Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from theshinez. Show theshinez's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    That's because Manning is accurate and has time in the pocket.  Brady, on the other hand is VERY inaccuarate this year, has been dealing with WRTE injuries and hasn't had good protection.  PLUS Manning has Thomas, Decker, Julian Thomas, etc.  Their Offense is super stacked.  NO ONE on the Pats O scares defenses, save for Gronk. 

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

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    Kind of tired of this "Welker" stuff.  He's gone. we need to get over it.  Too much money for a one trick pony who seemed to be limited in his catching abilities when the passes we'ren't perfect. Especially in the playoffs. 

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from theshinez. Show theshinez's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to DontQuestionBB's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's because Manning is accurate and has time in the pocket.  Brady, on the other hand is VERY inaccuarate this year, has been dealing with WRTE injuries and hasn't had good protection.  PLUS Manning has Thomas, Decker, Julian Thomas, etc.  Their Offense is super stacked.  NO ONE on the Pats O scares defenses, save for Gronk. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Would love too see how good Manning would look with Thompkins and Dobson too work with.  My guess is it would be a real disaster.  I would include Danny A. but he never plays.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ya, I think you're right.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats-bilbo. Show Pats-bilbo's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    Sorry but I disagree. 

    I think they miss Welker and they are adjusting to life without him. I think they may have had more offense with Welker here but that does not mean that they win the games.

    They are not converting 3rd downs. The last few years they have led or been near the top of the league in 3rd down conversion percentages. Now they are in the lower third of the NFL. This is a big swing.

    It is not all due to losing Welker. It is due to 

    1. Loss of Welker, Woodhead, AH and Gronk's Injuries....

    2. Brady seems off. Either it is confidence or coaching and I don't think there is enough consideration or discussion about the fact that he lost his personal QB coach, Tom Martinez. Combined with number 1 above and the loss of his mentor and you have a recipe for poor play. We are seeing this. Welker cannot fix this.

    3. Poor play by Oline. They have allowed TB to be hit, hurried and uncomfortable. Welker being here can help this a bit but does not address the issue as can be seen by recent Playoff games.

    4. Poor execution and results on screen plays. It is amazing how bad we have done on these type plays. Either due to timing or execution or telegraphing, I am not sure, but we use to lead in this but we don't anymore.

    5. Edelman has done a good job picking up some of Welker's work and he has done more. DA when playing is better than Welker.

    What we miss with Welker is him being on the same page as TFB and being there to bail him out. 

    No doubt Welker is a player and we miss him, but not sure we win every game because he is here. Without other threats and other options, Welker would not have the same opportunities he has in Denver right now, so difficult to compare. 

     

    We should not have lost him, but in the long run the Pats may be better off if the other rookies can develop and become key weapons quickly. Thinking we would be 18-0 just because of Welker is a mistake. This is a team game and injuries play an important role. 

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

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to Pats-bilbo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Sorry but I disagree. 

    I think they miss Welker and they are adjusting to life without him. I think they may have had more offense with Welker here but that does not mean that they win the games.

    They are not converting 3rd downs. The last few years they have led or been near the top of the league in 3rd down conversion percentages. Now they are in the lower third of the NFL. This is a big swing.

    It is not all due to losing Welker. It is due to 

    1. Loss of Welker, Woodhead, AH and Gronk's Injuries....

    2. Brady seems off. Either it is confidence or coaching and I don't think there is enough consideration or discussion about the fact that he lost his personal QB coach, Tom Martinez. Combined with number 1 above and the loss of his mentor and you have a recipe for poor play. We are seeing this. Welker cannot fix this.

    3. Poor play by Oline. They have allowed TB to be hit, hurried and uncomfortable. Welker being here can help this a bit but does not address the issue as can be seen by recent Playoff games.

    4. Poor execution and results on screen plays. It is amazing how bad we have done on these type plays. Either due to timing or execution or telegraphing, I am not sure, but we use to lead in this but we don't anymore.

    5. Edelman has done a good job picking up some of Welker's work and he has done more. DA when playing is better than Welker.

    What we miss with Welker is him being on the same page as TFB and being there to bail him out. 

    No doubt Welker is a player and we miss him, but not sure we win every game because he is here. Without other threats and other options, Welker would not have the same opportunities he has in Denver right now, so difficult to compare. 

