Am I the only one who does NOT want Welker back?

[Rob0729]

I am having difficulty following the logic of 'I don't want Welker, he's not worth a yet to be determined unknown price' when that is immediately followed by 'replace him with (fill in name of another WR)' regardless of what that new player's yet to be determined unknown price is.

Seems to be a hypocritical double standard.



To answer the OP's original question, it all depends on the terms of the contract; it is not a simple, absolute yes-or-no question and answer.

I would pay a say Greg Jennings just because he is 3 years younger than Welker. Hence he is more likely to produce for the life of his contract. Welker is at the age that he could fall apart at any time and WRs tend to fall apart overnight when they hit the age wall. I think the risk is less for some other WRs.

I want to resign Welker, but if he is looking to cash in I would rather pay up to a younger WR.

 

[Mack Herron]

He's going to be 32 years old in May.

His drops seem to come at inopportune times in playoff games.

He can't stretch the field. Pretty bad when your downfield threats are your Tight Ends.

Makes the offense predictable.

Gets hit hard, which often swings momentum to the opposing defense.

We've had numerous chances to win a Superbowl with Welker, but just can't seem to do it. (2007, 2011, 2012). Simply put, I think it's time to move on.

And while we're at it, let's dump this dinosaur of a QB. He's even older than Welker and clearly on the back 9. He's made key errors recently at important times in our biggest games, including the brain fart intentional grounding in the Superbowl and letting the clock run down in the championship game at the end of the first half. He can't run worth a lick and at the first hint of contact goes to the ground faster than Brandon "The Mole" Lloyd.

Makes the offense predictable. We've had numerous chances to win a Superbowl with Brady, but just can't seem to do it. (2007, 2011, 2012). Simply put, I think it's time to move on.

 

[BradyFTW!]

As for Welker, nobody's brought up the other alternative, in terms of lowering cap hit, which is to sign him for a [highlight]longer[/highlight] contract in order to push some of the money into later, unguaranteed, years. This team is very cap savvy. If they want to keep Welker and still have money for other moves, they can manipulate the numbers enough to do it. Also, just winning on the Fanene claim would more than offset any Welker money uptick.

Definitely, that's what I hope that they do. He hasn't shown any dramatic signs of breaking down, so he's as good of a bet as anyone his age to stay productive for 3 more years. As I said in my post, I hope that they bring him back. If the money's too much, then it is what it is, and if it's going to take a full $2M or so per year more than the Pats are willing to commit, then maybe moving on from Welker will be the best of a series of bad options. But ideally, it doesn't come to that.

Re: Mankins, the Pats are paying top-tier money for a guy whose body is breaking down and who has trouble staying on the field. I'd imagine that the Pats are very worried about that exact scenario happening to Welker, but IMO Welker deserves the benefit of the doubt there.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Am I the only one who does NOT want Welker back?

No, you're not the only one.

There are about 9 more, but all of them post their opinion 10 different times in 10 different threads stating the exact same thing,

and for the last 10 months they have always started 10 new threads, since the old ones had fallen off page 1.

This makes 10 people seem like 10x10x10x10 = 10,000 people.

You MUST have noticed them by now, unless you are incredibly efficient in using the "ignore thread" option.

 

[jmt57]

I would pay a say Greg Jennings just because he is 3 years younger than Welker. Hence he is more likely to produce for the life of his contract. Welker is at the age that he could fall apart at any time and WRs tend to fall apart overnight when they hit the age wall. I think the risk is less for some other WRs.

I want to resign Welker, but if he is looking to cash in I would rather pay up to a younger WR.

But do you want to commit a large amount of long-term money to a player that (a) will be 30 when next season kicks off, (b) depends on speed (rather than quickness), (c) has publicly demanded he get the ball more often in the past, and (d) has made it known that he is looking to cash in big time with this contract?

Maybe he won't lose his burst for three or four years ... but who is to say he won't lose it in a year or two?

 

[1%er]

He's going to be 32 years old in May.

His drops seem to come at inopportune times in playoff games.

He can't stretch the field. Pretty bad when your downfield threats are your Tight Ends.

Makes the offense predictable.

Gets hit hard, which often swings momentum to the opposing defense.

We've had numerous chances to win a Superbowl with Welker, but just can't seem to do it. (2007, 2011, 2012). Simply put, I think it's time to move on.





2009, 2010, and now 2012.... The Patriots got "Bullied" in their playoff loses. All of them at a home. I wouldn't mind moving on from these smaller, finesse WR's who get pushed around.

Welker is a great slot receiver. A great complimentry #2 WR. But he's not that #1 WR I want as the main option.


If the Pats are giving out big money to a WR this year, I'd rather they give out a little extra and get a WR with serious speed who can catch a deep ball and make our offense less predictable.

I also think we have to draft a WR in the 1st or 2nd round of the draft, regardless of Welker being signed or not. We can't go into next season with Deion Branch as the #3 WR.

I can go either way with this. Sometimes like many people in this forum I want him back because I don't necessarily like change and I'm scared of the unknown.

Is WW on the decline is my next question so when I take a look at the numbers and a few things stick out,

1. Welker was target the most of any year in his career last year but yet caught the lowest percentage,

2007 - 77%
2008 - 74%
2009 - 76%
2010 - 70%
2011 - 71%
2012 - 68%

2. His FD, YPC, YAC, Yards and TD numbers were both down from 2011.
3. He fumbled more times this season than he did in the 4 years combined.

