Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on Welker

[MoLewisrocks]

Andy that is unfair manipulation of a stat and as erroneous as Hovis's projection of Edelman's 5 game rookie run. Its like saying Lou Gerhig sucked when his production was low when he played behind Wally Pipp. How do you judge one player who is the QB's first look on almost every pass play, with a player, on those rare occasions when he actually gets on the field, is the QB's 5th look, Beyond his rookie year, Edelman has gotten very few snaps as a receiver. He showed a lot of promise in his rookie season, especially given that it was the first year he'd EVER played WR in his life. The last 2 years he's gotten very few opportunities to show anything. That's not his fault. The fact is that we have very little to go on in trying to speculate how well Edelman would do if he assumed the starting roll. All we know is when he HAD the opportunity he played pretty well. Two years down the road, when we have to assume he's a much more polished WR, its not a stretch to assume he'd do at LEAST a decent job in Welker's role Bottom line, we just don't know one way or the other. Who knew that Welker would produce what he has accomplished off his one year of significant production of 680 yds and turn that into averaging over 1100 yards per season and over 100 catches each year. It certainly wasn't the fact that he coughed the ball up 12 times in limited playing time, and scored only one TD in 3 years. Welker was less of a mystery than Edelman is coming to the Pats, but not much more.

Snaps are earned here Ken. Obviously on a team in need of receiving options, Edelman hasn't earned more. And Bill is the kind of HC who will give them to you if you do, regardless of where you were drafted. What you are assuming is beyond a stretch. Potential is just a another word for unachieved accomplishment. When Welker came here he had over 7000 yards of production between his receiving, punt return and kick return performances in three years on a piss poor team that hasn't had a decent QB since Marino retired. That's why Bill traded a 2nd and a 7th for him and signed him to a 5 year $18M deal you probably thought was a gross overpay. He drafted Edelman in the 7th round as a flyer paid a $48,000 signing bonus on a 4 year deal in the hopes they could find a niche for him. He's a jack of all trades and master of none. Decent punt returner, don't use him on KO returns, gunner, 4th or 5th WR in a pinch and stopgap if Welker is injured, which thankfully hasn't been nearly as often as Julian is, tried him at RB but he gets stuffed, tried him at DB when they were desperate. Now you think they should try him at replacement for the best slot receiver in the league...

I'm thinking it was a good thing in HS you were basically handed or stuck with your players because an astute roster builder you aren't... Edleman is a nice end of the roster guy. He's a coachable, high effort football player and he'll give any job a go. But that is all he is entering his 4th year in the league because three years in he can't do any job as well as the guys ahead of him on the roster be they QB's or WR's or RB's or DB's. Welker was a college WR who led the hapless Dolphins in receptions before he arrived here... He had a 6 year plus head start on Edelman and Jules is probably never going to come close to bridging that gap. Just like he never would have with Brady or even Hoyer... He's going to have to focus on stepping up his game to even remain here past the 2012 year of his rookie deal because even ST needs some upgrading base on last season and there will be a dozen draftees and FA from a deep pool nipping at his heels just for a roster spot this season.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Bottom line, we just don't know one way or the other. Who knew that Welker would produce what he has accomplished off his one year of significant production of 680 yds and turn that into averaging over 1100 yards per season and over 100 catches each year. It certainly wasn't the fact that he coughed the ball up 12 times in limited playing time, and scored only one TD in 3 years. Welker was less of a mystery than Edelman is coming to the Pats, but not much more.

Obviously, neither the Patriots nor Welker's camp foresaw this level of production—after all, if they had known he would be this productive, they'd have paid him more money back in 2007.

In any case, though, the other thing about trying to project 2009 Edelman into 2012 is that when Edelman was filling in for Welker, he basically was the #2 option on the field, or maybe #3 after Faulk. Right now, if Edelman had filled in for Welker, say, against Buffalo in Week 17, he'd be the #4 option at best, with Branch, GRONK, and Hernandez definitively ahead of him.

 

[bucky]

People are insane. That's the only rationale for this garbage...

