The difference between Welker and Edelman

[RobertWeathers]

Because Edelman is better or as you put it, more awesome

No need to apologize because I had no emotion in that post RW.

The use of exclamation points is just a form of prose.

My post was purely fact

What metrics are you basing this on?

 

[mosslost]

Welker:


Edelman:


That
Edelman > Welker. Glad to have clutch Edelman playing next week instead of Welker

That game should have been won

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Welker:


Edelman:


Edelman > Welker. Glad to have clutch Edelman playing next week instead of Welker

That Welker drop is so painful to watch. Would have put us in the red zone with the lead and under 4 minutes to play. And the Giants only had 1 timeout left. Three running plays for a first and then a victory formation away from another Lombardi.

 

[mosslost]

As much as I hate to go there because this is just such a bad idea, I'll bite for a different reason.

The two videos do show a big difference between the two receivers. I've always said that Edelman has a much larger catch radius, which is just a physical attribute, and that is why I like him more than Welker with both in their primes (Welker accelerated better though.). While the point of the videos was supposed to show a contrast in their "clutchness", I'm not biting there. Brady's throw was imperfect but certainly catchable...the problem is Welker's size and wingspan, which forced him to overadjust while many receivers make that as a routine catch. You could play this aggravating, torturous game all day, but the bottom line is both Brady and Welker deserved to win a ring together, and its painful that it was inches away. I'm certainly not going to knock the effort or "clutch" factor though, since both of them came up huge in the clutch so many times.

I agree I think Welker was awesome but Julien is just a bit better. One thing that struck me watching it again was even if they could have kept the clock running there it would have been somewhat helpful. Two runs maybe get the first down that way, but at least clock gets close to 2 minute warning likely before punting. Maybe the Giants would have called a time out on our 4th down to stop the clock, maybe not. But yeah if they completed that the game was all but over. horrible

 

[mosslost]

Ouch...why??

I picked up a food processor the other day...but I'm not gonna stick my **** in it.

I hear you on not watching the games... but when all is said and done, even the Super Bowl losses are going to be part of the story of this era's greatness. When people watch Super Bowl summaries of all the years in the future.. there will be many who see the Pats just being in so many and think "wow" that team was dam good. I love this year's team, but if for some reason they lost in the Super Bowl I would not want to abandon them from my memory.

But that 46 is particularly painful because they had it won with possession alone pretty much. 42 we had to score to get us the lead, had no choice about giving them the ball back. (And yes it was all fluke from there) In 46 we almost could have run out the clock.

 

[flasox27]

What stirs up the ongoing resentment toward Welker beyond the drop is how he left the team to sign with Broncos. Thank goodness we had someone able to replace him.

 

[sb1]

I hear you on not watching the games... but when all is said and done, even the Super Bowl losses are going to be part of the story of this era's greatness. When people watch Super Bowl summaries of all the years in the future.. there will be many who see the Pats just being in so many and think "wow" that team was dam good. I love this year's team, but if for some reason they lost in the Super Bowl I would not want to abandon them from my memory.

But that 46 is particularly painful because they had it won with possession alone pretty much. 42 we had to score to get us the lead, had no choice about giving them the ball back. (And yes it was all fluke from there) In 46 we almost could have run out the clock.

I don't know about anyone else but to me that Moss almost catch of that 70 yard bomb from Brady at the end of SB42 hurt more than the Welker miss.

That's because I really think Moss could have pulled that one in if he really made an effort to do that. Michael Strahan's comments on that play say it all. Not to mention that if that ball had travelled just a half yard further that was probably a touchdown.

 

[gatsby47]

Always an interesting read when all the long time forum members, on the bye week, awaiting the wild card games, amuse/abuse themselves with these unanswerable questions and memory lane self flagellations concerning two Patriots who gave our team powerful performances and really good Sundays in the fall for many years. I think back to Welker and refuse to dwell on that, instead, remembering fondly, those catches against big tall defenders. I look forward to Edelman heroics, one week hence.

 

[mosslost]

I don't know about anyone else but to me that Moss almost catch of that 70 yard bomb from Brady at the end of SB42 hurt more than the Welker miss.

