Report: Welker won't be franchised

[MoLewisrocks]

It didn't say a league source. It said 'someone with an intimate knowledge of the way the team thinks'.
At best that means someone who was (maybe is but doubtful) in the organization, deals with the organization, or credits themselves as an expert, predicted this.
If Mike Lomabrdi, Eric Mangini, Romeo Crenell, or even Mike Mayock told Borges they can't imagine the Pats tagging Welker at 11.4mill that qualifies both as meeting the standard of this quote, and being pretty meaningless.

Could also be Reese. Floyd was a lot more talkative before he joined this organization. But again agents who deal with this FO have what could be characterized as an intimate knowledgeof te way the team thinks. And Ron is well connected within that community.

 

[Ring 6]

Could also be Reese. Floyd was a lot more talkative before he joined this organization. But again agents who deal with this FO have what could be characterized as an intimate knowledgeof te way the team thinks. And Ron is well connected within that community.

The point is it is as likely to be speculation as meaningful information.
He would have chosen a different term if it was related to this actual transaction.
Don't be fooled into thinking he didn't choose each word carefully, and someone with knowledge of how the organization thinks is drastically different than someone familiar with this decision, or a someone inside the organization, or a league source, or "the Welker camp" to use a phrase we have heard before.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

how weird will it be to see welker in a different uniform possibly playing against the pats? I don't like thinking about it

 

[patfanken]

The point is it is as likely to be speculation as meaningful information.
He would have chosen a different term if it was related to this actual transaction.
Don't be fooled into thinking he didn't choose each word carefully, and someone with knowledge of how the organization thinks is drastically different than someone familiar with this decision, or a someone inside the organization, or a league source, or "the Welker camp" to use a phrase we have heard before.

I think Borges has LONG since burned any bridges he had within the Patriot organization. On the other hand, he'd have strong contacts with the "adversaries" of the FO, in other words the agent community or former employees, especially the disgruntled ones. So Mo's guess of an agent makes sense, as well as Andy's guess of Floyd Reece.

The Bottom Line though was Andy's observation that regardless of the "source", Borges' comment was a lot more speculation than substance. Besides any one of us here could have made the same "observation" just from our own knowledge of how the Pats usually operate. I doubt many fans here felt that the Pats would use the Franchise Tag on any of the big 3 FA's. I know I didn't need Ron Borges to tell me what was fairly obvious to most of us.

 

[A man named Brady]

Lmao at the people putting welker in the Calvin,Fitz, Andre, Julio category. "But but look at his catches"

 

[supafly]

Lmao at the people putting welker in the Calvin,Fitz, Andre, Julio category. "But but look at his catches"

I suppose we can count you in the category who has a reasonable plan (and purpose for that matter) for paying someone 15 million plus at the WR position then? Gee, I wonder what kind of roster building limitations the Lions and Cardinals will have now and down the road in terms of acquiring some useful talent around those 2 chess pieces?

In the meantime many of us here are quite glad to have gotten more production for way less cost, regardless of whether or not his specific skillset allows him to blow by the defender on the outside or beat double bracketed coverage to the inside.

Wake me up when Fitzgerald or Johnson serve the "team building" exercise well and lead them to consistent 12+ win seasons every year, or any year for that matter.

This is like getting to be the 'HR hitter vs the scrappy guy who legs out doubles and steals bases' conversation...they are both extremely valuable to their team. The fact that one of those players cost a mere fraction of what the others do only makes Welker's cause even more successful.

No one is suggesting that they'd rather have Welker to throw a long ball to, or to "out-physical" someone on a fade route. In the meantime, I'll take the guy who allows Tom Brady to have a prolonged career of additional years and the quickest release of any NFL QB. That kind of makes sense to me.

 

[signbabybrady]

How is replacing half of the production of your top WR a good thing?

The good thing lies in the fact that what I was pointing out was a bare minimum that should not be to hard to outdo.

 

[ivanvamp]

If Welker and his 110+ catches per year leave, what do people here think will happen? Do we really think that the Patriots' offense will lose 110 catches and 1300 yards of offense?

