"11.4%: Passing attempts aimed at Wes Welker that went at least 20 yards, 10th lowest of the 82 NFL receivers targeted at least 50 times."

Welker still has game, no doubt about it, but he is looking for a big payday. Miami can't afford that along with him going into his 9th season. Bess may not be as good as Welker, but he is good enough, cheaper, and younger. Plus, Welker has Brady throwing to him. RT hasn't yet shown he can do the same.

Welker was the #3 option...or lower...on that offense. That's changed from previous years. I'm not saying Welker hasn't lost a step, but AGAIN the stats don't tell the whole story.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welker was the #3 option...or lower...on that
> offense. That's changed from previous years. I'm
> not saying Welker hasn't lost a step, but AGAIN
> the stats don't tell the whole story.


Welker was targeted 166 times this season, by far, the most on the Patriots. He was their #1 option.

Thanks for validating what I thought to be the case, Mark.

it's irrelevant to us. there is no chance we are looking to sign wes welker.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Just trying to understand the meaning/intention of this quoted stat...

He caught 118 passes. 11.4% of 118 is around 13 passes.

He actually had 13 passes of 20+ yards, two of which were over 40. If his bread and butter is the option slant route then of course he is not going to have a ton of long passes. It's not like he is running deep post and fly routes...correct?

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

The stat refers to targets 20 yards or more downfield. It's not pass plays that resulted in gains of 20 yards or more.

It's no surprise. He's slow and small. That's why he plays the slot. And that's why he doesn't run many deep routes.

I don't understand why anyone would think Welker is a target for us in free agency. He doesn't address the glaring need. Is he better than Bess? Yes, but only marginally so, and he's older.

Perhaps and maybe the Lady is 985,266 times better than Thill but NOT 1-million times better!

I mean come on. Let's not exaggerate our positions for the sake of the idiots in the bleachers!

BNF.

It is a classic figure of speech, BNF. Not meant to be taken literally.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I don't understand why anyone would think Welker
> is a target for us in free agency. He doesn't
> address the glaring need. Is he better than Bess?
> Yes, but only marginally so, and he's older."
>
> I disagree, Mark.
>
> Then that must mean Brady is a million times
> better than Tannehill. A million times better, not
> just twice or thrice as good.
>
> Either that or appearances are deceiving,
> because I see Welker seem to be catching every
> pass thrown by Brady and I can't remember a drop
> except the one Brady's wife complained about in
> the SuperBowl before last and I only see Bess
> catching a pass "every now and then" and certainly
> not as much as Hartline who IN OUR PRESENT TEAM (I
> don't want other posters to come back and try to
> jump on this and say that Hartline is a legitimate
> deep threat) actually masquerades as our deep
> threat and thus logically, like Welker catches
> more than Brandon Llyod, should catch less than
> Bess.
>
> But Hartline catches more passes than Bess and it
> should be the other way around if Bess was
> performing to the level of Welker.
>
> But I agree on the age part. That is a
> consideration.
>
> But just keeping him out of the hands of the
> Patriots where he has chemistry with Brady, might
> be enough for me to burn at least ONE roster spot.


Actually, Welker had 15 drops this year, most in the NFL. He had 13 drops last year, 4th in the NFL.

Do you really believe that if you dropped Bess into Welker's spot in the New England system that his production would be dramatically lower? Bess is not as good as Welker, but in that system, he'd catch 90 passes every year.

We have a need for an X WR. Welker isn't that. He is slow and small. We need a red zone threat. Welker isn't that. Welker scores TDs in the New England offense because of how they spread the field, how they move him around to get favorable matchups, and because of Brady's accuracy. You put him in the slot for us, and he is only marginally better than Bess. It doesn't address our glaring need.

And Hartline is surprisingly effective downfield. He was among the league leaders in deep targets and catches in 2012. He's also led our team in yards per catch every year he has been in the league. That's not a fluke.

Hartline is better than Brandon Lloyd, by the way. He is much more versatile. Hartline is an ideal Z WR, but he was forced into the X role this year, and he was very solid. Hartline could also be effective in the slot. Lloyd isn't that versatile.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, Mark. I thought you liked to rely on PFF.
> Two days ago, the Boston newspaper had a headline
> that "Wes Welker Ranked As No. 2 Free-Agent Wide
> Receiver By Pro Football Focus." It does talk
> about the drops but I suppose the ranking must be
> based on the same thing I see, that whenever the
> Pats need a crucial pass, he is there.

Having a good grade doesn't make Welker fit our needs. Their grading is simple. Do your job on a play, get a positive grade. Make a mistake, get a negative grade. Welker gets a lot of positive grades because he catches so many passes. Heck, he was targeted almost 170 times, so it seems like every throw is to him. But, he plays the slot. With Hartline a free agent, we need an X and a Z. Welker does not play either of those positions. We already have a slot WR. Why would we pay Welker $9M a year to play a position where we already have a solid player, when we don't have an X or a Z? And ask Pats' fans about Welker's drops in key situations. I live in New England, so hear it all the time. He took a lot of blame in the Super Bowl loss last year for a critical drop. And the same thing happened again in the AFC championship game this year.

>
> "We have a need for an X WR. Welker isn't that. He
> is slow and small." Same kind of thing that was
> said when he was with us but he was there catching
> the same crucial passes from QBs of a lot lesser
> caliber than Tannehill or Brady.

There is a lot of romanticizing about Welker's time in Miami. The reality is that he scored 1 receiving TD in 3 seasons. In his most productive year, he averaged 10.3 yards per catch. He was hardly great for us. And, regardless, we need someone who can play the X WR positions. Welker can't. Slot WRs are like middle relievers. Middle relievers are guys who aren't good enough to start or close. Same for slot guys. They are guys who can't play X or Z.


>
> "And Hartline is surprisingly effective
> downfield." Yeah, but that's more a testament to
> HARTLINE's ability and more a condemnation of
> Bess. The reason that Hartline is NOT EVEN MORE
> EFFECTIVE is that he lacks the speed of a true
> DEEP THREAT.

Hartline was 10th in the league in passes caught on deep targets this season. He had more than Wallace.

>But Bess is so easily covered
> underneath, that BESS, who you argue we get by
> with, catches so few passes in the slot.

Bess catches almost all of his passes out of the slot, and is one of the more effective slot WRs around. Even with his time missed to injury, Bess was 8th in the league in catches out of the slot.

>
> Next, if Bess is so good, why are we so poor in
> the red zone? Obviously that is not the job of
> the deep receiver.

The is no such thing as "the deep receiver." Typically, the X is your deep guy. And ideally, the X guy is also good sized and is a factor in the red zone. Slot WRs don't score a lot of TDs. There were only 6 WRs in the league this year who scored more than 3 TDs out of the slot. Why? Because most of them are flawed players. That's why they are slot WRs. In Bess' case, in the compressed area of the red zone, he does not have the size to be effective there. Because of his size, Bess is almost no threat to run a route to the outside in the endzone. You are going to throw a corner fade to Bess. So, defenders overplay him in the middle of the field, and he doesn't have the size to carve out space for himself.

If you want to use Welker as an underneath threat, there may be nobody better, but even split wide last year he caught 32 of 44 passes for 11.4 yards and remained efficient. PFF

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Bess is as good as Welker. Welker has thebetter QB throwing him the ball.