Re: Welker, I'm seeing a lot of the "Pats don't need another #2, they need a #1 WR" talk. Yet, a dynasty has been built on a fleet of #2 WRs. (Say what you want about Branch, he is not a traditional #1WR and never will be.) Unless the Pats are going to adjust their offensive philosophy (the philosophy that has helped them become the most successful NFL franchise of the pats 6 years), don't expect them to make any sort of big investment in a #1WR. Sure, you could argue that they drafted CJax to be that dominant #1 guy, but until it happens on the field and they start offensively game planning that way, it is what it is. The Pats will trot out a bunch of Welkers, Caldwells, and Gaffneys and still move the ball. And let's face it, stud #1WRs don't grow on trees. I'd say less than half the teams in the league have a strong #1 WR that defenses game plan about. So rather than try to manufacture that rare commodity, why not do what the Pats are doing?