Woodhead phase out?

[ATippett56]

Huh? Last I checked Demps won't be playing this season and Vereen hasn't yet shown he will either. Why is what he said so outrageous? I don't hate Vereen, but so far he hasn't shown much, and until he does, I don't think Woodhead is going anywhere.

I agree 100%. This is along the lines of the following threads posted earlier this year:

"Cut Edelman"

"Trade Welker"

 

[manxman2601]

I would not call it necessarily a negative storyline but the "shiny new toy theory". The "kids" want to play with their "new toys" since they have become bored with the "old ones":

Vereen vs Woodhead

Salas vs Welker/Edelman

I don't think it's about fans wanting to play with shiny new toys but making a reasonable speculation as to why those shiny new toys are there in the first place. Is it logical for the Patriots to carry three possibly similar backs in Vereen, Woodhead and Demps? Is it logical to have Welker, Edelman and Salas on the same roster? Questioning the reasoning behind these roster choices and how they affect the roster in the longer term seems to be a reasonable exercise to me.

 

[Jackson 2]

Woodhead doesn't seem to have much of a place (or much impact yesterday at least) in this new look run-balanced offense.

It could of been just a one-game, game-planning thing, but I just don't see Danny getting nearly as much run this season.

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but it'll be interesting for sure. There hasn't been much discussed on this, and most people seemed to have missed a possible trickle down reduced role effect a dynamic runner like Ridley (as opposed to downhill 2-down runner like Lawfirm) would have on Wodhead this season.

Could it be that in his current role, the Pats are too predictable. Or maybe the league D has caught up with his running style a bit, or maybe a bit of both.

Anyway it'll be worth following his use and development this year.

I was just waiting for this. One game and we're going to kick to the curb a guy who's a very valuable, versatile player. Please hold off on the funeral arrangements. Jump the gun much?

 

[Jackson 2]

woodhead is not very useful running the ball with the QB under center. he will be phased out in that regard as the pats get more comfortable with bolden.

as a 3rd down back, he has a season to generate some value for himself on the open market as I believe demps will beat him out for that spot next year.....demps almost did it this year even though he was not ready to play NFL football.

I like woodhead, but his limitations ware catching up to him here

Yours caught up to you some time ago.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Woodhead hit the field when the game was in the books, only to avoid subjecting Ridley to any more chance of injury.

And yet Ridley's last snap came after Woodhead's (on the same drive, no less).

 

[ATippett56]

I don't think it's about fans wanting to play with shiny new toys but making a reasonable speculation as to why those shiny new toys are there in the first place. Is it logical for the Patriots to carry three possibly similar backs in Vereen, Woodhead and Demps? Is it logical to have Welker, Edelman and Salas on the same roster? Questioning the reasoning behind these roster choices and how they affect the roster in the longer term seems to be a reasonable exercise to me.

The "kids" can't play with their "shiny new toys" this season when one is currently "inoperable" and the other "broken". You can infer which one is Vereen and the other Demps.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

This question is the equivalent of
Is Ryan Mallet being phased out?
No he's not, we just have someone way better than him.

Same as Woodhead. He was a servicable rb, nothing great. And when we had a bunch of servicable running backs -- BJGE, Morris, Woodhead, Faulk, each with a different skillset, we used them all.

Now that we (hopefully) have an awesome runningback who can (hopefully) go short and long yardage and (hopefully) be good as a receiver out of the backfield, we don't need to use Woodhead other than to give our primary a rest.

 

[part-timer]

Ummm . . . the Pats signed Woodhead before Faulk was injured, and BB went out of his way to say that at the time they signed him, they felt he was the best player available not on an NFL roster, at any position.

Woodhead was brought in merely as inexpensive depth for the Faulk role and benifited GREATLY from Faulks career ending injury. RB's in 2010 were Faulk Morris,Taylor ALL old and injured, leaveing only BJGE and Woodhead as options for the team to game plan around.

And when has BB said any thing less about any player he had on the roster, even those he cut within day of saying so.

 

[Gwedd]

I don't think it's about fans wanting to play with shiny new toys but making a reasonable speculation as to why those shiny new toys are there in the first place. Is it logical for the Patriots to carry three possibly similar backs in Vereen, Woodhead and Demps? Is it logical to have Welker, Edelman and Salas on the same roster? Questioning the reasoning behind these roster choices and how they affect the roster in the longer term seems to be a reasonable exercise to me.

