tombonneau
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,541
- Reaction score
- 377
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?
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?