Hey Josh McDaniels, can we please end the Danny Woodhead experiment?

[PUKingPumpkin]

This is about production on the football field, not a track meet.

Well, let's look at production. Let's compare Ridley's first two games this year (not much of a sample, but all we got) to Woodhead's stats from 2010 to 2011:

Ridley-- 5.1 yards per carry / 8.0 yards per reception
Woodhead-- 4.9 yards per carry / 10.4 yards per reception

Note: Woodhead's and Ridley's YPC are nearly even but Woodhead has gained 25% more yards per catch. I see higher production (on the surface) for Woodhead.

When we look closer at matchups and similar situations, Football Outsiders gives us the analysis that become more striking:

Ridley-- 46 DVAR (Defensive-adjusted Yards Above Replacement) rushing
12 DVAR receiving

Woodhead-- 145 DVAR
80 DVAR receiving

Ridley-- 18.2% DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) rushing
17.5% DVOA receiving

Woodhead-- 30.4% DVOA rushing
28.4% DVOA receiving

Note: In fact, Woodhead's production has been far greater (statistically) over the past two years when compared with what Ridley has done this year so far.

SUMMARY-- I'm not saying that Woodhead is the better choice for the lead back (he wouldn't hold up anyway)-- he's a different type (usage=change of pace) of back. What I do find particularly annoying are calls for "ending the woody experiment". That kind of statement is clearly not well-informed (at best) and poorly thought out.

 

[Kasmir]

Well, let's look at production. Let's compare Ridley's first two games this year (not much of a sample, but all we got) to Woodhead's stats from 2010 to 2011:

Ridley-- 5.1 yards per carry / 8.0 yards per reception
Woodhead-- 4.9 yards per carry / 10.4 yards per reception

Note: Woodhead's and Ridley's YPC are nearly even but Woodhead has gained 25% more yards per catch. I see higher production (on the surface) for Woodhead.

When we look closer at matchups and similar situations, Football Outsiders gives us the analysis that become more striking:

Ridley-- 46 DVAR (Defensive-adjusted Yards Above Replacement) rushing
12 DVAR receiving

Woodhead-- 145 DVAR
80 DVAR receiving

Ridley-- 18.2% DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) rushing
17.5% DVOA receiving

Woodhead-- 30.4% DVOA rushing
28.4% DVOA receiving

Note: In fact, Woodhead's production has been far greater (statistically) over the past two years when compared with what Ridley has done this year so far.

SUMMARY-- I'm not saying that Woodhead is the better choice for the lead back (he wouldn't hold up anyway)-- he's a different type (usage=change of pace) of back. What I do find particularly annoying are calls for "ending the woody experiment". That kind of statement is clearly not well-informed (at best) and poorly thought out.

Woodhead's 2010 was extraordinary, one of the best I've ever seen by a Patriot's back on a per carry basis. He was electric.

As far as Football Outsider's stats for that season, if he hadn't been knocked out of the final (Buffalo) game and had had 3 more decent carries, he would have set the all-time DVOA record for a running back.

 

[PP2]

I don't want to completely eliminate Woody, but 9 touches per game is too much for him. I think they are really trying to keep Ridley fresh, so they are probably leaning on him a little more than they should. Hopefully Vereen can come in and take over some of Woody's snaps. If think ~80 touches for the year is about in the right range for Woody. 250-300 for Ridley and 100-150 for Vereen.

Going to run him right into the ground if he carries that much.

 

[aluminum seats]

So now I'm being racist? Time and again he has been trusted in big spots not because of his big play ability. I could care less about stop watch numbers, Ridley plays faster. He dictates to the defense and gets the extra yards far more often than woody could hope to. Ridley runs through an tackles where woody is stopped. You want to argue otherwise?

Just something to be aware of--it will help you analyze players better. Having the first word you use to describe Woodhead be "smart" isn't really backed up by anything (if he's a Rhodes scholar or something, I stand corrected). I'm not aware of anything that would suggest he's smarter than Ridley, who you didn't say was smart--just that he's "fast" and "strong."

 

[Sicilian]

Going to run him right into the ground if he carries that much.

15 carries per game would get Ridley up to 240. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect between 15-20 carries per game, especially if Bolden or Vereen aren't real viable options.

 

[zeroakuma]

Just something to be aware of--it will help you analyze players better. Having the first word you use to describe Woodhead be "smart" isn't really backed up by anything (if he's a Rhodes scholar or something, I stand corrected). I'm not aware of anything that would suggest he's smarter than Ridley, who you didn't say was smart--just that he's "fast" and "strong."

I think you're reading too much into it. Ridley is a physical specimen compared to Woodhead - Woohead does need to use his smarts because he's a smaller cat whose main skill is being elusive. He has the ability to move the chains with small gains through rush attempts, and is still a viable player on the passing game.

The majority of the users here don't believe in stereotypes

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

I think you're reading too much into it. Ridley is a physical specimen compared to Woodhead - Woohead does need to use his smarts because he's a smaller cat whose main skill is being elusive. He has the ability to move the chains with small gains through rush attempts, and is still a viable player on the passing game.

The majority of the users here don't believe in stereotypes

Elusiveness has more to do with instincts than smarts. See Devin Hester.

 

[aluminum seats]

I think you're reading too much into it. Ridley is a physical specimen compared to Woodhead - Woohead does need to use his smarts because he's a smaller cat whose main skill is being elusive. He has the ability to move the chains with small gains through rush attempts, and is still a viable player on the passing game.

