be right along the lines of what he'd receive elsewhere.

I am just too leery of changing the offense at this point in time, and I'm not convinced that someone else could come in and do it near his level for a longer period of time with the same kind of success. I have no problem with a guy like Edelman filling in for a short period of time or even 1/2 a season if circumstances occurred to make that happen, but I question how effective anyone could be in that role over the longer haul. The incredible durability is also one of Welker's best attributes, and we don't have that anywhere else.

My concerns with changing the offense would be the way that the other operational parts around Welker may also change. For example, the offensive line in moving back to a more downfied attack where they must protect longer, or the offensive line moving to more traditional running formations vs going from the shotgun. I also take Brady's stability and weaknesses into account when trying to assess the Welker situation. I think that this current offense is masking more weaknesses than some realize.

 

[ivanvamp]

That's why in a perfect world we'd resign him to a 2-3 yr deal moving forward. That takes him through the age of 34, and basically guarantees that the offense continues at its record setting pace for at least another 2-3 seasons.

I understand the concerns, but I don't think we've seen enough to warrant as much as some would like to think.

I'm not condoning breaking the bank for him (depending upon your definition), but I see no reason why a "fair" deal of 3/26 thru 3/28 cannot be reached in this instance, assuming that he wants to stay of course. Even if he wanted to try and receive more money on the open market, I still think that the offer specified would be right along the lines of what he'd receive elsewhere.

I am just too leery of changing the offense at this point in time, and I'm not convinced that someone else could come in and do it near his level for a longer period of time with the same kind of success. I have no problem with a guy like Edelman filling in for a short period of time or even 1/2 a season if circumstances occurred to make that happen, but I question how effective anyone could be in that role over the longer haul. The incredible durability is also one of Welker's best attributes, and we don't have that anywhere else.

My concerns with changing the offense would be the way that the other operational parts around Welker may also change. For example, the offensive line in moving back to a more downfied attack where they must protect longer, or the offensive line moving to more traditional running formations vs going from the shotgun. I also take Brady's stability and weaknesses into account when trying to assess the Welker situation. I think that this current offense is masking more weaknesses than some realize.

supafly, let me ask you this: Suppose the Pats let Welker go and signed Jennings to a deal worth about $3 million a year less, which is probably reasonable. Figure Welker on a franchise tag makes about $11 mil, and Jennings signs for about $7-8 mil.

So they get Jennings and use the extra $$ to strengthen the team elsewhere.

How good do you think an offense of Brady, Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, Bolden, Demps, Lloyd, Jennings, Edelman, Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Ballard would be? Still tops in the league? Big dropoff? I recognize that things would look a little different stylistically, but how *good* would that offense be?

 

[Synovia]

That's why in a perfect world we'd resign him to a 2-3 yr deal moving forward. That takes him through the age of 34, and basically guarantees that the offense continues at its record setting pace for at least another 2-3 seasons.

I understand the concerns, but I don't think we've seen enough to warrant as much as some would like to think.

I'm not condoning breaking the bank for him (depending upon your definition), but I see no reason why a "fair" deal of 3/26 thru 3/28 cannot be reached in this instance, assuming that he wants to stay of course. Even if he wanted to try and receive more money on the open market, I still think that the offer specified would be right along the lines of what he'd receive elsewhere..

One, there's no way in hell he takes a 3/26 deal. He's going to get offered much more than that. I'd get 5/40 is the low point. Welker made $10M this year. He's gonna see 3/26 as an insult. Someone will offer him 10 per.

$10M/per would make him about the 7th highest paid WR in the NFL, which isn't all that high for a new contract on an elite WR.

Also, looking at the history of WRs over 32, the chances of getting 2 good years out of a 3 year contract aren't that high. There's a good chance at the end of that contract (probably higher than 50%), even 3/$26, you're looking at a Wes Welker who has $5M+ or so worth of bonus sitting on your payroll, and $5M+ worth of salary, and you're talking about cutting him.

 

[supafly]

One, there's no way in hell he takes a 3/26 deal. He's going to get offered much more than that. I'd get 5/40 is the low point. Welker made $10M this year. He's gonna see 3/26 as an insult. Someone will offer him 10 per.

