ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
View Poll Results: Who is the more talented and valuable RB in 2010
Voted for Woodhead. Don't know if it's because LT is disappearing more and more as the season progresses or just because I can't stand Mr. Classy.
Tomlinson: 256 touches
Woodhead: 113 touches
That might have something to do with it; don't see how that could possibly be a point *against* Tomlinson. If he only had 113, he'd almost certainly still be going full speed too. As for not being able to stand him, he very well might be my least favorite player in the NFL, but that doesn't change the fact that he's extremely good at what he does.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
That's an assertion; what's it based on? How do we know that Woodhead is a situational player like Faulk instead of an every down back like Warrick Dunn or Ray Rice? He certainly took Faulk's role in the rotation, but that doesn't mean he has the same limitations (or the same strengths, for that matter). Faulk is a known quantity, and had his shot as an every down runner in 2003. Just because it didn't work out for Kevin then doesn't mean it can't work for Danny now. They are not the same player, and many players of Woodhead's size have been every down backs. We don't know what Danny's limitations are yet; why assume them?
Well, Ray Rice is about 20 pounds heavier than Woodhead, for starters. Either way, you're now arguing for Woodhead's value based on speculation of what you think he *might* be able to do, but no one has asked him to do it yet in three years in the NFL. It's certainly not impossible, but that's a pretty tenuous leap to base your entire argument on.
And I'm going to have to question the "many players of Woodhead's size have been every down backs" point. Like who? Dunn, sure, but Rice and MJD are both significantly bulkier than Woodhead, and Sproles has never been an every-down back. Remember, Woodhead has pretty much admitted that his measurements in the media guide are exaggerated. He isn't 5'8, 195, and that's pretty obvious just by looking at him.
Not sure why anyone is saying LT is more valuable since he has a bigger workload; if he performs below average many situations, that does not make him valuable, just their only option.
By definition, value is a product of (among other things) scarcity. Being their only option absolutely does make him more valuable. Especially when he's taken on a role that wasn't originally planned for him, but because of his skill and versatility, he was able to give the team that option.
Quote:
LT lacks breakaway speed at this point in his career, which is exactly why he is no longer the player he used to be; while he can still get some chunks of yardage and juke defenders now and then, his explosive impact no longer exists. Woodhead's speed makes him incredible valuable to any football team; many of the 40-yard gains he has put up has nothing to do with the Patriots schemes or personnel; Woodhead is just capable of doing it.
Woodhead's next 40 yard run for the Pats will be his first one. He has one reception for >40 yards, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Don't know how you can characterize his 'many' 40 yard gains when he only has one of them. Yes, Woodhead's breakaway speed is better, at this point, than LT's, but you're comparing strength to weakness, and the gap still isn't as large as you seem to think it is.
Quote:
A few other points, besides Woodhead's blazing speed versus Tomlinson's old legs, and I might as well throw in the obvious acceleration advantage of Woodhead. First, it's obvious that Woodhead has better hands, while Tomlinson cannot catch anything that isn't put on his numbers.
You do realize that you're talking about a guy with 580 career receptions for 4,309 yards, right? Tomlinson has great hands.
Quote:
Second, as everyone except Mike Tannenbaum realized, Tomlinson just cannot play in cold weather; everything from the scowl on his face to his slumped shoulders suggests he'd rather be soaking up the sun in So Cal. Woodhead is a straight-up gamer who thrives in challenging weather.
I'm sure that that has nothing to do with the fact that, in any given season, by the time winter rolls around Tomlinson has more touches in the past four months than Woodhead has had in his three year career. Tomlinson's issues have nothing to do with cold weather, and everything to do with the fact that the Jets are overusing him. They've asked him to do something that Woodhead's physically incapable of doing, and he's performed adequately in doing it. Only in the mind of the most ridiculous homer would that make Tomlinson less valuable in comparison.
Let's try to look at these arguments and figure out the fallacious reasoning. The question is, which guy is better right now. First, let's define better. The guy that gives you the best chance to win.
Simply because Woodhead is not an every down back does mean his value is diminished, unless Tomlinson could add above-average production in what Woodhead does not do. For example, any rational being would take Devin Hester over a full-time Laurence Maroney. Hester may not "be asked to do as much", but his value is irreplaceable.
Let's apply this to the question at hand. Tomlinson, regardless of what he's asked to do, is a slightly above average running back on 1-2 down and an average, at best, running back on third down. You could easily replace him with about 50 running backs in the league and get the same production at either role; the fact he is asked to do a lot means very little in terms of his overall replacement value. Now, if Tomlinson was still a great player as a three-down back, obviously this would be a different outcome, and an elite three-down back is more valuable than an elite third-down specialist.
