Danny Woodhead or Leon Washington?

[tobias funke]

Benny got $9 million, 4 of it guaranteed, from the Bengals. That's not 'short money'. Not keeping him here as a backup at that price made complete sense. Not sure I would consider that a comparable situation.

 

[Sicilian]

Benny got $9 million, 4 of it guaranteed, from the Bengals. That's not 'short money'. Not keeping him here as a backup at that price made complete sense. Not sure I would consider that a comparable situation.

Totally not the point. The point is the PLAYER has to want to stay too. Give me the incentive for Woodhead to stick around here knowing Vereen was likely to take his role.

 

[Rob0729]

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.

Not really. It was either the first week or second week of free agency. It would be much less of a coincidence if the signings were a day a part in late March/Early April.

Also, the Pats were already looking hard at Josh Cribbs for a week or two before they signed Washington. Cribbs wasn't healthy at the time and they chose Washington as their consolation prize. So the Pats were already looking at kick returners significantly before Woodhead signed with Chargers. There is clear evidence that the Washington signing had nothing to do with Woodhead.

 

[tobias funke]

There isn't clear evidence for either determination. We don't know if Woody wanted to stay, nor do we know if the Washington signing influenced his decision.

The word you're looking for is "circumstantial", which is why I called the timing 'interesting', and not 'clear evidence'.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

As long as we are comparing players who in no way have the same role or were ever expected to have the same role, let's compare Woodhead and Markus Zusevics.

No, let's don't.

Vereen was the Woodhead replacement. Others have said this, but it has not sunk in, somehow. I wish we could have kept Danny for depth, but I can't fault thinking that the younger, faster, more versatile player was the one to keep, if it was an either-or situation, provided you were comfortable with the injury risk.

 

[Rob0729]

There isn't clear evidence for either determination. We don't know if Woody wanted to stay, nor do we know if the Washington signing influenced his decision.

The word you're looking for is "circumstantial", which is why I called the timing 'interesting', and not 'clear evidence'.

There is clear evidence that the Pats were looking for a return specialist independent of Woodhead's status. Josh Cribbs was their first choice (who is not a replacement for Woodhead since he is a WR) and Washington was the consolation prize.

Also, Washington was released by the Seahawks two days before he signed with the Pats. So that had a lot to do with the timing of the Pats' signing of him.

There is plenty of evidence that the Washington signing had nothing to do with Woodhead's status. This thread is creating a controversy of the Pats picking Washington over Woodhead based on nothing other than they were signed a day apart from one another during the busy period of free agency.

 

[tobias funke]

if it was an either-or situation

Roster decisions are rarely as simple as "either-or". Maybe you keep an extra RB and one less backup DL. Sure, you could compare him to Zusevics purely as a roster decision. It wouldn't be all that different than the reasoning I'm using to compare him to Washington.

I'm definitely not convinced that you can't keep two players who do similar things if they both come at a manageable salary, especially at a position as injury-prone as RB, and on a team like the Pats, which finds creative ways to distribute skill-position players.

 

[Rob0729]

Roster decisions are rarely as simple as "either-or". Maybe you keep an extra RB and one less backup DL. Sure, you could compare him to Zusevics purely as a roster decision. It wouldn't be all that different than the reasoning I'm using to compare him to Washington.

I'm definitely not convinced that you can't keep two players who do similar things if they both come at a manageable salary, especially at a position as injury-prone as RB, and on a team like the Pats, which finds creative ways to distribute skill-position players.

Why not compare Washington to Jeff Demps? I think those are better comparisons than Washington to Woodhead. Washington was added as a pure special teams specialist who could fill in for Vereen if he went down (at least that was the intention). Washington was never signed to be a significant contributor on offense.

 

[tobias funke]

There is clear evidence that the Pats were looking for a return specialist independent of Woodhead's status. Josh Cribbs was their first choice (who is not a replacement for Woodhead since he is a WR) and Washington was the consolation prize.

If kick return specialist is such an important position to the Patriots, I'd have to imagine someone other than Blount would be carrying the title.

And if that was the plan, I'd file it under the overall mistake made by the front office. I personally don't view the position as important enough to make it worth losing such a good football player.

Also, Washington was released by the Seahawks two days before he signed with the Pats. So that had a lot to do with the timing of the Pats' signing of him.

Probably.

This thread is creating a controversy

Creating serious internet controversy? Or just sparking discussion? Let's not make this out to be more than it is. I posted this thread because it's what I think and wondered what others thought. I actually didn't know the timing of the signings until long after I made this thread.

 

[tobias funke]

Why not compare Washington to Jeff Demps? I think those are better comparisons than Washington to Woodhead. Washington was added as a pure special teams specialist who could fill in for Vereen if he went down (at least that was the intention). Washington was never signed to be a significant contributor on offense.

When I quoted this post, I was set to respond to Slater or Ebner, but it looks like it's Demps now.

Either way my response would have been the same, I think: At the end of the day, my main point is that the team should have figured out how to keep Woody on the team. If it was at the expense of signing Washington, OK, but could apply to a number of players at the bottom of the roster. I used Washington as a simple comparison because they're in the same position group.

From my simplistic and out-of-the-inner-circle viewpoint, I'd easily take Woodhead over Demps or Ebner. I can't claim to know the exact reasoning behind very many roster moves, though. It's easy to see why we signed Sopoaga, or cut Mesko (need at the position, replacement by a MUCH cheaper cheap long-term contract, respectively), but as far as I'm concerned, many roster decisions are not nearly as clear to those of us outside the building, and open to debate.

