We should have resigned W... (not Welker - Woodhead)

[patsinthesnow]

Ridley
Bolden
Vereen
Woodhead

Two power backs, two pass catching backs. Instead we have three powerbacks, but luckily one of them has some receiving skills.

Yes, for 1 million more and a 7th round pick back I'd rather Woody than Blount.

 

[Brady6]

But he had no spot here because Vereen was taking his job.
We signed Washington to return kicks (whenever he is healthy enough too) and sit on the bench on offense, not just to sit on the bench on offense.
Woodhead wasn't staying because Vereen needed to play.

The question was presented in terms of money, I am not suggesting that Washington and Woodhead would serve the same purpose; I would rather have Woodhead and his capabilities at $1.75 mil a year then Washington and his capabilities at $1.2 mil a year.

I do agree that Vereen needed to play, and keeping Woodhead in my opinion would have no real impact in that in my opinion had they designed packages accordingly, out in San Diego Woodhead is seeing significant reps split out as a wide receiver, he has the second most targets on the team with 27 behind Gates. Woodhead offered many of the same attributes of Welker and proved over the years he could get open in space, and had a good set of hands. So I look at keeping him as more of an addition to the receiving corp. and not so much about him verse Vereen.

 

[Ring 6]

The question was presented in terms of money, I am not suggesting that Washington and Woodhead would serve the same purpose; I would rather have Woodhead and his capabilities at $1.75 mil a year then Washington and his capabilities at $1.2 mil a year.

Let me put it a different way. You cant compare Washington and Woodheads cap hits because they do different jobs.

I do agree that Vereen needed to play, and keeping Woodhead in my opinion would have no real impact in that in my opinion had they designed packages accordingly, out in San Diego Woodhead is seeing significant reps split out as a wide receiver, he has the second most targets on the team with 27 behind Gates. Woodhead offered many of the same attributes of Welker and proved over the years he could get open in space, and had a good set of hands. So I look at keeping him as more of an addition to the receiving corp. and not so much about him verse Vereen.

He is splitting out in the spread, just as Verreen does here.
We will just have to disagree that Woodhead being converted to WR.
I'd rather have the WRs we have than attempt that.

 

[Brady6]

Ridley
Bolden
Vereen
Woodhead

Two power backs, two pass catching backs. Instead we have three powerbacks, but luckily one of them has some receiving skills.

Yes, for 1 million more and a 7th round pick back I'd rather Woody than Blount.

In addition to what you’ve pointed out I would add that – Danny Woodhead is a Tavon Austin type player in terms of how you can utilize him, keeping him would have been more adding to are receiving corp. and the overall offensive attack as a whole and less about how many RB we kept. San Diego is using him as their slot as well as out of the backfield.

 

[Ring 6]

Ridley
Bolden
Vereen
Woodhead

Two power backs, two pass catching backs. Instead we have three powerbacks, but luckily one of them has some receiving skills.

Yes, for 1 million more and a 7th round pick back I'd rather Woody than Blount.

Woodhead had other options. Why would he sign here to be Vereens backup in a role that only gets 50% of the snaps in the best case?
Other teams offered him a bigger role than 10 snaps a game.

 

[Ring 6]

In addition to what you’ve pointed out I would add that – Danny Woodhead is a Tavon Austin type player in terms of how you can utilize him, keeping him would have been more adding to are receiving corp. and the overall offensive attack as a whole and less about how many RB we kept. San Diego is using him as their slot as well as out of the backfield.

They really aren't using him as their slot WR. Being split out in the spread empty backfield on a few plays isn't being the slot WR.

 

[Brady6]

Let me put it a different way. You cant compare Washington and Woodheads cap hits because they do different jobs.

