Woodhead has joked about his height not being 5-9. His height has been variously reported from 5-7 to 5-9. I've never heard his weight questioned by anyone except you. The published ranges are 195-200.
So his height measurements are notoriously overestimated, to the point that he himself jokes about it, but we should absolutely take his weight measurements at face value? Seems to me like the credibility of them is shot already.
This verges on ad hominem. You have no way of knowing what I know or don't know, but of course you're free to guess. You're a pretty bad guesser if you really think I could post what I post without knowing such elementary things about FO. They're commendably transparent about their methodology.
The fact that you insist on applying the implications that you apply makes it pretty clear that you
don't understand what DVOA actually means.
While you're technically incorrect about your DVOA point -- Patriots' backs have not led the league in rushing DVOA (and you conveniently don't mention receiving DVOA) --
You're right, I should have qualified that with *if Woodhead finishes 2010 at the top for rushing DVOA with <100 carries. My mistake, I messed up. Doesn't really change the core point, though, FWIW, which is that, in that case, it
will be four years running, because it's been true for the last three years:
2007: Sammy Morris
2008: Kevin Faulk
2009: Kevin Faulk
In fact, if I was willing to apply FO stats in the same cursory way that you do, I could easily turn this into an indictment of Woodhead, since he might well end up being the first Patriots backup/specialist RB in four years to
not lead the NFL in this category.
You were implying that the salary Belichick is paying Woodhead is a proxy for his true value.
I wasn't implying anything- I was making a direct and explicit statement to counter Ice Ice Brady's point that GMs value guys like Faulk and Woodhead more than they value Tomlinson. That is factually untrue, as I demonstrated. It turns out that it's pretty easy to determine how much front offices value a type of player, and it's by looking at how much the best guys at that position are paid. When the very best third down RB is paid significantly less than a guy that a lot of you are trying to claim is an 'okay' every-down RB, that pretty clearly shows IIB's point to be untrue. If suggesting that you know less than you think you do about DVOA borders on ad hominen, then stating that you know what I'm implying is ad hominem (it's not, because that's a ridiculously low standard, but it's the one that you chose).
It's a red herring because almost by definition market value is much less than real value for underrated players. The extreme version would be to say that Woodhead had zero value when he was cut. At least at that moment, he was absurdly undervalued. His perceived value has improved since then, but is still controversial or we wouldn't be having this exchange. My whole thesis is that there's evidence that Woodhead is still very undervalued.
I agree 100% with everything that you wrote there. I dunno what to tell you, except that you're still arguing against a straw man.
DYAR (Defence Adjusted Yards Above Replacement) is a pretty useful currency for comparison of absolute contributions. Yards are reasonably comparable, and FO adjusts for field position and "success". There are some obvious comparative problems, such as QB's sharing their DYAR with their receivers, and the similar problem with OLINE and other contributors to RB performance. Not that you said that.
Certainly adding RB rushing and receiving DYAR together into combined DYAR is a non-standard and hence potentially perilous innovation, but I took that liberty. Running Backs contribute importantly both rushing and receiving, and in that regard Woodhead and Faulk similarly benefit by combined DYAR. I'm perfectly happy with the conclusion that Kevin Faulk has been a tremendous all round contributor for the Patriots, and had a great year in 2008. But I reiterate, Danny Woodhead in his first year is already projecting to be better by that measure than Kevin in his best year, and much better than Kevin in the other years you mentioned.
The offense that Woodhead is currently contributing in is much, much different from the ones that Faulk was a part of, so an unadjusted straight-up comparison may not be accurate. That said, it's an intriguing comparison, and odds are that the conclusion may be accurate. But even if Woodhead is significantly better than Faulk, and I readily acknowledge that he might be, it still doesn't change my point at all. I love Faulk, and he's an invaluable Patriot, but the same limitations that apply to Woodhead also apply to him. Credit to Belichick for finding guys like this and realizing how incredibly valuable that they can be as long as you play to their strengths and disguise their weaknesses. Belichick's been acknowledged over and over for being the best in the NFL at this; I dunno when it became an insult to the players to acknowledge this reality.
My point remains, by combined DYAR, Woodhead looks to be in his first year a top 5 back, despite getting relatively few touches and targets. It's not an earthshaking claim, and even here most fans don't care about DYAR et al. But it's objective evidence suggesting that something special might be happening with Danny Woodhead.
This is the controversy: is Danny Woodhead is a nice but readily replaceable 3rd down back, or might he be a potentially elite player at the start of his career? It's a legitimate controversy or we wouldn't be spending so much time on it. I would have thought it would be an exciting time for Patriot fans as we await the verdict. I would also expected we'd share a rooting interest in the outcome. Hell, this is a Patriot's fan board. But this is no longer fun, and I'm spending far to much time on it. Danny's play will speak for itself. Discussion about Woodhead seems to be polarizing the fan base here just like it did in New York-- and it really did, I ended up looking at Jets fans boards when researching Woodhead early on, and it got very heated there.
Is anyone on this thread actually claiming the bolded part? I think that Woodhead is a uniquely talented and special player who brings a whole lot to the table. He's certainly a lot more than a "nice but readily replaceable 3rd down back". Once again, it seems like you've spent the majority of this thread putting words into my mouth so that you can argue against straw men. My point is, and has always been, pretty clear. That Woodhead's a hell of a player, but Tomlinson is still more valuable. And this is coming from a guy who, going into this season, thought that LT's career was basically over. I was clearly wrong, though, and when I'm wrong I have no problem admitting it.
I'm with you, though: Woodhead is an immensely talented and intriguing player, and I'm sure that he's going to be fantastic for us for a lot of years. Finding a young Faulk replacement is more than anyone could have hoped for this year, and yet it still appears that it may have happened. I'd hesitate to say that with certainty at this point, since Woodhead is clearly inferior to Faulk in picking up blitzes (another one of those things that DVOA doesn't account for, but is crucial to this role), but he has plenty of time to develop that part of his game, and he's already adequate at it. It's going to be fun to watch him kick ass for the Pats, and watch Jets fans grumble about how they had him but Rex was too stupid to see that he's flat-out better than Clowney and McKnight.
