Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on Welker

[ivanvamp]

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 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.

We're not in disagreement. I was addressing the issue that some folks have raised whereby they want to let Welker go, bring in a stud WR to replace him, and then have Edelman be the slot receiver.

I don't think that BB would have Edelman be the full-time slot WR. He played that in the 2010 playoffs because he had to - Welker's injury came the week before.

 

[Ring 6]

We're not in disagreement. I was addressing the issue that some folks have raised whereby they want to let Welker go, bring in a stud WR to replace him, and then have Edelman be the slot receiver.

I don't think that BB would have Edelman be the full-time slot WR. He played that in the 2010 playoffs because he had to - Welker's injury came the week before.

Right. If Edelman had the skills of a full time player, he would at least be a part time player.

 

[ivanvamp]

Right. If Edelman had the skills of a full time player, he would at least be a part time player.

# of Patriots' offensive player snaps - skill positions only, 2011:

TE Rob Gronkowski -- 94.6%
WR Wes Welker -- 89.2%
TE Aaron Hernandez -- 77.1%
WR Deion Branch -- 76.0%
RB BenJarvus Green-Ellis -- 34.4%
RB Danny Woodhead -- 33.0%
WR Chad Ochocinco -- 26.3%
RB Stevan Ridley -- 14.0%
WR Julian Edelman -- 13.3%
TE Nate Solder -- 11.1%
WR Tiquan Underwood -- 7.2%
RB Kevin Faulk -- 6.5%
TE Dan Gronkowski -- 4.1%
WR Matthew Slater -- 3.3%
TE Thomas Welch -- 2.7%
RB Shane Vereen -- 1.9%
FB Lousaka Polite -- 1.3%
WR Taylor Price -- 1.3%
FB Dane Fletcher -- 1.0%
FB Donald Thomas -- 0.8%
TE Matt Light -- 0.3%
FB Ryan Wendell -- 0.3%
FB Dan Connolly -- 0.1%
TE Sebastian Vollmer -- 0.1%

13.3% probably counts as a "part time player".

 

[bucky]

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

Your words - "top receiver in the NFL". "top" and best are pretty synonimous. Even if you were to claim he's the "most productive", you're basing it purely on receptions - which is not the best (and certainly not the only) metric for a receiver.

Here are some metrics that measure his productivity per/catch and per/target:

Yards/rec - not in the top 40
Yards/target - not in the top 10
TDs/rec - not in the top 20
TDs/target - not in the top 20
1st downs/rec - not in the top 20
1st downs/target - not in the top 10
20+ yard plays/rec - not in the top 20
20+ yard plays/target - barely in the top 20
YAC/rec - 8th
YAC/target - 6th

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?

If Samuel gets cut now, he'll have played 4 years at just under $10 mil/year, making their per-year contract values were nearly identical. Samuel got to 3 Pro Bowls. I would say Moss was more overpaid over his 3 year deal. And Samuel still hasn't been replaced here in NE.

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

Fair enough. You did not respond to one of my posts. You responded to a post that was a continuation of my post about Edelman's stats in replacing Welker.

However, your refusal to acknowledge that comparing Edelman's playing time to Branch's or 85's is the same as comparing a Guard's playing time to a Tackle's is your main issue. I know you are more knowledgeable than that, but refuse to acknowledge the argument.

I am not saying that Edelman is as good as Welker, or that he can replace Welker. Only that you cannot use this year's stats to evaluate how he would do as starting slot receiver, absent Welker. And I'm not even suggesting that Edelman be made a starter. In fact, what I'm suggesting is to bring in 2 starting wideouts and use Edelman as a slot in 3 WR sets, or in certain 2 WR 2 TE sets where he can run the same combination routes that Welker currently runs.

 

[Ring 6]

Your words - "top receiver in the NFL". "top" and best are pretty synonimous. Even if you were to claim he's the "most productive", you're basing it purely on receptions - which is not the best (and certainly not the only) metric for a receiver.

Here are some metrics that measure his productivity per/catch and per/target:

Yards/rec - not in the top 40
Yards/target - not in the top 10
TDs/rec - not in the top 20
TDs/target - not in the top 20
1st downs/rec - not in the top 20
1st downs/target - not in the top 10
20+ yard plays/rec - not in the top 20
20+ yard plays/target - barely in the top 20
YAC/rec - 8th
YAC/target - 6th

So?
Those are subsets that add up to production.
Last year, Welker was 2nd in receiving yards, barely losing out to Calvin Johnson on the last day of the season.
Since becoming a Patriot he is 4th in receiving yardage, 1st in receptions BY 80.
Production is production no matter how you want to pretend one way of producing is better than another.

