are we better off with out welker?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TBBBDynasty. Show TBBBDynasty's posts

    are we better off with out welker?

    we'd have brandon lloyd on the field as the top wide out and he is vertical so it'd open the middle and we already have gronk and hern in the middle of the field. welker only takes extra coverage off others in the middle. we also have stallworth, branch, ocho, and gonzalez. edelman could be a alright slot if we didnt have to depend on him to much. we could trade him for picks as well. he's older and had leg surgery. thoughts.

    i do want wes to stay but would we be better off with out him
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    He lead the NFL in receptions....how can getting rid of a guy who catches 100+ balls possibly going to make us "better off"???

    Sorry, makes absolutely zero sense to lose the production he brings. I dont care about the age or the knee....he proved that those are non factors just a few short months ago. Losing him is pure stupidity.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    Can we PLEASE stop with the 'we have Lloyd so we don't need Welker any more' threads. Welker  has been a dominant player since he came to the Pats, and is an extrermely important part of what the entire offense does. He had 122 catches and 1569 yards last season, and 19 more catches in the playoffs. He came back from that surgery and has again been a dominant player since he returned. He is exactly 2 months and 4 days older than Lloyd, has 650 career catches to Lloyds 311. Oh, and he can't be traded because he has not signed the offer sheet. I wish Lloyd all the luck in being successful with the Pats. But as Ocho showed last year, nothing is guaranteed, and Lloyd has been nowhere near as  successful in his career as Ocho had been before he came here.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]He lead the NFL in receptions....how can getting rid of a guy who catches 100+ balls possibly going to make us "better off"??? Sorry, makes absolutely zero sense to lose the production he brings. I dont care about the age or the knee....he proved that those are non factors just a few short months ago. Losing him is pure stupidity.
    Posted by tanbass[/QUOTE]
    I think Welker gets too many balls. He takes away balls from hernandez, who I think can be equally as potent. so your argument (to me) is void. I don't think we would be better off without him, but I think we would be better off with him catching fewer balls for sure. That is something that only Brady can fix though.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]I wish Lloyd all the luck in being successful with the Pats. But as Ocho showed last year, nothing is guaranteed, and Lloyd has been nowhere near as  successful in his career as Ocho had been before he came here.
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111[/QUOTE]
    He's been more successful MORE RECENTLY as a number one receiver. Just sayin'.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    I don't think there's a receiver in the NFL who is better at getting open. There is a reason he gets thrown to so much. They don't need less Welker, they need more players who can do what Welker does.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    If we lost all the quick short passes the Pats would have to rely on the
    running game much more.

    Some on this board would argue that is a good thing. (me included).

    Are the Pats RB's and O line ready to step up?  This year?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    No we wouldn't but if Fleener falls to BB. he takes him and moves Hernandez to the slot. W.W. is then traded.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from elDunker2. Show elDunker2's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    Really? Trade your most productive and proven go-to player... I don't care how you try to rationalize it...its just a lame proposition from any angle.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]I don't think there's a receiver in the NFL who is better at getting open. There is a reason he gets thrown to so much. They don't need less Welker, they need more players who can do what Welker does.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]
    I would argue (respectfully of course) that they DO have guys who can do what welker does. Hernandez is one of them, and I know this might be blasphemous, but Edelman did it a couple years ago when Welker missed a few games. AND Edelman was the lone bright spot in that playoff loss to Baltimore that Welker missed...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]Really? Trade your most productive and proven go-to player... I don't care how you try to rationalize it...its just a lame proposition from any angle.
    Posted by elDunker2[/QUOTE]
    I don't think it's lame from the angle of adding a defensive stud... Just my opinion.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 15315k. Show 15315k's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    He may take some balls from other guys but I can't see how we would be better without him. Over the course of a game there are usually a couple of plays where he makes a key 3rd down conversion to keep a drive alive. I hope they can work things out because he's another guy that the defenses have to account for every down. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    I just find it amazing that anyone can even fathom thinking it's a good move to get rid of the NUMBER ONE RECEIVER in the entire NFL for receptions.

    Yes...we have the guy that caught the MOST balls in the entire league...so let's trade him? Really? Just shaking my head....

