Wes Welker Rumours

[King of Jeans]

http://gnb.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Wes-Welker-could-land-in-Green-Bay-36254854

Wtf, this wouldn't actually happen would it? I get that he would be relatively cheap but WR is one of the last places I would be looking at in free agency. Why do people make ridiculous predictions involving free agents and the Pack? It's not like we ever sign any of them, which I am definitely okay with. I don't want Welker on this team at all. We have good, young, cheap talent at that position as it is.

I assume this would never happen right??

 

[7thFloorRA]

It would a very interesting signing. He could be a red zone threat with his ability to run that hard slant and catch the ball.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

http://gnb.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Wes-Welker-could-land-in-Green-Bay-36254854

Wtf, this wouldn't actually happen would it? I get that he would be relatively cheap but WR is one of the last places I would be looking at in free agency. Why do people make ridiculous predictions involving free agents and the Pack? It's not like we ever sign any of them, which I am definitely okay with. I don't want Welker on this team at all. We have good, young, cheap talent at that position as it is.

I assume this would never happen right??

There's absolutely no reason to bring Welker in. Cheesehead TV had us lonked to Harvin pnly a few hours before he signed with the Bills.

 

[7thFloorRA]

3 white receivers on the same team would be a thing

 

[Darth Garfunkel]

Seriously, he should retire. One more hit to the head and he's basically a mental tomato.

 

[DaveRoller]

3 white receivers on the same team would be a thing

Janis, Abbredaris, Nelson??

 

[7thFloorRA]

Janis, Abbredaris, Nelson??

Damn.....i forgot about abby. That would be 4. There probably aren't 4 more in the entire league.

 

[SoonerPack]

This is one I wouldn't be totally against but just can't understand WHY we would do it. Even at his advanced age he is still a witch to cover in tight quarters and to be more precise, the red zone. He just has a knack for getting open and being an Oklahoma boy I have always sort of rooted for him. It still blows me away that not one of the state schools (OU, OSU or Tulsa) even offered him a a scholly coming out of HS. He went on to Texas Tech and set all sorts of return records that I believe still stand and obviously had a borderline HOF career in the league but I digress. The major issue to me is the guys health. Ted and Co. have a history of avoiding guys that have suffered serious injuries (neck usually) and Welker has been concussed more times than Balboa. The last few seasons I honestly cringe when he catches the ball as I am just waiting for the hit that finishes him to be delivered. Secondly, the developmental aspect of Janis, Abby and Adams (to an extent) have to be considered. You wouldn't bring a guy like WW in to sit on the bench and collect a check. The comments from McCarthy regarding Janis would lead one to believe that he will be much more involved this upcoming season (HELL YEAH!!!) and I felt Abby was pro-ready the day he was drafted because of his hands and savvy route running. Welker would obviously force one of these 2 to the pine and more likely the inactive list. Third, I completely agree with what WIMM said in regards to the source. I am not going to crush them but it does seem that they are let's say loose when it comes to "breaking" new "stories." If PFT or some other more highly regarded outlet had reported this I would put a touch more stock in it but since they seem to be the only ones reporting this I will file this one under the Slow Wednesday category.

 

[Carl]

If he could help as a 4th WR, I'd be okay with it.

As a short term option, he's probably better than Janis and Abbredaris right now.

 

[Vrill]

Welker still has elite hands and hes still a elite route runner. He just cannot take a hard shot anymore.

I think if we sign him, as long as he only plays in a limited role (ie certain packages) that he'd last the whole year and be fine. He'll probably catch 30-40 balls here with us playing in a limited role.

I see us lining him up in the slot and having Cobb as the motion man who lines up everywhere (backfield etc) in certain packages.

Make no mistake though, Welker won't see extensive playing time here unless one of our big 3 gets injured. He'll probably get around 15-20 snaps per game and that maybe being generous.

 

[azrsx05]

I would be ok with him coming. We don't really have a red zone TE threat and we could use him as a red zone threat. He is also a good insurance policy. A few weeks ago, everyone was freaking out because Cobb was leaving, and how everyone would double team Nelson. So what happens if Nelson or Cobb go down. We would have an insurance policy there. You are never too deep in any position.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Ok. People bring up age for literally EVERY position when it comes to letting a guy leave and yet when it comes to a guy coming TO the Packers, those shouts aren't nearly as loud....something seems off

Also, Welker would be a mistake. I think it was PFF (I could be way off on this attribution though) mentioned something along the lines that Welker would hurt a team because a team would sign him and expect him to fill a need and then, when he inevitably gets hurt, the team would find out that no, they had not in fact filled that need.

 

[ivo610]

I would be ok with him coming. We don't really have a red zone TE threat and we could use him as a red zone threat. He is also a good insurance policy. A few weeks ago, everyone was freaking out because Cobb was leaving, and how everyone would double team Nelson. So what happens if Nelson or Cobb go down. We would have an insurance policy there. You are never too deep in any position.

Red zone TE threat?

