Re: Edelman and Welker
posted at 9/15/2013 8:59 PM EDT
In response to PatsLifer's comment:
In response to FrankDooley's comment:
PatsLifer is also incorrect in saying Welker is the more versatile WR over Amendola. That is false because Welker is only effective in short range and inside the hashes.
So, if Edelman is rivaling Welker's production or diversified use in the offense with less talent around him for now, why would Amendola at 6 million, Edelman at 1, Welker at 6, be so vastly different?
Give me the younger, more diverse and superior skill sets over the one, older and limited, exclusive slot WR in Welker.
Amendola is more than a slot WR if you have been paying attention, as is Edelman.
So, 7 million for 2 players who can be effective in more than 1 spot. That is the key here.
We've lost SBs and playoff games because teams knew where Welker would be lining up and could just ignore his presecence on routes on the perimeter to widen the field.
Jesus, are some of you this obtuse when it comes to why we lost those games?
Welker had 3 drops tonight, where if the Giants didn't fumble at the goal line, or the TE didn't fall down, those 14 points may have shown his drops to be more costly than it ended up.
Hello Houston, I think we lost our signal!
i never said welker is more versatile than Danny. I can recall numerous posts agreeing that Danny can line up in multiple positions UNLIKE welker. Never said that Russ.
i will go on record here for what it's worth. I would rather have a healthy amendola and Edelman than welker and Edelman. However, the one thing those if us were skeptical about in regards to Danny...his health, is proving us correct. You can't compare a guy who can suit up and a guy who cannot.
But you are trying to make this a Welker vs Amendola argument when Amendola wasn't even mentioned in the original post. Edelman has played better than Welker so far this year. That is what the OP stated and if you can't dipute that then don't bring another player into the discussion.