Does Welker want out of New England?

[supafly]

Yup. I love Julian but his style of play is reckless. He is almost certain to get hurt every year. A friend called the precise week when he would go out for the season and as prescient as that was, I wasn't that impressed. Julian is an easy call.

That said, the pats need a perimeter receiver. If Wes takes up so much salary that they can't bring in a perimeter threat, I think I would try to get by with Julian, grok and Aaron in the middle of the field. I would use Shane more in that role, as well.

I think that's somewhat of a misconception though, that it's one or the other. Either we have Welker, or we have a perimeter threat. To me that's not necessarily true at all. We can continue to address that situation just like they did last year when they tried to reel in Reggie Wayne and Brandon Llyod.

There have been great capoligists on this board like MoLewisRocks who have devised ways to get Welker's cap hits around 5, 6 million dollars for the proposed 3 yrs of the deal. I think many here have just assumed that Welker is going to take up 10 million+ every year and that's just not the case.

The outside/physical threat (as it will likely be either one or the other, or a lesser combo of both as in the case of Reggie Wayne) can still be obtained by trying to hit on that player through the draft and middle tier FA.

If people here are going to assume that we'd automatically go out and bring in a Mike Wallace or Dwayne Bowe they are kidding themselves to begin with. Belichick would probably never take that gamble for that kind of money. He's had a hard time taking that kind of a gamble for more of a sure thing in players like Julius Peppers who he knows would be able to be automatic improvements in some aspects, let alone foreign WR's from other systems.

 

[DocHoliday]

I don't even know where to start with this....

Your worry is that "when we don't have Gronkowski?" He has missed one 5 game stretch in 3 entire seasons. Are you pre-planning for him to be constantly injured in the future? If so, that's a much bigger problem in itself.

You compare us to NYJ fans for pointing out that we've been to the AFCCG every single time but once (2010) when BOTH Brady and Welker are together?

That's laughable...they've been together and to the AFCCG in 3 of 4 seasons, besides when one of them was missing in 2008 (Brady) and 2009 (Welker). That's a 75% chance of getting to the very last game of the AFC conference with the two of them together. They should have at least one SB out of the 2 NYG games, if not 2. Freak helmet catches and 4th quarter comebacks don't have anything to do with Wes Welker and the fact that he helped to get them there in a very big way.

If you don't think that's impressive or that constantly being one of the last 2-4 remaining teams in the entire NFL is good enough while still building for the future, then I don't know what to tell you, but for most of us that opportunity is incredible, and putting up records on offense almost every year proves the point even more.

Do you think it's a good idea to ride the effectiveness of this offense against playoff caliber teams on one person other than the QB?

 

[supafly]

Do you think it's a good idea to ride the effectiveness of this offense against playoff caliber teams on one person other than the QB?

I'm not necessarily suggesting riding one person throughout the success of the offense, at all really.

Again, it sounds like there are many who are putting the whole "keep or not to keep Welker" scenario into a one or the other grouping. It seems as though you feel that there is zero potential of a better downfield threat if they keep Wes Welker. I am not agreeing at all.

We just had a very effective season running the ball for the first time in a while, and my guess is that they wouldn't have been so inefficient had Gronk not broken his arm again the week before. I expect the running success to continue on some level. That is certainly another aspect besides "one person."

Gronk himself would definitely be a very important additional aspect too, as I don't expect freak injuries to occur like this year. That's two important aspects.

The 3rd and the one you want the most would be an improvement in the downfield passing game, and Belichick addressed that in the offseason last year as he did his best to lure Reggie Wayne away from IND, along with Brandon Llyod. I would imagine that will be addressed again this offseason, by way of the draft and lesser tiered FA's than the ones that everyone wants to replace Welker for like Bowe, Jennings, Wallace, etc.

We didn't necessarily see them riding one person all through the year when they won, the week before the BAL loss is a prime example. We saw a team made of Gronkowski, Hernandez, Vereen, Ridley, Woodhead, Llyod, Welker etc on offense. I want to add to that, not have a trade off of one or the other.

What we keep seeing in the losses (besides pitiful defense as the main thing) is a combination of poor playcalling (not getting Vereen involved this year, not getting Ridley involved last year) ineffectiveness of having a bad day at the office which happens--especially against good defense, and some freak of nature things like a helmet catch, 4 fumbles and zero recoveries, or 30 mph crosswinds that are making things even harder. Add all of these added variables up and it isn't hard to see what's happening.

 

[DocHoliday]

I'm not necessarily suggesting riding one person throughout the success of the offense, at all really.

Again, it sounds like there are many who are putting the whole "keep or not to keep Welker" scenario into a one or the other grouping. It seems as though you feel that there is zero potential of a better downfield threat if they keep Wes Welker. I am not agreeing at all.