Same reason some folks have a number of different hunting rifles, or cars or trucks. They each are similar, true, but they have different uses and are designed with certain situations in mind.

Monday Madness is certainly setting in around these parts today. Apparently The Patriots failed to lose or just barely eke out a win, so the doom & gloomers have to speculate on other reasons why the team is doomed, or a particular player is headed out the door. It's like a bunch of old women sitting around the porch and gossiping about which neighbor will be the first to die.

We're Doomed! Doomed, I tell you! DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

 

[manxman2601]

Same reason some folks have a number of different hunting rifles, or cars or trucks. They each are similar, true, but they have different uses and are designed with certain situations in mind.

Monday Madness is certainly setting in around these parts today. Apparently The Patriots failed to lose or just barely eke out a win, so the doom & gloomers have to speculate on other reasons why the team is doomed, or a particular player is headed out the door. It's like a bunch of old women sitting around the porch and gossiping about which neighbor will be the first to die.

We're Doomed! Doomed, I tell you! DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

It's a fan forum what exactly are you expecting? You'll see the same thing on every forum for every team in every sport in the world.

I wonder if the same people who say "we'll never trade Welker" or "we'll never let Woodhead go" were also saying the same thing about Milloy, Seymour and Warren. And Samuel, Bodden, Branch (the first time), Branch (the second time), Moss, Gaffney, BJGE.............

 

[Off The Grid]

'

Is it logical for the Patriots to carry three possibly similar backs in Vereen, Woodhead and Demps?

Well...yeah.

No offense, but...It's called "Depth", Brother Manx.

Don't you suppose that if we'd had a substantial substitute for Gronkowski around, last Winter, we might've won our 4th Super Bowl??

I do.

Depth of Talent, Baby.

 

[mgteich]

For now, Woodhead is our #2 running back. At worst, he is the 3rd down back. He is certainly ahead of Bolden and Hilliard. One can argue where one would put Vereen. But it doesn't matter. At most, we have three quality running backs and a developmental player or two.

We can wait until after the Super Bowl to see whether Woodhead plays for us in 2013 or if Demps, Vereen or another replaces him in the running back rotation. In the meantime, Woodhead is a key part of the 2012 offense.

 

[manxman2601]

Well...yeah.

No offense, but...It's called "Depth", Brother Manx.

Don't you suppose that if we'd had a substantial substitute for Gronkowski around, last Winter, we might've won our 4th Super Bowl??

I do.

Depth of Talent, Baby.

Do we go three deep for every role then. Potentially Vereen, Woodhead and Demps are change of pace backs. If it is logical to carry that depth, shouldn't we also have three power backs? Point is, we're likely to carry four RBs. Carrying Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead and Demps doesn't give us much between the tackles strength and depth. Depth is fine, balance and depth is better is my point.

 

[Kabonka]

Woodhead feeds off the change of pace. From a straight forward driver to a shifty darter is a change. When you starting back is more shifty the your change up guy he is easy pickings for the D.
Bolden is a driver and can be change of pace, 3rd down or breather back even if Ver-done would have been a better option.

Focus is shifting on the Pats to above average specialist that are very good at 2 things rather then the guys who are average at 5 things.

Who cares about guys who can play 5 diffferent postions on O and D, if you have others who are better at those positions in the first place.

Example, Nickovich at LB or DE and Edelman as nickel means your D is questionable. Dump the chumps. Jets are high on Woodhead, dump him there.

 

[mgteich]

1) We have 5 running backs on our roster in 2012. Given our new-found running game, why would we restrict ourselves to only 4 running backs. Nine receivers (not counting running backs) and four running backs seems possible, but not required.

2) I agree that if we carry only four running backs in 2013 that three should not be change of pace backs and only one a power back. We indeed require need a backup power back.

3) If Demps ends up being a kick returner and backup 3rd down back, that would fine. He may not even end up being that. Alternatively, we may decide to keep him instead of Woodhead as a 3rd down back.

4) The biggest flaw in your analysis has to do with Vereen. Belichick did NOT use a 2nd round draft choice on what he expected to be a 3rd down back. He expected Vereen to be able to be the #1 back, or at very least part of a 2-man running back partnership on 1st and 2nd down. Vereen can be a strong power back. Of course, the issue is his injury history. We shall see, but there is no reason for writing him off yet. And certainly, we should consider him a 3rd down back merely because he has been injured.

