So do people still believe the Patriots skill players are good?

[ImBrotherCain]

Originally Posted by HypocrisyIsGreat

Being savvy isn't enough to put you in the top 5 of WR's in the game or the all-pro list.


Seriously, just put the inflated stats away. How would this turd do in a boring, run first offense that throws 25 times per game? Can anyone answer that?

Because all WR flourish in a run first offense... Dumb point is dumb.

[cmarq83]

Originally Posted by HypocrisyIsGreat

Being savvy isn't enough to put you in the top 5 of WR's in the game or the all-pro list.


Seriously, just put the inflated stats away. How would this turd do in a boring, run first offense that throws 25 times per game? Can anyone answer that?

I'm not sure about Stokley, but Welker would certainly be a valuable component on a run first offense. Imagine you run on the first 2 downs and you have a manageable 3rd and 3. The offense is expecting a run on 3rd down so they have stacked the box in a tight formation. With Welker you could either play him close to the line in the slot or as an H back type player. You run play action to hold up the guy who's on him, and Welker can use his short area quickness to run into the flat and give the offense and easy 5 yard completion on 3rd down. These are the easy kind of passes to get your QB into the flow of the game, and that can keep defenses honest. The same can be done with a quick drag, whip, or anything short to intermediate. Plus the fact that Welker is an above average blocking receiver despite his size would be a plus in a running offense as well.

If you have a guy who can get open quickly as a hot route guy that's valuable as a QB regardless of what offense you're running.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by HypocrisyIsGreat

Wait, you just said that about the best acrobat receiver in the league? Oh. my. God. Please stop watching football. You're an embarrassment.

eh, you're gunna have troll better.

[cmarq83]

Originally Posted by HypocrisyIsGreat

Wait, you just said that about the best acrobat receiver in the league? Oh. my. God. Please stop watching football. You're an embarrassment.

Calvin Johnson says hello, but anyway yes Lloyd's game is among the more frustrating to watch. He'll make 1 catch that will make your jaw drop, but then he'll drop an easy one or jump for a pass that he doesn't need to, which kills his momentum and makes him worthless as a YAC receiver. Plus he only runs like 3 routes. I'd take Welker any day over Lloyd.

[HypocrisyIsGreat]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

eh, you're gunna have troll better.

Oh yeah, I'm trolling. As usual, the easy copout response to reading something that you don't like. Nevermind the fact that Lloyd is the best boundary receiver the league has seen since Cris Carter, I'm the one trolling because some other doofus seems to think Lloyd unnecessarily jumps to make catches "look better".

This place isn't much better than webzone in terms of cringe-worthy stupidity.

[HypocrisyIsGreat]

Originally Posted by cmarq83

Calvin Johnson says hello, but anyway yes Lloyd's game is among the more frustrating to watch. He'll make 1 catch that will make your jaw drop, but then he'll drop an easy one or jump for a pass that he doesn't need to, which kills his momentum and makes him worthless as a YAC receiver. Plus he only runs like 3 routes. I'd take Welker any day over Lloyd.

The only thing you're right about is that Lloyd is sub par when it comes to YAC. Everything else was horrifically off the mark, but hey, you're a pats fan, and you actually find welker's consistent 10 yard screen plays on 3rd and 17 impressive.

[HypocrisyIsGreat]

Originally Posted by ImBrotherCain

Because all WR flourish in a run first offense... Dumb point is dumb.

Michael Crabtree has a chance to have 10 TD's and 1,000 yards in one of the most boring offenses in football.

Welker is going to have another 1300 yard year in an offense that throws it as much as anyone, if not more.

What's more impressive? And consider the QB's both receivers play with as well.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by HypocrisyIsGreat

Oh yeah, I'm trolling. As usual, the easy copout response to reading something that you don't like. Nevermind the fact that Lloyd is the best boundary receiver the league has seen since Cris Carter, I'm the one trolling because some other doofus seems to think Lloyd unnecessarily jumps to make catches "look better".

This place isn't much better than webzone in terms of cringe-worthy stupidity.

Well you did come in and pretty much call all Pats fans losers so i think the feedback is to be expected. I'd suggest starting a thread without any preconceived bias and see where it goes, just a suggestion.