$10M/per would make him about the 7th highest paid WR in the NFL, which isn't all that high for a new contract on an elite WR.

Also, looking at the history of WRs over 32, the chances of getting 2 good years out of a 3 year contract aren't that high. There's a good chance at the end of that contract (probably higher than 50%), even 3/$26, you're looking at a Wes Welker who has $5M+ or so worth of bonus sitting on your payroll, and $5M+ worth of salary, and you're talking about cutting him.

Well first off, my offer was between 3/26--and--3/28, which puts his average yearly salary at approx. 9 million per year over a three year longer term deal. If that wouldn't be Belichick showing good faith in negotiations, then I don't know what would be. That would be going from last yr's 2/16 offer all the way to 3/27 (we'll meet in the middle of my 3/26--3/28) which would be a considerable difference. And that's taking into account that Welker is yet another year older and another year more beat up, which would drive home a much, much better offer even more.

The devil would be in the details, but guaranteeing a major amount of that may go a lot longer than you think. If he would see that kind of offer as an "insult" then more power to him, and don't let the door hit you in the ***. I want him here badly, but there's absolutely no way that Belichick is going to offer more than that. Not when he's another year older and the best they could do last year was 2/16...LOL. We may as well say goodbye right now then. If a comparable offer to Randy Moss' record breaking year doesn't suit him right at the age of 32 at approx. 9 million a year with a lot of it guaranteed, then he's gone.

The Jennings and Bowes, Cruz's and maybe even Wallace's of the world will get offered 4 and 5 yr deals, but not Wes Welker. Not unless someone is going to totally try and pull a Mike Vick backloaded BS deal on him anyway. If someone offered Wes a 5 yr deal then they'd have to be able to pull out of it after about 2-3 yrs without much concern or dead cap hit moving forward. Anything's possible I suppose. I suppose I could potentially see someone offering him a 4 yr deal with the option to back out after year #2 or #3 without as much backlash, but if it were that easy then Belichick would probably be doing it.

 

[supafly]

supafly, let me ask you this: Suppose the Pats let Welker go and signed Jennings to a deal worth about $3 million a year less, which is probably reasonable. Figure Welker on a franchise tag makes about $11 mil, and Jennings signs for about $7-8 mil.

So they get Jennings and use the extra $$ to strengthen the team elsewhere.

How good do you think an offense of Brady, Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead, Bolden, Demps, Lloyd, Jennings, Edelman, Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Ballard would be? Still tops in the league? Big dropoff? I recognize that things would look a little different stylistically, but how *good* would that offense be?

Personally, I see Greg Jennings as being one of the more highly sought after WR's this year in free agency, so I really don't see anyway that the team could necessarily save much money by signing Jennings. That's just my personal opinion.

My concern is that this specific Welker centric offense hides a lot of weaknesses while taking advantage of strengths (as they should). It's the potential to hide weaknesses that worries me when considering a switch to a more downfield traditional approach, both in the pass AND the run.

Brady is able to extend his career a bit. He can take advantage of his cerebral strengths, knowing that Welker is going to be in a certain area or make a certain move just b/c they both can read things accordingly and are on the same page in many ways. We also take advantage of Welker's one-on-one matchups vs LB's and bracket coverage a lot, which means that he's actually still able to get open on a regular basis when being double covered. It's truly remarkable. Taking away Welker would make the opposing DC's job a lot easier in my opinion.

The offensive line actually comes away looking like a top notch unit just about every single season due to the fact that we run draws out of the shotgun a lot, and utilize quick timing routes. That would obviously change on some level should they decide to go to a more traditional downfield attack. The likelihood of losing Vollmer this offseason + some of the unknowns durability/talent-wise in the interior line makes this a worry for me.

Brady's weakness in downfield throwing is masked a lot with this current offense too, so that's something to take into consideration for all of the posters who think that Brady is moving in the wrong direction (which I don't necessarily agree with). This current offense allows high percentage throws and completions. We'd certainly see something different changing it up, which would likely also go back to turning the ball over more too, as that is one more strength that this current offense allows.