Edelman has missed 12 games in just 3 seasons - in limited use. He hasn't scored a regular season TD since week 17 of the 2010 season, in a blowout. His two TD performance in the playoff loss to Baltimore however heartwarming came when the team was down 4 scores each time and Baltimore likely could have cared less about his 6 and 1 yard receptions...since our defense had already rolled over and pee'd on itself repeatedly and showed no inclination to fight. He's been battling the likes of Ocho Stinko and Tiquan Underroos and Jackie Slaters kid for snaps and the only reason he gets them is because they all suck as receivers in this system while he at least grasps it as a former QB. This season they tried him at emergency DB...and RB. He's a 4th or 5th WR in a pinch and minimal short term Welker emergency insurance and a punt returner. Jack of all trades, master or none. If DC's ever actually focused on him he'd last about 3 series.

The bolded part is totally and completely misleading. 85, Slater and Tiquan are outside receivers. Edelman is a slot receiver. There's absolutely no opportunity for him to work the middle of the field with Welker, Hernandez and Gronk already there. When Edelman does get to play, he's in there with the 3 previously mentioned guys and he's never in the top 2 in the progression. So naturally he doesn't get the numbers. But the stats I provided are what happens when he replaces Welker in the starting lineup. And the include not only 2009, but 1 game at the end of 2010 when he went 3 for 72 yards.

Just to be clear, I'm not making the assumption that Edelman has the ability to take all of Welker's snaps (almost 90% of total snaps). What I'm saying is that in the snaps that he does play, he can probably provide 70-80% of Welker's effectiveness at 10% of the cost.


With the Patriots featuring a 2 TE offense now on almost every play, here are the WR snaps for '11 (per Mike Reiss):
Welker - 89.8%
Branch - 76%
Ocho - 26.3%
Edelman - 13.3%
Other clowns - 11.8%

total - 217.2% of snaps needed from WR. Here is a sample proposal for a revised breakdown of these plays. Obviously, a lot depends on the players you can get, but the idea is to (a) improve the #1 outside WR over Branch, (b) improve the #3 WR over Ocho, and (3)keep Branch for depth, (4) get a rookie WR, (5) give Edelman about 60% of Welker's reps, and most importantly - save a bunch of money that can be put towards the D:

Lloyd/Wayne (or take your pick of the FA WR) - 80-85%
Edelman - 50-60%
Cheaper FA (Meachem, Manningham, Robinson, etc.) - 50-60%
Branch/Rookie - 15-30%

 

[hovis]

Snaps are earned here Ken. Obviously on a team in need of receiving options, Edelman hasn't earned more. And Bill is the kind of HC who will give them to you if you do, regardless of where you were drafted. What you are assuming is beyond a stretch. Potential is just a another word for unachieved accomplishment...

Remember when everyone used to argue BJGE should start over Maroney? Maroney fanboys used the same argument: if BJGE was better than Maroney, he would've earned the starting job. Well, the "idiots" who saw BJGE as "potentially" better than Maroney were right. I'm reminded of this when I get crap for saying Edelman could "potentially" be a serviceable slot receiver.

 

[bucky]

Welker gets the ball because he runs excellent routes, has tremendous agility skills and gets open, and Edelman, well he doesn't.

I'm astonished to see such a shallow argument from such a knowledgeable fan. You know there's a difference between a slot receiver like Edelman, and one like Ocho. They're essentially different positions - much like Guard and Tackle, or like DE and NT in the Pats' 34. Some players can do both, but many cannot. And you know that every offensive play has a specific progression that the QB has to follow, which is often based on the defense he sees. When Edelman goes out there as the 4th/5th option, Brady almost never looks at him - regardless of how well he runs his routes or how open he is.

 

[vafides]

I agree welker is important to this offense and they should sign him. However If he's demanding top 5 WR money I'd franchise him then let him walk.

We have seen this before. A guy thrives in this offense at WR.. Leaves and isn't nearly productive elsewhere.
While welker is on another level than patten.. Givens.. Branch and moss... Its fact: Brady makes bad receivers good... And good receivers great...

They can get another wide receiver for a quarter of the price and get more than half of Welkers production. Wes welker was a glorified special teamer before he came here... Don't forget

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

With all the issues we've seen in recent memory with new WR coming into the system and not being able to perform at all, I'd be utterly disgusted if Welker wasn't resigned. I have no appetite for seeing the offense flounder because folks come in and can't get the reads right.

Granted, it could be because Welker asks for more than the Patriots can afford, so I'm not saying the blame would be automatically on the organization.

Gimme Welker, Wayne, a top 60 drafted WR and some rookie FA's. Keep BJGE too.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm astonished to see such a shallow argument from such a knowledgeable fan.

How is discussing the skills of the players a shallow argument?
Please explain what your argument is that is so in depth it makes the skills of the players irrelevant to how they will play.