[killxswitch]

I need to hear jsagan's thoughts on this topic, please.

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by killxswitch

I need to hear jsagan's thoughts on this topic, please.

The answer is RG3. Hater.

[JRTPlaya21]

Originally Posted by Jvig43

The answer is RG3. Hater.

Lmao I don't consider him a real Redskins fan personally.

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by killxswitch

I need to hear jsagan's thoughts on this topic, please.

Originally Posted by Jvig43

The answer is RG3. Hater.

We should get an RG3 vs Aaron Rodgers debate going between jsagan and JMike just to watch the internet kill itself

[Swoll_Cat]

Originally Posted by Jvig43

Psssh, insert any player on this offense and they immediately become 100 catches, 1000 yards, 10 TD type receivers. Thats a fact.

im amazed you are somehow able to remotely follow logic, given its transparency as i so eloquently hit you in the eyes with. as it is fact, you understand (that is if you do so deem to possess the ability to recognize and discern logic) that wes welker is unequivocally overrated. as a corollary, crabtree is better than welker for all the factual reasons you "seem" to interpret

[Ghost of Juice]

I don't really know what to say about this. If you don't think Gronk is a great player then you must just really hate the Pats or something. Hernandez is a great player as well and Lloyd is a good player.

Welker might not be the greatest receiver in the league but he is absolutely perfect for his role and Brady has great chemistry with him. Is Welker replaceable? Sure he is but Brady seems to be much more comfortable with him out there. As a side note, if the Dolphins had signed Drew Brees when he was a free agent, Welker would probably still be a dolphin as Brees's favorite target. Who knows how different things might have been for the league if that had happened.

[Grizzlegom]

[Caulibflower]

I think Danny Amendola could perform at a very similar level to Wes Welker in New England. I think Welker would probably look quite a bit like Danny Amendola if he was playing in St. Louis. I think they'd both be better than Mike Wallace playing slot receiver in New England, but worse playing outside in Pittsburgh. That's how it is. There's no linear ranking for what makes one receiver better than another, because you have to look at what they are doing on their own team, and not just imagining what they'd be like on someone else's.

Also, OP is obvious troll.

[Cudders]

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Being a productive receiver doesn't equate to being a great wide receiver. There's a lot more that goes into being a great wide receiver.

No. But Welker’s skill set equates to him being a great, productive slot receiver. Which carries more value than is being assigned to it

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

It requires less and less as time goes on. The rule changes have made it so that getting open is not only expected...it's pathetic if you can't. Every receiver who enters the NFL can be "productive" if used in the right scheme.

Most draftees can be productive if used in the right scheme. To a degree, every player in the NFL could be called a system player. I don’t think anyone would argue that Tom Brady is a scheme-diverse quarterback. But New England still does their best to put him in situations that accentuate and highlight his strengths. It’s smart coaching. Doesn’t make him a talentless product.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Just so you know, what you wrote there is utter gibberish. Seems like we have a pseudo-football intellectual on our hands. Yeesh.

Umm?

I was speaking in generalities in that example, but defensive tendencies are charted and studied over and over during the week of preparation. And, as a choice receiver, a role in which Welker is often thrust into, he must piece together the defensive puzzle to run the correct route. That includes the depth of safeties, alignment of safeties, depth of corners, depth of linebackers, alignment of linebackers, proximal defenders, etc. The technique of defensive linemen might not be the hard focus area, but it’s a part of the equation and can serve as a screecher for an offense. Game-callers have embedded tendencies based on dozens of factors. I just listed one set. The teams that excel at situational football are the teams that glean situational patterns from their opponents. Belichick, and his teams, have done that.

It isn’t groundbreaking.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

First of all, he doesn't demonstrate reliable hands at all. Over the past few years, he has dropped more passes than anyone...and he is thrown the easiest passes to catch. In his career, the average distance from the line of scrimmage in which he catches a pass is 5.3 yards.

