Shane Vereen and our RBs

[Snake Eyes]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

Vereen is small. Standing beside Woodhead, Woody was taller.

Ridley is more the same size as BJGE.

He's listed as 5'9-5'10, which isn't very different than a lot of RBs, LeSean McCoy is listed as 5'10-5'11, MarShall Faulk was 5'10 in his playing days as was Walter Payton.

Also, while you might consider Vereen to be short he certainly isn't small, he bench-pressed 225lbs 31 times at the combine.

 

[mgteich]

I think that we are all set at RB for this year and for 2012, and in very reasonable shape as long as Green-Ellis is re-signed. We usually have 2 primary positions: starter/bruiser and 3rd down back. As of now, Ridley is the backup for Green-Ellis. Vareen is the backup for Woodhead.

If the backups do well enough, they'll get reps. If not, they will be relegated to garbage time unless there is an injury. There is NOTHING wrong with having depth on the roster.

There are additional possibility for roles for running backs. They could find a role as a receiver, blocker, returner, change of pace back or as a short yardage back. One of the running backs could be the QB protector when Brady runs the 4 wide or spreads the offense in other ways.

Personally, I don't see a role for more than 4 active running backs. Unless they have additional roles, I could see games with only 3 active running backs if they are not being used the blocking back in short yardage offenses.

Thus, there will almost always be one inactive running back.

 

[Triumph]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

He's listed as 5'9-5'10, which isn't very different than a lot of RBs, LeSean McCoy is listed as 5'10-5'11, MarShall Faulk was 5'10 in his playing days as was Walter Payton.

Also, while you might consider Vereen to be short he certainly isn't small, he bench-pressed 225lbs 31 times at the combine.

Woodhead is taller standing side by side. Nobody is calling Woodhead a big guy that I know of. The camera doesnt lie. Vereen is small and I can see why he would have trouble blocking bigger players.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

Woodhead is taller standing side by side. Nobody is calling Woodhead a big guy that I know of. The camera doesnt lie. Vereen is small and I can see why he would have trouble blocking bigger players.

Are you serious? Cameras lie ALL the time, angles and positioning do wonders in terms of changing appearence.

He's a little bigger/taller and much stronger than Faulk, who just about everyone says is our best blocking RB.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

Woodhead is taller standing side by side. Nobody is calling Woodhead a big guy that I know of. The camera doesnt lie. Vereen is small and I can see why he would have trouble blocking bigger players.

The measuring tape doesn't lie.

Woodhead was 5'7"5/16 at the combine.
Vereen was 5'10"1/8 at the combine.

That's their heights, I doubt it changed in their 20s.

Faulk was 5'7"5/16 btw, exactly the same as Woody.

 

[andrewgarrr]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

Woodhead is taller standing side by side. Nobody is calling Woodhead a big guy that I know of. The camera doesnt lie. Vereen is small and I can see why he would have trouble blocking bigger players.

Hilariously stupid

 

[Betterthanmost]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

The measuring tape doesn't lie.

Woodhead was 5'7"5/16 at the combine.
Vereen was 5'10"1/8 at the combine.

That's their heights, I doubt it changed in their 20s.

Faulk was 5'7"5/16 btw, exactly the same as Woody.

You haven't heard of people getting shorter in the span of a few months?

 

[Mack Herron]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

The measuring tape doesn't lie.

Woodhead was 5'7"5/16 at the combine.
Vereen was 5'10"1/8 at the combine.

That's their heights, I doubt it changed in their 20s.

Faulk was 5'7"5/16 btw, exactly the same as Woody.

and Vereen has at least 20 lbs on Woodhead. Just a bigger guy.

 

[Lansdowne]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

He's listed as 5'9-5'10, which isn't very different than a lot of RBs, LeSean McCoy is listed as 5'10-5'11, MarShall Faulk was 5'10 in his playing days as was Walter Payton.

Also, while you might consider Vereen to be short he certainly isn't small, he bench-pressed 225lbs 31 times at the combine.

Yup. Short but powerful. I found this to be a thread of interest:

NFL Forum :: - Time For Shane Vereen?

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It was basically like doing well in preseason aka hard to put stock into that performance. The Chiefs D couldn't stop a nosebleed at that point.

I'd like to see him get some significant carries soon though and some KR duty to see what he's got.

 

[Triumph]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

Hilariously stupid

Yes, stupid.