You know there's a difference between a slot receiver like Edelman, and one like Ocho. They're essentially different positions - much like Guard and Tackle, or like DE and NT in the Pats' 34. Some players can do both, but many cannot. And you know that every offensive play has a specific progression that the QB has to follow, which is often based on the defense he sees. When Edelman goes out there as the 4th/5th option, Brady almost never looks at him - regardless of how well he runs his routes or how open he is.

Ah, now I see shallow.
Why is Edelman the 4th or 5th option? Why is Welker the leading receiver in the NFL. You seem to think they are interchangable and BB flipped a coin and decided Welker plays every play and Edelman sits just because.
Edelman has had 3 years to earn opportunites. During those 3 years Welker has had his role vary. Before this year, most of his production was from a 3 WR set and this year he produced from an outside receiver position. Aaron Hernandez came in and they decided to make him the '3rd receiver' instead of Edleman. Gronk went from 44 to 90 catches. Branch came back and play 5 times as much as Edelman. Underwood and Ocho are out on the field more than him.
There is no rule that you can only have one white WR on the field. If Edleman were capable of getting open consistently, he would be on the field catching passes.
If Welker is not kept, Edleman will simply not be the guy who takes his place. He will continue to get his 13% of the snaps, or less if the 85, Underwood, Slater slots are filled by guys who can actually play.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree welker is important to this offense and they should sign him. However If he's demanding top 5 WR money I'd franchise him then let him walk.

We have seen this before. A guy thrives in this offense at WR.. Leaves and isn't nearly productive elsewhere.
While welker is on another level than patten.. Givens.. Branch and moss... Its fact: Brady makes bad receivers good... And good receivers great...

They can get another wide receiver for a quarter of the price and get more than half of Welkers production. Wes welker was a glorified special teamer before he came here... Don't forget

Any schmuck WR can catch 50-60 passes. Its the 50-60 you lose that is the difference between a weak starter and a guy who leads the league in receiving.
I'm sure we can pay a QB 1/4 of what Brady makes to pass for half the yards too.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with your last sentence, but he has beem the #1 WR in the NFL since he came here.

 

[Ring 6]

The bolded part is totally and completely misleading. 85, Slater and Tiquan are outside receivers. Edelman is a slot receiver. There's absolutely no opportunity for him to work the middle of the field with Welker, Hernandez and Gronk already there. When Edelman does get to play, he's in there with the 3 previously mentioned guys and he's never in the top 2 in the progression. So naturally he doesn't get the numbers. But the stats I provided are what happens when he replaces Welker in the starting lineup. And the include not only 2009, but 1 game at the end of 2010 when he went 3 for 72 yards.

Just to be clear, I'm not making the assumption that Edelman has the ability to take all of Welker's snaps (almost 90% of total snaps). What I'm saying is that in the snaps that he does play, he can probably provide 70-80% of Welker's effectiveness at 10% of the cost.


With the Patriots featuring a 2 TE offense now on almost every play, here are the WR snaps for '11 (per Mike Reiss):
Welker - 89.8%
Branch - 76%
Ocho - 26.3%
Edelman - 13.3%
Other clowns - 11.8%

total - 217.2% of snaps needed from WR. Here is a sample proposal for a revised breakdown of these plays. Obviously, a lot depends on the players you can get, but the idea is to (a) improve the #1 outside WR over Branch, (b) improve the #3 WR over Ocho, and (3)keep Branch for depth, (4) get a rookie WR, (5) give Edelman about 60% of Welker's reps, and most importantly - save a bunch of money that can be put towards the D:

Lloyd/Wayne (or take your pick of the FA WR) - 80-85%
Edelman - 50-60%
Cheaper FA (Meachem, Manningham, Robinson, etc.) - 50-60%
Branch/Rookie - 15-30%

You just replace Welker with LLoyd or Wayne = downgrade
Bracnh with Edleman, and decided to sign a cheap FA to split time with edleman as the #2/#3 WR.
Downgrades across the board.

Understand what you are saying.
We use 2.17 WRs per play and you would rank them as
Llotd/Wayne
Edleman
Meacham/Maaningham/Robinson
Branch

There are 150 WRs in the NFL better than Julian Edelman and you want to get rid of the top receiver in the NFL and make Edelman a starter.

Lets save money by cutting Brady, Mankins, Wilfork and Mayo and replacing them with Hoyer, Ohnrberger, Brace and Fletcher.