First, drops are subjective. Second, where are the numbers coming from? Because I couldn’t find a ledger that had him leading even this season. The highest I saw was tied for third. With much higher target numbers than most of the other people on the list. And drops weren’t problematic last season until the Super Bowl. (If we don’t want to get into all of the technicalities of it.) I seem to remember him struggling in 2010, but on a holistic basis, he’s been more reliable than not in New England, which is the source of the discussion.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Secondly, and more to the point - there are countless players in the NFL who match those very same descriptions you gave. Do you honestly think there's something so different about this undersized, slow, somewhat quick, feisty receiver that he at least doubles the production of so many of a similar mold before him?

And if there is...why was he doing exactly what you'd expect from someone of this mold in Miami? 67 catches for 687 yards and 1 TD. That's exactly what you'd expect out of someone like him.

Those are Curtis Duncan numbers, you know? Eric Metcalf numbers. Danny Amendola numbers.

What is it that you are trying to argue? That he has a few skills? No, duh. He made it to the NFL. I can assure you, every single player who has ever made it to the NFL is capable of doing things if it's made easy enough for him. Every receiver who makes it to the NFL can catch screen passes and get open on drag routes. And if they're not smart enough to run "option routes," they're not going to last very long in the NFL.

Remember Troy Edwards? He was a bust, now, wasn't he? Imagine if he were in Wes Welker's role. What's he missing? He was quick. He was much, much faster. He could run short patterns quite effectively. What's he missing? Is he just not a super-genius like Welker? Is he incapable of learning all the mental stuff?

Is Wes Welker just so brilliant that no other guy with similar physical makeup can do what he does in that role in the New England offense? Quick, donate the man's brain to science, he must be a genius!

First, intelligence ≠ football aptitude. A lot of smart people have come through the NFL with poor football aptitude. And the inverse is true, too. Plus, some of it is work ethic. Putting in the hours on the practice field and in the film room is a grind. A grind some people aren’t prepared to commit to. It’s not glamorous. I’ve never claimed that Wes Welker is a certifiable genius off the field. However, the man has reactive genius between the boundaries.

As for Edwards, I don’t know for a fact if he couldn’t digest his scheme or not. I’ve never been in his positional or offensive meetings. But I know that if he brought all of the things that Welker does, he wouldn’t have bounced around so much during his career. His potential got him in the door, but again, potential isn’t performance.

Game execution and theoretical upside are two different categories. Welker brings the former. And it isn’t all drags and screens. Again, he’s got underrated short-area burst and suddenness. He’s not just somewhat quick. He’s quick. Period.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Football...it's rocket surgery now, folks.

And I'm the one speaking utter gibberish...

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Is that your argument? "Who cares?"

How about people who care about the sanctity of the pro football Hall of Fame? How about the people who care about players who actually deserve the recognition being the ones who get it?

This clown took an AP first-team all-pro spot (not to mention a Pro Bowl selection spot) away from 30+ more deserving players.

It’s not an argument. It’s a statement. I don’t care. It is what it is.

The reason I don’t care? The Hall of Fame’s aura as an elite, exclusive institution is gone. And I’m not about to get all riled up over a professional athlete being snubbed from a meaningless, unwatchable game. Same goes for All-Pro teams. The incompetent voters outnumber the competent voters. The end-of-season lists are entertaining to look at, but can’t be used to substantiate much, so I’m not going to get bent out of shape over them.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

And so does Deion Branch's and Donte Stallworth's, apparently. So does Aaron Hernandez's. So does Danny Woodhead's.

Deion Branch has been in the same spot as Welker. Same design. Same quarterback. Yet the results were different. Four or five of Welker’s seasons have eclipsed Branch’s best.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Yes, actually, it does. Those 2 or 3 games, if you actually watched them, demonstrated what everybody with a brain already knew - just about any receiver who makes it to the NFL can do what Welker does. All you have to do is actually watch him play and see how little he actually has to do to "produce."

This is what always happens when someone who is unimpressive puts up numbers as a result of the system he is in. The stat-obsessed fans make up intangibles and boring, imaginary attributes to defend that player's worthiness of said numbers.

We saw it with Shaun Alexander. "Well, he may be incredibly stiff, soft, and lumber through gaping holes in the most hideous and unimpressive way imaginable, but what you don't see is how PATIENT he is. His vision is just so good, that's why he's legitimately awesome. It's not just Walter Jones, Steve Hutchinson, and Mack Strong blasting open holes for him. Your eyes deceive you!"

