The 2nd Patriots dynasty does not happen without Edelman. > NFL Hall of Fame.

[Steve102]

Why is it one or the other with you guys? Jules has rings, Wes doesn't. Other than that, they are very damned similar.

I can see the NFL films of Wes and Bill on the sidelines when Jules ran back an punt in pre-season. Way to compete.

 

[Deus Irae]

I will freely admit I'm wrong if I'm missing something here, that all-pros and pro bowls factor in anything other than stats. Unlike the HOF, which takes into account "softer" factors beyond just stats

Welker was acknowledged to be one of the best in the game in two separate seasons.
Welker was part of the only team to go 16-0 (as a full season) in the history of the game.


Saying it's all based on stats is beyond ridiculous. Again, using your argument, Malcolm Mitchell > Randy Moss.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I will freely admit I'm wrong if I'm missing something here, that all-pros and pro bowls factor in anything other than stats. Unlike the HOF, which takes into account "softer" factors beyond just stats

Accolades and stats are different things. True, stats often determine accolades, but it's appropriate to bring accolades into the mix in reply to "the only thing he has is stats." Accolades might also serve to reinforce that the stats aren't being overrated, as the public consensus is that Welker was among the NFL's best receivers; and accolades might also help Edelman since he won Super Bowl MVP.

I think trying to isolate "stats" like the measured production isn't very meaningful, isn't a great approach to this. People are very selective in how they use stats; they use them when they help their argument and then downplay them when they hurt their argument. If Edelman were the all-time postseason leader in receptions, suddenly stats are meaningful again.

—

• Welker was an insanely fast accelerator and could run, catch, run, like few I’ve seen. He would just snag it full sprint and keep going. He really excelled against zones and when safeties were worried about Moss.
• Welker was much better out of the slot than he was on the outside; he couldn’t do much on the outside because being slippery doesn’t do much there. Edelman could lineup on the outside and be effective because of his strength and was better at making contested catches.
• Edelman was better when the offense was “just him” with no other big threat to open up those passing lanes. In 2013, he demonstrated this. Welker did struggle the few times he was the only active star player.
• Welker was better at getting YAC because of his ability shift, accelerate and find a seam.
• Edelman was the better red zone threat since Welker lacked the power to break tackles there.
• Edelman had a better catch radius with a bigger wingspan and better jumping ability.
• Welker had an incredible center of gravity and the ability to balance while making tough catches or readjusting while running. Reminds me of someone like Leo Messi or Maradona…a guy who benefits by being so undersized with a short, shifty, but fast gait.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Welker was acknowledged to be one of the best in the game in two separate seasons.
Welker was part of the only team to go 16-0 (as a full season) in the history of the game.


Saying it's all based on stats is beyond ridiculous. Again, using your argument, Malcolm Mitchell > Randy Moss.

Your problem is you're taking my argument and changing it to be one thing, then taking it to the extreme. Here's what we're both saying, just let me know if maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here.

We have two factors at play here, statistical factors (A) and intangible factors (B).

I'm saying Welker's All-Pro and Probowl accolades are both entirely based on factor A. Are you saying it is not? Welker was acknowledged to be one of the best because he was a statistical monster. He didn't get any of those accolades by being on a 16-0 team; meaning, if the team had gone 15-1 it wouldn't have broke his accolades either way. He was (one of) the best at his position because of his production. His statistical production.

We're both saying the HOF takes into consideration factors A and B. Sometimes a player may have more of B than A. Edelman is such a case. Welker has more A than B. They can both belong in the HOF, both for different reasons. But only Welker gets the all-pro and probowl accolades, because they do not take factor B into consideration. How could they? They're regular season awards, awarded for good seasons. They're not awarded based on your career accomplishments.

Where is the disagreement here?

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Accolades and stats are different things. True, stats often determine accolades, but it's appropriate to bring accolades into the mix in reply to "the only thing he has is stats." Accolades might also serve to reinforce that the stats aren't being overrated, as the public consensus is that Welker was among the NFL's best receivers; and accolades might also help Edelman since he won Super Bowl MVP.

I think trying to isolate "stats" like the measured production isn't very meaningful, isn't a great approach to this. People are very selective in how they use stats; they use them when they help their argument and then downplay them when they hurt their argument. If Edelman were the all-time postseason leader in receptions, suddenly stats are meaningful again.

