This situation is closer to 2006 than it is away from it. Doesn't Bill want to retain anybody
who has actually played WR in this offense?
Other than being completely different in every possible way from 2006, it is exactly like 2006. Let's compare:
In 2006, Deion Branch was still under contract and the Pats had every intention of not only keeping him on the roster, but giving him an extension. The Pats did not target a #1 WR in free agency or the draft that year because they believed they had their #1 WR (I think they were expecting Jackson to be the #2 and him getting injured in training camp didn't help the situation). Also, they let Givens walk because they felt they couldn't afford both Givens and Branch and chose to pay Branch. Lastly, they had no other receiver on the roster capable of getting 1,000 yards.
This year, the Pats knew from the second day of free agency they lost Welker and have signed what they think is an adequet replacement. Could still add another in the draft. Also, they have Gronk and Hernandez who are both capable of getting 1,000 yards each. They could re-sign Lloyd or possibly sign Cruz or Sanders and at least two of them are capable of getting 1,000 yards.
The 2006 situation is a completely unique situation that had never happened before or since to any team. If the Pats knew how the situation was going to play out in September back in March or April of 2006, they would have probably re-signed Givens, traded Branch and might have gotten someone in free agency and via a trade.
But I see no correlation between 2006 and today. In 2006, the Pats best WR was Reche Caldwell who was at best a solid #2 WR on a team. Now the Pats have Gronk who is one of the top receivers in the league and Hernandez who is also a very good receiver. Amendola, assuming he can stay healthy, has the potential to be Welker 2.0 with added dimensions of speed down the field. Potential is nothing unless it is reached, but Caldwell's ceiling was never a solid primary threat.