Consider 2005. They had an aging and diminishingly effective Corey Dillon at RB, and the receiving corps was Branch, Givens, Brown, Watson, Graham, and Tim Dwight. I'm sorry, but that entire group of skill players pales in comparison (at that point in their careers, anyway) to a group consisting of Ridley, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ballard, and Edelman. I'd take the latter group in a heartbeat.

But what were Brady's numbers in 2005 vs. 2012?

2005: 335-550 (63.0%), 4110 yds, 7.8 ypa, 26 td, 14 int, 92.3 rating
2012: 401-637 (63.0%), 4827 yds, 7.6 ypa, 34 td, 8 int, 98.7 rating

If you project Brady's 2005 numbers out to the number of passes he threw in 2012, you get this line: 388-637 (63.0%), 4760 yds, 30 td, 16 int

In other words, other than the interceptions, the numbers are remarkably similar. So Brady has shown that he can be extremely effective passing the ball with a lesser receiving corps.

It's kind of like when we picked up Lloyd - some people here thought we were adding 70 receptions and 900 yards to the offense. Which is ridiculous. The Patriots weren't going to pass for 6,000 yards. It just meant that the production would be spread out among a more talented group of players and the offense as a whole would benefit. Including the running game.

I think if they don't have Welker the offense will go down some, that's for sure. But they'll still put up tons of yards and tons of points. They are so far ahead of the rest of the league in offense that they can afford to lose quite a bit and *still* be the best offense in the league.

The hope, of course, would be that the money saved from losing Welker would go to improve, say, the defense. If they can bring the defense up about 7-8 spots in the rankings, while the offense stays #1 (or at least in the top 3), the team as a whole is probably going to be better.

 

[BrickPat]

I think he's the one that dropped the ball :bricks: :bricks: multiple times

Is this the part where we focus on a few drops and conveniently ignore his relentless production and durability simply because he is (likely) gone?


Just sayin.'

 

[ausbacker]

If Welker and his 110+ catches per year leave, what do people here think will happen? Do we really think that the Patriots' offense will lose 110 catches and 1300 yards of offense?

Consider 2005. They had an aging and diminishingly effective Corey Dillon at RB, and the receiving corps was Branch, Givens, Brown, Watson, Graham, and Tim Dwight. I'm sorry, but that entire group of skill players pales in comparison (at that point in their careers, anyway) to a group consisting of Ridley, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ballard, and Edelman. I'd take the latter group in a heartbeat.

But what were Brady's numbers in 2005 vs. 2012?

2005: 335-550 (63.0%), 4110 yds, 7.8 ypa, 26 td, 14 int, 92.3 rating
2012: 401-637 (63.0%), 4827 yds, 7.6 ypa, 34 td, 8 int, 98.7 rating

If you project Brady's 2005 numbers out to the number of passes he threw in 2012, you get this line: 388-637 (63.0%), 4760 yds, 30 td, 16 int

In other words, other than the interceptions, the numbers are remarkably similar. So Brady has shown that he can be extremely effective passing the ball with a lesser receiving corps.

It's kind of like when we picked up Lloyd - some people here thought we were adding 70 receptions and 900 yards to the offense. Which is ridiculous. The Patriots weren't going to pass for 6,000 yards. It just meant that the production would be spread out among a more talented group of players and the offense as a whole would benefit. Including the running game.

I think if they don't have Welker the offense will go down some, that's for sure. But they'll still put up tons of yards and tons of points. They are so far ahead of the rest of the league in offense that they can afford to lose quite a bit and *still* be the best offense in the league.

The hope, of course, would be that the money saved from losing Welker would go to improve, say, the defense. If they can bring the defense up about 7-8 spots in the rankings, while the offense stays #1 (or at least in the top 3), the team as a whole is probably going to be better.

Having the best in the league at the position they play is better than having most alternatives. Welker is one of the best WR's in the league and the clear standout slot receiver.

 

[ivanvamp]

Having the best in the league at the position they play is better than having most alternatives. Welker is one of the best WR's in the league and the clear standout slot receiver.

No question about that. I prefer having Welker on this team. But I do not think for one moment that this will suddenly turn into a pedestrian offense if Welker leaves. I think they will still be an elite offense even if he's gone. It may slip a little and not average 34 points a game, but I bet they'd still average 28-30 or more, which would still make them a top 3 offense.

