BB probably learned from that, because losing Branch that year very likely cost him a super bowl. Total Ass Crap at WR that year.
Troof. Who did the Pats get with the pick they got for Branch anyway?
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
I wouldn't be surprised at all if New England trades Wes Welker.
Why?
Edelman and Hernandez need bigger roles. Having all three makes the receiving corps a bit dysfunctional/redundant. Edelman and Welker are pure slot guys, and Hernandez can probably fill a similar role. Moving Edelman around this year to get him on the field didn't allow him to do what he does best. He had an uneven 2010, and his frustration was pretty evident towards the end of the season.
It would be easy (and certainly more popular) to just trade Edelman for a low round pick, let WW play it out next year and resign him to another four year deal. With a smaller cap coming, Edelman being young and cheap (and with similar upside), trading an older WW with a year left on his deal for a pick in 2012 makes some sense. Increasing Edelman's and Hernandez's roles while opening up a game day slot for another true outside receiver - who may or may not already be on the roster - is something I wouldn't be surprised to see. I think a big part of the equation will be the team's early off-season evaluations of Edelman, Tate, Price and Hernandez. Hernandez is the clear slam dunk in the group but all have shown something.
This is all out the window if a CBA doesn't get hammered out, as trades can't be consummated without one.
While that might be the Belichick/value play, do you think that Brady has the clout to call BB up and tell him in no uncertain terms that Welker is his guy and nothing they get in return is worth Welker, etc, etc and actually get Belichick to listen to him and go the other way?
No. Brady lobbied pretty hard for Deion Branch in 2006 and he got exiled to Seattle.
What do you think of that? (Not Branch, but Brady's apparent lack of influence on BB)
BB probably learned from that, because losing Branch that year very likely cost him a super bowl. Total Ass Crap at WR that year.
Agreed on all counts. That might be Brady's best year.
If they move Welker, it would be because he's got high value right now and it wouldn't be a bad move for the future state of the team but he's got to replace him and add at least one more weapon for Brady.
I get the thinking, but I'd hate to see Welker go. You can't judge any one move in a vacuum, but I'd hope Belichick would set a pretty high price for Welker to move him.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
If they move Welker, it would be because he's got high value right now and it wouldn't be a bad move for the future state of the team but he's got to replace him and add at least one more weapon for Brady.
I get the thinking, but I'd hate to see Welker go. You can't judge any one move in a vacuum, but I'd hope Belichick would set a pretty high price for Welker to move him.
I think he probably has a very high value on him because of how much he likes him, how good a fit he is chemistry wise and probably because he knows how hard it is to find guys in the early rounds of the draft who can play immediately.
If they move Welker, it would be because he's got high value right now and it wouldn't be a bad move for the future state of the team but he's got to replace him and add at least one more weapon for Brady.
I get the thinking, but I'd hate to see Welker go. You can't judge any one move in a vacuum, but I'd hope Belichick would set a pretty high price for Welker to move him.
He'd have to get a lot in return. But how many teams would be willing to give up a high price for a 30 year old slot WR 12 months removed from a blown acl/mcl? I don't think what the Pats could could get in return for him right now is worth more than the value of keeping him around for a couple more years until eventually they get nothing in return for him.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
If they move Welker, it would be because he's got high value right now and it wouldn't be a bad move for the future state of the team but he's got to replace him and add at least one more weapon for Brady.
I get the thinking, but I'd hate to see Welker go. You can't judge any one move in a vacuum, but I'd hope Belichick would set a pretty high price for Welker to move him.
I think he probably has a very high value on him because of how much he likes him, how good a fit he is chemistry wise and probably because he knows how hard it is to find guys in the early rounds of the draft who can play immediately.
If one could somehow guarantee that the pick would turn into someone who could apply consistent pressure on the quarterback - or would be somehow leveraged to move up and get said player - I'd hold my nose and make that trade every day of the week.
