A little early, but: should the Patriots try to re-sign Wes Welker?

[RobertWeathers]

Harrison had his 4th highest reception total at age 34. I will take that from Welker in 2015 and be very happy.

Of course!

 

[Ring 6]

You get it. I was comparing loading up the cap with too few players and sacrificing quality and depth elsewhere.

I really don't think the cap is the biggest detriment to depth.
If you look, the Patriots (who whether they succeed or not are clearly the leader in the NFL of the philosophy that all 53 are critical, of role players, and versatility) they don't spend a ton more on depth than anyone else. There isn't a tremendous cap difference.
I think the difference is in the philopsophy or what a winning team is comprised of.
The Jets have made it very clear that they believe a handful of star players is the way to build your team and the biggest positives determine winning rather than the smallest negatives.
BB believes, IMO, that while the Bradys and Wilforks of the world are important, the lack of weaknesses is more important.

The difference comes, IMO, by valuing players such as Woodhead, Slater, Ebner, Edleman to name a few who are excellent at a role, but are not 'future starters'. Most teams use the bottom half of their roster for the best backup that comes closest to the skills of their starter they can find, while the Patriots look for guys to fill a role that will help win games now.

It really doesn't take a cap philosophy to do that, but a different outlook on how to build a winning team.
It prevades through the organization which is why the Jets think telling the media they are great is important, the Ravens do attention whoring dances on their way on the field, Indy hung 'AFCCG participant' banners and the Patriots worry about one thing, and every decision is based on what is the best way to answer this question that will help us win.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course!

But you just said Harrison is the reason to not sign Welker.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think either one of us know what Talib is truly asking for at this point. I also assume he doesn't either as the team, the market and his worth have not been determined yet.

Well, we can be sure he isn't saying don't overpay me and lets make it win-win even if someone else will give me more.

 

[Ring 6]

No. It's the cap hit in 2013, 2014 and 2015 that concerns me and the bonus that they need to come up with to pay RFA and FAs in 2013.

For what?
You want to save money so you can revamp the team you just made worse by getting rid of one its most vital players?
That is crazy. There are 53 spots on the roster, getting cheap on the key ones is not prudent.

 

[RobertWeathers]

But you just said Harrison is the reason to not sign Welker.

Not what I meant as Deus brought up WWs track record and i demonstated, for one reason or another, most of these players did not have 100+ catch seasons after 32 years old. I would take the year of course. That doesn't mean I would want to pay WW $10m a year + cap hit when the team as other major priorities.

You guys act like its a lock WW is catching 100 balls and netting 1300 yards at 33 years old and it's nothing of the sort.

 

[aluminum seats]

I thought the list and Marvin Harrison's career in particular as an example pretty much met the criteria. Sorry you feel differently.

I agree that your answer was detailed and responsive.

It's easy to get lost in the fog of numbers. I think it ultimately comes down to a simple question: how good is Wes Welker. And when all's said and done, I do think that maybe you and others--while acknowledging that Welker's a terrific player--are underestimating him. He has qualities, to me, that Rice had. His precision, his toughness, etc. And Rice was a key player all throughout his 30s.

There's a risk signing any player to multi-year deals, regardless of the age. I would feel confident paying Welker a bundle to stay. I don't think he'll disappoint.

 

[aluminum seats]

You guys act like its a lock WW is catching 100 balls and netting 1300 yards at 33 years old and it's nothing of the sort.

Maybe it'll be 92 catches and 1120 yards at 33, who knows?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well, we can be sure he isn't saying don't overpay me and lets make it win-win even if someone else will give me more.

I wish that were true .

Lots needs to be sorted out. Obviously if some clown wants to pay Talib $30m upfront guaranteed without any behavioral stipualtions...well, good luck ot him

 

[RobertWeathers]

For what?
You want to save money so you can revamp the team you just made worse by getting rid of one its most vital players?
That is crazy. There are 53 spots on the roster, getting cheap on the key ones is not prudent.

I never said, "lets go get cheap players" or suggested revamping the roster. This isn't the 1990 Cowboys we are talking about here. This is about ensuring that the Pats have a balanced team with the flexibility to maneuver.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I agree that your answer was detailed and responsive.