We saw it with all the Denver running backs during the Shanahan era. "Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Clinton Portis, Tatum Bell, Mike Bell, your mom...they are all great at finding cutback lanes and keeping their shoulders square and running downhill!"

And we saw it with receivers playing under Mike Martz. "Mike Furrey and Shaun McDonald run precise patterns!"

We also saw it with all the running backs catching passes on the 49ers in the 80s and 90s. "Well, Derek Loville runs good routes out of the backfield and has good hands! Same with William Floyd! Just like Roger Craig and Tom Rathman before them!"

Here's the reality of football - if the player doesn't look impressive doing it, he's probably not that good of a player.

I’m far, far from stat-obsessed.

You’re ignoring that it’s possible to transcend the baseline requirements of the scheme. Is New England’s scheme conducive to receivers like Welker? Yes. Is Shanahan’s scheme conducive to decisive downhill runners? Yes. Was the West Coast conducive to pass-catching backs? Yes. But guess what? Sometimes skill set meets scheme and the results reach prolific levels. For all of Welker’s, Davis’, Portis’, and Craig’s contemporaries, none of them could replicate the production.

Originally Posted by JordanTaber

Because Bill Belichick didn't put them in Welker's role. They're split ends, which is where Lloyd is playing right now. I'm quite certain they can catch screen passes and run drag routes and beat linebackers. But Wes Welker has been playing that role, so they never got a chance.

Oh, I see.

So Belichick has earned a reputation for being flexible, innovative, and versatile throughout his coaching career. Used wide receivers as cornerbacks. Used linebackers as tight ends. Used defensive linemen as jumbo blockers. But he just wouldn’t ever adapt and use a receiver at a different alignment within the offense even if it meant an obvious upgrade?

[Ness]

[prock]

Originally Posted by HypocrisyIsGreat

Oh yeah, I'm trolling. As usual, the easy copout response to reading something that you don't like. Nevermind the fact that Lloyd is the best boundary receiver the league has seen since Cris Carter, I'm the one trolling because some other doofus seems to think Lloyd unnecessarily jumps to make catches "look better".

This place isn't much better than webzone in terms of cringe-worthy stupidity.

Then I think it would be best for you to kindly get the **** out.

[JordanTaber]

Originally Posted by cmarq83

If someone legitimately believes that Brandon "I must jump unnecessarily and fall to the ground for every pass to make it look more spectacular" Lloyd is a better receiver than Wes Welker, then their opinion is not worth noting.

You could criticize Cris Carter for the exact same thing. I don't think you'd dare, though. Am I right?

[Caddy]

Brandon Lloyd is the most acrobatic receiver in the NFL which somehow makes him better than Welker?

[Ness]

I've never been a huge fan of Welker and thought he was a tad overrated. He does what he was required to do, and does get his receptions and yardage, but I don't think he ever deserved to be a 1st team All Pro (although I think he's only made it once as an actual receiver out of the two times he's been selected while the other was partly a kick returner). I think he's decent, but not spectacular and definitely the kind of guy that needs someone like Brady to make the most of his talent. All receivers need a good quarterback to shine year after year, but if Welker doesn't have that, I don't think he's even a threat in the passing game.

[JordanTaber]

Originally Posted by Cudders

No. But Welker’s skill set equates to him being a great, productive slot receiver. Which carries more value than is being assigned to it

There's that word again. "Great." People just throw that word around these days to where it has lost all its meaning.

There's nothing "great" about Wes Welker. He's "useful," maybe...in the same way Danny Amendola is useful.

And it carries far less value than you are assigning to it. Why do you think the top slot receivers are all undrafted free agents/late round draft choices, while the outside guys with size, speed, strength, and athleticism are taken early in drafts? Here's a hint: It has to do with the fact that it's much easier to find a capable slot receiver (incredibly easy) than it is to find a truly good outside receiver.

Most draftees can be productive if used in the right scheme. To a degree, every player in the NFL could be called a system player. I don’t think anyone would argue that Tom Brady is a scheme-diverse quarterback. But New England still does their best to put him in situations that accentuate and highlight his strengths. It’s smart coaching. Doesn’t make him a talentless product.