And my point is that if they can still maintain an elite offense - even if it isn't as good as it is with Welker - but use that cap space to improve their defense significantly, then maybe the entire team will be better. And that's the goal - improving the entire team, not just having the best offense.

 

[Brady2Moss]

Is this the part where we focus on a few drops and conveniently ignore his relentless production and durability simply because he is (likely) gone?


Just sayin.'

Is this where we use half our cap space for a slot receiver and think the offense is toast without him?

Or is this where we act like Brady needs Welker more than Welker needs Brady?


Just saying.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Is this where we use half our cap space for a slot receiver and think the offense is toast without him?

Or is this where we act like Brady needs Welker more than Welker needs Brady?


Just saying.

Welker had just one less catch with Cassel than he did with Brady in 2007.

 

[BrickPat]

Is this where we use half our cap space for a slot receiver and think the offense is toast without him?

Or is this where we act like Brady needs Welker more than Welker needs Brady?


Just saying.

It's all speculation whether Welker is seeking a cap busting contract. Also I didn't mean to imply that Welker made Brady but he is seemingly the only player who can stay healthy and produce. While I don't think the offense will be toast without him they sure as hell won't be as good if the injury bugs yet again affect JE, Gronk and Hernandez.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If Welker and his 110+ catches per year leave, what do people here think will happen? Do we really think that the Patriots' offense will lose 110 catches and 1300 yards of offense?

Consider 2005. They had an aging and diminishingly effective Corey Dillon at RB, and the receiving corps was Branch, Givens, Brown, Watson, Graham, and Tim Dwight. I'm sorry, but that entire group of skill players pales in comparison (at that point in their careers, anyway) to a group consisting of Ridley, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Lloyd, Ballard, and Edelman. I'd take the latter group in a heartbeat.

But what were Brady's numbers in 2005 vs. 2012?

2005: 335-550 (63.0%), 4110 yds, 7.8 ypa, 26 td, 14 int, 92.3 rating
2012: 401-637 (63.0%), 4827 yds, 7.6 ypa, 34 td, 8 int, 98.7 rating

If you project Brady's 2005 numbers out to the number of passes he threw in 2012, you get this line: 388-637 (63.0%), 4760 yds, 30 td, 16 int

In other words, other than the interceptions, the numbers are remarkably similar. So Brady has shown that he can be extremely effective passing the ball with a lesser receiving corps.

It's kind of like when we picked up Lloyd - some people here thought we were adding 70 receptions and 900 yards to the offense. Which is ridiculous. The Patriots weren't going to pass for 6,000 yards. It just meant that the production would be spread out among a more talented group of players and the offense as a whole would benefit. Including the running game.

I think if they don't have Welker the offense will go down some, that's for sure. But they'll still put up tons of yards and tons of points. They are so far ahead of the rest of the league in offense that they can afford to lose quite a bit and *still* be the best offense in the league.

The hope, of course, would be that the money saved from losing Welker would go to improve, say, the defense. If they can bring the defense up about 7-8 spots in the rankings, while the offense stays #1 (or at least in the top 3), the team as a whole is probably going to be better.

First off you're comparing offenses operating in a different era. Second off, while that defense wasn't ranked much higher than present company, it was loaded with veteran talent. But when all was said and done, it went 10-6 and we got our asses kicked in Denver for the second time that season in the second round of the playoffs by a team QB'd by freakin' Jake Plummer. If not for then JAGS might have been one and done. Is that what you'd have them aspire to be able to replicate?

There is an old adage that always rings true in the NFL. If you're not getting better you're getting worse. I for one don't want to test it...again. And at this point I am not willing to make the assumption that Gronkowski will be available come post season or that Hernandez will be effective in his absence, let alone tasked with replacing a chunk of Welker's production out of the slot. Or that Ballard coming off ACL surgery and a year removed from the field will slide in to this offense any better than Shiancoe or Fells or Hoohoo did... Nor am I willing to assume that Ridley will become more than the product of an effort to run when they could as opposed to when they had to or that Vereen will ever live up to his potential to the extent they actually allow him to play in important games unless given no alternative. And maybe not even then.