It's easy to get lost in the fog of numbers. I think it ultimately comes down to a simple question: how good is Wes Welker. And when all's said and done, I do think that maybe you and others--while acknowledging that Welker's a terrific player--are underestimating him. He has qualities, to me, that Rice had. His precision, his toughness, etc. And Rice was a key player all throughout his 30s..

WW is a great wide receiver but I am no underestimating him. My reasons for not giving WW $16m+ in guaranteed money is because of future cap considerations, keeping the D strong (Talib, Spikes, maybe Nink), keeping the O-line solid (Vollmer), keeping the running game stronga (Vollmer + Ridley) all for Brady to have less pressure to win games by himself.

I'd be careful about the Rice comparisons...You are talking about the most unique, most productive WR to ever play the game.

There's a risk signing any player to multi-year deals, regardless of the age. I would feel confident paying Welker a bundle to stay. I don't think he'll disappoint.

It would not surprise me if WW at 34 has a Rice year at 34. It would also not surprise me at 34, Welker tuned into 2003 Troy Brown guy -which despite the list I put together is reality. Most NFL players at 34 are not as productive as they were at 31.

 

[Ring 6]

Not what I meant as Deus brought up WWs track record and i demonstated, for one reason or another, most of these players did not have 100+ catch seasons after 32 years old. I would take the year of course. That doesn't mean I would want to pay WW $10m a year + cap hit when the team as other major priorities.

What you demonstrated was that almost everyone on your hand picked list is proof that Welker should continue at an extremely productively level until 34 and maybe beyond. You examples show the opposite of what you think they do.

You guys act like its a lock WW is catching 100 balls and netting 1300 yards at 33 years old and it's nothing of the sort.

You seem to be the only one expecting anything to be guaranteed.
What is more likely:
Welker have another 100 catch season next year when he is 33.
Talib staying clean, and actually proving he is worth a big contract on the field too.
Vollmer's back not continuing to be a problem.

You are choosing the only one of the 3 without baggage and makiing him out to be the risky one.:bricks:

 

[Ring 6]

WW is a great wide receiver but I am no underestimating him. My reasons for not giving WW $16m+ in guaranteed money is because of future cap considerations, keeping the D strong (Talib, Spikes, maybe Nink), keeping the O-line solid (Vollmer), keeping the running game stronga (Vollmer + Ridley) all for Brady to have less pressure to win games by himself.

I'd be careful about the Rice comparisons...You are talking about the most unique, most productive WR to ever play the game.



It would not surprise me if WW at 34 has a Rice year at 34. It would also not surprise me at 34, Welker tuned into 2003 Troy Brown guy -which despite the list I put together is reality. Most NFL players at 34 are not as productive as they were at 31.

You are not seriously comparing Wes Welkers career up to today to Troy Browns up to 2003 are you?
And by the way, Welker will have 2 more seasons before he turns 34

 

[Ring 6]

I never said, "lets go get cheap players" or suggested revamping the roster. This isn't the 1990 Cowboys we are talking about here. This is about ensuring that the Pats have a balanced team with the flexibility to maneuver.

If you get rid of Welker, you must revamp the offense, because the design of the offense revolves around Welkers role in it, and the way we are defended by opponents is heavily influenced by Welkers presence.
You make the other 10 players worse when you remove Welker.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I really don't think the cap is the biggest detriment to depth.
If you look, the Patriots (who whether they succeed or not are clearly the leader in the NFL of the philosophy that all 53 are critical, of role players, and versatility) they don't spend a ton more on depth than anyone else. There isn't a tremendous cap difference.
I think the difference is in the philopsophy or what a winning team is comprised of.
The Jets have made it very clear that they believe a handful of star players is the way to build your team and the biggest positives determine winning rather than the smallest negatives.
BB believes, IMO, that while the Bradys and Wilforks of the world are important, the lack of weaknesses is more important.

The difference comes, IMO, by valuing players such as Woodhead, Slater, Ebner, Edleman to name a few who are excellent at a role, but are not 'future starters'. Most teams use the bottom half of their roster for the best backup that comes closest to the skills of their starter they can find, while the Patriots look for guys to fill a role that will help win games now.

