What do you think is holding up the Welker signing?

[Ivan]

lmao



Nobody said they wanted to get rid of Welker. You're arguing against a point nobody is making.

.

You're right, they want to keep him, for the same money Leigh Bodden got.

 

[Jangles]

Actually someone just claimed that he's just a product of Moss and Gronkowski.

Oh yeah, that was you.

Stick to Madden, you know nothing about real football.

Well you can't prove that isn't the case, even if that was the point I was making. Welker does not take over a game like the game changing WR do. Again, I'm sorry if that simple fact is too much for you to wrap your head around.

Feel free to show us the 5 WR who had better seasons, we'll be waiting.........


For a long long time.

I can't. He obviously is a very good WR, but then he's also in very good system with a pretty solid supporting cast. If Welker and Fitzgerald switched places, we probably wouldn't hear much about Welker anymore.

 

[ayjackson]

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that BB could allocate his free agent dollars elsewhere. He could use Edelman in the slot, and bring in better (than Chad and Deion) wideouts. We'd still have strong options in the middle with Edelman, Gronk and Hernandez.

I'm not saying this will or should happen, but if the gulf in dollars is too wide, it is a defensible option.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that BB could allocate his free agent dollars elsewhere. He could use Edelman in the slot, and bring in better (than Chad and Deion) wideouts. We'd still have strong options in the middle with Edelman, Gronk and Hernandez.

I'm not saying this will or should happen, but if the gulf in dollars is too wide, it is a defensible option.

Until one of them gets hurt, which isn't nearly out of the realm of possibility given track records, and/or one of the better than Chad and Deion wideouts can't get on the field because the more athletic one can't grasp the playbook well enough to play in the hurry up and the more cerebral one is injury prone...

 

[Snake Eyes]

Here you are clearly talking about stats and numbers and, after I point out the weakness of your position by asking you to show how Welker's 122 catches would be divvied up by those three players, you changed your tactic:

Why would one NEED to make up catches? All those catches are just yards, so as long as the yards are made up, either through runs or passes, there's no net loss.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why would one NEED to make up catches? All those catches are just yards, so as long as the yards are made up, either through runs or passes, there's no net loss.

1.) The need to make up catches wasn't something I'd claimed. My response was to the notion that the 3 named receivers were somehow going to add another 122 catches to their totals.

2.) The yards being made up is every bit as meaningless as you seem to think the catch numbers are.

 

[MSU]

I hope they don't franchise him, he doesn't deserve that money. What a bum. Nothing but an overrated fantasy WR.

 

[robbomango]

I hope they don't franchise him, he doesn't deserve that money. What a bum. Nothing but an overrated fantasy WR.

Worst post in the entire thread by a long shot.

 

[JackBauer]

Worst post in the entire thread by a long shot.

If you want to see some other contenders, look no further than his posting history.

 

[Snake Eyes]

1.)

The yards being made up is every bit as meaningless as you seem to think the catch numbers are.

How so? If Welker has five catches for 30 yds or if someone else has a 30yd catch the yards are the same even though there is a net decline of 4 catches.

So no, you are incorrect.

 

[Deus Irae]

How so? If Welker has five catches for 30 yds or if someone else has a 30yd catch the yards are the same even though there is a net decline of 4 catches.

So no, you are incorrect.

"How so? If welker has 5 catches or if someone else has 5 catches, the result is the same...."

I'm correct, because neither catches nor yards are meaningful on their own without context. 6 catches for 7 yards and 0 first downs is likely to be a meaningless 6 catches, just as 57 yards on a hail Mary that falls short at the end of a half or game are meaningless yards.

Catches aren't points. Yards aren't points.

 

[Ivan]

How so? If Welker has five catches for 30 yds or if someone else has a 30yd catch the yards are the same even though there is a net decline of 4 catches.

So no, you are incorrect.

Depends upon the situation. A player can make one 30 yard catch on a drive that stalls that is not as meaningful as 3 shorter first downs that keep a drive going for points, and Welker is a master of doing just that.

 

[Ivan]

Well you can't prove that isn't the case, even if that was the point I was making. Welker does not take over a game like the game changing WR do. Again, I'm sorry if that simple fact is too much for you to wrap your head around.

He had 5 games over 135 yards and another for 124, that's 6 games he completely took over so once again you really don't know what you are talking about.