I certainly can if some presents a question in terms of – “how would we have afforded to keep Woodhead” in which case my answer is not signing Washington because I value Woodhead’s position more than Washington’s. Also Woodhead have the ability to return kicks, he returned 22 of them during his 3 years in New England, that’s 22 more than the guy you’ve suggested was signed to fill that role here. Yes Washington is a superior kick returner, but Woodhead brings significantly more value to the entire team as a whole.

He is splitting out in the spread, just as Verreen does here.
We will just have to disagree that Woodhead being converted to WR.
I'd rather have the WRs we have than attempt that.

No he is actually lining up at the slot wide receiver throughout the preseason and the first 4 weeks of the regular season.

I appreciate your offer to add to my post; however I never said anything about converting Woodhead to wide receiver, I said that he would be an addition to the receiving corp. and the offense as a whole because of his ability to play multiple roles, just like we found ways to use 2 tight ends over the years I am sure we could have found ways to use Vereen and Woodhead.

I am having a really hard time understanding your stance here, I say we should have kept Woodhead, and your saying we should not have because we have Vereen as a running back and Washington as a kick returner – I looked back at last week stats expecting to see these huge contributions from Vereen as a 3rd down back and at least 1 touchdown on a kickoff by Washington and come to find out neither of them even played last week. So I will stick with the belief that – We Should Have Resigned Danny Woodhead . You can never have too many good players’ especially versatile players who can be had for a modest price.

 

[Ring 6]

I certainly can if some presents a question in terms of – “how would we have afforded to keep Woodhead” in which case my answer is not signing Washington because I value Woodhead’s position more than Washington’s. Also Woodhead have the ability to return kicks, he returned 22 of them during his 3 years in New England, that’s 22 more than the guy you’ve suggested was signed to fill that role here. Yes Washington is a superior kick returner, but Woodhead brings significantly more value to the entire team as a whole.

Then we disagree.

No he is actually lining up at the slot wide receiver throughout the preseason and the first 4 weeks of the regular season

.
He really isn't. He is playing RB. He is split out when the empty the backfield.
There is a difference between being split out as a RB covered by a LB and being a slot WR. But you saw a highlight where he was split out and just decided you have to make up facts.

I appreciate your offer to add to my post; however I never said anything about converting Woodhead to wide receiver, I said that he would be an addition to the receiving corp. and the offense as a whole because of his ability to play multiple roles, just like we found ways to use 2 tight ends over the years I am sure we could have found ways to use Vereen and Woodhead.

You compared him to Welker and said you didn't consider him a RB but a part of the receiving corps.
We didn't use them together last year.
You are just not realizing the difference between splitting out as a RB being covered by a LB and playing WR being covered by a corner.
Its nice that you think someone could create a scheme that fits your argument, but no one has.

I am having a really hard time understanding your stance here, I say we should have kept Woodhead, and your saying we should not have because we have Vereen as a running back and Washington as a kick returner – I looked back at last week stats expecting to see these huge contributions from Vereen as a 3rd down back and at least 1 touchdown on a kickoff by Washington and come to find out neither of them even played last week. So I will stick with the belief that – We Should Have Resigned Danny Woodhead . You can never have too many good players’ especially versatile players who can be had for a modest price.

So we should have signed Peyton Manning in case Brady gets injured?
Or are you making roster decisions with a time machine?
Why would Woodhead take a job as Vereens backup when he could be someone elses #1 3rd down back?

 

[Brady6]

They really aren't using him as their slot WR. Being split out in the spread empty backfield on a few plays isn't being the slot WR.

You should do some research, you’d actually see that your wrong in that belief, they’ve lined him up in the slot a significant percent of his snaps.

How he is used is sort of a moot point Andy, my OP was that we should have resigned him because $3.5 mil for 2 years was a good rate for a player that could contribute in multiple roles on a football field no matter if Shane Vereen or Marshall Faulk are on that same team. So is your position the opposite of mine and therefore that we should not have resigned Woodhead?

 

[Ring 6]

You should do some research, you’d actually see that your wrong in that belief, they’ve lined him up in the slot a significant percent of his snaps.