If Samuel gets cut now, he'll have played 4 years at just under $10 mil/year, making their per-year contract values were nearly identical. Samuel got to 3 Pro Bowls. I would say Moss was more overpaid over his 3 year deal. And Samuel still hasn't been replaced here in NE.

Moss was not paid $40,000,000.
Are you really going to argue that getting voted to Pro Bowls is the justification of a contract?
I think the Patriots are better off having resigned Randy Moss after the 2007 than they would have been resigning Asante. Your seem to want to twist things around to refute that. You have not suceeded.

Fair enough. You did not respond to one of my posts. You responded to a post that was a continuation of my post about Edelman's stats in replacing Welker.

I responded to the commentary on Edelman.

However, your refusal to acknowledge that comparing Edelman's playing time to Branch's or 85's is the same as comparing a Guard's playing time to a Tackle's is your main issue. I know you are more knowledgeable than that, but refuse to acknowledge the argument.

Because its a terrible argument. If Edelman was good he would have been on the field in those multiple WR sets. Your incorrect comparison to a G/T scenario doesn't change that.

I am not saying that Edelman is as good as Welker, or that he can replace Welker. Only that you cannot use this year's stats to evaluate how he would do as starting slot receiver, absent Welker.

I am not using stats, I am using his career, skill set and ability.

And I'm not even suggesting that Edelman be made a starter. In fact, what I'm suggesting is to bring in 2 starting wideouts and use Edelman as a slot in 3 WR sets, or in certain 2 WR 2 TE sets where he can run the same combination routes that Welker currently runs.

Then we disagree even more. You want to bring in 2 new WRs in order to get rid of the guy who just finished #1 in receptions and #2 in yards and is clearly Tom Brady's go to guy. That is crazy IMO.
Not sure why you are a Welker hater, but your view is sevewrely clouded here.

 

[bucky]

This may be most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post.

Of course not!!!

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.

BB isn't going to put a player on the field if he's hurting the team. Of course he wasn't 100%. But it IS an excuse. Welker had a chance to make a great play to seal that game, regardless of anything having to do with Gronk. Gronk will require bug money, as will Hernandez. And if we pay them and Welker, it leaves the defense out to dry.

1.) Moss wasn't overpaid

You're telling me that between 2008-2010, the Patriots got $27 million worth of production form him?

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

I didn't say he was. I said the Raiders had to overpay to keep him. And the Patriots essentially got rid of him because they didn't want to pay him and Wilfork. Had they not paid Moss, they could have possibly kept Seymour. Though Seymour is clearly not the player he once was, he may have been more valuable to the Pats when they were getting their asses handed to them in the playoffs in 2009 and 2010.

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

It's what I think he's worth to this team if it's going to get the best chance at a championship over the next 2-3 years. He may be able to get more on the market and as I've said before, he deserves every penny he can get. But you said yourself that it's not clear what the true market value of a top slot WR is.

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.

Now you're getting into the utterly ridiculous realm. Brady is what this team is build around. Wilfork DID in fact take less to stay that he could have gotten. And he's worth the contract. Logan Mankins, on the other hand, is not worth the big contract. That's just my opinion and I've said this consistently over the past couple of years. But that's a topic for another thread. My point is that you have to be judicious with who gets the big money. The Saints are seeing this first hand now. They gave a huge contract to one Guard, thus in effect making it nearly impossible to sign the other one 2 years later.

 

[bucky]

So?
Those are subsets that add up to production.
Last year, Welker was 2nd in receiving yards, barely losing out to Calvin Johnson on the last day of the season.
Since becoming a Patriot he is 4th in receiving yardage, 1st in receptions BY 80.
Production is production no matter how you want to pretend one way of producing is better than another.

Production does not equal receptions. It's about yards, 1st downs, TDs, and what you do with your opportunities in general. There is no question Welker is productive. Very productive. And he gets open a lot. But he's not THE MOST productive. A lot of his success is a result of Brady. And a lot of his productivity is directly related to how many times Brady throws to him, including those little slip screens.

