are we better off with out welker?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70'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? : BS he should be "appreciative" for it...he's been grossly underpaid based on his production for years from the cheap-o Pats This thread cracks me up as an opponent...PLEASE send Welker to the Giants
    Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    cruz for welker?
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nonola. Show nonola's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    Welker hasn't signed his tender for the same reason Brees has not. Sure 9 or 16 mill is a lot of money but if a bad injury should occur then they are out a 30-60 mill windfall. Getting rid of a go to guy who despite NOT making a great catch in the superbowl is still nuts. There are to many times in an 16 game season where WW comes up clutch. I would like to know what the last best offer is tho. Not rumors.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]Welker hasn't signed his tender for the same reason Brees has not. Sure 9 or 16 mill is a lot of money but if a bad injury should occur then they are out a 30-60 mill windfall. Getting rid of a go to guy who despite NOT making a great catch in the superbowl is still nuts. There are to many times in an 16 game season where WW comes up clutch. I would like to know what the last best offer is tho. Not rumors.
    Posted by nonola[/QUOTE]

    i agree that the team should try their best to keep welker... i also like the team's approach of drawing a line that determines the point where the cost of keeping welker could become detrimental to building a good team. that line just can't be crossed. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from paularnold. Show paularnold's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    No way we're better off without Welker, not even an argument.  I do think that the front office is content to pay the franchise tag this year and probably even next year at $11.3 million.  They probably don't want to pay a 31 year old reciever a high salary in a long term deal.  They are willing to give him very good compensation for the years he's been putting up, but they are not on the hook if he loses a step and is not the same receiver.
    I do think that the offense will survive without him in a year or two, but there's no reason to force him out the door.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Iceman4. Show Iceman4's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    WW stays.....don't ever get rid of PROVEN talent........people always want the NEWEST toy on this forum....Lloyd hasn't proven anything here yet........this team has been winning before these new guys arrived for a reason...don't mess with what's working.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skorpion76. Show skorpion76's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    There are good arguements all across this board, but c'mon now Welker is not the only player on our team that can make plays. If he goes elsewhere the production will be there just by a few options instead of the one.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME2. Show NEGAME2's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    I just hope Welker doesn't take the time to read some of the bull s h i t on this message board. Isn't this about the 4th rehash of trade Welker. Trading Welker is just a dumb a s s idea.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from getdrunkstupit. Show getdrunkstupit'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]


    well this is easy to answer.  SECURITY BLANKET.  look for OPEN rec.  Not just welker.  he throws to welker when he is rushed without looking for open rec. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    I wish he had looked for the open receiver (Welker or Gronk) instead of throwing up the prayer to Slater in the playoff game vs the Ravens, and looked for the open receiver (Welker, Hernandez) when he threw up the prayer to Gronk in the Super Bowl...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]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
    Posted by TBBBDynasty[/QUOTE]

         Of course the Pats aren't "better off" without Wes. But, they're better off being without him, than agreeing to pay him a long term, outrageous salary. 

         I don't see this as a major issue. Welker will either sign the franchise tender, or he will modify his contract demands to something reasonable...for a great, but aging slot receiver. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from kansaspatriot. Show kansaspatriot'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? : nope...we try to hold onto our stars Posted by JintsFan[/QUOTE]

    LOL. until they shoot themselves in the leg and go to jail
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]I just hope Welker doesn't take the time to read some of the bull s h i t on this message board. Isn't this about the 4th rehash of trade Welker. Trading Welker is just a dumb a s s idea.
    Posted by NEGAME2[/QUOTE]

         Even if the Pats wanted to trade Wes, they couldn't do it until he signed his franchise tender.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    were the Patriots better off without Ty Law? lol Laughing

    there's a time and place for different stars to come and to go.

    Welker is a pawn.  Is he important? sure. Is he expendible? yes. Will the patriots survive without players like Welker...or let's say Brady? dunno, but we will eventually lose them from the roster sooner or later.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]No we wouldn't but if Fleener falls to BB. he takes him and moves Hernandez to the slot. W.W. is then traded.
    Posted by TSWFAN[/QUOTE]

    works for me, but ideal i think would be if he signs before the draft adn we get a first rounder.

    love fleener (shouted to take him for a month. he and gronk as our 2 tes. bb seems to have a diferent idea since he took fells).

    and hill or jeffery at outside wr
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru'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? : cruz for welker?
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]


    exactly. you make the point with ww age and the $ he commands, be better to upgrade wr and with 40 wr to be drafted adn who knows how many fa wrs i think we could actually improve if he signed the tag and we got a 1 for him.

    in this draft we get a hill or jeffery type and one of the top slot guys.

    we will be better offensively and as a team (with the extra pick) 

    all moot since he hasnt signed.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru'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? : well this is easy to answer.  SECURITY BLANKET.  look for OPEN rec.  Not just welker.  he throws to welker when he is rushed without looking for open rec. 
    Posted by getdrunkstupit[/QUOTE]

    +1
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    In Response to Re: are we better off with out welker?:
    [QUOTE]I wish he had looked for the open receiver (Welker or Gronk) instead of throwing up the prayer to Slater in the playoff game vs the Ravens, and looked for the open receiver (Welker, Hernandez) when he threw up the prayer to Gronk in the Super Bowl...
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111[/QUOTE]

    +1
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: are we better off with out welker?

    They'd be better without any good players because then all the bad players would have to become good.
     

Share