Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on Welker

[MoLewisrocks]

You are right that none of the above mentioned have played as consistently as Welker. The main difference is that all the above mentioned players signed those deals in their 20's when they were hitting their prime. Welker is 31, and there is chance that his prime years are either done or close to being done. If he was 27 i'd say that $8 -$9 mil per year would be a fair deal as he still had his prime years ahead of him.

I disagree with your point though that Wes can or should roll the dice. He may have been paid $18 mil so far in his career but after taxes and paying his agent he's probably only seen half of it. The difference between $9.5 mil and rolling the dice with injury and $27 mil guaranteed is big.

Anyways, the one thing I think we can all agree on is that hopefully Welker is catching balls from Brady for the forseeable future.

They signed them two and one year ago at age 29 and the deals were for 5 and 6 years at top tier money. They are his age now and have 4 and 5 years remaining. He'll only ever see half of it. But if he's smart and invested it wisely or never spent a nickle like the cowboy with the self sustaining ranch or got put on a budget like Bianca did with Vince he's got more security now that any of us will ever have. If he was 27 he'd be laughing at you if you offered him less than $12M for 6 years...since that won't be top money in 4-5 years.

 

[JDot]

I've had a lot of conversations with various people about him and am surprised how mixed the opinions are. I'm even more shocked with the opinions of letting Welker walk and not reaching a deal is O.K. with some people, and how they don't even want to tag him. It's strange.

I find it interesting that Gronk and Hernandez's performances seem to have clouded the fact that if Welker's gone, their depth chart consists of Underwood, Edelman, Branch, Slater, and Ochocinco. They lose either one (and especially as we learned, Gronk) and the offense instantly becomes less effective if Welker's not here.

I understand the arguments after Moss left because it allowed them to stop heaving the ball down the field in hopes that he'd come down with it and getting back to distributing the ball better. However, Welker is more dynamic (or versatile - if you'd prefer that word) than Moss and he showed even more of that this season. Considering how thin they are at wideout, I'm just surprised there's so many people who are ready to let him walk. I love the thought of Wallace coming here as much as the next guy, but they need someone like him (or more realistically LLoyd or Wayne) to compliment Welker in this offense. I think losing Welker leaves them with a big void because they really need at least two decent receivers, which they just don't have right now. Branch is a #3 or #4 at best at this stage of his career, which as I've mentioned before is O.K. because that's what he should be. He's Troy Brown at this point, although he can't play defense

But I'm just trying to understand the thoughts of some of the people who are cool with letting Welker walk and would love to know who would like to see them keep him (whether it's franchising him, or an extension) vs people that want to see them move in another direction and why they feel that way.

Welkah is a must sign. Dude is the engine of the O....

...But 9-10 million is a big cap hit. Ugh, thank god I do not have to make these decisions.

Either way I am a huge Wes Welkah fan...

 

[Huckleberry1]

I want him to be a patriot so badly, but he has to be willing to play ball.

I'd hate to see him leave, but I just don't think he deserves to be paid like a top WR. Obviously his production suggest that he is a top WR, but I feel like a lot of that is because of the system, and Brady.

Welker isn't capable of taking a game over like Larry Fitz, or Megatron. Sure he's a great player, but the way he plays I just couldn't justify enormous money.

You said the exact same thing a couple of days ago and I showed you that Welker actually had more big games than Fitzgerald did, yet you repeat it again even though you know it's wrong. Basically you guys just keep on repeating things you know are wrong simply because you want to believe it.

 

[hovis]

Welker has missed 5 games in 2009 and 2010 (including the Houston game when he got injured on the first drive). In those 5 games, Edelman has 34 receptions, 337 yards, 2 TDs. Just saying. He's not Welker. And there are definitely durability concerns. I'm just pointing out his numbers as a starting slot WR when Welker's not in the lineup.

I needed to bring these numbers back, because if they are indicative of Edelman's potential, then they make a strong argument NOT to sign Welker.

5 games: 34 rec / 337 yds / 2 TDs

Projected over 16 Games: 108.8 rec / 1,078.4 yds / 6.4 TDs

Compare that to Welker's numbers with the Patriots per 16 Games:

115.5 rec / 1,268.5 yds / 6.4 TDs

If you're bullish on Edelman's potential, he could project to produce 94% as much Welker's average production in receptions, 85% in yards, and equal in TDs, based on the small sample size we have when he was filling in.

Our eyeballs tell us he's no Welker, but the question is how much do you value what Welker brings to the table? What's your cap on his position? Personally, I wouldn't go higher than $6 mill, unless Brady was willing to re-negotiate his contract just to keep Welker around.

No one player currently on the roster can match WW's production, but I think you can patch it. Edelman is the obvious primary replacement, but you can also have Hernandez, Vereen, and Woodhead running some of those routes. You can feature more RB passes. All at a fraction of the cost.