Larry Fitzgerald only had 3 games over 135 yards and none as good as Welker's 160 and 200+.


All these supposed points always come back to the same bottom line, because Welker isn't 6'3 225 he can never be as good as a player who even if he plays better than them. What he actually does on the field doesn't matter, his height and forty time do. He just doesn't fit the Madden profile.

 

[Snake Eyes]

"How so? If welker has 5 catches or if someone else has 5 catches, the result is the same...."

I'm correct, because neither catches nor yards are meaningful on their own without context. 6 catches for 7 yards and 0 first downs is likely to be a meaningless 6 catches, just as 57 yards on a hail Mary that falls short at the end of a half or game are meaningless yards.

Catches aren't points. Yards aren't points.

True, but you need to get yards in order to get TDs.

 

[Deus Irae]

True, but you need to get yards in order to get TDs.

When you're passing, you need catches in order to get TDs, too. Your jump in about yards was a lousy one. Why keep going with it?

 

[Snake Eyes]

Depends upon the situation. A player can make one 30 yard catch on a drive that stalls that is not as meaningful as 3 shorter first downs that keep a drive going for points, and Welker is a master of doing just that.

Of course the context is critical, but things can work the other way as well: right now we might keep moving the chains but have to settle for the FG where we might have been able to get the TD with the 30-40yd pass we're not very good at right now.

 

[Snake Eyes]

When you're passing, you need catches in order to get TDs, too.

Catches and runs are just a means to an end, that end being yards. I don't care if the other receivers get 122 passes distributed among them so long as the yeards are there.

Also, if having deep/outside guys like Wayne and Lloyd open things up for the running game I'm happy. So if passes go down but running yards go up by the same amount there's no net loss.

Stop missing the forrest for the trees.

 

[ivanvamp]

He had 5 games over 135 yards and another for 124, that's 6 games he completely took over so once again you really don't know what you are talking about.

Larry Fitzgerald only had 3 games over 135 yards and none as good as Welker's 160 and 200+.


All these supposed points always come back to the same bottom line, because Welker isn't 6'3 225 he can never be as good as a player who even if he plays better than them. What he actually does on the field doesn't matter, his height and forty time do. He just doesn't fit the Madden profile.

Great line from the movie, Moneyball. Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) is there in a meeting discussing prospects. One scout says of a guy, "He is a good hitter." Beane then says, "If he's a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?"

Welker seems like the opposite. He doesn't look like an NFL player. He doesn't fit the mold of a great WR. But he is. He is a GREAT wide receiver. No, he's not as great as Megatron or Moss/Rice in their primes. I'd rather have a handful of guys over him (Megatron, Andre Johnson, Fitzgerald come to mind), but he is great nonetheless.

I mean, look at this season: 122 rec, 1569 yds, 9 td. That's a tremendously good season.

Reggie Wayne at his best was someone I'd consider to be a great wide receiver, but his best year was this: 104 rec, 1510 yds, 10 td.

Fitzgerald's best year: 97 rec, 1092 yds, 13 td (or maybe it was 100 rec, 1409 yds, 10 td....tough to say).

Andre Johnson's best year: 115 rec, 1575 yds, 8 td.

The point is that Welker's 2011 season stacks up against the best years by some of the NFL's best receivers. Dude is great, period.

 

[Deus Irae]

Catches and runs are just a means to an end, that end being yards. I don't care if the other receivers get 122 passes distributed among them so long as the yeards are there.

Also, if having deep/outside guys like Wayne and Lloyd open things up for the running game I'm happy. So if passes go down but running yards go up by the same amount there's no net loss.

Stop missing the forrest for the trees.

I'm not missing anything. You jumped in with a stupid comment and have doubled down instead of just admitting you either didn't read properly or got your argument wrong.

And yards are meaningless when you look at them in isolation (Which is what, as a matter of fact, so many homers were arguing when people were talking about the Patriots defense), as has already been demonstrated to you by more than one person.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I'm not missing anything. You jumped in with a stupid comment and have doubled down instead of just admitting you either didn't read properly or got your argument wrong.

And yards are meaningless when you look at them in isolation (Which is what, as a matter of fact, so many homers were arguing when people were talking about the Patriots defense), as has already been demonstrated to you by more than one person.

No, you were the one who went on about the need for Welker's 122 catches being redistributed, which they dont need to be in order for total offensive production to remain constant.