This offense is still missing something, and subtracting Welker from the equation just means they would be missing more. The defense has been an issue for some time now. Welker had nothing to do with that. Belichick waited too long to transition as former stars aged out. Better drafting and smarter mid level FA signings would go a long way in bridging the gaps he essentially created that also have nothing to do with Welker.

 

[randomk1]

Lmao at the people putting welker in the Calvin,Fitz, Andre, Julio category. "But but look at his catches"

What category does he belong to sherlock?

He's easily among the elite receivers. Even if he isn't a prototypical #1.

 

[ralmat55]

There is an old adage that always rings true in the NFL. If you're not getting better you're getting worse. I for one don't want to test it...again. And at this point I am not willing to make the assumption that Gronkowski will be available come post season or that Hernandez will be effective in his absence, let alone tasked with replacing a chunk of Welker's production out of the slot. Or that Ballard coming off ACL surgery and a year removed from the field will slide in to this offense any better than Shiancoe or Fells or Hoohoo did... Nor am I willing to assume that Ridley will become more than the product of an effort to run when they could as opposed to when they had to or that Vereen will ever live up to his potential to the extent they actually allow him to play in important games unless given no alternative. And maybe not even then.

Unfortunently, in the salary cap NFL, no team can afford to not have any ifs, ands, or buts. They've made sizable investments in Gronkowski and Hernandez, and, because of that, they(and we) have to hope they live up to that investment with production and dependability.

 

[signbabybrady]

Maybe I went at this the wrong way yesterday in trying to comapre to the past in Caldwell or bringing up specific years like 06.

Lets just show some simple math.

401 completions for Brady last year. How can we get close to that again.

70 from Lloyd, Gronk, and Hernandez gets you to 210 and I think 70 is fair number to use as they all have had more than 70 catches in a single season for us before so it is not unlikely to think they could do it again (if injuries were to continue to nag them then it might not be reached but I am going to assume health as I think with or without Wes if the TEs cant stay healthy we wont get over the hump).

so we are at 210 with these 3 already only about half way to 401. how can we get another 191.

Last year by my quick count your backs got you 56 receptions Woody giving you 40 of them and he might be gone too oh my god how do we replace those. Lets be conservative here and assume that Vareen if given the chance could pick up some of those 40 and/or Demps get some too. lets assume the number goes down and lets call it a conservative and clean 40 receptions from the backs next year.

250 receptions now and we have only counted one true WR in Lloyd. WR2 and WR3 will account for something and this is where the projections get trickey and why I went back and looked at a guy like Caldwell in the first place to come up with a best guess at what WR2 might be able to come up with. But lets not even go that high lets assume WR2 and WR3 give you a very modest 30 apiece.

boom we are up to 310 now and still 100 shy of last years total. There really aren't that many receiving options left. WR4 and WR5, TE3 and TE4 and thats it. I think these 4 players would easily give you anywhere from 15-30 (more if called on for extended back up time but that would make some numbers above go down so lets not go there).

Final number puts us at 325-340. I dont think it is to crazy to HOPE that the trio of Lloyd, Gronk, and Hernandez could do better than 70 each. I dont think it is to crazy to HOPE that the duo of whatever is in place for WR2 and WR3 could do better than 30 each. It might be a stretch to think that Vareen and Demps will out receive Woody and Vareen but one can HOPE for it or one could just HOPE for Woody back but then I guess I would have to HOPE he can put up 40 again.

Food for thought: Lloyd put up 74 as WR 2 not crazy to think if he were WR1 that the number could go up. Gronk's best year was 90. Hernandez's best year was 79. All 3 numbers bigger than the 70 I quoted. Last year Branch/Edelman playing out of the WR3 spot for the year gave you 37 catches more than what I quoted for WR2. adding the difference from these numbers to the above would add 40 receptions bringing us to 365-385.

OK go ahead and flame on.

 

[chasa]

Brady will be better once welker is gone.

He has a lot of tools around him, but seems overly reliant on Welker. Take welker out of the game and brady gets shut down. This never happened so visually prior to welker with that whole "Brady's favorite receiver is the open man" mentality.

Once welker is gone Brady will be forced to make the young receivers better via working together more, and see more game day targets.

 

[Brady6]

What do you think his production is worth?