1.) Braylon Edwards was not close to 100% just to point to your example.
2.) You can't reconcile claims of Welker being ready with claims that "I am comparing both teams right now prior to free agency", since right now prior to free agency, Welker is not capable of playing football for the New England Patriots.
1.) Edwards had a better year when he returned than the year he tore his ACL.
2.) Even without Welker, I still think the Pats are at least a tad bit better. Besides, it is far too early to write off Welker for the entire 2010 season. Even if he is PUPed, there is still a decent chance he could return in October.
Given that Welker and Moss are reads #1 and #2, it's not any significant assumption to note the possibility of looking to Welker.
I think Edelman in his second year with an entire offseason working with Brady could be a pretty good #2. He won't be Welker, but he could be as good or better than say former good #2 here like Givens or Patten (and I know they have different skill set).
Second, I wasn't the one who came up with the initial claim, you were. If Welker is in there, the offense isn't running based upon ignoring everyone but Moss as a first look. Welker's presence would have changed everything.
Again, you don't know that. There were plenty of times this year where Welker was in the game and healthy and Moss was his only look. You cannot say that Welker would have changed anything because Brady could have been a half a second from launching the ball down field to an open Moss when he was strip sacked. You are speculating, but the reality is none of us know.
Third, you're the one making the biggest assumption, since you're assuming both that the play called would be identical and that Brady wouldn't have checked down faster if he had Welker available to him.
I am not assuming anything. The play that was called was a deep pass to Moss. I am not assuming anything. I am judging the play based on the play called. Could the Pats called a different play with Welker there, possibly. But that was the play that was called and I don't see how the outcome would have changed if Welker was in there.
arguing with you? Try taking a look back at the post you responded to:
If you want to use debate, discuss, or whatever. You aren't going to get into semantics of use of words?
Here's someone talking about "as we stand on Jan 27th" and you were arguing the opposite. I noted the spanking by the Ravens and the fact that the Patriots split the series even with Welker. As I noted, you're trying to argue both sides of the fence.
Ok, so I looked ahead to sometime between January 27th and March 4th before the free agency period starts. So sue me. Since it seems to be a forgone conclusion that Joey Porter is going to be cut, I took that into effect. Welker is irrelevant because I think the Pats are better without him.
As for the spanking the Pats took from Baltimore, how is that relevant? The Dolphins got spanked by the Bills at the end of November and the Pats beat them twice. One game is not a barometer for how a team plays. The Pats for all we know could beat the Ravens 9 out of 10 times if they played them and unfortunately a few Sundays was the one day.
Personally, I felt the interior o-line was far more of a problem than the lack of Welker in that game. Edelman did have six catches for 44 yards and 2 TDs in that game. It isn't Welker numbers, but still decent. Also, Faulk matched a season high in number of receptions too. So although Welker was missed, it wasn't like the Pats were totally devoid of receiving options. The bigger problem was that Ray Lewis was blitzing up the gut of the offensive line untouched.