 

[xlcjw72]

Roster decisions are rarely as simple as "either-or". Maybe you keep an extra RB and one less backup DL. Sure, you could compare him to Zusevics purely as a roster decision. It wouldn't be all that different than the reasoning I'm using to compare him to Washington.

I'm definitely not convinced that you can't keep two players who do similar things if they both come at a manageable salary, especially at a position as injury-prone as RB, and on a team like the Pats, which finds creative ways to distribute skill-position players.

i agree god forbid we keep a guy whos shows up to play every week... even in the super bowl when nothing was working he showed up... the most underated statistic is games played and vereen has showed he cant stay healthy.... but hey bb loves those injured guys ie. vereen, dowliing, amendola just to name a few.. but ask this question woodhead or bolden?

 

[Brady6]

Why not compare Washington to Matthew Slater or Nate Ebner? I think those are better comparisons than Washington to Woodhead. Washington was added as a pure special teams specialist who could fill in for Vereen if he went down (at least that was the intention). Washington was never signed to be a significant contributor on offense.

I don't know that we know that, Washington was actually a big time contributor on offense when he was on the Jets then he went to Seattle a power run offense and was primarily a kick returner but we don't actually know what the vision was for Washington here. Even if you compared him to Slater and Ebner it's comparing a guy who returns 2-3 kicks offs a game to guys who play on the kickoff coverage squad, kick return squad, punt coverage squad and punt return squad. I disagree with that belief that we signed Washington for the sole purpose of returning kicks Belichick is not about one trick ponies.

 

[Rob0729]

If kick return specialist is such an important position to the Patriots, I'd have to imagine someone other than Blount would be carrying the title.

And if that was the plan, I'd file it under the overall mistake made by the front office. I personally don't view the position as important enough to make it worth losing such a good football player.



Probably.



Creating serious internet controversy? Or just sparking discussion? Let's not make this out to be more than it is. I posted this thread because it's what I think and wondered what others thought. I actually didn't know the timing of the signings until long after I made this thread.

Blount inherited the job because Washington went down. And contrary to popular opinion, he is a solid kick returner. He isn't likely to break a big return, but he almost always returns the ball beyond the 20 and rarely returns the ball inside the 15.

Besides, you need to have a kick returner on the team and the Pats knew Demps wasn't committed to football and that they were going to move on from him. Hence why they kicked Cribbs' tires before Washington.

I don't know if you are creating controversy or sparking a discussion, but I still say your logic is flawed. I don't think anyone really believes that the choice came down to either Washington or Woodhead and Washington is a Woodhead replacement. Woodhead's decision (possibly on both sides) came down to Vereen and his role. Vereen replaced Woodhead (at least until he got hurt).

 

[tobias funke]

I don't know if you are creating controversy or sparking a discussion, but I still say your logic is flawed.

It might be, but to be fair, I don't make the assumptions about the roster that some others seem to be able to with such certainty, i.e. "this player was signed to replace this exact player. this guy was signed to do this role." Without confirmation from the team, we almost never know what their intentions are outside of very obvious moves. If any team is adept at using players to fulfill multiple roles, and surprising even their fanbase with certain decisions, its this one.

The thread title is just a title. I definitely don't believe that Belichick & Co. were sitting in a meeting saying "do we sign Woodhead or Washington?" They have said many times that it is way more nuanced than that, with multiple factors going into each particular decision.

What I do believe is that letting Woodhead go was a mistake.

 

[Rob0729]

What I do believe is that letting Woodhead go was a mistake.

I will let the rest go, but you still assume that Woodhead leaving was the Pats' decision. I still maintain that Woodhead leaving may have more to do with him than the Pats and his desire to go to a place where he was "THE" 3rd down/change of pace back and not being second fiddle in that role to Vereen.

Also, I think if Vereen didn't break his wrist, people wouldn't be saying letting go of Woodhead was a mistake. I think Vereen, when he returns, will be the Darren Sproles of this offense. And if you have a 80% of Darren Sproles on your offense, you don't care if you lost Woodhead.

 

[tobias funke]

Blount inherited the job because Washington went down. And contrary to popular opinion, he is a solid kick returner.

To respond to this, I'm not calling Blount a bad kick returner. He is serviceable at the position.

On the other hand, a big part of me thinks that throwing almost anyone back there and asking them to take a knee in the end zone most of the time might be the smartest decision, unless you have a real game-breaker back there, like a young, healthy Leon Washington (who is 31 at this point).

 

[edboc]

It might have come down to Woodhead being 2x as expensive as Vereen. Woodhead APY: $1.75M vs. Vereen APY: $865k

» Over the Cap- Danny Woodhead Salary Cap and Contract Page

» Over the Cap- Shane Vereen Salary Cap and Contract Page

 

[mgteich]

This would be a subject for a different thread than the one your posted.

I

What I do believe is that letting Woodhead go was a mistake.

 

[tobias funke]

You still assume that Woodhead leaving was the Pats' decision.

From my understanding of the NFL, when a team wants to keep a player, they generally do it. Again, we'll have to file this one under "only they know for sure", as much as we'd like to pretend we do.

Also, I think if Vereen didn't break his wrist, people wouldn't be saying letting go of Woodhead was a mistake.

I don't think I was alone in believing it to be a mistake the day it happened.

Don't get me wrong, I love Vereen. On the other hand, if someone says "you can have 2 Darren Sproles on the team for less than $2.5 million" I'm not sure why anyone would pass that up. RBs get injured and skill guys with that kind of talent and drive don't grow on trees.

 

[tobias funke]

This would be a subject for a different thread than the one your posted.

If you'd like to change the title of the thread, feel free.