Moss was not paid $40,000,000.
Are you really going to argue that getting voted to Pro Bowls is the justification of a contract?
I think the Patriots are better off having resigned Randy Moss after the 2007 than they would have been resigning Asante. Your seem to want to twist things around to refute that. You have not suceeded.

What is there to twist? Moss was paid $9 mil/year. Assante just less than $10 mil/year. Assante was not worth that money, but he was pretty good and made a bunch of incentives. Moss did not perform to that level in any of his 3 years here.

Not sure why you are a Welker hater, but your view is sevewrely clouded here.

I am not a Welker hater and I will refer you to the following link, which was my first post in this thread and explains my opinion about Welker and his contract.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ryones-thoughts-welker-page3.html#post2968894

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course not!!!

You've posted a fair amount of silly stuff, but this is right up at the top.

BB isn't going to put a player on the field if he's hurting the team. Of course he wasn't 100%. But it IS an excuse. Welker had a chance to make a great play to seal that game, regardless of anything having to do with Gronk. Gronk will require bug money, as will Hernandez. And if we pay them and Welker, it leaves the defense out to dry.

You should learn the difference between 'excuse' and 'reason'. Sometimes they can be very similar but, in the end, the difference is important and defining.

You're telling me that between 2008-2010, the Patriots got $27 million worth of production form him?

I'm telling you that he wasn't overpaid. You seriously question this?

I didn't say he was. I said the Raiders had to overpay to keep him. And the Patriots essentially got rid of him because they didn't want to pay him and Wilfork. Had they not paid Moss, they could have possibly kept Seymour. Though Seymour is clearly not the player he once was, he may have been more valuable to the Pats when they were getting their asses handed to them in the playoffs in 2009 and 2010.

Except that you're trying to take a non-team issue and make it a team issue. And stop with the salary arguments, because you're getting them wrong. The Patriots could have kept Seymour if they'd wanted to. The money was there. This has been shown on more than one occasion.

It's what I think he's worth to this team if it's going to get the best chance at a championship over the next 2-3 years. He may be able to get more on the market and as I've said before, he deserves every penny he can get. But you said yourself that it's not clear what the true market value of a top slot WR is.

So you're basically admitting that you're clueless and posting nonsense. If you're going to post a number, bring a legitimate reason and base it in comparison to current deals. Without that, you're just talking out of your backside.

Now you're getting into the utterly ridiculous realm. Brady is what this team is build around. Wilfork DID in fact take less to stay that he could have gotten. And he's worth the contract. Logan Mankins, on the other hand, is not worth the big contract. That's just my opinion and I've said this consistently over the past couple of years. But that's a topic for another thread. My point is that you have to be judicious with who gets the big money. The Saints are seeing this first hand now. They gave a huge contract to one Guard, thus in effect making it nearly impossible to sign the other one 2 years later.

It's the common sense extension of your argument. It's demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. The fact that you find that extension 'ridiculous' is exactly the point.

And your point is both obvious as a generality and asinine as you're trying to apply it here.

 

[ivanvamp]

Production does not equal receptions. It's about yards, 1st downs, TDs, and what you do with your opportunities in general. There is no question Welker is productive. Very productive. And he gets open a lot. But he's not THE MOST productive.

It is a bit difficult to determine most productive. For example, look at these two receivers:

Set #1
A: 181 targets, 100 rec, 55.2 %, 1296 yds, 13.0 ypc, 8 td, 77 1st downs
B: 96 targets, 68 rec, 70.8%, 1263 yds, 18.6 ypc, 15 td, 47 1st downs

Or these two:

Set #2
C: 141 targets, 81 rec, 57.4%, 1159 yds, 14.3 ypc, 5 td, 57 1st downs
D: 107 targets, 80 rec, 74.8%, 1143 yds, 14.3 ypc, 8 td, 55 1st downs

In set #1, player A has more receptions (by a lot), more yards, and a LOT more first downs. But player B has a much higher rec/target percentage, a much higher ypc, and a lot more td.

In set #2, the players have almost identical receptions, yards, ypc, and first downs; player C has slight edges in all those categories. Player D has a slight edge in TD, but a huge edge in rec/target percentage.

So who is more "productive" in set #1? How about set #2?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I'm not reading all 17 pages. I assume there are about 8 1/2 pages of posts demanding that we let go of a guy who has consistently been at or near the top of the reception leaders in the NFL, and if memory serves it's top 3-5, not the top 10-20.

There's cap money, and there's production, and the "production" side of the ledger says "A+, but not A++, he dropped one real important pass."