5) Ignoring Hilliard (and/or a Hilliard replacement), the team has 4 running backs under contract for 2013: Ridley, Vereen, Bolden and Demps. Belichick will decided how Woodhead or an alternative would fit in. But the time to decided is not now, at least iMHO. Belichick could surprise us and extend Woodhead during the break in the middle of the year, but I think not.

Do we go three deep for every role then. Potentially Vereen, Woodhead and Demps are change of pace backs. If it is logical to carry that depth, shouldn't we also have three power backs? Point is, we're likely to carry four RBs. Carrying Ridley, Vereen, Woodhead and Demps doesn't give us much between the tackles strength and depth. Depth is fine, balance and depth is better is my point.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think it's about fans wanting to play with shiny new toys but making a reasonable speculation as to why those shiny new toys are there in the first place. Is it logical for the Patriots to carry three possibly similar backs in Vereen, Woodhead and Demps? Is it logical to have Welker, Edelman and Salas on the same roster? Questioning the reasoning behind these roster choices and how they affect the roster in the longer term seems to be a reasonable exercise to me.

This is part of the problem, Woodhead, Vereen, and Demps are not similar at all, much in the same way that the widely held believe 16 months ago was that we wasted a 3rd round pick on a running back who would only play in short yardage.

Players at the same position on the same team will often have similarities, because they fit the scheme.

 

[stcjones]

Why run Woodhead when every other time Ridley got the ball he was getting 15+ yard chunks? They had nothing close to an answer for Ridley, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There's your answer OP!

 

[manxman2601]

1) We have 5 running backs on our roster in 2012. Given our new-found running game, why would we restrict ourselves to only 4 running backs. Nine receivers (not counting running backs) and four running backs seems possible, but not required.

2) I agree that if we carry only four running backs in 2013 that three should not be change of pace backs and only one a power back. We indeed require need a backup power back.

3) If Demps ends up being a kick returner and backup 3rd down back, that would fine. He may not even end up being that. Alternatively, we may decide to keep him instead of Woodhead as a 3rd down back.

4) The biggest flaw in your analysis has to do with Vereen. Belichick did NOT use a 2nd round draft choice on what he expected to be a 3rd down back. He expected Vereen to be able to be the #1 back, or at very least part of a 2-man running back partnership on 1st and 2nd down. Vereen can be a strong power back. Of course, the issue is his injury history. We shall see, but there is no reason for writing him off yet. And certainly, we should consider him a 3rd down back merely because he has been injured.

5) Ignoring Hilliard (and/or a Hilliard replacement), the team has 4 running backs under contract for 2013: Ridley, Vereen, Bolden and Demps. Belichick will decided how Woodhead or an alternative would fit in. But the time to decided is not now, at least iMHO. Belichick could surprise us and extend Woodhead during the break in the middle of the year, but I think not.

1. If we carry five RBs as par for the course then Ridley, Bolden, Woodhead, Vereen, Demps would be absolutely fine.

3. I think Woodhead is a fine player. I don't however think he's particularly special and I think we've seen the best we'll ever see out of him. I do not think Demps is someone who'll automatically be an upgrade to Woodhead but I see a much higher ceiling in Demps. I do not think we should be packing Woodhead off automatically, I was just making the original point that questioning his long-term viability on the roster was not a question of wanting to play with "shiny new toys" but that there was a legitimate roster debate to be had in terms of his longer term viability.

4/ I agree on Vereen. I was one of his biggest fans leading up to the draft. But we haven't seen an ability to carry a significant burden from him yet.

 

[stcjones]

Alot of other variables in that game besides not having backup to gronk in SB....Welker makes "the catch" or secondary makes a play late in game....are two examples...

Well...yeah.

No offense, but...It's called "Depth", Brother Manx.

Don't you suppose that if we'd had a substantial substitute for Gronkowski around, last Winter, we might've won our 4th Super Bowl??

I do.

Depth of Talent, Baby.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I doubt Woodhead's being phased out, so much as we have an actual #1 RB for the first time since Dillon left town. Woodhead will remain valuable in a certain, highly specialized role, and as long as he's on the roster, the Patriots will continue to use him and use him effectively.

As far as next season is concerned, with Woodhead being an UFA, I wouldn't expect the Patriots to go too far out of their way to re-sign him.