I don't get the posters who think we need to do something as far as roster moves go based on the possibility the top 2 players at a position could get hurt. This is the same thought pattern that led to a poster trying to drum up support for the packers to draft Melvin Gordon in the 1st round

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

3 white receivers on the same team would be a thing

Did you mean "wide"?? Not sure what "white" has to do with anything or how it "would be a thing"

 

[Poppa San]

Should just merge this with the Jennings thread and retitle it "old wide receivers available in free agency".

 

[Sanguine camper]

TT has already dished out more than 20 million the the WR position. No way will he sign a luxury like Welker when the Packets have holes at LB. CB and TE. He would fit in well but at this point it's about the money and how it gets divided into the position groups.

 

[sjb12681]

What would be the point? As others have said, should any vet be signed, they stunt our young 3/4 set wr.

If he is part time, what does he bring that we don't have?

All this would do is waste cap space, add a spot another player with potential could take, and likely would be gone in 1 year with little to add to the season.

Let's try to think about this. He isn't even a luxury, he would be nothing more than a name. A vet, with a name.

And one we do not need.

We have been smart. Our vets, and VERY GOOD ONES AT THAT, are jordy and Randall.

There is no need, and to be honest, no room for wes welker.

 

[Vrill]

TT has already dished out more than 20 million the the WR position. No way will he sign a luxury like Welker when the Packets have holes at LB. CB and TE. He would fit in well but at this point it's about the money and how it gets divided into the position groups.

Welker could likely be had for chicken scratch (ie veteran minimum)

 

[sjb12681]

Vrill is pushing wes like its his brother tonight.

One question:

What does wes ( or any wr this off season) bring to the packers that we don't currently have?

Followup question: how would bringing in wes HURT the development of our very nicely developing wr corp?

If after answering these question you can show the benefits not even talking about a wasted roster spot or cap space, I will be more inclined to think this as an OK idea

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Unless Welker could play inside linebacker, nose tackle or corner, I'd rather the Packers send money on defense.

 

[azrsx05]

Red zone TE threat?

I don't get the posters who think we need to do something as far as roster moves go based on the possibility the top 2 players at a position could get hurt. This is the same thought pattern that led to a poster trying to drum up support for the packers to draft Melvin Gordon in the 1st round

Our red zone offense sucked this past year. We need more weapons that way. You should always try to get depth at any position because of how violent the sport is. I guarantee you we will get injured guys this year. People will say good thing we have good back ups or we should've had more depth

 

[adambr2]

Our red zone offense sucked this past year. We need more weapons that way. You should always try to get depth at any position because of how violent the sport is. I guarantee you we will get injured guys this year. People will say good thing we have good back ups or we should've had more depth

How many WRs do you think we plan to carry? Depth is all fine and good, but you have to be smart and efficient about how you handle your roster. You've only got 53, so extra depth at one position is one guy less of depth at another position. So which position do you want to take a guy away from to accommodate a 6th WR?

We have other needs which prevent us from having the luxury of stashing extra WRs on the 53 'just in case,' and Welker is not at the point in his career where he's going to have a real impact on our red zone offense. We'll probably carry a WR on the practice squad and that's sufficient depth for a 6th WR on this team.

 

[Carl]

Our red zone offense sucked this past year. We need more weapons that way. You should always try to get depth at any position because of how violent the sport is. I guarantee you we will get injured guys this year. People will say good thing we have good back ups or we should've had more depth

We were 11th in the league in red zone TD percentage. Wouldn't call that sucking. Yeah, we struggled vs the Seahawks and it hurt us in the game, but that does not make the whole season red zone offense bad.

 

[ivo610]

Our red zone offense sucked this past year. We need more weapons that way. You should always try to get depth at any position because of how violent the sport is. I guarantee you we will get injured guys this year. People will say good thing we have good back ups or we should've had more depth

In football TE means tight end so I was a little confused on what you meant.

Our 1,2, and 3 WRs are going to get the majority of the playing time and balls thrown to them. The 4 and 5 spot (lets operate under the assumption that we wont keep 6) are meant for younger guys that we develop. Thats the system. Next man up.

Tom Brady won 4 SBs with mediocre WRs, I am not worried about losing a Wr or 2 and it derailing our season. Changing how we operate would hamper the development of those 3 younger WRs. In due time we will need them and if they get the time in the system, they should be ready. We cut someone to bring in welker, but welker is just a short term guy who might retire in a year, not someone that we should be putting our time into.

If we were to pick up a WR I would prefer it to be a deep threat, not a slot possession guy.

 

[Dr. Kenneth Noisewater]

We were 11th in the league in red zone TD percentage. Wouldn't call that sucking. Yeah, we struggled vs the Seahawks and it hurt us in the game, but that does not make the whole season red zone offense bad.

Compare that to the rest of our numbers on offense and it's pretty obvious we struggled.

My thoughts on Welker are the same as my thoughts on Jennings (without the reservations over personality). At the risk of sounding like Vic Ketchman: he's a good player and, while he doesn't fill one of our most important needs, in what universe do we not need good players?