The whole Rex thread was a joke. Nummy.

Re: BREAKING NEWS: Rex Guarantees Jets Will Rally to Win AFC East and Super Bowl!

Sooner or later don't the players have to get tired of this ****?

Re: OT: Jets poll their fan base and want Sanchez out!

Would not be shocked to see Peyton playing as a Jet next season.

How is that going to happen when Mannings 28 million dollar bonus is due before the league year begins? Are the Colts going to play Manning 28 million bucks and then wave goodbye to him and their money? Stupid.

 

[ay-yo]

Some thoughts on our rbs:

1. If we want to truly take advantage of Gronk and Hernandez we need a RB who can split out as a WR and function as a RB (think Matt Forte). It allows you to line up in a 5 wide formation and shift to a 2 TE's power running formation. No defense could match up with us. They go extra DB's we go power run. They go base we go 5 wide. With the no huddle we could keep them in the personal we desired. This would take our offense to another IMO.

None of our current rb's give us this ability. I hope Vereen can.

2. Whenever Ridley enters the game you can predict a run (as can the other team). If they don't trust him to execute on pass plays I wish they didn't play him. Teams see Ridley enter the game and sell out on the run. At least throw in a PA to keep them honest. I don't criticize BOB much but I feel here he has been killing Ridley's effectiveness.

 

[supafly]

Some thoughts on our rbs:

1. If we want to truly take advantage of Gronk and Hernandez we need a RB who can split out as a WR and function as a RB (think Matt Forte). It allows you to line up in a 5 wide formation and shift to a 2 TE's power running formation. No defense could match up with us. They go extra DB's we go power run. They go base we go 5 wide. With the no huddle we could keep them in the personal we desired. This would take our offense to another IMO.

None of our current rb's give us this ability. I hope Vereen can.

2. Whenever Ridley enters the game you can predict a run (as can the other team). If they don't trust him to execute on pass plays I wish they didn't play him. Teams see Ridley enter the game and sell out on the run. At least throw in a PA to keep them honest. I don't criticize BOB much but I feel here he has been killing Ridley's effectiveness.

Interesting theory, certainly something to think about. That said, there has to be something more to it, as I would suspect that BB would have thought of it. (at least that's what I tell myself when I have these 'theories,' lol)

I agree that having a RB that could effectively catch out of the backfield more would add a much needed dimension to this offense, and it could also allow them more mis-matches, especially in a hurry-up situation (if said RB is in many of those packages)

As far as Ridley's telling off the offense between run and pass, I agree on some level there too. I didn't see Vereen in on too many pass attempts, as it's likely that they don't trust his blitz pickups (why would you at this point in his career in this paricular offense?)

That leaves either Woodhead, or Faulk I suppose, and we have seen them line up 5 wide, just not too much lately, if at all.

There's no doubt that this offense needs something else, as teams are just going to continue playing man to man, doubling Welker etc. At some point, going to Gronkowski just isn't going to work at effectively, and that leaves almost nothing in my opinion.

 

[ay-yo]

Interesting theory, certainly something to think about. That said, there has to be something more to it, as I would suspect that BB would have thought of it. (at least that's what I tell myself when I have these 'theories,' lol)

I think the" something more" is that this player just isn't easy to find. There may only be a handful in the entire league who could split out wide and run the ball effectively. I don't think our rb's are bad but an improvement in the backfield could take our offense from top of the league to record setting.

 

[Dessalines]

Re: Shane Vareen and our RBs

That is why Crennel sent in an extra backer over the DE on whichever side of the shotgun Woodhead was lining up in. The DE would tie up the tackle, allowing the backer to blow up Woodhead. This pushed Brady out of the pocket and was causing a good part of the first half problems.

Nice analysis. Thanks.

 

[jagkho]

Id like to see Vereen get a shot at returning kickoffs. I believe he did that at Cal and was pretty successful. Right now our return game (for kickoffs) is pretty lackluster and it seems like Brady and the offense are consistently starting off around the 15 yd line.

 

[Hardly Dykes]

I liked the look they showed against KC with BJGE lining up as a FB in front of Vereen. More of that please!

 

[rdf63]

I liked the look they showed against KC with BJGE lining up as a FB in front of Vereen. More of that please!

I also liked the formation a lot. Vereen showed something very different from the Pats which is a back with speed.