We just had a very effective season running the ball for the first time in a while, and my guess is that they wouldn't have been so inefficient had Gronk not broken his arm again the week before. I expect the running success to continue on some level. That is certainly another aspect besides "one person."

Gronk himself would definitely be a very important additional aspect too, as I don't expect freak injuries to occur like this year. That's two important aspects.

The 3rd and the one you want the most would be an improvement in the downfield passing game, and Belichick addressed that in the offseason last year as he did his best to lure Reggie Wayne away from IND, along with Brandon Llyod. I would imagine that will be addressed again this offseason, by way of the draft and lesser tiered FA's than the ones that everyone wants to replace Welker for like Bowe, Jennings, Wallace, etc.

We didn't necessarily see them riding one person all through the year when they won, the week before the BAL loss is a prime example. We saw a team made of Gronkowski, Hernandez, Vereen, Ridley, Woodhead, Llyod, Welker etc on offense. I want to add to that, not have a trade off of one or the other.

What we keep seeing in the losses (besides pitiful defense as the main thing) is a combination of poor playcalling (not getting Vereen involved this year, not getting Ridley involved last year) ineffectiveness of having a bad day at the office which happens--especially against good defense, and some freak of nature things like a helmet catch, 4 fumbles and zero recoveries, or 30 mph crosswinds that are making things even harder. Add all of these added variables up and it isn't hard to see what's happening.

I wasn't addressing Welker, just the fact that without Gronk this team has no vertical/height threat and without him it loses significant running ability.

No team should count on one person to do what I said above to such a degree that playoff hopes are virtually dashed. Aside from the QB (who is protected accordingly by the league) you must be able to replace any handful of players if you hope to win the big one.

If you get lucky and go all the way healthy that's nice, but you gotta plan for these things.

 

[Ian]

^Same here about Slater. Shouldn't even be mentioned when talking about wide receivers. More likely to see Ninkovitch come out there and catch one than Slater.

:yeahthat:

This drives me nuts. I understand he's a tremendous cover guy on kickoffs, but man...I wish he'd follow Hernandez' lead and head out to California and spend the offseason working on finally becoming an NFL receiver. Each year when injuries hit they've been up the creek with limited weapons and Slater's a guy that I believe caught a 46yd pass in the first game last year and never caught another ball the rest of the season.

Give Edelman credit, I'm not his biggest fan but I appreciate what he's done as a late round pick. Let's face it, he's at least a guy that can do multiple things fairly well. Slater does one - and it just irks me each time I see his name listed on the depth chart as a WR - because he really hasn't been helpful there at all.

Don't get me wrong, I love him on kick coverage and I appreciate his value there. But as I said, I wish we'd see him spend his offseason working with Brady to expand his game. He's got some speed, it's too bad he hasn't done anything else with it.

 

[Ring 6]

:yeahthat:

This drives me nuts. I understand he's a tremendous cover guy on knockoffs, but man...I wish he'd follow Hernandez' lead and head out to California and spend the offseason working on finally becoming an NFL receiver. Each year when injuries hit they've been up the creek with limited weapons and Slater's a guy that I believe caught a 46yd pass in the first game last year and never caught another ball the rest of the season.

Give Edelman credit, I'm not his biggest fan but I appreciate what he's done as a late round pick. Let's face it, he's at least a guy that can do multiple things fairly well. Slater does one - and it just irks me each time I see his name listed on the depth chart as a WR - because he really hasn't been helpful there at all.

Don't get me wrong, I love him on kick coverage and I appreciate his value there. But as I said, I wish we'd see him spend his offseason working with Brady to expand his game. He's got some speed, it's too bad he hasn't done anything else with it.

Does he just lack the skills? I would have to think work ethic is a positive with a guy who has made himself into a probowl special teamer.
Last year he was a safety.
I think there is at least as much reason to believe he lacks the basic WR skillset as that he just isn't putting the effort into developing.
I think "WR" next to his name is only because you cant put "ST"

 

[Ian]

Does he just lack the skills? I would have to think work ethic is a positive with a guy who has made himself into a probowl special teamer.
Last year he was a safety.
I think there is at least as much reason to believe he lacks the basic WR skillset as that he just isn't putting the effort into developing.
I think "WR" next to his name is only because you cant put "ST"

That's a great point and it's tough to say. But he's a guy who's got speed and has shown he can catch the ball. I just wish he could be a guy to give them something offensively even as a #3 or #4 receiver. Injuries recently have exposed the fact they need better depth there - and it would be great to see him contribute.

 

[mgteich]

Do you expect Danny Aiken to be step up at OT or OG if someone is injured, just because he is listed as an OL.

The reality is that we SHOULD list more players as special teamers. There are players who we would only want to be a position player in an emergency. Slater is such a player. Slater is NOT a utility player. He is a special teamer. If he is not worth his salary being one of the very best special teamers in the league, then so be it. He isn't making the team because he can play a couple of reps of offense a game.

