Danny Woodhead or Leon Washington?

[RayClay]

I'm pretty sure RayClay isn't going to give up until we change the title of the thread to Danny Woodhead or Shane Vereen.

I do believe that reflects reality, thank you.

Just to keep the fires burning as I leave, you realize that BB is prejudiced against little people. It's in an article in another thread.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'm not comparing Woodhead and Vereen. I'm comparing the decision to keep Leon Washington (RB) vs. Danny Woodhead (RB). Considering the nature of injuries in the NFL, I don't see why you can't keep 2 3rd-down RBs if they have very manageable salaries.

Woodhead was younger and a heavy contributor on special teams. He knew the system extensively and was one of our best pass protecting RBs. He received 1.75m a year (for 2 years) from the Chargers, an increase of $550,000 over what we're playing Leon Washington for the season.

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Washington wasn't signed to be a RB, so it's a moot point. I do agree, though, that it's not even really worth it to devote a roster spot to a kick returner anymore. Even then, though, they would probably allocate that extra roster spot somewhere else than to a backup receiving specialist RB.

 

[strngplyr]

I'm pretty sure RayClay isn't going to give up until we change the title of the thread to Danny Woodhead or Shane Vereen.

Why should he give up? Washington wasn't brought in to replace the 3rd RB, Shane Vereen grew into that role.

Washington came in to replace Danny Woodhead the kick returner.

WE DIDN'T BRING ANYONE IN TO REPLACE WOODHEAD'S PRODUCTION AS AN RB. That player has been on the roster being groomed into the role.

Stop comparing role players that play different roles.

Welker -> Amendola = fair comparison
Woodhead (RB) -> Vereen = fair comparison
Woodhead (KR) -> Washington = fair comparison

 

[tobias funke]

A football team is comprised of 53 players, many of whom are considered required depth to cover for attrition over the course of a 16-19 game season.

I'm not comparing the exact roles Danny Woodhead and Leon Washington were intended to perform for the Patriots. Nor do I understand the certainty with which it has been determined that Vereen and Woodhead can't coexist on the same team at their respective salaries.

I'm making an RB to RB comparison in terms of the roster, because it's easier than trying to compare different positions, although that is something the personnel staff has to do when forming the roster. In that respect, it could be any of a number of players that we could do without in order to keep Woodhead (Bequette anyone?). I went with Washington because they're in the same position group.

 

[Sciz]

Let's look at this from Woodhead's point of view. He could either come back and fight with an upcoming player to keep his third down role, or he could go to SD and have the clear third down role with one of the worst receiving/blocking starting RBs in the NFL. Is it completely absurd to think that even with his comfort in NE and assuming money wasn't a big difference, that he'd want to go somewhere where he knew he'd have a big role? It takes a player and a team to have a signing.

 

[tobias funke]

Interestingly enough, he signed with the Chargers the day after Washington was signed.

 

[Rob0729]

The premise of this thread is flawed.

First, the Pats didn't choose to sign Washington over Woodhead. Washington was signed purely as a kick returner. Washington is not a Woodhead replacement.

Second, Woodhead may not have wanted to come back. He knew his role would have been reduced due to the emergence of Vereen. He might not have wanted to be limited to 10-15 snaps a game. In San Diego, he is the primary 3rd down/change of pace back.

Third, if Vereen didn't break his wrist, this thread wouldn't exist. It was clear from the first week of the season that Vereen was going to be in Woodhead's role and more. If Vereen was healthy the first nine weeks, he would have likely been bigger to the Pats than Woodhead was.

 

[supafly]

You're right that Washington was originally signed for 1.2 million (or as you say, approx 550k per year less than Woodhead), BUT....he was quickly cut at that salary and brought back for about 700-800k, which is his salary for the year; not 1.2 million as you stated.

In the long run, yes we're missing Woodhead--but Vereen and Washington both came on the cheap. We've seen many instances where Belichick simply doesn't agree with the level of compensation/overall value, even if that is slightly smaller.

Just look at the fact that he very well could've retained Welker by coming up ONE lousy million from 2/10 to 2/11. With the first year guarantees being significantly higher, that one million dollar raise surely would've been enough to keep Welker from taking the 2/12 deal with DEN, which had way less year one guaranteed money. That is just one example of Belichick not agreeing with the "value" of another team's offer.

