Jerry Rice on Wes Welker

[Deus Irae]

I would say the same of you.

A flaw is an imperfection. Either you think Welker is perfect, or you think he has imperfections.

You made a claim about a specific flaw, and that so-called flaw isn't actually a flaw. I don't know how to spell it out any more plainly than that. The problem here isn't that I think Welker is perfect, because I don't think anyone is perfect. The problem is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you point to his arm length as a flaw.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. I would, however, say that Bill Russell was flawed because of his questionable shooting ability (FT and FG alike) ... and that didn't stop me from advocating him as #1 on a list of all-time NBA greats, specifically RealGM • View topic - RealGM Top 100 List (my view didn't quite carry the day).

Interestingly, although Russell was not considered a skilled offensive player, he was a selective shooter and in his early years ranked regularly among the NBA's top five in field-goal percentage. In 1958-59, for example, his .457 mark was second in the league.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/russell_bio.html

You don't understand what a flaw is... Jerry Rice wasn't flawed because he had a slow 40 time.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

A potentially decent discussion thread being sidetracked by people bickering over the internet. You guys certainly have more energy than I do.

either that, or not married and being used to being wrong (well or just knowing when you're rolling a rock uphill).

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

So does Wes need Brady more than Brady needs Wes?

Brady is an all time great regardless. I would submit his performance during the 2006 as the proof needed (based on the WR available).

Wes would do as well or close enough to his production here with a fair number of QBs. Together they make each other better and elevate their abilities or rather their success.

 

[Off The Grid]

Vince Wilfork is flawed because he isn't quick enough to play wide receiver.

The Hell You Say!!

 

[Nehalem]

Wes would do as well or close enough to his production here with a fair number of QBs. Together they make each other better and elevate their abilities or rather their success.

Such as with Matt Cassel in 2008

 

[ALP]

Wes is small, but that might be a good thing, why?

In short and intermediate routes Brady usually throws the ball and close to the ground if he needs it to keep it away from defenders, a shorter receiver can get to it much faster/easier than can a tall wr

That is opposite from a deep passing game where taller receivers are best, but deep throws is not our game, short and intermediate routes are our bread and butter

 

[mayoclinic]

The Hell You Say!!

Looks like a natural slot receiver to me. As long as it's a very large slot.

 

[signbabybrady]

Looks like a natural slot receiver to me. As long as it's a very large slot.

Speaking of large slots.....Never had me a 10 but one night I had 5 two's and that ought to count for something.

 

[RayClay]

Dude WTF? Vince can do anything. He would make for one nasty WR and is quick enough to create seperation its just that he is an absolute beast at NT and we dont want to tire him out playing iron man football.

Of course, but Vince is the exception that makes the rule.

I agree that someone's size isn't a flaw, it's their size. If some receiver had twice the reach of Ali or Bones Jones, that doesn't make all other receivers flawed. With the arms and leg's that our blessed lord gave him, Welker delivers better production than anyone consistently. A flaw would be a deficiency in his game and they are few.

I was on the fence, but i think we need to sign him multi-year. Any long term contract is a risk, but I'd say he's more of a lock to give you value than most players regardless of age. He's a great, tough football player.

 

[Off The Grid]

Speaking of large slots.....Never had me a 10 but one night I had 5 two's and that ought to count for something.

And indeed it does, Sir.

Your Credit is Good, here.

 

[Fencer]

You made a claim about a specific flaw, and that so-called flaw isn't actually a flaw. I don't know how to spell it out any more plainly than that. The problem here isn't that I think Welker is perfect, because I don't think anyone is perfect. The problem is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you point to his arm length as a flaw.

So you both think that Welker has imperfections and that he doesn't have imperfections.

Thank you for sharing your interesting views about logic and semantics.

 

[Fencer]

NBA.com: Bill Russell Bio

Sorry; that one's my fault. There was no call for me to assume you have more than an elementary knowledge of basketball history.

 

[Deus Irae]

So you both think that Welker has imperfections and that he doesn't have imperfections.

Thank you for sharing your interesting views about logic and semantics.

I think that there's a difference between an actual imperfection and the item that you're claiming is a flaw. I'm happy to share that with you. It's not exactly earth shattering news, after all, since your argument is a completely illogical one.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry; that one's my fault. There was no call for me to assume you have more than an elementary knowledge of basketball history.

No, the fault was your inability to understand what a flaw is, as opposed to a simple difference in size, speed, strength, etc...

 

[Fencer]

No, the fault was your inability to understand what a flaw is, as opposed to a simple difference in size, speed, strength, etc...

That's stupid on multiple levels. First, you wrote it in response to a post about somebody's basketball scoring ability. Second, you obviously mean it to refer to my comments on Welker -- but there you seem to be assuming that there's nothing lacking in Welker's catching ability except for his physical dimensions.

Fail and fail again.

 

[RayClay]

Looks like a natural slot receiver to me. As long as it's a very large slot.

No, he's a wide receiver. Extra wide, in fact.

 

[eagle eye]

That's stupid on multiple levels. First, you wrote it in response to a post about somebody's basketball scoring ability. Second, you obviously mean it to refer to my comments on Welker -- but there you seem to be assuming that there's nothing lacking in Welker's catching ability except for his physical dimensions.

Fail and fail again.

Every thread I see you post in is ruined by your pedantic argumentative nature.

 

[mayoclinic]

No, he's a wide receiver. Extra wide, in fact.

Definitely capable of stretching the field, I'd say. Even denting it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I agree that someone's size isn't a flaw, it's their size.

Are his arms short for someone his height?

In any case, if he were big enough to have "long enough" arms, he probably wouldn't have the elusiveness and acceleration needed to be the prototype of the slot receiver that he's become.