Edelman is a punt returner and a #4 wide receiver. I don't think that we would carry a player who was only a punt returner. So, I think it reasonable to list Edelman as a WR. We are willing for Edelman to have significant reps as WR in case of injury.
====

It isn't the time to consider how many roster spots we have for players that are on the team only because of their special team play. Each year that number is much higher than posters want it to be.

That's a great point and it's tough to say. But he's a guy who's got speed and has shown he can catch the ball. I just wish he could be a guy to give them something offensively even as a #3 or #4 receiver. Injuries recently have exposed the fact they need better depth there - and it would be great to see him contribute.

 

[shmessy]

I do find it interesting that many here believe he is not worthy of more than $8 mill. What is he, top 3 in catches and yds over the past 5 years.....for $8 mill??? That seems the bargain of the century especially when you factor in durability and team first mentality. 100 catches for $8 mill.....where do I sign up for that kind of production and consistency.
WW gonna get paid.....somewhere.

No one is denying that Wes has been a GREAT WR for the Patriots.

The fundamental problem with your argument above (and the "Pay Wes Whatever He Wants" Crowd) is you automatically assume the age 32-36 Wes is going to perform at the same level as the age 27-31 Wes.

Sorry, but regarding WR's, Human Biology says hello. Paying premiums for PRIOR production for players on the exit ramp of their prime is what teams like the Redskins or Jets do.

 

[mgteich]

Then Mo is a magician. This cannot be done in a 3-year contract without adding fake years, where you will pay in dead money for any cap savings in the early years, after cutting Welker.

There have been great capoligists on this board like MoLewisRocks who have devised ways to get Welker's cap hits around 5, 6 million dollars for the proposed 3 yrs of the deal.

 

[DocHoliday]

Does he just lack the skills? I would have to think work ethic is a positive with a guy who has made himself into a probowl special teamer.
Last year he was a safety.
I think there is at least as much reason to believe he lacks the basic WR skillset as that he just isn't putting the effort into developing.
I think "WR" next to his name is only because you cant put "ST"

I think there just isn't any pressure for him to do so. He's secure in his spot and does what he does well and there are legions of other WR in camp that the coaches probably focus on.

I doubt a guy who played WR in college lacks the basic WR skillset. If its anything he probably is a bad route runner. I was always under the impression he was fast but not quick/agile.

I agree with the other posters. Cut down on the ST only players. We need more legitimate developments spots.

 

[Triumph]

Do you think it's a good idea to ride the effectiveness of this offense against playoff caliber teams on one person other than the QB?

2 players.

The 2 TE offense needs Hernandez and Gronk both healthy and on the field. Gronk didnt put up eye popping number vs Baltimore in the regular season game, Hernandez missed that game. Hernandez had a decent game in the Baltimore AFCC, but the NE offense sputtered, Gronk missed all but 1 play.

I suppose now Ballard will save the day even though weve never seen him play.

 

[Rob0729]

When it comes to Francesa and the Pats, I don't listen to one word he says. He hates Belichick and Kraft and will manufacturer stuff to get to them. I am sure he is probably is just crap stirring.

If Welker definitely wanted out of NE, I doubt Francesa would have the exclusive on it. Someone one else would have reported long before him. The guy has no connections in New England.

 

[tonyto3690]

I don't even know where to start with this....

Your worry is that "when we don't have Gronkowski?" He has missed one 5 game stretch in 3 entire seasons. Are you pre-planning for him to be constantly injured in the future? If so, that's a much bigger problem in itself.

He's missed the playoffs two seasons in a row. This isn't even a big deal because you're still predicating the entire offense on one guy having a great game. That is completely moronic coaching and game planning. You need to have versatility and the ability to win when your star receiver isn't dominating. That's what the Ravens did. Torrey got completely shut out and they had Boldin to take advantage of the 1 vs 1 matchups.

You compare us to NYJ fans for pointing out that we've been to the AFCCG every single time but once (2010) when BOTH Brady and Welker are together]

That's laughable...they've been together and to the AFCCG in 3 of 4 seasons, besides when one of them was missing in 2008 (Brady) and 2009 (Welker). That's a 75% chance of getting to the very last game of the AFC conference with the two of them together. They should have at least one SB out of the 2 NYG games, if not 2. Freak helmet catches and 4th quarter comebacks don't have anything to do with Wes Welker and the fact that he helped to get them there in a very big way.

You are completely missing the point. Using the logic "we got to X game with Y player playing a role, therefore Y player is untouchable" is completely idiotic and the same logic Jets fans used about Sanchez. It's just incredibly stupid logic.

The 2007 team gets to the SB with or without Welker, they were loaded.
Last year is atually debatable, but had we a quality outside receiver who wasn't running into a loaded zone in the middle every play I think we win that game. I've already explained this, but without Gronk playing well our offense completely fell apart because we had no one who could get a reception over 15 yards.

