FOXBORO -- What is going on with Wes Welker?

Over the last five seasons Welker has caught 554 passes, most by any player in the NFL by 80 receptions. In three of those five seasons he has led the league in catches, including last year, when he caught 122 passes and set career bests in receiving yards (1,569) and touchdowns (nine) to earn his second All-Pro spot in three years. 

By any measure, Welker entered the 2012 season as one of the, what, half-dozen best at his position in football? OK, we all expected his numbers to dip this season with the continued emergence of the two tight ends plus the assumed upgrade from Chad Ochocinco to Brandon Lloyd, but that meant 85 or 90 catches instead of 120. Was it going to be his last season with the Patriots? Sure, but that wasn't going to change his role on the field.

And it's still very possible that Wes Welker -- who caught five passes for 85 yards and moved past Troy Brown and into the top spot in franchise history for receptions -- will wind up with Wes Welker numbers. We are still in small sample size territory here, for the good and the not so good.

But, at least to this point of the season, Welker -- coming off the best season of his career -- is the No. 3 receiver on the New England Patriots.

And I don't get why.

Welker was on the sideline for the opening offensive series for the Patriots in Sunday's loss to the Cardinals, benched as Lloyd and Julian Edelman started at the two receiver positions. Until Aaron Hernandez was hurt in the first quarter (the absolute headline story of the day from a big picture prespective), honorary captain Troy Brown had spent more time on the field than Welker. Edelman finished the game with 75 snaps, Welker with 63 (thanks to ESPNBoston.com for the snap counts). 

And this, of course, is on the heels of a Week 1 that saw Welker on the field for 43 snaps (out of 67 total offensive snaps), down significantly from his numbers in years past.

Obviously Lloyd is a different situation, does different things than Welker. He's not the competition. But what is becoming clear and becoming clear quickly is the Patriots view Edelman -- who caught a total of 11 passes the last two seasons combined -- and Welker much differently than they did a year ago.

"You know, you want to be out there, I think as a competitor and everything else, especially on Sundays, it’s what we play for and what we work for and you want to be out there," Welker said after the game. "At the same time, coach felt like whatever was best for the team and I’m for that and I totally understand that and I’m just there to help out however I can."

First, this isn't about contracts and broken promises and franchise tags and need for revenge and sending a message to Welker for not inking a team-friendly deal. I wrote about that topic last week and nothing has been done to change my stance on the topic. Bottom line: The Patriots -- meaning Bill Belichick -- aren't going to fork over $9.5 million to Welker and spend a year screwing him because they don't want to pay him $11 million. That would be the dopiest revenge plan in history, also it would be terrible business. 

This is something else, something unexpected. Assuming Welker is healthy -- he said he "felt great" after the game -- and I don't think he's going to play 63 snaps and be targeted 11 times in Week 2 if he's injured, this would have to be simply a case of Belichick (or Josh McDaniels) believing that Edelman is an equal if not better option for this offense. The snap counts through two weeks absolutely make that clear.

We've all seen Edelman play over the last couple of years, right? He was tremendous in relief of Welker in 2009 but hasn't shown a whole lot of progression as a receiver since. Part of that was because of Welker, tough to play the same exact role as the best slot receiver in the league and expect many opportunities to make an impact. 

"I just do whatever the coaches tell me, I don't worry about starting or not starting or any of that stuff," Edelman said Sunday. "I've got enough to worry about."

As do we all, Julian. Here's what confuses me about this sudden and dramatic increase in snaps for Edelman at the expense of Welker -- what has Edelman done to deserve it? Am I missing Edelman making catches, converting first downs, bailing out Brady on third downs? Maybe Edelman had a terrific offseason and a wonderful training camp and is poised for an all-time breakout season. Possible, I suppose. But when are we going to see some evidence of this on the field? Because I've seen none -- zero -- to suggest that Edelman should be taking Welker off the field and out of the offense to the degree we've witnessed over the first two weeks of the season.

Now let's be fair: Welker had a horrific drop off his facemask in Week 1 (Edelman was in for Welker the very next series) and the blocked punt by the Cardinals in the third quarter on Sunday came a play after Welker dropped a pass from Brady on third-and-9 from the New England 11 that would have been a first down. So there is no question that Welker hasn't been vintage so far this season.

And as long as Hernandez is out, there probably will be a spot for both Welker and Edelman. But it strikes me as astonishing that we are at the point where there is a need to fit Julian Edelman in the mix, even if it means less Wes Welker. Is it really possible that Belichick thinks Edelman is a better option for this team? Again, this isn't a player in decline, Welker isn't coming off of a lousy season, or the start of Act III of his career -- he was voted one of the two best at his position in the NFL after the 2011 season.

That was nine months ago. And now, for some reason, he's splitting snaps with Julian Edelman.

It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. 

"I always just prepare myself to be ready and when my number is called, I just try to go out there and make plays whenever I get an opportunity," Welker said after the game.

Wes Welker is a better player than Julian Edelman. It's a mistake to sit him in favor of Edelman. What does Bill Belichick see that the rest of us don't?