The Pats need to save money on offense and spend money on defense. There's no question losing Welker would result in less third down conversions and scoring. Maybe they'll drop down to being only the 5th best offense in the league. But, if the young D improves and they make wise investments in the secondary and OLBs/DEs, they could be top 10 in both yards and points. More balance equals more possessions, which means more scoring against good defenses.

 

[Ring 6]

I needed to bring these numbers back, because if they are indicative of Edelman's potential, then they make a strong argument NOT to sign Welker.

5 games: 34 rec / 337 yds / 2 TDs

Projected over 16 Games: 108.8 rec / 1,078.4 yds / 6.4 TDs

Compare that to Welker's numbers with the Patriots per 16 Games:

115.5 rec / 1,268.5 yds / 6.4 TDs

Edelman has played a lot more than 5 games. In the last 2 years he has played 28 games and caught 11 passes for 120 and 0 TDs.
Over 16 games that is about 6 catches for 65 yards and 0 TDs.

Otherwise, your kidding right?

 

[hovis]

I needed to bring these numbers back, because if they are indicative of Edelman's potential, then they make a strong argument NOT to sign Welker.

5 games: 34 rec / 337 yds / 2 TDs

Projected over 16 Games: 108.8 rec / 1,078.4 yds / 6.4 TDs

Compare that to Welker's numbers with the Patriots per 16 Games:

115.5 rec / 1,268.5 yds / 6.4 TDs

Edelman has played a lot more than 5 games. In the last 2 years he has played 28 games and caught 11 passes for 120 and 0 TDs.
Over 16 games that is about 6 catches for 65 yards and 0 TDs.

Otherwise, your kidding right?

You missed the point. Those were Edelman's numbers when he was directly filling in for Welker.

No kidding, his numbers for the past 2 years aren't comparable, he doesn't get the snaps Welker does.

HOW IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU!!!!

 

[patfanken]

I needed to bring these numbers back, because if they are indicative of Edelman's potential, then they make a strong argument NOT to sign Welker.

5 games: 34 rec / 337 yds / 2 TDs

Projected over 16 Games: 108.8 rec / 1,078.4 yds / 6.4 TDs

Compare that to Welker's numbers with the Patriots per 16 Games:

115.5 rec / 1,268.5 yds / 6.4 TDs

Edelman has played a lot more than 5 games. In the last 2 years he has played 28 games and caught 11 passes for 120 and 0 TDs.
Over 16 games that is about 6 catches for 65 yards and 0 TDs.

Otherwise, your kidding right?

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.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

 

[Ring 6]

I needed to bring these numbers back, because if they are indicative of Edelman's potential, then they make a strong argument NOT to sign Welker.

5 games: 34 rec / 337 yds / 2 TDs

Projected over 16 Games: 108.8 rec / 1,078.4 yds / 6.4 TDs

Compare that to Welker's numbers with the Patriots per 16 Games:

115.5 rec / 1,268.5 yds / 6.4 TDs

You missed the point. Those were Edelman's numbers when he was directly filling in for Welker.

No kidding, his numbers for the past 2 years aren't comparable, he doesn't get the snaps Welker does.

HOW IS THAT NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU!!!!

How is it not obvious to you that you are crediting him with being able to lead the NFL in catches and score 6.4 TDs if he was a starter when he has caught 11 passes and scored 0 TDs in 2 years.

I'm sure there are 100 players in the NFL that if I took the best 5 games of their lives and prjected them into a full season would look like HOFers.

The problem is you are trying to compare a guy who have had a few decent games scattered over 3 years to a guy who actually PRODUCES at an all pro level.

 

[hovis]

How is it not obvious to you that you are crediting him with being able to lead the NFL in catches and score 6.4 TDs if he was a starter when he has caught 11 passes and scored 0 TDs in 2 years.

I'm sure there are 100 players in the NFL that if I took the best 5 games of their lives and prjected them into a full season would look like HOFers.

The problem is you are trying to compare a guy who have had a few decent games scattered over 3 years to a guy who actually PRODUCES at an all pro level.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I didn't credit him with anything other than what he earned. I gave a statistical PROJECTION based on the numbers he had when he was the starting slot receiver. I was also pretty clear to point out that it's a small sample, and our eyes tell us Edelman<<<<Welker.

There's a reason we're comparing Welker to Edelman. It's a debate over keeping Welker or not. Edelman's his backup. He'd likely get Welker's snaps.

Your stats about his lack of production aren't relevant, because he wasn't starting. If you're looking to compare the two, the best data source is the time when Edelman was starting for him.

So quit acting like a child and take your Welker fathead down. Adults are talking here. Go to your room until you're ready to have a rational and unemotional football economics discussion.

 

[ivanvamp]

How is it not obvious to you that you are crediting him with being able to lead the NFL in catches and score 6.4 TDs if he was a starter when he has caught 11 passes and scored 0 TDs in 2 years.