The majority of the users here don't believe in stereotypes

If so, all the more reason not to list "smart" as his primary characteristic.

 

[JJDChE]

Well, let's look at production. Let's compare Ridley's first two games this year (not much of a sample, but all we got) to Woodhead's stats from 2010 to 2011:

Let's not waste our time...oops, too late.

I don't think we're jettisoning Woody and we both know he's not competing with Ridley for snaps. It's more about what Vereen can do. Woody will have a place even if Vereen lights it up.

 

[JJDChE]

Going to run him right into the ground if he carries that much.

I'm talking touches. 230 carries, 35 receptions feels right to me for Ridley. That shouldn't prematurely wear him down. Most guys seems to be pretty durable if you keep them under 300. The big time breakdowns are generally happening to guys carrying >350 times /yr. You pretty much have to set your expectations that #1 RBs are good until they are 29-30 or until they hit 2500 carries, whichever comes first. Use your carries wisely.

Maybe if Vereen is equally effective, or close, you can dial that back a bit.

 

[Deus Irae]

If so, all the more reason not to list "smart" as his primary characteristic.

Woodhead reportedly had scores of 29 and 38 on the Wonderlic test.

Wonderlic Test Scores for the upcoming draft - Stripe Hype

Ridley reportedly scored a 16.

ProFootballWeekly.com - Draft Prospect - Stevan Ridley

Using "smart" for Woodhead, and not for Ridley, seems to have some justification.

 

[PUKingPumpkin]

Let's not waste our time...oops, too late.

I don't think we're jettisoning Woody and we both know he's not competing with Ridley for snaps. It's more about what Vereen can do. Woody will have a place even if Vereen lights it up.

If you were worrying about wasting your time, you should never had read this thread to begin with based on the title. My response was specific to the misinformed posters on the thread (and throughout many other comments on this board) who question Woodhead's value to the team and make dubious assumptions or statements about his athleticism and production.

Regarding Vereen, He certainly had a nice career at Cal and the team spent a high pick on him. But since he's been on the team, we haven't seen much (yet) other than a couple of nice runs when he's healthy. He's still an UNPROVEN quantity from an NFL perspective. As we all know, some guys show promise but never can get out of the trainer's room.

 

[aluminum seats]

Woodhead reportedly had scores of 29 and 38 on the Wonderlic test.

Wonderlic Test Scores for the upcoming draft - Stripe Hype

Ridley reportedly scored a 16.

ProFootballWeekly.com - Draft Prospect - Stevan Ridley

Using "smart" for Woodhead, and not for Ridley, seems to have some justification.

Fair enough...although I doubt the OP researched wonderlic scores before posting.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fair enough...although I doubt the OP researched wonderlic scores before posting.

You're probably right with that.

 

[JJDChE]

If you were worrying about wasting your time, you should never had read this thread to begin with based on the title. My response was specific to the misinformed posters on the thread (and throughout many other comments on this board) who question Woodhead's value to the team and make dubious assumptions or statements about his athleticism and production.

Regarding Vereen, He certainly had a nice career at Cal and the team spent a high pick on him. But since he's been on the team, we haven't seen much (yet) other than a couple of nice runs when he's healthy. He's still an UNPROVEN quantity from an NFL perspective. As we all know, some guys show promise but never can get out of the trainer's room.

I missed the people pooh-poohing his athleticism, but I will agree with anyone who says his numbers don't translate to his game speed (not to say he looks BAD). He certainly doesn't look like an elite athlete out there. You could probably do the same comparison with Darren Sproles and Woodhead would come out looking good, but we both know who shows up better on tape.

 

[ATippett56]

It could be worse:

Chris Johnson, RB for the Tennessee Titans at NFL.com

 

[RayClay]

You're comparing two runners with different styles and complaining about the style of one. Guess what? Woodhead runs like a smaller, 3rd down back. Ridley runs like a somewhat larger, 1st down back. They're not supposed to be the same.

Or, to put it another way: Woody is Faulk and Ridley is Dillon/Smith.

Wrong twice.

I'll happily play Dillon and Faulk and let the coaches decide anything.

 

[goheels22002]

Woodhead reportedly had scores of 29 and 38 on the Wonderlic test.

Wonderlic Test Scores for the upcoming draft - Stripe Hype

Ridley reportedly scored a 16.

ProFootballWeekly.com - Draft Prospect - Stevan Ridley

Using "smart" for Woodhead, and not for Ridley, seems to have some justification.

Can you get a copy of the Wonderlic and post it here and on www.theganggreen.com ?

Maybe Alamo can do a guess the score contest of the average patsfans.com vs the average theganggreen.com Wonderlic score. My guess: Patsfans 35 - Ganggreen 17 (same as the game score.)

On the Ridley - Woodhead debate - who cares about the Wonderlic? The OC is making those decisions and has to call the right play in the right situation. My feeling about the running game is so far, so good. The Pats have a nice combination of running talent at the price they are willing to pay. The Pats have a good balance of run vs pass so far.

Buffalo is a solid challenge this week with strength up front and very good against the run after 3 games. It's not getting any easier with this stretch against AZ, Baltimore and Buffalo.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Well someone had to...

 

[RIpats88]

woodhead has been solid the past few weeks...he really seems to have a knack to get open when brady is under pressure and needs to get rid of the ball...twice in a row he bailed out Brady...not to mention that 17yard run for the first down

and thats what you need from a "pass catching back"