Dudes, it doesn't help him a lot but there are no serious football talent guys that dump him because of that one drop. So forget that in the "analysis." It's off on the side after you figure out the other ways to spend the cap funds.

Regardless, priority 1 = Sign the Beast.

 

[Bostonian1962]

This guy is the best slot receiver in the league, and has been for several years. On top of that, he is a great teammate, works out like crazy, does and says all the right things (excluding the Rex Ryan FEET diatribe, and I even loved that). Those saying we should let him go and instead get a down the field receiver are wrong. Somebody that works the inside of the field as well as he does, makes our TEs and any down the field receiver that much better.

On top of all that, he's probably Brady's best friend on the team. Don't worry, they will sign him.

 

[Ring 6]

Production does not equal receptions.

I didnt say it did Strawman.

It's about yards, 1st downs, TDs, and what you do with your opportunities in general. There is no question Welker is productive. Very productive. And he gets open a lot. But he's not THE MOST productive. A lot of his success is a result of Brady. And a lot of his productivity is directly related to how many times Brady throws to him, including those little slip screens.

Welker has the 4th most yards and most receptions for the last 5 years. He led the leagiue in both through week 16 this year. The most, or among the most is splitting hairs, and still has the same impact.
A lot of Brady's success is also due to Welker, it goes both ways.
Brady doesnt throw to him for any other reason that he gets open and produces.

What is there to twist? Moss was paid $9 mil/year. Assante just less than $10 mil/year. Assante was not worth that money, but he was pretty good and made a bunch of incentives. Moss did not perform to that level in any of his 3 years here.

Samuel signed a 6 year 57 million dollar contract and has been paid 39 million and still has dead money if he is ciut.
Moss signed a 3 year 27 million dollar contract and actually recieved about 23 mill of it from the Patriots. You are twisting by implying it was choosing Moss over Asante for the same money.
Moss didnt perform as well as Asante in 08 and 09? Really? I guess you can find someone to hold just about any opinion.

I am not a Welker hater and I will refer you to the following link, which was my first post in this thread and explains my opinion about Welker and his contract.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ryones-thoughts-welker-page3.html#post2968894

If your opiinion is that the Patriots should survey the group of FA WRs that include Wes Welker and choose 2 different ones, then you are not speaking from a gounded point of view and have some sort of emotional bias against
Welker. To take the focal point of the offense that just had the 19th most receiveing yards of any player in NFL history and seriously say what is best for the team is to dump him and start over with new guys is silly.

Your original post illustrates your ignorance on the topic.
Welker just had a season that ranks 19th ALLTIME in receiving yards. There are 2 active receivers who ever had more in a season. Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson, each only 1 (AJ tied one other time)
Jerry Rice only had more recieving yards than Welker had in 2011 twice in his career.
Randy Moss and Michael Irivin only once.
Your answer to that is that he is expendable because its all cause of Brady, Hernandez runs the same routes and Edelman can replace him. THAT is ignorant.

 

[Ring 6]

# of Patriots' offensive player snaps - skill positions only, 2011:

TE Rob Gronkowski -- 94.6%
WR Wes Welker -- 89.2%
TE Aaron Hernandez -- 77.1%
WR Deion Branch -- 76.0%
RB BenJarvus Green-Ellis -- 34.4%
RB Danny Woodhead -- 33.0%
WR Chad Ochocinco -- 26.3%
RB Stevan Ridley -- 14.0%
WR Julian Edelman -- 13.3%
TE Nate Solder -- 11.1%
WR Tiquan Underwood -- 7.2%
RB Kevin Faulk -- 6.5%
TE Dan Gronkowski -- 4.1%
WR Matthew Slater -- 3.3%
TE Thomas Welch -- 2.7%
RB Shane Vereen -- 1.9%
FB Lousaka Polite -- 1.3%
WR Taylor Price -- 1.3%
FB Dane Fletcher -- 1.0%
FB Donald Thomas -- 0.8%
TE Matt Light -- 0.3%
FB Ryan Wendell -- 0.3%
FB Dan Connolly -- 0.1%
TE Sebastian Vollmer -- 0.1%

13.3% probably counts as a "part time player".

Not really. I guess it depends on what you mean by part time, but I see 13% as a guy who is active for special teams and gets out there because we need someone. It certainly isnt a clear role. We are talking about an average of about 7 or 8 plays a game, and over 20% of his snaps came in the last game of the season when we played the backups.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm telling you that he wasn't overpaid. You seriously question this?