     

    We should not have lost him, but in the long run the Pats may be better off if the other rookies can develop and become key weapons quickly. Thinking we would be 18-0 just because of Welker is a mistake. This is a team game and injuries play an important role. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree and disagree Bilbo. I mean they part I highlighted happened to be both Woodheads and Welkers specialty. Either one I think would have helped to win yesterday as a couple more conversions would have lead to the extra score. I still have no clue why they didn't bother to resign Woodhead either. It makes no sense as they barely save anything by going after Washington instead. 

    Yeah, I wonder if they could go back right now if they would b-slap themselves in the past and say don't be idiots, take the knowns that work with our system and don't sign injury prone players as ways to replace them.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to DontQuestionBB's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    After watching last night's Denver/Colts game, I was reminded just how good of a player Wes Welker was.  He had 7 rec catches for 96 yds, more than Thompkins and Dobson combined!  

    People can blame the bad calls by the refs, offensive line, and coaching.  But the fact is the Pats have the worst group of WR's than any other team.  Thompkins and Dobson aren't getting better and I expect the drops too continue.  

    Welker have better numbers than any of the Pats WR's by the end of the season, and too think he could have been on the Pats for chump change is disgraceful.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    except Denver lost....Maybe if Denver had won and were still undefeated I could agree with your op.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats-bilbo. Show Pats-bilbo's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    PatsEng I agree with you. Losing Welker and Woodhead and relying on Vereen and DA instead is blatantly part of the problem. Short money on Woodhead and a real head scratcher on why not bring him back. 

    Of course no one saw AH situation either. Three big loses and then injuries is a recipe for disaster

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from theshinez. Show theshinez's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to DontQuestionBB's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kind of tired of this "Welker" stuff.  He's gone. we need to get over it.  Too much money for a one trick pony who seemed to be limited in his catching abilities when the passes we'ren't perfect. Especially in the playoffs. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Danny Amendola may have been a little cheaper, but he also never plays.

    [/QUOTE]

    True...was NOT a fan of the "Danny (On the Mend)ola signing.  Was actually pretty P-O'd

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    Yeah and if Amendola was healthy and Hernandez didn't murder anyone, and Gronk had been healthy all year, and Vereen didn't get hurt than they would be undefeated.  Then Welker would have a chance to become butterfingers again in the playoffs.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from theshinez. Show theshinez's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah and if Amendola was healthy and Hernandez didn't murder anyone, and Gronk had been healthy all year, and Vereen didn't get hurt than they would be undefeated.  Then Welker would have a chance to become butterfingers again in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]


    +10

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    I agree, not because I think Welker is a genius who the Pats needed to break bank for like the OP, I just think that Brady's unhealthy relationship with Welker made him too Welker dependent.

    Brady probably hasn't worked on his deep ball since 2009 when Randy was still a threat since his deep ball looks like he's trying to emulate Sanchez anytime he goes deep. Brady has looked REALLY bad this season, like he checked out or something, and I think it's all because of Welker. 

    I think Manning would be 7-0 with these Patriots, you can blame Kenny and Dobson all you want, but Brady zeroed in on Gronk targeting him 17 times. Open, not open, Brady didn't care.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to theshinez's comment:

    Kind of tired of this "Welker" stuff.  He's gone. we need to get over it.  Too much money for a one trick pony who seemed to be limited in his catching abilities when the passes we'ren't perfect. Especially in the playoffs. 



    This is such BS.  Welker was a very reliable receiver.  Sure he had his share of drops like all receivers and his skillset does not make him great at great catching the ball going away, but please, let's not downplay the guy's exceptional skills and contribution just because he's gone. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I agree, not because I think Welker is a genius who the Pats needed to break bank for like the OP, I just think that Brady's unhealthy relationship with Welker made him too Welker dependent.

    Brady probably hasn't worked on his deep ball since 2009 when Randy was still a threat since his deep ball looks like he's trying to emulate Sanchez anytime he goes deep. Brady has looked REALLY bad this season, like he checked out or something, and I think it's all because of Welker. 

    I think Manning would be 7-0 with these Patriots, you can blame Kenny and Dobson all you want, but Brady zeroed in on Gronk targeting him 17 times. Open, not open, Brady didn't care.