 

[supafly]

You're right that Washington was originally signed for 1.2 million (or as you say, approx 550k per year less than Woodhead), BUT....he was quickly cut at that salary and brought back for about 700-800k, which is his salary for the year; not 1.2 million as you stated.

In the long run, yes we're missing Woodhead--but Vereen and Washington both came on the cheap. We've seen many instances where Belichick simply doesn't agree with the level of compensation/overall value, even if that is slightly smaller.

Just look at the fact that he very well could've retained Welker by coming up ONE lousy million from 2/10 to 2/11. With the first year guarantees being significantly higher, that one million dollar raise surely would've been enough to keep Welker from taking the 2/12 deal with DEN, which had way less year one guaranteed money. That is just one example of Belichick not agreeing with the "value" of another team's offer.

For what it's worth I personally probably wouldn't have made either move to save peanuts with Welker or Woodhead, but then again, I don't know 1% of what Belichick knows in regards to how to properly run a team and win on a consistent basis. His decisions, right or wrong--have proven to give us a winning team for many years now, even if they are unpopular and sometimes even incorrect.

 

[Avenger]

I said at the time losing Woodhead was worse than losing Welker but at the time everybody was crying about Welker and Woodhead's departure flew under the radar.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

Woodhead!

10 char

 

[supafly]

Woodhead!

10 char

Yeah, I think the title is a bit misleading, as it infers wanting posters to currently choose between Woody and Washington, even though that wasn't the point of the discussion.

At this point we'd all gladly take Brandon Bolden over Washington, let alone Danny Woodhead.

 

[Nunchucks]

The choice was keep Woodhead and trade Vereen or keep Vereen and let Woodhead go. There was no room for the two backs on this roster.

Personally, I like Vereen, if healthy. He is the more dynamic player.

 

[stcjones]

Well...thank you Captain Obvious!!!

Gawd I hate BYE Weeks! )

Can we admit this was a really dumb move now?

Honestly this one bothers me way more than the Welker decision. We made Woody a household name and let him go for chump change. I'm normally on board with Belichick & Co. but I think they outsmarted themselves here.

 

[randomk1]

The choice was keep Woodhead and trade Vereen or keep Vereen and let Woodhead go. There was no room for the two backs on this roster.

Personally, I like Vereen, if healthy. He is the more dynamic player.

Why was the choice between Vereen and Woodhead actually? Woodhead was the proven productive player in this offense. Somebody who Brady trusted alot. I'd easily take him over some of the other guys in our RB lineup.

 

[tobias funke]

I'm not sure why that is viewed as such a certainty. There are players who do similar things all over the roster. It's called depth.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not sure why that is viewed as such a certainty. There are players who do similar things all over the roster. It's called depth.

Again, did Woodhead want to stay as DEPTH? It was clear by the playoffs that the Pats were taking away snaps from him in favor of Vereen and Vereen may have passed him on the depth chart. Woodhead may not have wanted to stay in that situation especially since he had other suitors for his service.

I bet if Woodhead was happy to come back in a reduced role, the Pats would have had him back. Woodhead probably didn't want that.

 

[RayClay]

Washington replaced McCourty, who was an average kick returner. Woodhead was a poor kick returner, so he had already lost that job.

 

[tobias funke]

I bet if Woodhead was happy to come back in a reduced role, the Pats would have had him back. Woodhead probably didn't want that.

There's no way to know for sure.

As I mentioned before, I found it interesting that he signed with Chargers the very next day after the Patriots signed Washington.

 

[Sicilian]

Let's look at this from Woodhead's point of view. He could either come back and fight with an upcoming player to keep his third down role, or he could go to SD and have the clear third down role with one of the worst receiving/blocking starting RBs in the NFL. Is it completely absurd to think that even with his comfort in NE and assuming money wasn't a big difference, that he'd want to go somewhere where he knew he'd have a big role? It takes a player and a team to have a signing.

People were saying the same thing about Green-Ellis: "For short money, why wouldn't the Pats keep him around as a backup to Ridley, especially since he never fumbles!"

But why would BJGE stick around to be a 5-10 touches a game guy when he could go to Cincinnati and be the feature back? Same with Woodhead. He had the chance to be THE 3rd down back on that team, or the backup to Vereen here. I wouldn't stay here either (and that's no fault to the Patriots, as I think Vereen has the higher upside when healthy.)