To say that the 5th receiver on our team MUST be someone who can contribute in the kicking game - excluding returns - seems to be a very hard rule to follow for a team that a) uses 3 wideouts the majority of the time b) their best wideout is in a contract year and could leave c) their best wideout is aging and fought off injuries d) their slot receiver is recovering from an ACL injury e) their two young talents at the position are unknowns in some extent (one a conversion project, one with injury history). To summarize - there is a lot of unknown at the WR position in the short term and in the long term. When you do not know for sure how Tate/Edelman/Welker will contribute next season - and when you don't know where Moss will be in 2011, you have to build in contingencies. And those contingencies will take up roster spots. I strongly believe we can afford 5 out of the 53 to pure wide receivers (meaning, not Aiken), particularly since many of our wideouts contribute as returnmen. (I know that doesn't fill out the ST units, but its still a necessary role.)
Totally agree on there not being a hard-n-fast rule. For this team though, it makes the most sense. While nothing is for certain, you have to make plans on your evaluations of what you have. The Pats evaluation could be:
1) Moss is still a legit #1 in 2010 and will be gone in 2011
2) Welker should be back at near 100% around week 10
3) Tate is healthy and has the potential to run opposite Moss in 2010
4) Edelman is an ideal #4 and can fill Welker's role until he is back
5) Aiken is a ST captain and has enough experience with Brady to take WR snaps when needed
Those are all pretty reasonable conclusions. I don't personally know if any of them are true...but Belichick should have all the information he needs to draw his own conclusions. Since I don't have access to Belichick's brain, let's go with my points above. So short term, I have:
1) Moss
2) <Welker on PUP>
3) Tate
4) Edelman
5) Aiken
So immediately I have to replace Welker. It is reasonable to put Edelman there, but that means I have a hole at #4. In addition, Tate could prove to be made of glass or a washout, so I have to cover that possibility...but I don't want to assume that is likely. So this situation calls for a cheap veteran option (maybe Patten) that I don't mind cutting later and/or a lower round draft pick that can end up inactive or on the practice squad.
For the stretch run if everything works out well, the depth chart would be:
1) Moss
2) Welker
3) Tate
4) Edelman
5) Aiken
6) Draft Pick (occasionally active or on practice squad)
Worst case (not including new injuries), it would be:
1) Moss
2) Edelman
3) Vet WR
4) Aiken
5) Draft Pick
Certainly not optimal, but not bad considering I amputated Welker's leg and flushed a promising 23 yo WR. Long term, I have bigger fish to fry when I have to replace Moss. Luckily, the Pats have multiple 1st round picks in a draft that should have at least 4 stud WRs coming out. None of them will be Moss in their 1st year...or their 2nd year...or their 10th year. But the potential is there for them to contribute in an offense where there isn't a true #1 WR (isn't that what everyone is yelping about recently?):
Flanker - 2011 #1 pick
Split End - Tate
Slot - Welker
#4 - Edelman
#5 - Aiken
with a 2010 pick looking to displace any of the above, fill in for injury or earn a spot on ST
So without spending for a big time FA or devoting a top 50 pick in 2010 on a WR, I ended up with a reasonable WR depth chart in the short, medium and long term. If Belichick is more pessimistic about Welker's recovery or Tate's potential, he probably won't go this route. But I don't have any evidence that either of those things are true.
Getting a "top" WR (FA or top 50 pick) this year will absolutely help in the short term but will box out the development of Tate and Edelman this year. So IMO, the Pats are positioned pretty well to deal with the WR depth chart without making a huge move in the short term. If an opportunity in FA or the draft, I'm sure they will jump at it. My point is that they don't have to.