Wes Welker Rumours

D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
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.

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.

Our red zone offense sucked this past year. We need more weapons that way.

Welker had only six receptions for a single TD in the red zone last season. On the other side Cobb was tied for second in receptions (18) and led all receivers in TD catches (10) inside the 20 in 2014.

There´s no reason to bring in Welker.
 

sjb12681

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
563
Reaction score
103
Location
Carmel, Indiana
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?

In a universe where we already have $20+ million tied up at the position in question next year.

Remember, there is only one football to throw to these guys, there is no need to have Welker in our system. It would remove a spot needed to continue to develop our young WRs on the roster.

The reason we are able to churn out good to great WRs every year and be able to not go through a lot of the growing pains is that we develop in game as well as practice, by getting these guys into routes and blocking plays. If Welker is in the game, a Janis, an Abberderris, an Adams is NOT.

I would rather develop those names, then borrow a broken Welker for at BEST 2 seasons at a premium of losing that development time, $$$ being a non factor.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
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?

Like 8th in passing yards and 11th in rushing yards?

Even if 11th in the red zone was by far the worst stat, it does make it a struggle just because the rest of the team was good.

That's like saying Lacy "is super good at running the ball, therefore he struggles at catching it."
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
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?
I would say, 'in the universe acquiring that player in a position of strength and depth prevents us from acquiring players in positions of weakness and lack of depth'. Managing an NFL team's personnel is a zero sum game.

Thompson has said multiple times that the Packers are active in free agency, acquiring players just doesn't always work out. (Better said: 'almost never work out'.) I wonder if some of these rumors get started because the Packers call agents inquiring about the contract demands of the players they represent. IOW, the Packers may be gathering information more than expressing interest, or at least not expressing interest at anywhere near the players' price.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,353
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Milwaukee
Could it be one of the 2nd year wr aren't expected to help this year?

Would that make more sense?
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
31,986
Reaction score
7,829
Location
Madison, WI
If they sign Welker or any other Veteran FA WR.....I think that would be the conclussion
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Could it be one of the 2nd year wr aren't expected to help this year?

Would that make more sense?

MM himself said that he expects Janis to take a big step this year. I doubt he is referring to special teams. Even if Abby gets eased in and sees little game action, that's still a #1-#4 expected to have a role on offense. I don't see room for Welker, and I doubt there's really anything to the rumors.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
31,986
Reaction score
7,829
Location
Madison, WI
rumors, conjectures, second guessing.....is what drives most of us fans :D

But personally, I would be more excited about a rumor that JJ Watt is being traded to the Packers then us signing Wes Welker
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I'd be surprised if it happened. Even if the rumor is true, odds are Thompson will offer him less than he'll take, as has been the case so many times before as Thx suggests.

While the odds are quite low, it might be worth a few minutes to consider the logic of it:

- Abbrederis didn't make it to preseason; he's a red shirt semi-rookie. He's coming off an ACL. Imagine if the Packers drafted an Abbrederis look-alike WR who missed his senior season with an ACL. How excited would you be to have that guy as the #4 or #5 WR?

- McCarthy has expressed optimism that Janis will take the next step. At the same time, there is concern about his catch radius. No matter how fast a guy might be, and no matter how well he runs routes, if he can't extend for the ball to get "NFL open", and catch it, his utility will be limited.

- There's no depth at the slot position other than Nelson. Having to move Nelson inside on a regular basis if Cobb is injured would be an unhappy circumstance.

- Welker could also be seen as insurance against an injury to either Nelson or Adams. In that event, Cobb could move outside with Welker manning the slot.

- The Packers run a fair amount of 4-wide sets. Without a second slot receiver or a TE well-suited to the slot, a Cobb-Welker dual slot in 4-wide might be interesting.

If there's anything to this rumor, Thompson would be offering a deal commensurate with a #4 or #5 receiver, a veteran who's lost a step, and is a high concussion risk. That wouldn't be much more than the vet minimum in the World According to Thompson.

If by some bizarre turn of events Thompson gave Welker something like 2 years for $4 mil, I'd have to say he should have given Williams that money to bump up the reported last Packer offer of $5.5 mil to the Cleveland level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pacmaniac

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
571
We need a 4th good WR. Welker or Jennings would fit the bill. We had 4 good WRs in 2010. We only have 3 now. We need 4 if we want to actually be able to score in the red zone against good Ds. Also remember Ron Wolf regretted not giving Favre more good WRs. Maybe we need that 4th good WR to get Rodgers his 2nd SB.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
We need a 4th good WR. Welker or Jennings would fit the bill. We had 4 good WRs in 2010. We only have 3 now. We need 4 if we want to actually be able to score in the red zone against good Ds. Also remember Ron Wolf regretted not giving Favre more good WRs. Maybe we need that 4th good WR to get Rodgers his 2nd SB.

Welker is clearly trending downward at this point of his career. He only caught a total of two TDs last season and was one of the worst slot receivers in the league based on yards per route run in the slot.

The Packers don't need him.
 

SoonerPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
833
Reaction score
189
Location
Broken Arrow, OK (Milwaukee born)
Welker had only six receptions for a single TD in the red zone last season. On the other side Cobb was tied for second in receptions (18) and led all receivers in TD catches (10) inside the 20 in 2014.

There´s no reason to bring in Welker.
I am completely with you and was just playing devils advocate if the move were to happen. Everyone knows he wasn't close to right last year and I do believe he still has some plays left in him but not on this team. Just for clarifications sake... :)
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Why are people dead set on the idea that we need a solid #4 WR for our offense to work?

Last year our #4 WR had 3 catches all season. Our offense certainly wasn't a problem, nonetheless.