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:40 am Posts: 12509 Location: Pittsburgh Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
BB probably learned from that, because losing Branch that year very likely cost him a super bowl. Total Ass Crap at WR that year.
Troof. Who did the Pats get with the pick they got for Branch anyway?
_________________ "i'm the crescent, the sickle, so sharp the blade i'm the flick of the shank that opened your veins i'm the dusk, i'm the frightening calm i'm a hole in the pipeline, i'm a road side bomb..."
If they move Welker, it would be because he's got high value right now and it wouldn't be a bad move for the future state of the team but he's got to replace him and add at least one more weapon for Brady.
I get the thinking, but I'd hate to see Welker go. You can't judge any one move in a vacuum, but I'd hope Belichick would set a pretty high price for Welker to move him.
He'd have to get a lot in return. But how many teams would be willing to give up a high price for a 30 year old slot WR 12 months removed from a blown acl/mcl? I don't think what the Pats could could get in return for him right now is worth more than the value of keeping him around for a couple more years until eventually they get nothing in return for him.
Yep. Never count out the idiocy of the Redskins and Raiders of the world, but Welker's value to New England today seems to me to be more than what could reasonably be expected some other team to sacrifice.
Ultimately, I think he stays. But I wouldn't be surprised to see him go either.
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:40 am Posts: 12509 Location: Pittsburgh Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
Spike wrote:
isn't there a patriots thread already?
This thread is really helping me put things back together, Spike. Just let things play out.
you can't tell spike what to do, friend
_________________ "i'm the crescent, the sickle, so sharp the blade i'm the flick of the shank that opened your veins i'm the dusk, i'm the frightening calm i'm a hole in the pipeline, i'm a road side bomb..."
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:16 am Posts: 2576 Location: Maine, formerly MA
thodoks wrote:
4/5 wrote:
thodoks wrote:
4/5 wrote:
thodoks wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
thodoks wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised at all if New England trades Wes Welker.
Why?
Edelman and Hernandez need bigger roles. Having all three makes the receiving corps a bit dysfunctional/redundant. Edelman and Welker are pure slot guys, and Hernandez can probably fill a similar role. Moving Edelman around this year to get him on the field didn't allow him to do what he does best. He had an uneven 2010, and his frustration was pretty evident towards the end of the season.
It would be easy (and certainly more popular) to just trade Edelman for a low round pick, let WW play it out next year and resign him to another four year deal. With a smaller cap coming, Edelman being young and cheap (and with similar upside), trading an older WW with a year left on his deal for a pick in 2012 makes some sense. Increasing Edelman's and Hernandez's roles while opening up a game day slot for another true outside receiver - who may or may not already be on the roster - is something I wouldn't be surprised to see. I think a big part of the equation will be the team's early off-season evaluations of Edelman, Tate, Price and Hernandez. Hernandez is the clear slam dunk in the group but all have shown something.
This is all out the window if a CBA doesn't get hammered out, as trades can't be consummated without one.
While that might be the Belichick/value play, do you think that Brady has the clout to call BB up and tell him in no uncertain terms that Welker is his guy and nothing they get in return is worth Welker, etc, etc and actually get Belichick to listen to him and go the other way?
No. Brady lobbied pretty hard for Deion Branch in 2006 and he got exiled to Seattle.
What do you think of that? (Not Branch, but Brady's apparent lack of influence on BB)
I like it. Improving the football team as he sees fit should always be more important than indulging the feelings of any one player, no matter his relative importance.
this is true to a degree, but the window with Brady is only getting shorter...it's fine to build things up so that you can be good for another 10 year stretch, but once Brady's gone, he's gone, and you ain't finding another one like him...Aaron Rodgers part 2 is not likely to happen for the Pats or the Colts etc
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
I read that Welker, who has one year left on his deal, wasn't planning to ask for a contract extension going into next season because he didn't think he earned it last year.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Frank