That's because I really think Moss could have pulled that one in if he really made an effort to do that. Michael Strahan's comments on that play say it all. Not to mention that if that ball had travelled just a half yard further that was probably a touchdown.

That was a hail mary, not similar at all. Also, I don't think Moss effort was a problem. He had to get down there and it was a 70 yard missile.. there was very little chance and that play was not really close. The Welker catch would have essentially clinched that Super Bowl. Even if all we did was run we could have burnt up just about the entire clock. 4 minutes at the drop.. if he caught it clock runs from 4 to 3:20 or so before they have to run their fist down play unless Giants use their last time out. Then run the ball inside the 20 clock runs sown to like 2:40, now it is second down (I suspect Giant use their last time right there but I don't know for sure)

If they don't use it, run again, it's third down, I think they definitely call it there. Run to get the first, if you don't get it you at least get to the 2 minute warning.

So, I see two things, if we get the first down, game is over. If we score a TD game is over. Worst case we get a FG, up 5 and have to kick off with 2 minutes left and they have no time outs. Still plenty of time though but when you have to get a TD it changes things a little.

 

[Pats1989]

I just got gamepass a month ago and went through that game again. That drop hurt a lot but it wasn't the only reason they lost that day. There was plenty of blame to go around. That was Welker's only drop of the game btw.

I look at it this way: Why do people remember the Welker "drop"? Well it's because we lost. If the D stops the Giants...the non catch is moot. Also, it wasn't an easy catch by any means.

Do Seahawks fans look back at SB 49 and remember the Kearse catch? Nope. They and media everywhere will only remember the Butler Int.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If people want to ***** about WRs screwing up in key moments, how about holding TB80s feet to the fire for not doing an "out" on the 3rd and 4 in Q4 w/ 2:30 left vs the Dolts in the 06 AFCCG. Brady was pissed that he didn't read the coverage properly.

 

[Nikolai]

This is a fun conversation:

Link
Julian Edelman

Yep, and that's why I don't participate in those threads, as well as the Draft Day threads. It's full of declarations and opinions "based in fact" when IN FACT those people didn't know what they were talking about. The couple of people that advocated a wait-and-see approach were flattened.

 

[condon84]

Champions make those types of catches.

Manningham's catch was infinitely more difficult in that same game Welker dropped his. These two plays certainly didn't win or lose the game, but they represented why one team won the SB and why one didnt.

 

[Nikolai]

I hear you on not watching the games... but when all is said and done, even the Super Bowl losses are going to be part of the story of this era's greatness. When people watch Super Bowl summaries of all the years in the future.. there will be many who see the Pats just being in so many and think "wow" that team was dam good. I love this year's team, but if for some reason they lost in the Super Bowl I would not want to abandon them from my memory.

But that 46 is particularly painful because they had it won with possession alone pretty much. 42 we had to score to get us the lead, had no choice about giving them the ball back. (And yes it was all fluke from there) In 46 we almost could have run out the clock.

Oh, I'm with you. Just getting to the dance six times and counting is a feat. I've long maintained that history will look on this dynasty with much more awe than the current generation does, especially after there's no dynasty to follow in its footsteps.

It's part of the story, but those are two infuriating, frustrating chapters, and I sure as **** don't want to relive it again.

In fact, that's what makes SB49 so watchable. It looked like the same saga was going to play out and then...Butler!

I've rewatched that Super Bowl more than the other three combined.

 

[PatriotsReign]

What metrics are you basing this on?

What metrics are you basing this on?

Metrics? Good one!

In order to truly evaluate and compare them, they'd each have to play with the same team/players. The O-line would need to be the same as would the Pats complimentary receivers.

It's like saying Ryan or Rogers is better than Brady because in any given year, their stats and metrics would be better

Yet everyone knows Brady is better than both. It's the eye test combined with that intangible "It factor".

If you could have either Welker or Edelman at their peak for one game, would you pick Edelman or Welker?