—

• Welker was an insanely fast accelerator and could run, catch, run, like few I’ve seen. He would just snag it full sprint and keep going. He really excelled against zones and when safeties were worried about Moss.
• Welker was much better out of the slot than he was on the outside; he couldn’t do much on the outside because being slippery doesn’t do much there. Edelman could lineup on the outside and be effective because of his strength and was better at making contested catches.
• Edelman was better when the offense was “just him” with no other big threat to open up those passing lanes. In 2013, he demonstrated this. Welker did struggle the few times he was the only active star player.
• Welker was better at getting YAC because of his ability shift, accelerate and find a seam.
• Edelman was the better red zone threat since Welker lacked the power to break tackles there.
• Edelman had a better catch radius with a bigger wingspan and better jumping ability.
• Welker had an incredible center of gravity and the ability to balance while making tough catches or readjusting while running. Reminds me of someone like Leo Messi or Maradona…a guy who benefits by being so undersized with a short, shifty, but fast gait.

Using accolades that are entirely based on stats, and then saying stats isn't the only thing he has over Edelman is a little pedantic. If he didn't have the stats he wouldn't have the stat-based accolades. It's the same thing

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Why is it one or the other with you guys? Jules has rings, Wes doesn't. Other than that, they are very damned similar.

I can see the NFL films of Wes and Bill on the sidelines when Jules ran back an punt in pre-season. Way to compete.

For me it isn't. They both have a good argument for the HOF, it's just that they're different arguments.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your problem is you're taking my argument and changing it to be one thing, then taking it to the extreme. Here's what we're both saying, just let me know if maybe I'm just misunderstanding something here.

We have two factors at play here, statistical factors (A) and intangible factors (B).

I'm saying Welker's All-Pro and Probowl accolades are both entirely based on factor A. Are you saying it is not? Welker was acknowledged to be one of the best because he was a statistical monster. He didn't get any of those accolades by being on a 16-0 team; meaning, if the team had gone 15-1 it wouldn't have broke his accolades either way. He was (one of) the best at his position because of his production. His statistical production.

We're both saying the HOF takes into consideration factors A and B. Sometimes a player may have more of B than A. Edelman is such a case. Welker has more A than B. They can both belong in the HOF, both for different reasons. But only Welker gets the all-pro and probowl accolades, because they do not take factor B into consideration. How could they? They're regular season awards, awarded for good seasons. They're not awarded based on your career accomplishments.

Where is the disagreement here?

Your problem is that your argument is ludicrous. What you've tried to do is eliminate literally everything that is not a handful of catches by Edelman in playoff winning performances. First, you ignore that Welker had catches with significant importance, partly because the team didn't end up winning SBs, partly because they weren't as flashy as Edelman's Atlanta catch, and (likely) largely because that small number of catches is all Edelman has in his comparison argument. Edelman had some drops in the playoffs? So what, because he had a catch in Atlanta. Welker's 2 SB runs showed him having caught 46 balls on 56 passes his way, which is an 82% clip, and considerably higher than his career 71% rate, but so what? Because Edelman had a catch in Atlanta.

It's an embarrassing argument.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Using accolades that are entirely based on stats, and then saying stats isn't the only thing he has over Edelman is a little pedantic. If he didn't have the stats he wouldn't have the stat-based accolades. It's the same thing

What exactly are you supposed to use then? I broke down every non-statistical comparison with their styles of play.

I see that your use of the word “stats” is just a catch all for football performance as opposed to Special Memories That I Really Liked…

You’re honestly trying to pretend that stats show up in a vacuum and there was no winning, team value, etc when one guy caught passes but a divine moment when another guy did the same thing? Stats VERSUS Intangibles, like they‘re totally separate? I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Your problem is that your argument is ludicrous. What you've tried to do is eliminate literally everything that is not a handful of catches by Edelman in playoff winning performances. First, you ignore that Welker had catches with significant importance, partly because the team didn't end up winning SBs, partly because they weren't as flashy as Edelman's Atlanta catch, and (likely) largely because that small number of catches is all Edelman has in his comparison argument. Edelman had some drops in the playoffs? So what, because he had a catch in Atlanta. Welker's 2 SB runs showed him having caught 46 balls on 56 passes his way, which is an 82% clip, and considerably higher than his career 71% rate, but so what? Because Edelman had a catch in Atlanta.