Development is part of our offensive process, and I'd much rather try investing in our young talent with Janis and Abby rather than bringing in a veteran guy for #4 duties just because we are afraid of the unknown.

Also Abbrederis will be an entire year removed from ACL surgery by training camp, it's not like this was a December injury. If it is a problem, he can be stashed on PUP and White can compete for #5 duties, which isn't a bad thing. But I don't expect that to be necessary.
 
Last edited:

SoonerPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
833
Reaction score
189
Location
Broken Arrow, OK (Milwaukee born)
Why are people dead set on the idea that we need a solid #4 WR for our offense to work?

Last year our #4 WR had 3 catches all season. Our offense certainly wasn't a problem, nonetheless.

Development is part of our offensive process, and I'd much rather try investing in our young talent with Janis and Abby rather than bringing in a veteran guy for #4 duties just because we are afraid of the unknown.

Also Abbrederis will be an entire year removed from ACL surgery by training camp, it's not like this was a December injury. If it is, he can be stashed on PUP and White can compete for #5 duties, which isn't a bad thing. But I don't expect that to be necessary.
I believe it's the fear of the doomsday scenario where either 18 or 87 goes down for any length of time. Having a salty veteran to step in is typically a better tourniquet than a green pea. I played the devils advocate earlier in this thread regarding the signing of a guy like WW but in reality I much prefer the young guys getting a shot. I think you obviously have to be prepared for injuries but at what cost? If the coaches don't think Janis and or Abby could step up at some point then I don't understand why they would be on the team. For instance I am sure the coaches had no intention of Linsley starting every game last year but due to injuries that became a reality and in this particular instance worked out smashingly! David B. the year prior when Bulaga went down in a heap. Another thought of mine is just because the #4 didn't do much last year doesn't necessarily mean the coaches wanted it that way. I would venture to guess there are plenty of plays with a 4 WR set they would like to show but if the players aren't quality enough to warrant such looks I see no reason why they would run them. Boykin fell off the face of the earth last year and I believe if he had played to a similar level as '13 he would've been much more involved. Dude couldn't catch a cold last year so the coaches couldn't trust him to be out there. I love the possibilities of Janis and Abby being players next year and fully expect them to! Like the Bad News Bears said, "let them play! let them play!"...

G P G!
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Welker is clearly trending downward at this point of his career. He only caught a total of two TDs last season and was one of the worst slot receivers in the league based on yards per route run in the slot.

The Packers don't need him.
He did catch 77% of his targets last season, higher than his career average.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Chances are we'll have neither.

I like Richard Rodgers. I think he's got a chance to be a pretty solid red zone target in time.

Returning the entire O from last year, we should be better solely on the development of Adams and Rodgers, and we were already elite last year.
 

SoonerPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
833
Reaction score
189
Location
Broken Arrow, OK (Milwaukee born)
Chances are we'll have neither.
This goes back to the Janis argument. I know he is raw but the kid has a rare blend of size and speed the likes of which aren't on many rosters. If he dedicates himself to his craft, and it sounds like he has been, I see no reason why he couldn't begin to pose problems for defenses as soon as next year. I know there is no guaranteeing this but the kids athleticism cannot be denied. 6'3", 220 LBS, 4.42/40YD, 37.5" vert and 20 reps at 225 lbs. is enough to put one in the "freak show" category. The route running and catch consistency obviously needs work but that's exactly what he has been doing this past year so I see no reason we shouldn't see a pretty significant change in his play on the field. McCarthy went out of his way to praise Jeff and I don't think he would do that for any other reason than to praise a youngster for putting in his work and showing consistent improvement. I am not saying JJ is going to be great or score 8-9 TD's next year rather I expect him to see the field a fair amount and I am telling you when he touches the ball he is flat our electric. The NFL has the best of the best in the world and his measurables stack up well against just about anyone in the league. If the work ethic is there as well I will be really disappointed if he doesn't turn out to be a pretty salty player at some point and I wouldn't be shocked if it came as soon as next season.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I like Richard Rodgers. I think he's got a chance to be a pretty solid red zone target in time.

Returning the entire O from last year, we should be better solely on the development of Adams and Rodgers, and we were already elite last year.
Rodgers will be OK. The adjective used was "threatening"; I don't see that from him.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Why are people dead set on the idea that we need a solid #4 WR for our offense to work? Last year our #4 WR had 3 catches all season.
For the same reason it's important to have a guy like Barclay on the bench. Last season was remarkably injury free; that's not likely to happen again.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
For the same reason it's important to have a guy like Barclay on the bench. Last season was remarkably injury free; that's not likely to happen again.

And the year before we did have WR injuries and Jarrett Boykin filled in just fine. Injuries can happen at any position, the only one that will wreck us is at QB.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
He did catch 77% of his targets last season, higher than his career average.

While that´s true it seems like he had huge troubles getting open as he was only targeted 64 times on 470 routes run (13.6%), way below his average of 27.0% from 2007-13.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,353
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Milwaukee
While that´s true it seems like he had huge troubles getting open as he was only targeted 64 times on 470 routes run (13.6%), way below his average of 27.0% from 2007-13.
Who were other wr at those times?

Example

If he were to come here and on field with Cobb and Nelson -- who who draw the most coverage? Would it be easier or harder for him to get open?

That could have been a huge factor as to why he wasn't getting open- or targeted in your stats
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Who were other wr at those times?

Example

If he were to come here and on field with Cobb and Nelson -- who who draw the most coverage? Would it be easier or harder for him to get open?

That could have been a huge factor as to why he wasn't getting open- or targeted in your stats

Demaryius Thomas and Emmanuel Sanders. Not exactly slouches. And Julius Thomas.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top