Woodhead is currently perhaps the best third-down back in the NFL. If you were the GM of a football team, this is a guy who you'd shell out money for, not Tomlinson, because he cannot be replaced by a JAG; you can easily go out and get a 1-2 down back while still keeping a nice spot on the team for DW.
So, to answer the question, Woodhead is certainly a better player right now. The Jets could sign a plethora of players like LT, or perhaps two guys that are better at specific roles (one for 1-2 down, one for third down), and potentially improve. With the way Woodhead is playing, the Pats really couldn't upgrade his role right now, and bringing in a strong 1-2 down running back would not affect his value.
Last edited by Ice_Ice_Brady; 12-23-2010 at 01:11 AM..
Woodhead achieved his value on far fewer touches. On a per play basis (DVOA), Woodead is 1st ranked at 40.2% rushing to 4.5% for LT's 16th ranking, and Woodhead is also 1st ranked at 61% receiving to LT's -16.5% 48th ranking. Numbers through only through the Chicago game so far.
Actually, he's ranked second behind Rashad Jennings. If you're going to use DVOA like that, then Jennings should be starting over MJD, the Jets have one of the very best RBs in the NFL in Brad Smith, and Derrick Ward should be starting over Arian Foster. There's a reason why FO separates the guys with <100 carries from the rest. It's because trying to compare them is pointless. Unless you actually believe that Brad Smith, Danny Woodhead, Rashad Jennings and Derrick Ward are the top four RBs in the NFL. If that's the case, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
By definition, value is a product of (among other things) scarcity. Being their only option absolutely does make him more valuable. Especially when he's taken on a role that wasn't originally planned for him, but because of his skill and versatility, he was able to give the team that option.
Woodhead's next 40 yard run for the Pats will be his first one. He has one reception for >40 yards, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Don't know how you can characterize his 'many' 40 yard gains when he only has one of them. Yes, Woodhead's breakaway speed is better, at this point, than LT's, but you're comparing strength to weakness, and the gap still isn't as large as you seem to think it is.
You do realize that you're talking about a guy with 580 career receptions for 4,309 yards, right? Tomlinson has great hands.
I'm sure that that has nothing to do with the fact that, in any given season, by the time winter rolls around Tomlinson has more touches in the past four months than Woodhead has had in his three year career. Tomlinson's issues have nothing to do with cold weather, and everything to do with the fact that the Jets are overusing him. They've asked him to do something that Woodhead's physically incapable of doing, and he's performed adequately in doing it. Only in the mind of the most ridiculous homer would that make Tomlinson less valuable in comparison.
I'll take my lumps on the 40-yard gains, as facts are facts. However, as you conceded, Woodhead certainly has more breakaway speed (and if I may add again, acceleration.)
The fact that Tomlinson has had an illustrious career and caught lots of passes is moot here. We're talking about who is better now. Certainly you can't judge players based on the last thing that you saw (as Michael Vick MVP campaigners should take note), but let's look at the bigger picture. Over the last eight games (and yes, Tomlinson's durability and age was the big concern), LT is averaging 3.6 yards per carry; he has not run for over 55 yards once; he has not scored a touchdown in seven games; his longest reception of the season is 21 yards.
Woodhead averages 11.2 yards per reception; Tomlinson averages 7.1. That says a lot about their open field abilities. If you look at Tomlinson's production after the bye week, you'll see that this is more than a trend; it's a loss of ability due to age. His longest run in the past seven games is 14 yards.
In terms of Tomlinson's hands, I don't have the evidence to argue this, but I've watched most Jets games this year with Sunday Ticket and it's obvious that he's no longer close to the receiver he used to be.
Last edited by Ice_Ice_Brady; 12-23-2010 at 01:25 AM..
Well, Ray Rice is about 20 pounds heavier than Woodhead, for starters. Either way, you're now arguing for Woodhead's value based on speculation of what you think he *might* be able to do, but no one has asked him to do it yet in three years in the NFL. It's certainly not impossible, but that's a pretty tenuous leap to base your entire argument on.
And I'm going to have to question the "many players of Woodhead's size have been every down backs" point. Like who? Dunn, sure, but Rice and MJD are both significantly bulkier than Woodhead, and Sproles has never been an every-down back. Remember, Woodhead has pretty much admitted that his measurements in the media guide are exaggerated. He isn't 5'8, 195, and that's pretty obvious just by looking at him.
Now players weights fluctuate, the Patriots list Woodhead at 195 and the Jets had him at 197. I suspect Rice has bulked up a bit from when he entered the league. And I agree that Woodhead is closer to 5-7 than 5-9. But he's real stocky, he looks 195+ to me. Woodhead is in the weight class of Rice and Sanders, not Dunn or Sproles.