 

[Deus Irae]

Remember when everyone used to argue BJGE should start over Maroney? Maroney fanboys used the same argument: if BJGE was better than Maroney, he would've earned the starting job. Well, the "idiots" who saw BJGE as "potentially" better than Maroney were right. I'm reminded of this when I get crap for saying Edelman could "potentially" be a serviceable slot receiver.

Ummm.... Maroney was better than BJGE at the time, and he had the skills to be better than BJGE for a long time. Injuries and a lack of effort cost him his career, not some mythical 'fanboy' miscalculation of his skills in the early years. With BB, you start the better players. When Maroney was traded, he was done and not just beaten out by a better player, as he showed in Denver. Injuries, and an apparent unwillingness to hit the film room, had caught up to him, and he was finished.

BJGE is what many of the "fanboys" were saying, which is a rotational back in a RBBC system, but not starter material. He'd be a great fit in Kansas City for just that reason.

 

[bucky]

You just replace Welker with LLoyd or Wayne = downgrade
Bracnh with Edleman, and decided to sign a cheap FA to split time with edleman as the #2/#3 WR.
Downgrades across the board.

Understand what you are saying.
We use 2.17 WRs per play and you would rank them as
Llotd/Wayne
Edleman
Meacham/Maaningham/Robinson
Branch

There are 150 WRs in the NFL better than Julian Edelman and you want to get rid of the top receiver in the NFL and make Edelman a starter.

Lets save money by cutting Brady, Mankins, Wilfork and Mayo and replacing them with Hoyer, Ohnrberger, Brace and Fletcher.

You are totally on tilt and completely changing the topic.

1. You know that paying top 10 money to all your UFAs will turn a team into the Jets. You have to pick and choose who you give top $$

2. Welker is not THE BEST WR in the NFL. I don't care how many statistics you come up with. A huge part of his success has been because he plays with the most accurate QB in the NFL.

3. How many Superbowls have the Patriots won since they started emphasizing and compensating the WR position in 2007 with the likes of Moss, Welker, Stallworth, 85, etc? Did they make the right decision to pay Moss and let Samuel walk?

4. You obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without seeing all the background. My entire premise is not to improve the WR position per se, but to make it more balanced and reallocate some money into improving the defense.

 

[hovis]

You just replace Welker with LLoyd or Wayne = downgrade
Bracnh with Edleman, and decided to sign a cheap FA to split time with edleman as the #2/#3 WR.
Downgrades across the board.

Understand what you are saying.
We use 2.17 WRs per play and you would rank them as
Llotd/Wayne
Edleman
Meacham/Maaningham/Robinson
Branch

There are 150 WRs in the NFL better than Julian Edelman and you want to get rid of the top receiver in the NFL and make Edelman a starter.

Lets save money by cutting Brady, Mankins, Wilfork and Mayo and replacing them with Hoyer, Ohnrberger, Brace and Fletcher.

There you go, whip out the old slippery slope argument. We're all a bunch of idiots who just want to cut Welker no matter what and replace him with our hero, Julian Edelman. You're right.

Ignore the notion that the Patriots budget allocations place a maximum salary per position and are prioritized by team needs. Also ignore the possibility that even a franchise tag salary may exceed their allocations for a slot receiver. Also ignore Brady's historically good production regardless of his receiving corp. Also ignore the team needs on defense. Don't forget to ignore the fact that we'd all like to keep Welker for the right price - I'd say 3 years $6 million tops, $7 million if you really twist my arm.

 

[Deus Irae]

...

3. How many Superbowls have the Patriots won since they started emphasizing and compensating the WR position in 2007 with the likes of Moss, Welker, Stallworth, 85, etc? Did they make the right decision to pay Moss and let Samuel walk?

With an aging defense and all sorts of injuries, they fell one miraculous helmet catch short of perfection in 2007. With the injury to Gronk and a defense that hasn't yet been fully rebuilt, they got to within a dropped catch by Welker of a SB win in 2011. That makes the "how many Super Bowls...." argument an extremely weak one.

Also, the problem with the Samuel decision wasn't letting Samuel go. It was the failure to adequately replace him. Samuel ended up getting overpaid, which is why there's been constant discontent with him in Philly. The problem was twofold: you can't replace Samuel with Deltha O'Neal and expect that to work out well for you, and the draft picks used on replacement corners ended up getting wasted on player who couldn't get the job done.