    [/QUOTE]
    Sorry, I've got to call more BS here. Brady had no unhealthy relationship with Welker.  Welker was by far his best receiver on a team that had very few receivers.  He threw to him a lot because that's what he was given to throw to.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    The Pats are 7-0 with Manning, Brees, Rogers, Luck, Wilson, Ryan, Roethlisberger, HELL, even Flacco the jump ball QB. 

    Last game I wasn't one of the guys calling for Brady to retire, but after yesterday? I think the Pats would do well to give Johnny Football a look if he falls to them next year.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah and if Amendola was healthy and Hernandez didn't murder anyone, and Gronk had been healthy all year, and Vereen didn't get hurt than they would be undefeated.  Then Welker would have a chance to become butterfingers again in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Given their past histories what was more likely, them getting hurt of them being healthy? If you rely on injury prone players you better have proper backups in place and nether did. Personally I'd rather be in the playoffs for him to have butterfingers than to not have either WR because they are on the bench nursing a "insert injury here"

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 49Patriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I agree, not because I think Welker is a genius who the Pats needed to break bank for like the OP, I just think that Brady's unhealthy relationship with Welker made him too Welker dependent.

    Brady probably hasn't worked on his deep ball since 2009 when Randy was still a threat since his deep ball looks like he's trying to emulate Sanchez anytime he goes deep. Brady has looked REALLY bad this season, like he checked out or something, and I think it's all because of Welker. 

    I think Manning would be 7-0 with these Patriots, you can blame Kenny and Dobson all you want, but Brady zeroed in on Gronk targeting him 17 times. Open, not open, Brady didn't care.

    [/QUOTE]
    Sorry, I've got to call more BS here. Brady had no unhealthy relationship with Welker.  Welker was by far his best receiver on a team that had very few receivers.  He threw to him a lot because that's what he was given to throw to.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pre-2009, our boy was a lethal surgeon capable of cutting teams open and devouring their hearts with Reche Caldwell as his best WR. Now? He can't control his passes and overcommits. What changed? His BFF left that he used to work out with in the offseason.

    If Brady rights himself and becomes Brady again we still have a chance, if not? Oh boy...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    6 Welkers would not have saved us from the totally mismanaged Bengals game.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SLGDEV. Show SLGDEV's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Kind of tired of this "Welker" stuff.  He's gone. we need to get over it.  Too much money for a one trick pony who seemed to be limited in his catching abilities when the passes we'ren't perfect. Especially in the playoffs. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is such BS.  Welker was a very reliable receiver.  Sure he had his share of drops like all receivers and his skillset does not make him great at great catching the ball going away, but please, let's not downplay the guy's exceptional skills and contribution just because he's gone. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    +1

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah and if Amendola was healthy and Hernandez didn't murder anyone, and Gronk had been healthy all year, and Vereen didn't get hurt than they would be undefeated.  Then Welker would have a chance to become butterfingers again in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Given their past histories what was more likely, them getting hurt of them being healthy? If you rely on injury prone players you better have proper backups in place and nether did. Personally I'd rather be in the playoffs for him to have butterfingers than to not have either WR because they are on the bench nursing a "insert injury here"

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, we know you would personally rather complain about every player every day because they didn't pick the one of the 10 players that turned out good out of the 500 players you wanted to draft.  Lets just pretend Welker didn't choose to leave, and accept less money cause then what would we bich about.

    He's gone, he dropped critical game winning balls in the playoffs twice, and the Pats are 5-2 without him.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Kind of tired of this "Welker" stuff.  He's gone. we need to get over it.  Too much money for a one trick pony who seemed to be limited in his catching abilities when the passes we'ren't perfect. Especially in the playoffs. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is such BS.  Welker was a very reliable receiver.  Sure he had his share of drops like all receivers and his skillset does not make him great at great catching the ball going away, but please, let's not downplay the guy's exceptional skills and contribution just because he's gone. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    +1

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    I think they'd be 7-0 if someone else was calling the plays. They were running effectively (4.5 per) and just kept on passing. The Jets ran it 54 times and were averaging over a yard less per carry (3.4). Didn't stop them.

    There were some open receivers that Brady just missed, just like vs. Cinci. But, the play calling has been a bigger problem.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Pats would be 7-0 with Welker.

    And if my grandmother had ba11s she'd be my grandfather.

     

Share