I'm sure there are 100 players in the NFL that if I took the best 5 games of their lives and prjected them into a full season would look like HOFers.

The problem is you are trying to compare a guy who have had a few decent games scattered over 3 years to a guy who actually PRODUCES at an all pro level.

I agree with you on this, Andy. It's laughable to look at Edelman's numbers and suggest that he is equivalent to Welker (he just doesn't get as much of a chance as Welker, but if given the chance, he'd produce equally).

However, one is not being unreasonable to ask the question of what Edelman might be able to do if he was NE's starting slot receiver. There's precious little data to go on here, obviously. But in the 2010 playoff game against the Ravens, Edelman had 6 rec, 44 yds, 2 td. That's not what Welker does (over the past 5 years, Welker has averaged 7 rec for 79 yds per game), but is that 6 rec for 44 yds (forget the 2 td...obviously he wouldn't average 2 td a game) acceptable production from the slot, *IF* (and here's the important caveat), with Welker's money now freed up for a stud outside WR, they added a Wallace or a Desean Jackson, etc., giving them Gronk, Hernandez, Wallace/Jackson/etc., and that kind of production from Edelman?

That's one of the bigger questions on the table, I think. Because Brady trusts Welker, and because Welker is so good, he gets a ton of balls thrown his way. The past 3 years (including playoffs), he's been targeted:

2009: 162 (123 rec, 1348 yds)
2010: 122 (86 rec, 848 yds)
2011: 195 (141 rec, 1737 yds)
TOT: 479 targets, 350 rec, 3933 yds

He wouldn't trust Edelman to that degree, and I would think that he would throw the ball more to that new stud receiver they'd add to replace Welker. So let's say that the two options are: Welker + Branch or Edelman + Wallace. I know it's not that simple, but just consider that for a minute. Which pairing would be likely to provide the Pats with a better offense? (consider what else the Pats have to work with: running backs, Gronk, Hernandez, etc.)

 

[Ring 6]

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,

Whoa there. How am I manipulating the numbers by stating exactly what they are?

Beyond his rookie year, Edelman has gotten very few snaps as a receiver.

You say that as if it doesn't mean he hasn't been good enough to earn playing time. If he were injured and unable to play for 2 years, you could argue no opportunity. But he has had every opportunity to play while we trotted out some pretty ineffective guys in the last WR spot. Lets not ignore that Sam Aiken, 85, Tiquan, and Tate are the ones taking the snaps away from the last WR on the bench, not Welker Gronk and Hernandez.

Lets put it another way, Edelman has played in 28 games the last 2 years and has caught 1 pass 5 times, 3 passes twice and zero in TWENTY of the 28 games.

Please explain how you go from not getting the ball with slugs ahead of you to replacing the leading receiver in the NFL.

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.

Of course it is his fault, he didn't EARN the playing time. Why? Because he isn't a good WR. He is a special teamer who cam fill in at WR, play shot gun RB in a pinch, and even step in on defense if needed.

The argument you are making is is the same as arguing that Ohrnberger could be as good as Mankins he just doesn't get the chance. Technically possible but intellectually flawed.

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.

We have nothing to go on with all backups who arent good enough to start. That doesnt make them comparable to an all pro.

All we know is when he HAD the opportunity he played pretty well.

Really? 11 catches in 2 years?

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

And you could have said that 2 years ago, yet he has digreessed.

Bottom line, we just don't know one way or the other.

Technically no, but when his coaches won't let him on the field, we get apretty good idea.

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.

Your error is you are comparing Edleman to the guy who has PRODCUED at the highest level in the NFL. Its a totally flawed argument to say one guy once developed later in his career so that is proof that a guy who did nothing for 3 years will. You could find 100 receivers in the NFL who have done more in the league, who actually played WR in college, who have Wr skills, and who's coaches actually put them on the field at WR over guys as bad as Tate, 85, Tiquan, Aiken and Slater. All of those guys have a better chance of replacing Welker than Edelman.

I know everyone likes an underdog, but its not a crime to admit Edelman is what he is. His similarity to Welker kind of ends with pigmentation.

 

[satz]

RIght now lets see how we matchup

Wes - Always draws the best CB in a team , the 2nd guy goes on hernandaz, third goes on outside CB ....gronk is the matchup problem.

now the outside hardly produce even with being covered by the 3rd best CB....now hernandaz blew up when teams doubled both Wes and Grnk.

Now lets let Wes walk

No1 CB moves on hernandaz
No2 goes on Edelman
No3 Goes on Outside.

Frees the the double coverage guy on wes ...double gronk every down and then play

People are dillusion if you think a team will cover edelman with no1 option and even double him like wes.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with you on this, Andy. It's laughable to look at Edelman's numbers and suggest that he is equivalent to Welker (he just doesn't get as much of a chance as Welker, but if given the chance, he'd produce equally).