We've finally found a viable running game, we have the 2 young TEs locked up long term. We have a viable WR2 in Llyod. Everything is peachy. Taking Welker out of that equation would not be a move in the right direction, but that's just my opinion of course.

 

[supafly]

One, there's no way in hell he takes a 3/26 deal. He's going to get offered much more than that. I'd get 5/40 is the low point. Welker made $10M this year. He's gonna see 3/26 as an insult. Someone will offer him 10 per.

$10M/per would make him about the 7th highest paid WR in the NFL, which isn't all that high for a new contract on an elite WR.

Also, looking at the history of WRs over 32, the chances of getting 2 good years out of a 3 year contract aren't that high. There's a good chance at the end of that contract (probably higher than 50%), even 3/$26, you're looking at a Wes Welker who has $5M+ or so worth of bonus sitting on your payroll, and $5M+ worth of salary, and you're talking about cutting him.

I think if someone does indeed offer him "10 million" a year as you say, which is quite possible, that it would be very close to my 3/27 offer. They'd likely offer him 3/30 or something in that regard, so my 3/26--3/28 really isn't that far off, is it?

On one hand you're pointing out the unlikelihood that he'll be worth a damn in more than 2 yrs down the line, but then in the other hand you're telling me that there are going to be teams that are offering him a 5 year deal?

The most I see is a 4th year option dummy year, unless some team really wants to gamble. I know it won't be this team though.

The guaranteed money will be the biggest factor in my opinion for Welker, so any team can word it however they want, but the actual guaranteed money will be the biggest draw, as it pretty much always is, especially for a guy who is 32 yrs old.

 

[ausbacker]

Personally, I see Greg Jennings as being one of the more highly sought after WR's this year in free agency, so I really don't see anyway that the team could necessarily save much money by signing Jennings. That's just my personal opinion.

My concern is that this specific Welker centric offense hides a lot of weaknesses while taking advantage of strengths (as they should). It's the potential to hide weaknesses that worries me when considering a switch to a more downfield traditional approach, both in the pass AND the run.

Brady is able to extend his career a bit. He can take advantage of my cerebral strengths, knowing that Welker is going to be in a certain area or make a certain move just b/c they both can read things accordingly and are on the same page in many ways. We also take advantage of Welker's one-on-one matchups vs LB's and bracket coverage a lot, which means that he's actually still able to get open on a regular basis when being fouble covered. It's truly remarkable. Taking away Welker would make the opposing DC's job a lot easier in my opinion.

The offensive line actually comes away looking like a top notch unit just about every single season due to the fact that we run draws out of the shotgun a lot, and utilize quick timing routes. That would obviously change on some level should they decide to go to a more traditional downfield attack.

Brady's weakness in downfield throwing is masked a lot with this current offense too, so that's something to take into consideration for all of the posters who think that Brady is moving in the wrong direction (which I don't necessarily agree with). This current offense allows high percentage throws and completions. We'd certainly see something different changing it up, which would likely also go back to turning the ball over more too, as that is one more strength that this current offense allows.

We've finally found a viable running game, we have the 2 young TEs locked up long term. We have a viable WR2 in Llyod. Everything is peachy. Taking Welker out of that equation would not be a move in the right direction, but that's just my opinion of course.

Miami has openly stated they are going to be looking at receivers to help Tannehill. If they extend Hartline (I'm assuming they will) Philbin has history with Jennings. I wonder if the Fins would be interested in beefing up their line up with Jennings or even a Bowe as a clear #1 receiver?

 

[supafly]

Miami has openly stated they are going to be looking at receivers to help Tannehill. If they extend Hartline (I'm assuming they will) Philbin has history with Jennings. I wonder if the Fins would be interested in beefing up their line up with Jennings or even a Bowe as a clear #1 receiver?

With the cap room they have available, I would think that is a very good chance.

I think that Miami will be strong contenders for the speedier/physical outside threat, top tiered WR this year, definitely.

 

[ivanvamp]

Personally, I see Greg Jennings as being one of the more highly sought after WR's this year in free agency, so I really don't see anyway that the team could necessarily save much money by signing Jennings. That's just my personal opinion.

