Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by mayoclinic, Jul 23, 2014.
Brady lasted to the 6th round. What's your point?
He was still drafted. Do you think there was some conspiracy to not draft the better athlete?
I don't understand your conspiracy point. You think I think there was a conspiracy? I think, as with Brady, 32 teams made a mistake. Certainly not because of his measurables. I would guess becaues he played at Chadron State in Division II and was small.
More interesting is why folks like you continue to claim that he is an inferior athlete to Vereen. What's up with that? Their relative draft order tells you that?
You said he was clearly a better athlete than someone taken in the second round. I didn't say anything about him as an athlete. I think Vereen has more upside as a receiver, so take that any way you want.
The thing is the Pats use Vereen and Woodhead differently. Vereen is used more in the passing game split out where Woodhead always lines up in the backfield. Hard to get a carry if you are split out wide. Last year Vereen had less receiving yards (427) in 8 games than Woodhead had in his best year with the Pats playing 16 games. Both career high receiving TDs for a season is 3 (again Vereen did it in 8 games and Woodhead did it in 16).
You cannot just pick rushing stats to compare the two. The Pats used Woodhead like they did with Faulk. The Pats are trying to make Vereen into a Darren Sproles clone. If you look at Sproles rushing stats in a vacuum without looking at his receiving stats, you would say he is a below average RB because he never had 603 yards rushing or 3 rushing TDs in a season. You combine his receiving stats with the rushing stats and you see he is/was one of the best RBs in the league.
To compare Woodhead and Vereen just based on how they play when Brady handed off the ball is not a fair comparison.
Again, I said that Woodhead was a huge loss last year, but I think Vereen is a far better player when healthy. His problem is health.
I never said he was an exceptional player, but you may need to watch the Bills game again. The guy rushed 14 times for 101 yards for a whopping 7.2 YPC (and his longest rush was 21 yards so it wasn't like he rushed for 2-3 yards on most rushes and broke one for 70 yards). He also had 7 catches for 58 yards. Not that you can do it this way. But if he had this type of performance every game for a 16 game season, he would have gotten 1616 yards rushing and 928 yards receiving. He would be a leading candidate for league MVP with those numbers even without the TDs.
As for the bad drops, the guy broke his wrist and he said even early this offseason that he was still recovering from it.
I am not overrating him at all. Edelman replaced Welker's production for the most part. They had no one who could really replace Woodhead last year at least for the 8 games that Vereen was out. Now if Vereen didn't go down and was healthy for most of the year, I would have a different take on this.
I have already said that Vereen is a better player than Woodhead. But last year, Woodhead is worlds better than the guy who filled in for Vereen while he was on in season IR.
I am not overrating Woodhead at all. Woodhead's loss was huge in large part because Vereen was expected to replace his production and Vereen missed half the season and spent much of the time after he came back significantly less than 100%.
For all the talk of Welker. I don't think the Pats missed him all that much. They had a very productive slot receiver last year. What they were missing were other pieces. Mostly Gronk. But another big loss was a third down/change of pace RB that was missing for more than half the season. The Pats have always used these types of RBs (Faulk, Woodhead, Vereen) more than most.
He played for a small school against lesser competition. In addition, he did not have a designated position, some saw him as a WR others a RB and his size was a major concern.
It is funny in one thread, I am accused of overrating Woodhead by the Pro Vereen crowd and overrating Vereen by the Pro Woodhead crowd. Maybe I should try to become a contrarian poster, I guess I do it pretty well. Everyone disagrees with me.
I say this rigth now Woodhead > Vereen! anybody who wants to debate that at this time have alot of time on their hands.
I've watched it and I've seen the stats. Football Outsiders has DVOA. I'm not able to do that, but let's just say that the big (positive) plays came from Amendola and Edelman. Ridley in the first half looked special (until he fumbled!) Vereen looked like a competent third-down back but not a scary threat. (And Blount, in that game, looked terrible.)
The guy had 158 all purpose yards and you are saying he looked like a competent third down back?
Again, I have never said that Vereen was Darren Sproles. I said that is how they want to use him in that mold.
But Woodhead was never a scary threat either. Part of what made Woodhead so effective is that he caught defenses off guard with a delayed draw or a direct snap or a screen in the flat.
I don't get why Vereen has to be "scary threat" or an "exceptional player" to be better than Woodhead. I love Woodhead as a player, but he was and always will be more of a complimentary player than a primary threat. Even with San Diego he was the third down/change of pace RB. That is what Vereen is too.
good for woodhead, i'm happy for him
I love Vereen's potential, but I preferred Woodhead's dependability and consistent production when he was on the field.
Dude was a gamer and super competitive. Reminded me of Kevin Faulk in that regard.
I am not pro anything. I just think Woodhead is a fine, small player who is good, but not outstanding, as both a runner and receiver.
There's nothing wrong with being a good, dependable all around player in my opinion. I laughed when I swiped your quote, but it was a quote and i knew I was going to get skewered for implying that Woodhead wasn't the greatest thing since bacon wrapped bacon.
Sorry to stick you into the middle of this, but it's fun to be a contrarian once in a while. Passes the time til we see some damn games, anyway.
But you will anyway.
Hell, if LaGarrette Blount rushed for 189 yards and scored 4 TD's every game he'd have 3024 yards and 64 TD's.
How about mentioning the other seven games in which Vereen rushed 30 times for 107 yards for a whopping 3.5 yards per carry?
Do you think Woodhead never played in the slot or split out wide?
Don't put words in my mouth. I said in another thread that Shane Vereen is a change of pace/third down back. I am responding to a post where he didn't look exceptional in the Bills game and I expanded his stats from that game to a 16 game schedule to prove a point. I never thought Vereen or any RB would put those numbers up for a 16 game schedule.
And again, Vereen is more than a rusher. He is a receiver who spreads out wide on a lot of plays. He is an all purpose back rather than more of a rusher.
Not nearly as much as Vereen. Vereen is used more in the passing game than Woodhead was. If you cannot see that the Pats use/used Vereen and Woodhead very differently in the offenses, I guess we cannot have much of a conversation.
Separate names with a comma.