However, one is not being unreasonable to ask the question of what Edelman might be able to do if he was NE's starting slot receiver. There's precious little data to go on here, obviously. But in the 2010 playoff game against the Ravens, Edelman had 6 rec, 44 yds, 2 td. That's not what Welker does (over the past 5 years, Welker has averaged 7 rec for 79 yds per game), but is that 6 rec for 44 yds (forget the 2 td...obviously he wouldn't average 2 td a game) acceptable production from the slot, *IF* (and here's the important caveat), with Welker's money now freed up for a stud outside WR, they added a Wallace or a Desean Jackson, etc., giving them Gronk, Hernandez, Wallace/Jackson/etc., and that kind of production from Edelman?

That's one of the bigger questions on the table, I think. Because Brady trusts Welker, and because Welker is so good, he gets a ton of balls thrown his way. The past 3 years (including playoffs), he's been targeted:

2009: 162 (123 rec, 1348 yds)
2010: 122 (86 rec, 848 yds)
2011: 195 (141 rec, 1737 yds)
TOT: 479 targets, 350 rec, 3933 yds

He wouldn't trust Edelman to that degree, and I would think that he would throw the ball more to that new stud receiver they'd add to replace Welker. So let's say that the two options are: Welker + Branch or Edelman + Wallace. I know it's not that simple, but just consider that for a minute. Which pairing would be likely to provide the Pats with a better offense? (consider what else the Pats have to work with: running backs, Gronk, Hernandez, etc.)

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.

 

[hovis]

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.

Edelman's numbers as a starting slot receiver suggest he CAN do the job when asked. In terms of earning playing time, whose snaps would Edelman take away? The leading receiver in the league?

Your circular reasoning is circular, because it looks like a circle.

How much would you pay Welker? What's your tipping point for saying he's asking for too much money?

 

[Ring 6]

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Making comments like that tells me YOU are too emotional here.

I didn't credit him with anything other than what he earned. I gave a statistical PROJECTION based on the numbers he had when he was the starting slot receiver. I was also pretty clear to point out that it's a small sample, and our eyes tell us Edelman<<<<Welker.

Then why would you manipulated a cherry picked and tiny sample to imply that Edelman would produce the same thing? Or are you claiming you were implying something else by posting a calculation of manipulated stats that add up to 'eqaul over a full season'?

There's a reason we're comparing Welker to Edelman. It's a debate over keeping Welker or not. Edelman's his backup. He'd likely get Welker's snaps.

There is no way in the world that if we don't sign Welker we would chooseJulian Edelman to take his place. There are 100 better options.

Your stats about his lack of production aren't relevant, because he wasn't starting. If you're looking to compare the two, the best data source is the time when Edelman was starting for him.

"My stats" are Edelmans stats. You are now saying what he has actually done in his 3 years is irrelevant and a twisting and manipualtion of stats is?

Please explain why he is never on the field, and we suffer through Aiken, Tate, Tiquan, 85 and even split RBs out as WRs instead of using him if he is a viable replacement for the top prodcuing WR in the NFL. If he were in Welkers league, he would be playing in 3,4,5 WR sets instead of guys who also cant play.

So quit acting like a child and take your Welker fathead down.Adults are talking here. Go to your room until you're ready to have a rational and unemotional football economics discussion.

Oooh, wow you can make insults. You have now proven 2 things.
1) Your argument stinks so you have to resort to insults
2) You are a dlck

 

[hovis]

Oooh, wow you can make insults. You have now proven 2 things.
1) Your argument stinks so you have to resort to insults
2) You are a dlck

Sometimes kids need tough love.

How much do you want to pay Welker little buddy, a gazillion million times infinity dollars?

 

[Ring 6]

Edelman's numbers as a starting slot receiver suggest he CAN do the job when asked. In terms of earning playing time, whose snaps would Edelman take away? The leading receiver in the league?

Aiken? Slater? 85? Tate? Hell, if he is a viable Welker replacement he should be taking some from Branch and Hernandez.

Your circular reasoning is circular, because it looks like a circle.

Right. BB won't put him on the field, and that is good evidence he can't play. Very circular.

How much would you pay Welker? What's your tipping point for saying he's asking for too much money?

It depends on the alternatives. Edelman is not one of them. I would certainly pay Welker more than I would have to pay the guy I go out and get to replace him as the leading receiver in the NFL.

 

[Ring 6]

Sometimes kids need tough love.

How much do you want to pay Welker little buddy, a gazillion million times infinity dollars?

Again, you are a dlck. If you want to stop being one,we can have a discussion. If you insist on proving you are a dlck, talk to someone else. Your argument blows any way.

 

[billdog3484]

he will be back. gotta be. we will never forget the drop, but i think as time goes by can live with it more and more