In 2008-2009 Randy Moss had the 10th most receiving yards in the NFL (while sharing the ball with Wes Welker who had the 4th most) and 2nd most receiving TDs (1 less than the leader) while playing half his games with a QB starting for the first time since HS.
In the year he didn't have that QB, but had one recovering from a severe knee injury he ranked 5th and 1st.
Of course he wasnt overpaid.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

After a bunch of post, I've gone back to respond to the OP.

To me you have to accept that Wes Welker is the focal point of the offense.
I understand Brady is the man, but what the style they play revolves around Welker, and the coverage they face also is dictated by Welker being the focal point.
So a logical question would be whether the offense with Welker as the focal point is good, or whether a change should be made to improve it.

In looking at this, first I think while the offense has undergone a tremendous amount of change, I think it is fair to look at the entire timeframe of 07-11 to assess it, because, ups and downs aside it has been reasonably consistent in where it ranks among NFL offenses. While this includes the great 2007 offense it also includes 16 Matt Cassel ganes.

Some numbers:
First the Patriots have a 64-16 record over these 5 years. Second best is 55-25
Points scored #1 with 2457 (30.7 a game) 174 ahead of #2.
Point differential #1 with 934, second place is 696
Passing Yards 2nd
Total Offense 2nd
Passing TDs 1st (tied)
Passing ints fewest
Total turnovers fewest

I think it is reasonable to assume that the Patriot offense, as constructed is effective.
To not retain Welker will have to result in a scheme change.
For my money, change for the sake of change when you are already excellent is foolhardy.

One final point. I hear so many comments about Welker not being a 'real' WR and how some slug could do what Welker does.

Wes Welker had the 19th most receiving yards in a single season in NFL history in 2012. IN HISTORY.
Yards are production regardless of how they are gained.
To put some perspective to this, Jerry Rice only had 2 seasons in his career with more receiving yards than Welkers 2012 and one was by a single yard.
Randy Moss exceeded it once.
The only active players with more recieving yards in any of their career seasons are Andre Johnson who surpassed it by 6 yards once, and tied it another, and Calvin Johnson who used a career day in week 17 to surpass Welker who led all season.
How people can think we just go out and get a guy to replace Welker when there are only 2 men in the league who ever had more receiving yards in any season of their career is mind boggling to me.
I guess people just want to reduce his career to dropping that pass in Indy.

 

[bucky]

It is a bit difficult to determine most productive. For example, look at these two receivers:

Set #1
A: 181 targets, 100 rec, 55.2 %, 1296 yds, 13.0 ypc, 8 td, 77 1st downs
B: 96 targets, 68 rec, 70.8%, 1263 yds, 18.6 ypc, 15 td, 47 1st downs

Or these two:

Set #2
C: 141 targets, 81 rec, 57.4%, 1159 yds, 14.3 ypc, 5 td, 57 1st downs
D: 107 targets, 80 rec, 74.8%, 1143 yds, 14.3 ypc, 8 td, 55 1st downs

In set #1, player A has more receptions (by a lot), more yards, and a LOT more first downs. But player B has a much higher rec/target percentage, a much higher ypc, and a lot more td.

In set #2, the players have almost identical receptions, yards, ypc, and first downs; player C has slight edges in all those categories. Player D has a slight edge in TD, but a huge edge in rec/target percentage.

So who is more "productive" in set #1? How about set #2?

In set 2, the answer is easy. It's D. That's why I gave an example of per-reception and per-target numbers. Per-target numbers are important - although it has to be said that a lot depends on how good the QB is.

In set 1 it's a tougher call. But I'd go with player B because of the high number of TDs and because of the super-high yards/target.

 

[bucky]

You should learn the difference between 'excuse' and 'reason'. Sometimes they can be very similar but, in the end, the difference is important and defining.

And what was the "reason" in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010? There are always "reasons" for losing. But there were no reasons in 2001, 2003, and 2004. They didn't have any injuries in those 3 years. Oh no! Brady didn't play the '01 Superbowl on a gimpy knee. They didn't go through almost the entire playoffs in 2004 without the best DL in the NFL. No, those were not reasons for them to lose.

I'm telling you that he wasn't overpaid. You seriously question this?

I'm sorry, I forgot that you're the unequivocal authority on the subject and that your word is the law. But you still haven't answered my question. Was Moss' quality of play and production from '08 to '10 worth $27 mil?