Let's try to look at these arguments and figure out the fallacious reasoning. The question is, which guy is better right now. First, let's define better. The guy that gives you the best chance to win.
Sure, I'm with you on that. Would you agree that that's a combination of reliability, versatility, and efficiency?
Quote:
Simply because Woodhead is not an every down back does mean his value is diminished
Well, that didn't last long. The lack of versatility absolutely diminishes his value. Now, if he's far more efficient than Tomlinson in his diminished capacity, then he can certainly make up for it...
Quote:
unless Tomlinson could add above-average production in what Woodhead does not do. For example, any rational being would take Devin Hester over a full-time Laurence Maroney. Hester may not "be asked to do as much", but his value is irreplaceable.
Well, that's a pretty nonsensical analogy, for starters. How does Woodhead-Tomlinson equate to Hester-Maroney? Maroney's issue isn't that he performs in bulk rather than efficiency; his issue is that he isn't very good by any measure. That's just disingenuous to claim that the same point is being made in either case.
Quote:
Let's apply this to the question at hand. Tomlinson, regardless of what he's asked to do, is a slightly above average running back on 1-2 down and an average, at best, running back on third down. You could easily replace him with about 50 running backs in the league and get the same production at either role; the fact he is asked to do a lot means very little in terms of his overall replacement value.
And this is where we disagree. You think there are 50 RBs who could do what LT does? No way: name 25. The only reason why he's not a top-10 RB right now is because the Jets stupidly wore him down with 250+ touches.
Quote:
Woodhead is currently perhaps the best third-down back in the NFL.
Absolutely not. There are a whole lot of guys who are better specialists than Woodhead. In fact, they're so good that their teams choose to play them in an every-down role, so that they can have more of an impact on the game (kinda flies in the face of your first point, doesn't it?)
Examples: MJD, Matt Forte, Ray Rice, Darren McFadden, Adrian Peterson, LeSean McCoy, Jamaal Charles, Peyton Hillis, Knowshon Moreno, Jahvid Best... that's just off the top of my head. Woodhead isn't even close to the best RB in the league at his role. For the role that he plays, I'd take most of the guys listed above over him without a second thought. He's the best third down specialist who isn't talented/versatile enough to have a more substantive role in the offense.
What you're claiming is like saying that the best sixth man in the NBA is one of the truly elite players in the league, because he offers something 'irreplaceable'. It's also why baseball teams don't make a habit of taking their best starter and converting him into a closer. The closer position is reserved for talented players who, for one reason or another, are not capable of being an exceptional starter, much like 3DRBs vs. every-down RBs.
Quote:
If you were the GM of a football team, this is a guy who you'd shell out money for, not Tomlinson, because he cannot be replaced by a JAG; you can easily go out and get a 1-2 down back while still keeping a nice spot on the team for DW.
LaDainian Tomlinson 2010 salary: $6,731,630
Danny Woodhead 2010 salary: $391,240
Now granted, that's not entirely fair. Woodhead will get paid a lot more when it's time for an extension. Let's look at, say, Kevin Faulk instead:
Kevin Faulk, 2010 salary: $2,007,280. Even if you take his previous contract, which paid about $3 to $3.5 million per year for the best third down specialist in the NFL, it's pretty clear how GMs feel about the relative importance of a good every down back vs. an excellent specialist. The proof is in what they pay.
The simple fact is that a good every-down RB will always be paid more than an excellent third down RB, for the same reason that pretty good tackles are paid more than excellent guards, and pretty good cornerbacks are paid more than excellent safeties: because they're in a position to have a far greater impact on the game.
So, to answer the question, Woodhead is certainly a better player right now. The Jets could sign a plethora of players like LT, or perhaps two guys that are better at specific roles (one for 1-2 down, one for third down), and potentially improve. With the way Woodhead is playing, the Pats really couldn't upgrade his role right now, and bringing in a strong 1-2 down running back would not affect his value.[/QUOTE]
Woodhead and Tomlinson are completely different players. It's like comparing the production of Wilfork as a defensive end in the 3-4 to Julius Peppers as a defensive end in the 4-3.
Now players weights fluctuate, the Patriots list Woodhead at 195 and the Jets had him at 197. I suspect Rice has bulked up a bit from when he entered the league. And I agree that Woodhead is closer to 5-7 than 5-9. But he's real stocky, he looks 195+ to me. Woodhead is in the weight class of Rice and Sanders, not Dunn or Sproles.
As I said before, MJD, Sanders, and Rice are far thicker than Woodhead. Completely different build, and I don't buy for a second that Woodhead weighs in the neighborhood of what those guys weigh. Dunn's a fair point, and Sproles has never been an every-down back.
Re: Woodhead vs Tomlinson
Linear Mode
