Fair enough. So you have no issues with Amendola, and your comparison to Welker statistically as a baseline was not to dimish Amendola? Amendola is here. Tavon Austin is a rookie picked #8 in the draft and was not an option if the Pats were looking for a slot receiver. You may as well dream of Calvin or Andre Johnson, Larry Fitgerald, or any other marquee player showing up at the doorstep. Amendola's stats are comparable, in age and totals, to Welker before he showed up in 2007. You agree Welker was not a bad decision, I suspect. You also agree there is no Randy Moss to divert the focus of defenses to make that transition as successful. If there was a younger player just as good, I suspect efforts would be made to land him. If there was such a player, I didn't hear the Pats were contenders for him.
This season has been a disappointment solely because Amendola has been (1) injured or (2) gimpy, so his true value over this contract remains a mystery and he has not been as productive as hoped by many to date. That leaves his value over the contract a mystery as well. If the guy catches 60 receptions (5+ receptions per game for the balance of the season), then I won't view it as a terrible season. If he makes significant contributions in the playoffs, then I will view him as a good acquisition in terms of this season and not a disappointment. He is a long-term deal, so much like Roosevelt Colvin, who is a case of "what might have been" without injury yet a solid contributor I was happy to see on the team, I am not writing him off. It seems you are a little less patient in defining his acquisition as bad, without really pointing to the alternatives available or what you expect he would bring and how long you give hime to meet your expectations. I don't believe Welker was ever coming back, no matter what the two sides may claim, so I don't measure him by Welker (Welker was the most productive receiver in the NFL post-2007, so a little bit of a high bar for any receiver). I didn't like Welker leaving, but I don't believe either side wanted that reunion no matter what public statements were offered.
As for Ridley, he is not a rookie regardless of age. This is his 3rd year. He has been through 2 full preseasons and two full seasons, and this year has been helping the other teams as much as his own with turnovers. If you do not see three potential losses he could have directly caused with his poor ball protection techniques, then you haven't been watching. The world would be very different at 6-5, and it took the work of the rest of his team to bring the Pats back on 2 occasions. I can deal with working with him given his skill set, Would you want Romo as your QB? Gaudy stats, but he is a Jonah because his low percentage turnovers have resulted in losses and killed seasons. The timing of infrequent turnovers can be more damaging than multiple turnovers. That is presently Ridley's issue, given the results.
Ultimately, Amendola is not hurting the team, but the production this year, and only this year, is probably not worth the price so a degree of patience is appropriate to see if he can get healthy and contribute as expected. Right now Ridley is hurting the team. One turnover can change the course of a game, and right now Ridley has three absolutely catastrophic turnovers, resulting in 14 points for the other team and taking 6 points off the board for the Pats in a game that was lost by less than that and dropping the Pats to #2 the playoff picture. Patience would appear to be in shorter supply given his time with the team and repeated, correctable mistakes that are damaging the Pats. I am all for patience with both, and hope Ridley corrects himself, but it just seems odd you are in "wait and see" mode with Ridley but expecting Welker-type numbers from Amendola when Welker is the bar for all receivers.