I know you are capable of saying it happened, but it has not.
They split him out when they go empty. I don't know how to help you if you want to just make things up.

How he is used is sort of a moot point Andy, my OP was that we should have resigned him because $3.5 mil for 2 years was a good rate for a player that could contribute in multiple roles on a football field no matter if Shane Vereen or Marshall Faulk are on that same team. So is your position the opposite of mine and therefore that we should not have resigned Woodhead?

My point is that it is unrealistic.
From the Patriots side you either sign him to sit him and wait for an injury, or you ****** Vereens development. The second is a bad move, the first is irrelevant because Woodhead wouldn't accept that role.
Sure, it would be great to have him on the roster, but its just not a realistic expectation.

 

[moosekill]

I certainly can if some presents a question in terms of – “how would we have afforded to keep Woodhead” in which case my answer is not signing Washington because I value Woodhead’s position more than Washington’s. Also Woodhead have the ability to return kicks, he returned 22 of them during his 3 years in New England, that’s 22 more than the guy you’ve suggested was signed to fill that role here. Yes Washington is a superior kick returner, but Woodhead brings significantly more value to the entire team as a whole.



No he is actually lining up at the slot wide receiver throughout the preseason and the first 4 weeks of the regular season.

I appreciate your offer to add to my post; however I never said anything about converting Woodhead to wide receiver, I said that he would be an addition to the receiving corp. and the offense as a whole because of his ability to play multiple roles, just like we found ways to use 2 tight ends over the years I am sure we could have found ways to use Vereen and Woodhead.

I am having a really hard time understanding your stance here, I say we should have kept Woodhead, and your saying we should not have because we have Vereen as a running back and Washington as a kick returner – I looked back at last week stats expecting to see these huge contributions from Vereen as a 3rd down back and at least 1 touchdown on a kickoff by Washington and come to find out neither of them even played last week. So I will stick with the belief that – We Should Have Resigned Danny Woodhead . You can never have too many good players’ especially versatile players who can be had for a modest price.

I liked Woodhead and was sad to see him go. That being said, he plays the same position and Vereen does, was going to cost 1.75 million and was going to take one of our 53 slots. The coaching staff felt Vereen was better so they let Woodhead go. You can argue that the coaching staff made a mistake, and you think he is better than Vereen, or that we shouldn't have signed a kick returner. But we can't have 6 running backs on the team, so one had to go. But, he had to agree to sign with the Pats, which certainly isn't a given, and if we had paid him $1.75 million, would you have cut Vereen? Or had Woodhead sitting on the bench while he played?

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: We should have resigned W...

Then we disagree.


.
He really isn't. He is playing RB. He is split out when the empty the backfield.
There is a difference between being split out as a RB covered by a LB and being a slot WR. But you saw a highlight where he was split out and just decided you have to make up facts.

No he is playing multiple roles including linning up in the slot.


[/QUOTE]
You compared him to Welker and said you didn't consider him a RB but a part of the receiving colts.
We didn't use them together last year.
You are just not realizing the difference between splitting out as a RB being covered by a LB and playing WR being covered by a corner.
Its nice that you think someone could create a scheme that fits your argument, but no one has.
[/QUOTE]

No I said he offered some of the same attributes as Welker which he does. I do think we could create a scheme that would utilize them both, just like we were able to create a scheme to utilize 2 tight ends in the past, that's what coaches do they create plays and schemes to fit there personnel, some might even call it there job.

[/QUOTE]
So we should have signed Peyton Manning in case Brady gets injured?
Or are you making roster decisions with a time machine?
Why would Woodhead take a job as Vereens backup when he could be someone elses #1 3rd down back?[/QUOTE]

Exaggerate much? Dur

 

[Brady6]

Re: Re: We should have resigned W...

I know you are capable of saying it happened, but it has not.
They split him out when they go empty. I don't know how to help you if you want to just make things up.