If you don't think that's impressive or that constantly being one of the last 2-4 remaining teams in the entire NFL is good enough while still building for the future, then I don't know what to tell you, but for most of us that opportunity is incredible, and putting up records on offense almost every year proves the point even more.

You must be trolling, no one can be this thick. This has nothing to do with me satisfied with the results or anything like that. This is about me saying what we need to do to make the team better to actually win a championship. If we used your reasoning, Bruschi and Vrable would still be playing for us, we would have overpaid for Samuel and Seymour and we'd like be a 5 win team- with 5 wins being generous because we have Brady to beat the 4 horrible teams a year we play.

Our offense bogs down with Welker at times because his skill set is strictly redundant to our tight ends. Welker is declining, is diminishing returns, and is unsigned. Hernandez and Gronk are entering their primes and locked up long term. It's pretty freaking obvious who we need to cater the offense to. We need another wideout who can win 1 vs 1 matchups on the outside and down the field. We don't need to blow 10 million on an aging WR. Spend 4 million on a quality role player outside and the rest on DEFENSE.

 

[Ring 6]

Then Mo is a magician. This cannot be done in a 3-year contract without adding fake years, where you will pay in dead money for any cap savings in the early years, after cutting Welker.

Why is that a problem?
You can give him 5/45 with 18 mill up front
Salaries of 2,3,4,9,9
Welker gets 27 in the first 3 years.
The cap hits are 5.6,6.6,7.6 then the dead money is 3.6mill each in 16 and 17 is you cut him after 3 years after the date the hit speads over 2 years.
That is not at all unreasonable to retain the focal point of your passing offense and one of the top 3 most productive receivers in the league.

 

[mgteich]

The poster suggested that this was possible in a 3-year contract. I said that we would need to add a couple of dead years. You then ably demonstrated how a 5 year contract would work.

The patriots didn't do this a couple of years ago. They didn't do it last year. I don't think that they will sign such a contract this year. I don't think that eighteen million up front is going to happen, although I agree with you that it should.

Why is that a problem?
You can give him 5/45 with 18 mill up front
Salaries of 2,3,4,9,9
Welker gets 27 in the first 3 years.
The cap hits are 5.6,6.6,7.6 then the dead money is 3.6mill each in 16 and 17 is you cut him after 3 years after the date the hit speads over 2 years.
That is not at all unreasonable to retain the focal point of your passing offense and one of the top 3 most productive receivers in the league.

 

[Ring 6]

The poster suggested that this was possible in a 3-year contract. I said that we would need to add a couple of dead years. You then ably demonstrated how a 5 year contract would work.

The patriots didn't do this a couple of years ago. They didn't do it last year. I don't think that they will sign such a contract this year. I don't think that eighteen million up front is going to happen, although I agree with you that it should.

The fact that they didn't do it last year or a few years ago doesn't have much to do with what they will do this year, because, as everyone always seems to ignore when they say what the Patriots do or dont do or will or wont do, the circumstances are different.
For example, in 2012 the Patriots could afford to tag Welker, therefore a long term deal would have to be team friendly. Why NOT wait and forestall the big commitment to see if he stays healthy, who else does or doesn't and how needs change. In 2013 the tag would be difficult to absorb. Therefore options that were worse than an easily acceptable tag # now become viable.
Decisions can only be made in context and aren't transferable to different (very different) circumstances

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

Keep Lloyd if he takes a discount. Keep Welker if he takes the discount.

Lloyd is most likely to take the discount, so keep Lloyd, drop Welker and find an actual deep threat in the draft or FA to compliment Lloyd.

 

[supafly]

The poster suggested that this was possible in a 3-year contract. I said that we would need to add a couple of dead years. You then ably demonstrated how a 5 year contract would work.

The patriots didn't do this a couple of years ago. They didn't do it last year. I don't think that they will sign such a contract this year. I don't think that eighteen million up front is going to happen, although I agree with you that it should.

To clarify I think there may have been a dummy year, I'd have to check as it was in another thread from several days ago.

The bottom line was meant to be that Welker's cap hit doesn't have to be unreasonable, as many are trying to state.

It may/may not have been my error as to whether or not it was a 3 yr deal, as I said there was probably a 4th yr on there. That was poor wording on my part, apologies.

 

[mgteich]

I think that we are all in agreement; just some misunderstandings of the number of years it would take.

To clarify I think there may have been a dummy year, I'd have to check as it was in another thread from several days ago.

The bottom line was meant to be that Welker's cap hit doesn't have to be unreasonable, as many are trying to state.

It may/may not have been my error as to whether or not it was a 3 yr deal, as I said there was probably a 4th yr on there. That was poor wording on my part, apologies.