So yes he is on a decline.

Then my next question how much of what WW does is a product of scheme and coaching? And I don't know.

I guess I'd like to have him back but only on are terms. If him coming back is going to burden us in a way that we cannot keep are other key FA and make 1-2 really good signings I'd rather roll the dice and see if we can fill the void another way.

The Welker era has to end sometime soon and I can say without a doubt his best years are behind him so if its over now I will not complain that much.

 

[Rob0729]

But do you want to commit a large amount of long-term money to a player that (a) will be 30 when next season kicks off, (b) depends on speed (rather than quickness), (c) has publicly demanded he get the ball more often in the past, and (d) has made it known that he is looking to cash in big time with this contract?

Maybe he won't lose his burst for three or four years ... but who is to say he won't lose it in a year or two?

I just used Jennings as an example. Not sure if I would target him specifically. Not sure who is on the market and who best fits the Pats' needs.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Re: Mankins, the Pats are paying top-tier money for a guy whose body is breaking down and who has trouble staying on the field. I'd imagine that the Pats are very worried about that exact scenario happening to Welker, but IMO Welker deserves the benefit of the doubt there.

Mankins body is not breaking down, though. From reports, he had an ACL injury and then suffered injuries that were likely related to him coming back too quickly and favoring the leg. Even with that, he's the team's best OL. If you want to worry about giving money to players with injury issues, the player to let walk is Vollmer, not Welker.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

You don't know what you got till it's gone. If welker goes i can bet within 2 years these same people wanting him to go will be rethinking that

 

[RobertWeathers]

You don't know what you got till it's gone. If welker goes i can bet within 2 years these same people wanting him to go will be rethinking that

I think thats a Cinderella song....

 

[Sciz]

You don't know what you got till it's gone. If welker goes i can bet within 2 years these same people wanting him to go will be rethinking that

Something is seriously wrong if people are begging to have a 34 year old Wes Welker back in two seasons. It either means Welker is not human or that the Pats tried replacing him with Matt Slater.

 

[patsnumone]

Wes Welker AFC Championship Game 8 rec for 117 yards and 1 TD.
How is that not production.

What do the last three playoff lost's have in common ?

Wes Welker plays outstading and the Pats only have one Tight End worth bothering to cover. If Gronk was available for this game I totally believe that the score would have been different. I think that the Pat's should look for another Tight end in the middle rounds that can at least play and help the offense.


Just my thoughts . Do I believe that they should sign Wes to a long term contract? No,but if they can work out a 2 year contact at 7 to 7.5 per year then I think it would be dumb to give a team like the JETS to sign him cause face it that always sign players off of New England and Wes would instantly make them better short term.

 

[borg]

He needs to be redeployed as the slot WR again, not the Pats deep threat. Lloyd needs to be the #3 WR, coming in on third downs and 3 WR packages. Having a #2 (Lloyd) with zero after the catch skills is a waste of playmaking opportunities.
The Patriots have a great TE package roster of weapons, but their 3 WR package is weak with players playing positions that don't suit their skill sets.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I just hope that the mercurial (and wicked hot) Mrs Welker isn't reading this for your sakes

 

[Ian]

I think that the Pat's should look for another Tight end in the middle rounds that can at least play and help the offense.

They may not have to if Ballard is anywhere near as good as he was when we last saw him in the Super Bowl season for the Giants a year ago. That was a wise move for Belichick to snag that kid off wavers. Could end up being a valuable asset next year.

 

[Ivan]

Something is seriously wrong if people are begging to have a 34 year old Wes Welker back in two seasons. It either means Welker is not human or that the Pats tried replacing him with Matt Slater.

No, something is seriously wrong when the same people make the same argument 3 offseasons in a row, have it proven 100% wrong and look like complete idiots, and then come back for another shot at it again this offseason. Hopefully Welker ends up playing for knowlegeable fans someday. He sure as hell isn't going to find them in NE.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, something is seriously wrong when the same people make the same argument 3 offseasons in a row, have it proven 100% wrong and look like complete idiots, and then come back for another shot at it again this offseason. Hopefully Welker ends up playing for knowlegeable fans someday. He sure as hell isn't going to find them in NE.

To be fair, the truly anti-Welker crowd is a small group.

 

[Sciz]

No, something is seriously wrong when the same people make the same argument 3 offseasons in a row, have it proven 100% wrong and look like complete idiots, and then come back for another shot at it again this offseason. Hopefully Welker ends up playing for knowlegeable fans someday. He sure as hell isn't going to find them in NE.

So how much should the Pats pay Welker this offseason?

 

[DarrylStingley]

I want Welker back but they should explore other alternatives too.

Welker will cost $11.5 mm if franchised. Maybe they can use that coin on a true number one outside BIG receiver and a slot guy. Maybe they can use Edelman in the slot.

I think this team needs another serious threat at WR even if it has Welker or slot production from someone else.

At bottom, my answer re Welker is "it depends."

If they can sign him at a reasonable deal, yeah, do it. If they can't get a true number one outside threat, yeah, franchise him.

To me, this is not an easy question. And I love Wes. I just think they need to explore all options first.

 

[Sicilian]

To be fair, the truly anti-Welker crowd is a small group.

Exactly. There's a big difference between someone who thinks we can compensate for the loss of Welker with the money we would have paid him, and someone who thinks Welker is somehow the problem with the current team.