In response to Muzwell's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In retrospect, both were bad decisions. We've needed both quality and stability at the WR position for a while. Welker was the one guy we've had that has provided both and we let him walk. The other guys we've brought in haven't been long-term answers and haven't really been great short-term stop gaps either. Keeping Welker another year or two and getting a decent replacement for Moss after 2010 would have been a better strategy, I think.
Would they have won a championship if they kept WW? All that would have happened differently is Welker would have caught 120 passes and Edelman would have caught 20 or 25.
If Welker could have prevented Gronk from getting his leg taken out and/or kept VW, Mayo, Spikes, Vollmer and Talib on the field, then yeah he'd have made a difference. Otherwise, no difference.
I don't believe that for a minute. Edelman would have been used more this season because Dobson and Thompkins and Boyce were all on the sidelines nursing their hurt egos with their injuries. Welker and Edelman together would have helped the Patriots get to the SB. Guaranteed! They would have won at least 1 more game to get that home field advantage in the playoffs, then they would have had some weapons to beat Denver and got to the SB. Would they have beat Seattle. I seriously doubt it. But get them there and let them try, that's all we can really hope for. But guess what..... they couldn't get there and now you want to let Edelman go and have Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, Amendola, maybe a 7th round WR from the draft or bring in a Molasses Mike type to try and make it there. I hear Ocho and T.O. are still available. Branch? How about Torey Holt, what is he up to these day?
Yeah! ROFL!! Sounds like something BB would do.