Jerry Rice on Wes Welker

[Deus Irae]

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.

I didn't fail at all. I've written all my posts on your thread about the same thing, and that's your inability to understand what a flaw is.

 

[Kasmir]

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.

Therein exactly lies the logic flaw: "catch radius" is not what matters so much as "size of open target". Wes gets open -- for a whole bunch of reasons -- wide open. That's why Brady throws to him. A big receiver like Gronk *needs* a wide catch radius to be target-able because many times that's crucial to his presenting a large enough target area away from coverage. Wes gets open by other means, and I submit that he presents to his QB a target-able open area more often than just about anyone. That's exactly why he's targeted so much. Saying he's "flawed" because of his limited reach would be akin to saying Gronkowski (etc) is "flawed" because he's not as quick as Welker (etc). The one thing Wes Welker does better than anyone is get open. His reach is not a flaw because his game doesn't rely on reach.

 

[Fencer]

Therein exactly lies the logic flaw: "catch radius" is not what matters so much as "size of open target". Wes gets open -- for a whole bunch of reasons -- wide open. That's why Brady throws to him. A big receiver like Gronk *needs* a wide catch radius to be target-able because many times that's crucial to his presenting a large enough target area away from coverage. Wes gets open by other means, and I submit that he presents to his QB a target-able open area more often than just about anyone. That's exactly why he's targeted so much. Saying he's "flawed" because of his limited reach would be akin to saying Gronkowski (etc) is "flawed" because he's not as quick as Welker (etc). The one thing Wes Welker does better than anyone is get open. His reach is not a flaw because his game doesn't rely on reach.

It depends. His difficulties catching a ball over his head cost him a Super Bowl ring. I was reminded of this by a stumbling over the head catch he did successfully make.

Obviously, he's not only competent but outstanding at such catches when compared with ordinary mortals. But when compared with NFL WRs who are otherwise far inferior to him, then he doesn't seem particularly good at it.

 

[Fencer]

Saying he's "flawed" because of his limited reach would be akin to saying Gronkowski (etc) is "flawed" because he's not as quick as Welker (etc).

No. But if Gronkowski lacked quickness even when compared with other large TEs, then it would be a flaw indeed.

It's more like saying Vrabel -- who holds two different obscure NFL receiving records -- was a flawed TE because he lacked foot speed and catching skills, even though at some TEs skills he was downright superior to the full-timers, and when thrown easier passes he caught them just fine.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Jerry Rice was amazing ... he had a 40 time of like 4.6 and still became a HOF player.

As for flaws ... the flaw between HOF - great - good is usually their game intelligence and not a body flaw. The great ones have so much intelligence minor differences in body parts and times are negated.
How can you even say flaw ... longer arms could be less of something else and we've seen the so called perfect athlete's who tend to suck because they simply cannot play the game properly to take advantage over their opponents.

What did Belichick once say about an slower athlete who doesn't take false steps is preferable to the quicker athlete that does.

As for Brady ... sucks throwing the deep ones ... doesn't seem to have slowed him down any.

 

[mayoclinic]

Jerry Rice was amazing ... he had a 40 time of like 4.6 and still became a HOF player.

As for flaws ... the flaw between HOF - great - good is usually their game intelligence and not a body flaw. The great ones have so much intelligence minor differences in body parts and times are negated.
How can you even say flaw ... longer arms could be less of something else and we've seen the so called perfect athlete's who tend to suck because they simply cannot play the game properly to take advantage over their opponents.

What did Belichick once say about an slower athlete who doesn't take false steps is preferable to the quicker athlete that does.

As for Brady ... sucks throwing the deep ones ... doesn't seem to have slowed him down any.

Jerry Rice. Steve Largent. James Lofton. Art Monk. John Stallworth. Wes Welker. Seems like they differ a lot physically and stylistically, but not nearly as much in terms of their relentless work ethic, toughness, durability and mental approach to the game.

 

[patriotsgoat]

I'm hoping Welker gets a 3 year deal

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm hoping Welker gets a 3 year deal

Me too. I think he's proven that he's not going to suddenly "drop off". He has rare durability and stamina, and his game is predicated on quickness and smarts, not speed.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Nice article - and despite another Deus pissing match, a good thread!

Aside from both having great stats Welker and Rice strike me as very different, yet as Rice points out there are still a lot of similarities of skills and toughness.

 

[Sivy]

I wish I was as flawed as Welker

 

[Fencer]

I wish I was as flawed as Welker

That was pretty much the point of my other thread.

 

[aluminum seats]

Considering Rice while thinking what to do about Welker (that sounds sort of clunky), I realize I've never been more behind doing whatever it takes to keep this guy. Maybe it's remembering watching Rice, and how he just kept going out there, year and year, and getting it done on winning teams.

It suddenly seems absolutely insane to me to consider letting Welker go.

 

[Ivan]

Considering Rice while thinking what to do about Welker (that sounds sort of clunky), I realize I've never been more behind doing whatever it takes to keep this guy. Maybe it's remembering watching Rice, and how he just kept going out there, year and year, and getting it done on winning teams.

It suddenly seems absolutely insane to me to consider letting Welker go.

It has always seemed insane to me.


Facing Denver in the play-offs will be a tough game, imagine if they were the ones with Welker, and that may well be the case next season.