Re: A Tale of 2 WR !!!!
posted at 9/20/2012 11:40 AM EDT
In response to ma6dragon9's comment:
As Dane said...there's one major difference. Neither Wilfork nor Mankins was over 30 when they held out. Wallace is not comparable to Welker. Almost like comparing a TE and a RB. Totally different skill sets, completely different values.
Had Welker not been traded or BY NE, he wouldn't have been the player he has been. Nobody twisted his arm to sign that initial 5 year deal. They traded for ihm..he could have played out his contract and walked after a year. He didn't. So to feel sympathy for a guy who signed a deal and outperformed it...well, wah.
Them's the breaks in the NFL. Sometimes a feam gets a player for below his worht. Other times a player gets 40mil guaranteed and is totally worthless. Do those players ever feel inclined to give money back? No. You don't pay for past performances, look no farther than the Sox to see how that works out.
I'm a Patriot fan. As much as I've enjoyed Welker being here, the Pats existed before, they'll exist well after. As a fan of the TEAM, I'm happy that he was as good as he has been, at the money he was. It allowed the Pats to be flexible and sign other players.
You don't run a team with your heart. Branch would've never left, then Welker and Moss probably would've never been traded for, and this wouldn't be an issue. Bledsoe wouldn't have lost his job to injury in 01, and we'd be complaining about other things.
It's easy to cherry-pick, but the reality is the Pats have a system that, for a freakin' DECADE has proven it's worth. Until the Pats have a sustained period of being bad, and not an average of a 12-4 season (which BB has in NE), I find it rather silly to complain. Washington loves throwing around money. Dallas too. NYJ as well. Add PHI to that list. How many Super Bowls appearances between them over the past 10 years? It's not the 5 the Pats have been to.
There's a tale of reality for ya.