It really doesn't take a cap philosophy to do that, but a different outlook on how to build a winning team.
It prevades through the organization which is why the Jets think telling the media they are great is important, the Ravens do attention whoring dances on their way on the field, Indy hung 'AFCCG participant' banners and the Patriots worry about one thing, and every decision is based on what is the best way to answer this question that will help us win.

I agree almost with everything you just said, but cap flexiblity is what enables the philosophy to work- building that strong 22-40 players. It goes hand and hand. If you recall, Welker's 1st contract with the team was at that middle market level. Signing bonus, cap space, etc all need to be in alignment to make the machine hum. If in 2006 the Pats still had a 3 or 4 guys from the 2004 team making big money and taking up a ton of cap space, that might have impacted their ability to land Welker or fraqnchised Asante. We don't know but having cap space gives your team options when you need them.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree almost with everything you just said, but cap flexiblity is what enables the philosophy to work- building that strong 22-40 players. It goes hand and hand. If you recall, Welker's 1st contract with the team was at that middle market level. Signing bonus, cap space, etc all need to be in alignment to make the machine hum. If in 2006 the Pats still had a 3 or 4 guys from the 2004 team making big money and taking up a ton of cap space, that might have impacted their ability to land Welker or fraqnchised Asante. We don't know but having cap space gives your team options when you need them.

Who says we are hurting for cap space?
The team we put on the field is significantly worse without Wes Welker.
Cap room to spend on players that aren't as good is useless.
We already have cap flexibility which allows us to keep a vital cog such as Welker.
What do you want to spend it on? Bad back OTs and bad characters CBs?

 

[RobertWeathers]

What you demonstrated was that almost everyone on your hand picked list is proof that Welker should continue at an extremely productively level until 34 and maybe beyond. You examples show the opposite of what you think they do.:

Arrgghh. I was just demonstrating that most- of not all of those players did not have 100 catch seasons after age 32 and only 3 of them did. I agree most of them had very good seasons moving forward.

I didn't do it, but I could which is to bring up 100s of WRs who had career years whos production was excellent from ages 27-31 but dropped off from age 32 on.

You seem to be the only one expecting anything to be guaranteed.
What is more likely:
Welker have another 100 catch season next year when he is 33.
Talib staying clean, and actually proving he is worth a big contract on the field too.
Vollmer's back not continuing to be a problem.

You are choosing the only one of the 3 without baggage and makiing him out to be the risky one.:bricks:

If Vollmer's back gets a clean bill of heath and Talib gets his money and the Pats get safety nets for both deals that work for them financially, then yes for the reasons I've already laid out.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If you get rid of Welker, you must revamp the offense, because the design of the offense revolves around Welkers role in it, and the way we are defended by opponents is heavily influenced by Welkers presence.
You make the other 10 players worse when you remove Welker.

I have no doubt that the coaches believe that WW is very important to this offense. I also believe that they share the same opinion of a healthy Gronk, Ah, Lloyd and Ridley.

I also believe that with a strong defense, Gronk, AH, Lloyd, Ridley and a strong running game and special teams, and Brady at QB, BB also believes he can win a Super Bowl without Welker.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Who says we are hurting for cap space?
The team we put on the field is significantly worse without Wes Welker.
Cap room to spend on players that aren't as good is useless.
We already have cap flexibility which allows us to keep a vital cog such as Welker.
What do you want to spend it on? Bad back OTs and bad characters CBs?

I think this scenario needs to be played out.

 

[Ring 6]

Arrgghh. I was just demonstrating that most- of not all of those players did not have 100 catch seasons after age 32 and only 3 of them did. I agree most of them had very good seasons moving forward.

Whatever you were trying to do, you succeeding in showing a substantial list of good WRs who show that we should be very confident Welker will be very productive for the next 3+years.

I didn't do it, but I could which is to bring up 100s of WRs who had career years whos production was excellent from ages 27-31 but dropped off from age 32 on.

You tried, and failed. Now what, bring up guys who weren't near his level and dropped off as well?

If Vollmer's back gets a clean bill of heath and Talib gets his money and the Pats get safety nets for both deals that work for them financially, then yes for the reasons I've already laid out.

So what you are saying is if the guys with real risky characteristics turn out to not have any risk and the guy with no risky factors becomes a risk then the risky guys would be less risky? Really?
Even if that bizarre alter universe existed, you still let the best football player of the bunch go