 

[Ring 6]

You are totally on tilt and completely changing the topic.

1. You know that paying top 10 money to all your UFAs will turn a team into the Jets. You have to pick and choose who you give top $$

Talk about changing the topic, when did I ever say that?

2. Welker is not THE BEST WR in the NFL. I don't care how many statistics you come up with. A huge part of his success has been because he plays with the most accurate QB in the NFL.

Again, where did I say that? He is the MOST PRODUCTIVE.

3. How many Superbowls have the Patriots won since they started emphasizing and compensating the WR position in 2007 with the likes of Moss, Welker, Stallworth, 85, etc? Did they make the right decision to pay Moss and let Samuel walk?

So everything that has happened since 2004 is a poor decision that should now be reversed because we haven't won a SB since? Who is on tilt now?
And yes, the team is better off having let Samuel go at his price, and keeping Moss at his than they would have been the other way around. You do realize Samuel is no longer wanted by the team that gave him that ridiculous contract right?

4. You obviously jumped into the middle of the argument without seeing all the background. My entire premise is not to improve the WR position per se, but to make it more balanced and reallocate some money into improving the defense.

Considering I was not responding to your posts or arguments it would seem you have jumped into my discussion.

 

[Ring 6]

There you go, whip out the old slippery slope argument. We're all a bunch of idiots who just want to cut Welker no matter what and replace him with our hero, Julian Edelman. You're right.

The point that I am discussing is your argument that Edelman can be counted on toe replace Welkers production. That is the post I responded to, and that is the response you have been debating.

Ignore the notion that the Patriots budget allocations place a maximum salary per position and are prioritized by team needs.

Where have I done that, and by the way, that is just something you believe, not a fact.

Also ignore the possibility that even a franchise tag salary may exceed their allocations for a slot receiver.

Where have I done that? How does the franchise tag have anything to do with whether Julian Edelman can play WR at an acceptable level?

Also ignore Brady's historically good production regardless of his receiving corp.

Where have I done that?
He certainly produces better with better weapons though doesnt he?

Also ignore the team needs on defense.

Where have I done that? And what do the needs on defense have to do with Julian Edelmans ability to play WR at an acceptable level?

Don't forget to ignore the fact that we'd all like to keep Welker for the right price - I'd say 3 years $6 million tops, $7 million if you really twist my arm.

Congratulations on having an opinion. You do realize that you may as well offer $1.50 a year because the market is way, way over what you want to pay him, and a lesser replacement will cost more than that.
Again, don't know how I am ignoring something that has nothing to do with the discussion I am having.

 

[bucky]

With an aging defense and all sorts of injuries, they fell one miraculous helmet catch short of perfection in 2007. With the injury to Gronk and a defense that hasn't yet been fully rebuilt, they got to within a dropped catch by Welker of a SB win in 2011. That makes the "how many Super Bowls...." argument an extremely weak one.

Also, the problem with the Samuel decision wasn't letting Samuel go. It was the failure to adequately replace him. Samuel ended up getting overpaid, which is why there's been constant discontent with him in Philly. The problem was twofold: you can't replace Samuel with Deltha O'Neal and expect that to work out well for you, and the draft picks used on replacement corners ended up getting wasted on player who couldn't get the job done.

Don't use the Gronk injury as an excuse. It still doesn't change the fact that the team was woefully unbalanced. Oh and Welker had a chance to make a great play in that game. When it comes down to it, your players have to make some great plays in order to win it all.

As for Samuel, of course he was overpaid. As was Moss at 3/$27 mil. As was Seymour with the Raiders. Chances are good that when you pay a player top 5 money on a long term contract, they'll end up being overpaid. 4 years ago, the Pats chose Moss. And the exact question that you brought up has to be answered every time - who can be replaced? Who has to be paid? This is exactly what I'm attempting to quantify with regard to Welker. I love Welker on this team with a 3/$21 mil contract and $5 mil 2012 cap hit. I'm not so thrilled with a $9.5 mil cap hit and if that's the direction it's heade, there's a reasonable argument to be made that he can be replaced to a certain degree and the savings can be allocated towards improving the team in other areas.

 

[ivanvamp]

You are overlooking the primary fact.

Welker gets the ball because he runs excellent routes, has tremendous agility skills and gets open, and Edelman, well he doesn't.