My concern is that this specific Welker centric offense hides a lot of weaknesses while taking advantage of strengths (as they should). It's the potential to hide weaknesses that worries me when considering a switch to a more downfield traditional approach, both in the pass AND the run.

Brady is able to extend his career a bit. He can take advantage of my cerebral strengths, knowing that Welker is going to be in a certain area or make a certain move just b/c they both can read things accordingly and are on the same page in many ways. We also take advantage of Welker's one-on-one matchups vs LB's and bracket coverage a lot, which means that he's actually still able to get open on a regular basis when being fouble covered. It's truly remarkable. Taking away Welker would make the opposing DC's job a lot easier in my opinion.

The offensive line actually comes away looking like a top notch unit just about every single season due to the fact that we run draws out of the shotgun a lot, and utilize quick timing routes. That would obviously change on some level should they decide to go to a more traditional downfield attack.

Brady's weakness in downfield throwing is masked a lot with this current offense too, so that's something to take into consideration for all of the posters who think that Brady is moving in the wrong direction (which I don't necessarily agree with). This current offense allows high percentage throws and completions. We'd certainly see something different changing it up, which would likely also go back to turning the ball over more too, as that is one more strength that this current offense allows.

We've finally found a viable running game, we have the 2 young TEs locked up long term. We have a viable WR2 in Llyod. Everything is peachy. Taking Welker out of that equation would not be a move in the right direction, but that's just my opinion of course.

I don't know that this offense hides any weaknesses per se. I think it does, however, take advantage of Brady's greatest strengths; namely, decision-making and short/mid range accuracy. So maybe that's just two different ways of saying the same thing.

But I think replacing Welker with Jennings would still leave this offense in absolutely tremendous shape. Obviously, if you don't save any money in that exchange it's probably not worth doing, although Jennings does offer some things that Welker does not (slightly bigger, definitely faster, younger), though he also comes with some drawbacks (he seems to be hurt more, maybe he doesn't run those option routes as well).

The key to me would be (a) how much could you save, and (b) how would you put those savings to work to improve the club. If you could go Jennings + defensive help, it might be a slight downgrade on offense (taking it from historically great to merely totally awesome) but an upgrade on defense (taking it from so-so to above average).

And if you went with Hartline instead of Welker, the savings would likely be a lot more. So maybe with a little restructuring, the Pats could go from Welker to Hartline/Goldsen, something like that. And *that* would be a huge help for the Patriots making them a better team, even if the offense drops a tick.

It'll be very interesting to see how BB plays this.

 

[kennyb]

brady has to learn how to throw more downfield, for one thing. The other is that there are plenty of other short/intermediate targets, ie gronk, hernandez, etc.

It's not that edelmen has to "replace" all of welker's production. It will get shifted around.

I'm kind of looking forward to him leaving, it'll be nice to have his threads gone. They'll rejigger the offense a bit, no more reliance on 4 yard passes hopefully. They'll be growing pains, but they'll be stronger by the end of the year, IMO.

 

[ivanvamp]

brady has to learn how to throw more downfield, for one thing. The other is that there are plenty of other short/intermediate targets, ie gronk, hernandez, etc.

It's not that edelmen has to "replace" all of welker's production. It will get shifted around.

I'm kind of looking forward to him leaving, it'll be nice to have his threads gone. They'll rejigger the offense a bit, no more reliance on 4 yard passes hopefully. They'll be growing pains, but they'll be stronger by the end of the year, IMO.

Just curious: Will it be nice to see him shred the Patriots defense as Peyton Manning and he connect for 11 receptions, 145 yards, and 2 tds?

 

[Ring 6]

My recap wasn't crap. It was absolutely correct, and it was very reserved, given that you had supposedly given me the last word and I could have gone off. You posting this was ridiculous, but par for the course with you. Now, we can drop this, or we can go the ignore route. This sort of crap you're pulling is why we went that route before.

I'll be certain to consider your instructions on how I should post.
I you feel you want to ignore my posts, by all means be my guest.

 

[kennyb]

Just curious: Will it be nice to see him shred the Patriots defense as Peyton Manning and he connect for 11 receptions, 145 yards, and 2 tds?

At their advanced ages, they aren't going to be shredding anything.