- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 49,582
- Reaction score
- 28,239
I am having difficulty following the logic of 'I don't want Welker, he's not worth a yet to be determined unknown price' when that is immediately followed by 'replace him with (fill in name of another WR)' regardless of what that new player's yet to be determined unknown price is.
Seems to be a hypocritical double standard.
To answer the OP's original question, it all depends on the terms of the contract; it is not a simple, absolute yes-or-no question and answer.
I would pay a say Greg Jennings just because he is 3 years younger than Welker. Hence he is more likely to produce for the life of his contract. Welker is at the age that he could fall apart at any time and WRs tend to fall apart overnight when they hit the age wall. I think the risk is less for some other WRs.
I want to resign Welker, but if he is looking to cash in I would rather pay up to a younger WR.