I'm pretty sure Tom Brady can play in any system. He can make all the throws and he is the premier quarterback in the league mechanically.

No, you can not call every player in the NFL a "system player" to any degree. That just illustrates that you don't understand what "product of a system" means.

You can put Calvin Johnson in any system and he's still a great wide receiver. Same with Andre Johnson. Same with Steve Smith.

Talent is talent.

A "product of a system" is a guy who only produces at a high level because the scheme he is in makes things easy for him. Guys who are products of a system are underwhelming players who would not produce much without being in a place where just about anyone can be productive.

Kliff Kingsbury was a product of a system at Texas Tech, for example. No scout took him seriously despite his enormous numbers. Why? Because the scheme he was in was wide open and gave him easy throws all over the field, which he easily hit.

Some great players wind up in systems like this, but their talent invariably comes through. They get what is there, and then they get more.

Any receiver could catch passes in the 49ers' offenses in the 80s and 90s, but not just anyone could break them for 80 yard touchdowns like Jerry Rice and John Taylor.

If Welker had that ability, I wouldn't say a peep about him. But he doesn't. He gets what's there and that's it. If he were great after the catch, he'd be breaking some of those catches for touchdowns.

And if he could burn someone deep, he'd be doing it. Coaches notice when players have the ability to do things like that.

Umm?

I was speaking in generalities in that example, but defensive tendencies are charted and studied over and over during the week of preparation. And, as a choice receiver, a role in which Welker is often thrust into, he must piece together the defensive puzzle to run the correct route. That includes the depth of safeties, alignment of safeties, depth of corners, depth of linebackers, alignment of linebackers, proximal defenders, etc. The technique of defensive linemen might not be the hard focus area, but it’s a part of the equation and can serve as a screecher for an offense. Game-callers have embedded tendencies based on dozens of factors. I just listed one set. The teams that excel at situational football are the teams that glean situational patterns from their opponents. Belichick, and his teams, have done that.

A bundle of journeymen receivers caught boatloads of passes back in the day in the run-and-shoot. Being able to make sight adjustments isn't a special attribute.

First, drops are subjective. Second, where are the numbers coming from? Because I couldn’t find a ledger that had him leading even this season. The highest I saw was tied for third. With much higher target numbers than most of the other people on the list. And drops weren’t problematic last season until the Super Bowl. (If we don’t want to get into all of the technicalities of it.) I seem to remember him struggling in 2010, but on a holistic basis, he’s been more reliable than not in New England, which is the source of the discussion.

Well, this website says he was second over a 2 year span behind only Brandon Marshall (I had misremembered and thought it said he led):

http://walterfootball.com/mostoverratednflplayers.php

The difference in targets in comparison to other receivers is easily offset by how many screen passes he catches.

First, intelligence ≠ football aptitude. A lot of smart people have come through the NFL with poor football aptitude. And the inverse is true, too. Plus, some of it is work ethic. Putting in the hours on the practice field and in the film room is a grind. A grind some people aren’t prepared to commit to. It’s not glamorous. I’ve never claimed that Wes Welker is a certifiable genius off the field. However, the man has reactive genius between the boundaries.

Funny how that "reactive genius" didn't get him open on Sunday Night...when the 49ers had Carlos Rogers shadow him all game and said, "yeah, let's see you actually beat a good corner one on one."

As for Edwards, I don’t know for a fact if he couldn’t digest his scheme or not. I’ve never been in his positional or offensive meetings. But I know that if he brought all of the things that Welker does, he wouldn’t have bounced around so much during his career. His potential got him in the door, but again, potential isn’t performance.

Circular logic.

Why didn't Edwards produce like Welker? Not because of the scheme - it's because he doesn't bring the same things Welker does.

How do we know? Because he didn't produce like Welker.

Game execution and theoretical upside are two different categories. Welker brings the former. And it isn’t all drags and screens. Again, he’s got underrated short-area burst and suddenness. He’s not just somewhat quick. He’s quick. Period.