Except that you're trying to take a non-team issue and make it a team issue.

And stop with the salary arguments, because you're getting them wrong. The Patriots could have kept Seymour if they'd wanted to. The money was there. This has been shown on more than one occasion.

Yes, the money was there. They just decided to allocate it to other players.

So you're basically admitting that you're clueless and posting nonsense. If you're going to post a number, bring a legitimate reason and base it in comparison to current deals. Without that, you're just talking out of your backside.

Actually, I'm referencing a very well-know self-proclaimed authority on the subject. His name is Deus Irae. And he said:

"He deserves to be paid accordingly. However, since he's not a 'true' WR, it's difficult to define 'accordingly' in context."

What I have done, is defined the "accordingly" just about as well as anyone else on this board.

It's the common sense extension of your argument. It's demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. The fact that you find that extension 'ridiculous' is exactly the point.

And your point is both obvious as a generality and asinine as you're trying to apply it here.

Now it's just "Deus being obtuse". Instead of making a point, you're arguing the semantics of your own argument. I addressed your point. And if you're not able to argue back about the actual item in question and instead feel like you need to qualify how ridiculous my point is, I'll just note that you have nothing more of value to add and end it with that.

 

[bucky]

In 2008-2009 Randy Moss had the 10th most receiving yards in the NFL (while sharing the ball with Wes Welker who had the 4th most) and 2nd most receiving TDs (1 less than the leader) while playing half his games with a QB starting for the first time since HS.
In the year he didn't have that QB, but had one recovering from a severe knee injury he ranked 5th and 1st.
Of course he wasnt overpaid.

The argument about the QB has to be taken into account both ways. There's a lot to be said about playing with Brady and having great numbers because of that. I will grant you that in the first half of 2009, you would have a case for his number being good. In the last 8 games of '09, he had 30 catches for 420 yards. Including the memorable playoff game when he didn't even bother trying to run his route half the time. And in 2010, the WR being paid as one of the 5 best in the NFL, ended up flopping with 3 separate teams.

 

[ivanvamp]

In set 2, the answer is easy. It's D. That's why I gave an example of per-reception and per-target numbers. Per-target numbers are important - although it has to be said that a lot depends on how good the QB is.

I think D is also the right call there, but to me it's mainly because of the 3 extra TD. We're not talking about how *good* a receiver is (after all, he may have fewer targets because he's being double and triple teamed all the time), but how much they *actually produce* on the field. And to me, it's a tossup in terms of real, genuine, on-field production. Slight edge to D, but not for the reason you gave.

In set 1 it's a tougher call. But I'd go with player B because of the high number of TDs and because of the super-high yards/target.

Again, we're talking about production, not efficiency. I honestly don't know of these two who has produced more on the field. The TDs are a big edge for B, but all the other counting stats (which are what production - and not efficiency - is all about) favor A.

This is part of my point when arguing about Wes Welker. Not only do we all have in our minds what constitutes "best" receiver, we also cannot really agree on what constitutes "productive". If we cannot agree on the terms of the discussion, we're just totally missing each other, which is part of the frustration on the part of a lot of people, I would guess.

 

[bucky]

Your original post illustrates your ignorance on the topic.
Welker just had a season that ranks 19th ALLTIME in receiving yards. There are 2 active receivers who ever had more in a season. Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson, each only 1 (AJ tied one other time)
Jerry Rice only had more recieving yards than Welker had in 2011 twice in his career.
Randy Moss and Michael Irivin only once.
Your answer to that is that he is expendable because its all cause of Brady, Hernandez runs the same routes and Edelman can replace him. THAT is ignorant.

Actually, it's you who is being emotional and irrational over this and you are illustrating my point exactly. The chances of Wes Welker EVER having a season like this again is almost zero. He is 30, and he just had a career year. His yards/catch average was 2 full yards higher than ever before. It won't happen again. And you know what? It still didn't lead the team to a superbowl win. Not just because of "the drop", but because this team was too reliant on Brady, Welker, and the 2 TEs. That's it! If one of those 3 guys didn't get the job done and Brady didn't get him the ball, they can't win. If you pay Welker $10 mil+ over 4 years, you're committing yourself to more of the same. You'll be seeing more 2nd and 3rd picks, has-beens, and JAGs coming in to play safety, CB, 2nd WR, and OLB.