It's an embarrassing argument.

Dude? I have made no statement about anything one way or the other except that Welker beats Edelman statistically. And his accolades are based purely on statistics. Stop being an argumentative prick for once in your life

 

[TheRainMaker]

Here’s the difference between Edelman and Welker:

Welker played in 2 Super Bowls, one divisional round game, and 3 AFC title games.

Edelman was apart of teams that went to 5 SB’s, 8 straight AFC title games and two WC games.

Edelman was on way better teams with way more opportunities.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Don't overthink this you two. There is no argument happening here other than having better stats and having all pros and pro bowls are both saying the same thing. That's the ONLY argument being had here.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

What exactly are you supposed to use then? I broke down every non-statistical comparison with their styles of play.

I see that your use of the word “stats” is just a catch all for football performance as opposed to Special Memories That I Really Liked…

You’re honestly trying to pretend that stats show up in a vacuum and there was no winning, team value, etc when one guy caught passes but a divine moment when another guy did the same thing? Stats VERSUS Intangibles, like they‘re totally separate? I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about.

All I'm honestly trying to say is the only argument for Welker over Edelman to get into the HOF is a statistical argument, fair or not. And that his accolades are part of that statistical argument because they only factor in statistics.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

All I'm honestly trying to say is the only argument for Welker over Edelman to get into the HOF is a statistical argument, fair or not. And that his accolades are part of that statistical argument because they only factor in statistics.

Do you agree that almost every Hall of Fame argument - across all sports - uses statistics and accolades as the primary selection criteria? And this to try to use an objective measure rather than a cherry picked, inconsistent set of values/moments in time?

I’m sure all of us hate Hines Ward and would never want him in the Hall, but every Steelers fan will point to his championship heroics and intangibles and argue he’s a Hall of Famer. And every Giants fan will demand Eli is enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

“He only has stats and it’s corollary, accolades” is the same as saying “he only has an advantage when we measure his performance using standardized numbers to compare him to his peers.” Really, how the hell else are you supposed to measure someone’s value?

So to say it’s the only argument doesn’t even make sense. Hall of Fame criteria for non-QBs is almost never about championships or team success. That may just provide a small bump for borderline cases.

If anything, Edelman’s only argument is a clutch factor and coming up big in key games. Of course, statistics would need to be used to support that argument too…or else the Hall will just be a free for all for any player who was a notable contributor to a few championships.

 

[Deus Irae]

Don't overthink this you two. There is no argument happening here other than having better stats and having all pros and pro bowls are both saying the same thing. That's the ONLY argument being had here.

Drew Brees never won the MVP, and was only All-Pro once.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

That argument isn't remotely accurate.

What do all pros and probowls take into account other than stats?

 

[TheRainMaker]

If anything, Edelman’s only argument is a clutch factor and coming up big in key games.

And in order to do that you have to be on good teams.

Welker was pretty irrelevant until he went to the Pats.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

What do all pros and probowls take into account other than stats?

What do Hall of Fames take into account other than stats? Be specific on which players are in Canton for reasons other than stats and accolades?

And to answer your question, they take performance and value into account. Many positions aren’t stat-based. How did Anthony Munoz make the pro bowl?

 

[Steve102]

For me it isn't. They both have a good argument for the HOF, it's just that they're different arguments.

I don't understand why it's an argument is my point. Both guys are all-time great Patriots.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Listen I'm off work so I'll argue in circles about off the cuff remarks tomorrow when I have nothing better to do

 

[Kdo5]

Jesus.

JE and WW did not run 100% the same routes. JE was split out a lot more wide than WW was and was much closer to the line. That is the reason his catch % is higher.

...and what makes a player great is doing IT when IT matters which unfortunately was the #1 fault of WW as a player.

Wes never won a Super Bowl. Edelman won three of them and played a big role in each victory. That’s a pretty big feather in Edelman’s cap over Welker.

In terms of skill and overall production, Welker is better. But Edelman rose to the occasion when it mattered most. And it wasn’t just those Super Bowls that he came up huge in.