It isn't all drags and screens...just a huge chunk of it. A huge chunk that separates "Oh, he's a nice little slot receiver...67 catches for 680 yards and a touchdown" from, "123 catches for 1300 yards and 7 TDs...A-gain. HALL OF FAME? You betcha!"

Darren Sproles is "quick, period." Dante Hall was "quick, period." Wes Welker is small, takes short strides, and has some quickness, but he doesn't jump off the screen with suddenness. When he takes an end-around, do you hold your breath? I sure don't.

It’s not an argument. It’s a statement. I don’t care. It is what it is.

The reason I don’t care? The Hall of Fame’s aura as an elite, exclusive institution is gone. And I’m not about to get all riled up over a professional athlete being snubbed from a meaningless, unwatchable game. Same goes for All-Pro teams. The incompetent voters outnumber the competent voters. The end-of-season lists are entertaining to look at, but can’t be used to substantiate much, so I’m not going to get bent out of shape over them.

If you don't care, why are you bothering to defend Wes Welker? It is what it is, right? It's perfectly acceptable in your mind if this guy is deified at the expense of guys who actually deserve the accolades.

So why should you care if someone on a message board bashes him just because you think he's better than said critic is suggesting?

Deion Branch has been in the same spot as Welker. Same design. Same quarterback. Yet the results were different. Four or five of Welker’s seasons have eclipsed Branch’s best.

When was this?

I’m far, far from stat-obsessed.

You’re ignoring that it’s possible to transcend the baseline requirements of the scheme. Is New England’s scheme conducive to receivers like Welker? Yes. Is Shanahan’s scheme conducive to decisive downhill runners? Yes. Was the West Coast conducive to pass-catching backs? Yes. But guess what? Sometimes skill set meets scheme and the results reach prolific levels. For all of Welker’s, Davis’, Portis’, and Craig’s contemporaries, none of them could replicate the production.

No, that's exactly my point - as I mentioned before, Welker only gets what's there. He doesn't do much extra.

Who are Welker's contemporaries in this role in this system? Though not exactly the same scheme as it has been the past few years, nor was he in quite the same role, a certain 8th round pick named Troy Brown was merely catching 83, 101, and 97 passes. Is Wes Welker better than Troy Brown?

I think so.

Do I think Troy Brown was anything more than a decent #3 receiver? No, not at all.

When system meets talent, you'll know it because people will be ooing and ahing. Get Steve Smith to New England and you'll see what that would look like.

Or, sometimes a great talent causes them to adjust the scheme a bit and you get a whole new dimension. A certain Randy Moss comes to mind.

There's nothing prolific about Welker in New England other than it took him 120 catches to do what real top receivers can do in 70-80. I don't think he deserves extra credit for that.

Oh, I see.

So Belichick has earned a reputation for being flexible, innovative, and versatile throughout his coaching career. Used wide receivers as cornerbacks. Used linebackers as tight ends. Used defensive linemen as jumbo blockers. But he just wouldn’t ever adapt and use a receiver at a different alignment within the offense even if it meant an obvious upgrade?

Not when he has no one else who can do what Lloyd/Stallworth do down the field. They've thrown screens to receivers not named Welker before a little bit, actually. I remember Randy Moss breaking one of them for a touchdown a few years ago. Funny...despite catching so many fewer screens than Welker, he did something Welker was never able to do.

[JordanTaber]

Originally Posted by Caddy

Brandon Lloyd is the most acrobatic receiver in the NFL which somehow makes him better than Welker?

No, of course not. Acrobatic ability is a bad thing. Who cares if Lloyd is basically a mini-Cris Carter who can make catches that don't seem humanly possible?

No, I'd much prefer the quick, scrappy slot receiver who can catch 8 yard passes, screens and run behind a convoy of blockers for 7-10 yards before heading out of bounds, drag routes beating linebackers, wheel routes beating linebackers, and designed routes to the flat where he can catch a pass uncovered and take it up the field for 15 yards before going out of bounds.

If only the Broncos had had Wes Welker instead of Brandon Lloyd in 2010. Screw Lloyd and his 72 of 77 passes (93.5%) going for first downs, and his 11 touchdowns.

[Caddy]

I love this thread.