JackBauer
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 25,365
- Reaction score
- 7,823
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I'm pretty sure that you can't make a deal where the player earns less at the back end. You can load up with a bonus and make the yearly number less, but that exact deal, where you start off making 9/ year and end with 5 can't happen.
There will be a big bonus and a smaller yearly number. That way we can manage a little better if Wes is a passenger in three years.
so, let me get this straight. Welker is going to lose 25% of his production because he got a year older? That's essentially what you are saying..
Sorry, but that makes no sense at all..
And I wouldn't be surprised to see them extended during this upcoming year is what I am saying.
I don't think you realize what Wayne even at 34 come November will be looking for. He struggled with his backup QB a lot more than the adaptable Welker did, too. Now, maybe Welker's backup was better, but it was Wayne crying about giving his a shot - along with whining about his contract. Aside from Lloyd, it's a crap shoot any of your targets could play in this system. Garcon knows nothing but the Indy system which is a lot more simplistic. And he had his inconsistent moments even within it. I doubt Bill has any more interest in signing Manningham than he did in covering him.
There are lots of things this franchise can waste $4-5M on per season. Adding it to Welker's contract would probably be the least wasteful of them.
Welker's productivity is based on his ability to read the D and make the correct decision on how to run the route clearly he and Brady have great chemistry. I don't think he has the same productivity in a different system, another 3 or 4 years w Brady and he could be a HOF candidate. Which I think he is aware of.
Even adding another wide out to provide a threat outsides the numbers. Welker is a essential part of the O and I don't think Edleman has shown he can replace Welker.
I do disagree about cutting Slater, he is a pro bowl ST players who is limited on O much as S Tasker was for the bills, you don't cut a guy who is arguable the best ST player in the league.
Totally agree with this. I would also mention that Edelman is already a very valuable member of the team in several roles, adding to his load means you likely subtract something elsewhere. Furthermore, if Wes or he get injured, you've still got a slot guy. If there's only Edelman, and he gets injured while playing D or special teams, what's left for the slot?
My issue with Slater is that other than special teams, he's not a guy who can give them any production at receiver. Like I said, he caught one pass that came on the second play of the first game of the season, and then never caught another. So as nice of a special teams player as he is, you basically made my point that if Edelman gets hurt they don't have another viable option.
They really need a couple of decent guys to go along with Welker. If you read my earlier post you'll see that the group they won a title with (which wasn't fantastic by any means) was more solid than the current group. I just really feel like they need to move on from having a guy who can play special teams well but can't get open and catch the ball to trying to upgrade with someone who can do both.
I wonder if Slater's problem "really" is that he can't get open so much as he never got the chance to learn how to do it in an NFL game.
Let me get this straight. You think that replacing a 125 catch-1500 yard receiver is EASY just by spreading the ball around?
Edelman would be lucky to produce 60% of Welker's production. Then you have Gronkowski and Hernandez picking up MORE receptions? When those two are going to be the top coverage priorities of other teams? I think that getting 2200 yards out of your 2 TEs (or whatever the total was) is about the MAX you can hope for.
So, now you are expecting the other WR to pick up 90-100 receptions..
Now, I can't explain why, but we've seen almost NO RB screens the past 3 years. Yes, they got Woodhead involved, but his reception production was down because of injury this year.
Sorry, but it would be a LOT harder than you acknowledge to replace Welker's production.
Let's assume the TEs produce the same....
If you bring in another "outside the numbers" WR (Like Lloyd or Wayne), like everyone agrees should be done, it will already cut into Welker's career-high 172 targets, therefore decreasing his productivity.
Let's assume the TEs produce the same....
If you bring in another "outside the numbers" WR (Like Lloyd or Wayne), like everyone agrees should be done, it will already cut into Welker's career-high 172 targets, therefore decreasing his productivity. Let's just say it cuts into it by 15% - that's 235 less yards that you need. In other words, your new WR will outperform Branch by 235 yards - getting about 950 yards on 70 catches.
You already mentioned that they threw to the RBs less in 2011 than ever before. Some of that may be the RBs themselves, but mostly it's the fact that Welker, Gronk, and Hernandez are almost always the primary looks for Brady. So getting back to '09 and '10 yardage numbers, 250 yards can be made up by the RBs.
That leaves 1100 yards. If you're saying Edelman can give you even 50% of Welker's production - that's 800 yards. So now we're looking to find a #2/3 receiver who can get you the remaining 300 yards, plus replace the 300 you got from Ocho and Underwood. Personally, I think that's quite doable.
My final point is that it's unrealistic to expect Brady to throw 611 times for 5235 yards. Both of those were career highs for him. Investing some of that saved money into the D will make it less necessary to get so many points and yards.
I think a legitimate deep threat will help Welker more than hurt him. Although he may be thrown to a smaller % of the time, that would be mitigated by having an offense that can score very quickly and will be less likely to punt than last years team. Welker will likely have much better YAC with safeties playing deeper. When you consider how often he's tackled just shy of a TD, he'll likely have significantly more touch downs too.
Let's assume the TEs produce the same....
If you bring in another "outside the numbers" WR (Like Lloyd or Wayne), like everyone agrees should be done, it will already cut into Welker's career-high 172 targets, therefore decreasing his productivity. Let's just say it cuts into it by 15% - that's 235 less yards that you need. In other words, your new WR will outperform Branch by 235 yards - getting about 950 yards on 70 catches.
Well, Welker had the best yds/catch and YAC/catch averages of his career this year. Without any so-called deep threat.
What you are saying is true - it will help Welker get open and give him more room to operate underneath. But it will clearly take away from his overall numbers, thus making him easier to replace - not that I'm saying he's easy to replace. I'm merely pointing out that there is an option B.
What saved money...and at what cost. And what you are disregarding is that despite a record setting season of production from this offense it had no margin for error when it mattered most. You are suggesting they strive to have even less. And that was despite an already above average performance by the defense we all want to improve upon. Less isn't always more.