I understand where you are going with a replacement for Welker and how you could accomodate for a dropoff in production. What I don't get is why you would search the NFL to find a replacement for the leading receiver in the league and choose guy who couldn't earn enough playing time to catch more than 4 passes all year, and was shut out of catches in 20 of 28 games in the last 2 years.

We would be better using a 6th rounder on a WR with a similar skill set to Welker and playing him in Welker spot than to use a guy who has had 3 years to prove he can't do the job.

To the bolded part, *I* wouldn't do what you suggest I am doing. I am very much on the record as saying that I think they should:

(1) Keep Welker - sign him to a 3-4 year deal of around $7.5 million per year, and construct it such that you can cut him in year 3 or 4 if you have to without any serious cap penalty.

(2) Keep Branch as your 3rd WR for low money.

(3) Sign Lloyd, as he is explosive, has already shown that he understands and can succeed in McDaniels' offense, and will likely cost a lot less (both in terms of $$ and the cost of acquiring him - i.e., a 1st round pick) than a guy like Wallace.

(4) Use the rest of your money and picks, etc., on defense.

That's my stand. I was just pointing out in my previous post that the real question people who are willing to jettison Welker and bring in a stud WR to replace him have to deal with is whether Edelman + stud WR is better than or less than Welker + Branch. For me, I'm taking option #3, which is to keep Welker and Branch *AND* bring in another really good WR.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't use the Gronk injury as an excuse. It still doesn't change the fact that the team was woefully unbalanced. Oh and Welker had a chance to make a great play in that game. When it comes down to it, your players have to make some great plays in order to win it all..

This may be most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post. Gronk was useless as anything other than a decoy. The Giants said as much (it's caught on film). The notion that losing one of the league's 2 best tight ends (and the team's #2 receiving option) is just an 'excuse' is laughable. Despite the injury, the Patriots lost in the last couple of minutes in the game. The notion that the problem is too much focus on the receivers is simply idiotic.

As for Samuel, of course he was overpaid. As was Moss at 3/$27 mil. As was Seymour with the Raiders. Chances are good that when you pay a player top 5 money on a long term contract, they'll end up being overpaid. 4 years ago, the Pats chose Moss. And the exact question that you brought up has to be answered every time - who can be replaced? Who has to be paid? This is exactly what I'm attempting to quantify with regard to Welker. I love Welker on this team with a 3/$21 mil contract and $5 mil 2012 cap hit. I'm not so thrilled with a $9.5 mil cap hit and if that's the direction it's heade, there's a reasonable argument to be made that he can be replaced to a certain degree and the savings can be allocated towards improving the team in other areas.

1.) Moss wasn't overpaid

2.) Seymour wasn't overpaid on his Patriots deal

3.) Your offer to Welker is low, and I'm sure you know that

4.) There's no more "reasonable argument to be made that he can be replaced to a certain degree and the savings can be allocated towards improving the team in other areas" than there is about any top end player. After all, the Patriots could move Wilfork or Brady and make the same claims.

 

[Ring 6]

To the bolded part, *I* wouldn't do what you suggest I am doing.

I wasn't really posting in disagreement with you, but to the point that if Welker is gone it has nothing to do with Edelman, and Edelman isn't the replacement.

I am very much on the record as saying that I think they should:

(1) Keep Welker - sign him to a 3-4 year deal of around $7.5 million per year, and construct it such that you can cut him in year 3 or 4 if you have to without any serious cap penalty.

(2) Keep Branch as your 3rd WR for low money.

(3) Sign Lloyd, as he is explosive, has already shown that he understands and can succeed in McDaniels' offense, and will likely cost a lot less (both in terms of $$ and the cost of acquiring him - i.e., a 1st round pick) than a guy like Wallace.

(4) Use the rest of your money and picks, etc., on defense.

That's my stand. I was just pointing out in my previous post that the real question people who are willing to jettison Welker and bring in a stud WR to replace him have to deal with is whether Edelman + stud WR is better than or less than Welker + Branch. For me, I'm taking option #3, which is to keep Welker and Branch *AND* bring in another really good WR.

I generally agree, but the part where the decision involves Edelman is where we part. The team is not going to get rid of its top 2 Wrs and replace them with a new guy and the 5th WR who caught 4 passes.

The discussion should more appropriately be:

Welker
FA
Branch
Rookie
Edleman
Slater

vs
FA
FA
Branch
Rookie
Edelman
Slater

Unless BB wants to bring Branch back in the same role, our #1 and #2 WRs will be FAs. I would suspect out of all those that are available, Welker makes the most sense.