I'd love to ask Brady that question and not allow him to say "well, they're both great and are fantastic teammates....blah, blah, blah"

No Tom, which one would you take?!

 

[The Brandon Five]

I hear you on not watching the games... but when all is said and done, even the Super Bowl losses are going to be part of the story of this era's greatness. When people watch Super Bowl summaries of all the years in the future.. there will be many who see the Pats just being in so many and think "wow" that team was dam good. I love this year's team, but if for some reason they lost in the Super Bowl I would not want to abandon them from my memory.

But that 46 is particularly painful because they had it won with possession alone pretty much. 42 we had to score to get us the lead, had no choice about giving them the ball back. (And yes it was all fluke from there) In 46 we almost could have run out the clock.

One run play on the sequence where the Pats scored and the Giants likely do not have enough time left to score like they did. Game of inches.

 

[Ian]

Ouch...why??

I picked up a food processor the other day...but I'm not gonna stick my **** in it.

I'm working today and everyone just asked what my problem was when I LOL'd when I read that. Well played, @Nikolai

 

[sb1]

That was a hail mary, not similar at all. Also, I don't think Moss effort was a problem. He had to get down there and it was a 70 yard missile.. there was very little chance and that play was not really close. The Welker catch would have essentially clinched that Super Bowl. Even if all we did was run we could have burnt up just about the entire clock. 4 minutes at the drop.. if he caught it clock runs from 4 to 3:20 or so before they have to run their fist down play unless Giants use their last time out. Then run the ball inside the 20 clock runs sown to like 2:40, now it is second down (I suspect Giant use their last time right there but I don't know for sure)

If they don't use it, run again, it's third down, I think they definitely call it there. Run to get the first, if you don't get it you at least get to the 2 minute warning.

So, I see two things, if we get the first down, game is over. If we score a TD game is over. Worst case we get a FG, up 5 and have to kick off with 2 minutes left and they have no time outs. Still plenty of time though but when you have to get a TD it changes things a little.

Nah that wasn't a Hail Mary. Hail Marys are heave it up there to a bunch of people and hope someone gets it. This was a throw designed to exploit Moss's speed and if he used his height and reached out and up he catches that football. If you watch it again you will see it was much closer than you remember it. Even Strahan said it was catchable. What could have been...

As for Welker you could point to lots of things that happened in that game not just that play. To be honest the Pats were not a Super Bowl worthy team anyway, their defense was a hot dumpster fire and they were very lucky to beat the only winning team they beat all season... the Ravens when Cundiff missed the FG. I doubt they lose in a close one the way they did if they played a team better than the Giants. That loss didn't bother me nearly as much as 42.

 

[Tony2046]

I look at it this way: Why do people remember the Welker "drop"? Well it's because we lost. If the D stops the Giants...the non catch is moot. Also, it wasn't an easy catch by any means.

Do Seahawks fans look back at SB 49 and remember the Kearse catch? Nope. They and media everywhere will only remember the Butler Int.

Well to be honest I've blamed Welker in the past but now know it was unfair to him to do so.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Metrics? Good one!

In order to truly evaluate and compare them, they'd each have to play with the same team/players. The O-line would need to be the same as would the Pats complimentary receivers.

It's like saying Ryan or Rogers is better than Brady because in any given year, their stats and metrics would be better

Yet everyone knows Brady is better than both. It's the eye test combined with that intangible "It factor".

If you could have either Welker or Edelman at their peak for one game, would you pick Edelman or Welker?

I'd love to ask Brady that question and not allow him to say "well, they're both great and are fantastic teammates....blah, blah, blah"

No Tom, which one would you take?!

Metrics are important. To dismiss them as a way to determine who has had the better career/better player is wrong.

My problem w/ the JE11 v WW argument is they are different players.

JE11 is more athletic and more versatile.

WW is shiftier.

WW has 2X the career numbers as JE11. Production is a key - not THE measurable when determining "who is better"

If people want to say JE11 is better in the clutch, then there is evidence to support it.

If people want to say WW is more productive, there is evidence to support it.

With all that said, saying one is clear-cut better than the other is an opinion, not a fact.