    I really thought the point of having a good team is having good players...not getting rid of them. Here we have one of the very best pass catchers in the entire NFL, and people want to lose that?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    He was also number 1 in YAC, #1 in first downs, #2 in yards among all receivers, #6 in TDs, had zero fumbles, had the longest reception of the year, He was 6th in 20+ yard catches, more than V. Jackson, B. Marshall, Mike Wallace, Bryant, Colston, Nicks, Green, etc. He caught 71% of passes thrown. Removing Welker's 1500+ yards will not mean Gronk or Hern will pick up another 1500. The Pats can survive without Welker, but they are not better off without him.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker? : He's been more successful MORE RECENTLY as a number one receiver. Just sayin'.
    Posted by oh-my-beard[/QUOTE]

    Yes, he had one great year two seasons ago, and a good year last year. There was a lot of dirt on him earlier in his career, of his own making, which is a big part of why his career stats are so much behind both Welker and Ocho. He was not a guy a QB, or a team, could count on. 9 years into his career, Lloyd still has never been on a team that has even made the playoffs. Apparently Josh McDaniels already has a great deal of faith in him. Hopefully that is all behind him, and he can come in and work his butt off to gain BB and TBs trust as well. Welker already has that cache. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    Welker is the best in the league at what he does. He is not Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson but he is the best at what he does. Of course we are not better without him.

    If you meant "would he bring more value in a trade then he is worth to the team" I would say it is unlikely because:
    1. TB has great rapore with him and he fits here better than almost anywhere else at this point
    2. Not many teams would give long term value for him for short term gain to the extent they would have to

    You never know; there is often a team willing to go too far in a trade but Welker is not the type of player who makes fans drooool because he is more of a sure and steady player than a big time play maker who regularly makes 30+ yard catches.

    Someone above mentioned taknig Coby Fleener and maybe moving Hernandez to the slot. I would not mind gettting Fleener. Hernandez would be a possible slot player but doubtful still that we would unload Welker.

    Still - in the end, if they are not going to sign him then trading him now is probably the time.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    NO.

    We need him for two more years at least. But if he starts think big of himself, maybe BB will make him sweat out.

    he should take the 9 million and be appreciative of it. then work a at least a two year deal for the future.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    The only stat that matters is that he dropped the one Super Bowl, game winning, pass ever thrown his way.  Enough said....Seacreast out!!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    We would be better off with a run game. Last I checked Brady is 35 and throwing more then he ever has in his career, which leads to QB's getting injured. Trade 1 of our 4 picks in the 1st 2 rounds for a quality RB for the love of all things holy.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]The only stat that matters is that he dropped the one Super Bowl, game winning, pass ever thrown his way.  Enough said....Seacreast out!!
    Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    Dang Tcal, I was trying to forget that.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?


    The best scenario is that the Pats keep Welker but rely on him less. I'd be surprised to see a trade . . . mostly because I think it's going to be hard to find a team that will be willing to pay Welker what he wants and give up draft picks.  Much more likely is that Welker signs the tag and plays one more year for the Pats, then tests free agency next year.  I am not as optimistic about a long-term deal because I'm not sure the Pats will want to take a big cap hit for Welker beyond two years and I'm not sure it makes sense for Welker to sign at too big a discount if the contract is a short one. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    I wouldn't go so far that we would be better off without him, but I do think we would be alright without him...if...and only if, we got something of value in trade for him and also signed or drafted a slot receiver. As much as I like Hernandez, I don't think the guy will stay healthy enough to give you the slot production that Brady needs. Perhaps the kid that plays for St. Louis is an alternative?

    Either way (weather he plays at the franchise number or we trade him for something), it's a nice problem to have. I think Welker could give us two, maybe three very productive seasons more, I just don't think you can pay the guy more than the 8 million per we offered to him to do it.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    It depends on whether Lloyd can actually deliver or not. People are assuming he's going to click with Brady right away. Yes, under McD he played something similar.  If Brady is smart, he will spend A LOT of extra time just with Lloyd.

    Now, if  Lloyd can hold up his own end....and Edelman can pick up 1/2 of Welker's receptions in the slot it might benefit our running game, short passing/intermidiate passing game.

    If the Patriots can ever succeed in having a good pass rush and cover in the secondary....and do more than give up tons of yardage between the 20s - than yeah, the team would be better off.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    the team will adapt
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share