I actually watched the last 2 games he played in and he was in the slot on a significant amount of the snaps.

[/QUOTE]
My point is that it is unrealistic.
From the Patriots side you either sign him to sit him and wait for an injury, or you ****** Vereens development. The second is a bad move, the first is irrelevant because Woodhead wouldn't accept that role.
Sure, it would be great to have him on the roster, but its just not a realistic expectation.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that you had to sit him, and given the ******ing of Ridley's development by adding Blount I can't see the argument here.

 

[Ring 6]

No he is playing multiple roles including linning up in the slot.

Once again. He plays RB, when they go empty he is split out. You can't jus make up that it is something different.
I know you think that is the same thing, but its not.

No I said he offered some of the same attributes as Welker which he does.

No he doesnt. He is a good receiving RB who is hard for LBs to cover. He is not a WR who is hard for corners to cover.
Yes both catch passes, are we going to say Gronk and Desean Jackson have the same attributes?

I do think we could create a scheme that would utilize them both, just like we were able to create a scheme to utilize 2 tight ends in the past, that's what coaches do they create plays and schemes to fit there personnel, some might even call it there job.

This is where your lack of knowledge shines through.
A 3rd down back is effective because he is covered by a LB. Its called a mismatch. There really isn't a scheme that uses 2 of those guys together, because it doesn't create 2 mismatches on the defense.
Your idea that someone should create a scheme for this is like saying we did so well with 2 TEs we should get 4 and figure out how to use them all together.

Exaggerate much? Dur

So you think Woodhead would be fine being a backup 3rd down back in NE instead of being the 3rd down back in SD?

 

[Ring 6]

I actually watched the last 2 games he played in and he was in the slot on a significant amount of the snaps.

You need to watch closer.

I disagree that you had to sit him, and given the ******ing of Ridley's development by adding Blount I can't see the argument here.

What are you talking about?
You either had to:
1) Hold Vereens development back to play woodhead or
2) Sit woodhead as his backup
There is no 3rd choice.

I don't know how Ridley having a backup has anything to do with this.

Either Vereen gets wasted or you offer woodhead a role he won't accept. How hard is it for you to get that?

 

[mgteich]

I seem to recall someone suggesting exactly that.

Your idea that someone should create a scheme for this is like saying we did so well with 2 TEs we should get 4 and figure out how to use them all together.

 

[Ring 6]

I seem to recall someone suggesting exactly that.

Around here it was probably serious and someone will cite that thread someday as proof that we all thought it was a good idea.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with this.

1) The team judged that they wanted Vereen to take Woodhead's role. This may or may not have been the right personnel decision. I'd probably rather have had Woodhead for 2 years in that role instead of Vereen (who is signed through 2014), but that's just me.

2) Woodhead would not have accepted coming back as a #4 RB and a KR. So, the team signed Washington in that role. Therefore, many said that Washington replaced Woodhead.
However, it is the role that Woodhead would have taken if he stayed, not his 2012 role, which was taken by Vereen and Washington.

3) In the end, Vereen was "moved" to 3rd down back, and Blount was brought in to compete with Boldin as the change of pace back (to be the 2-man grouping with Ridley).
In the end, we have a very strong committee with Ridley, Blount and Vereen. We also have backups Bolden and Washington. Five running backs seems like a lot. As we know,
we have two healthy backs for this weekend. Washington may, or may not, be able to be part of the offense.

I liked Woodhead and was sad to see him go. That being said, he plays the same position and Vereen does, was going to cost 1.75 million and was going to take one of our 53 slots. The coaching staff felt Vereen was better so they let Woodhead go. You can argue that the coaching staff made a mistake, and you think he is better than Vereen, or that we shouldn't have signed a kick returner. But we can't have 6 running backs on the team, so one had to go. But, he had to agree to sign with the Pats, which certainly isn't a given, and if we had paid him $1.75 million, would you have cut Vereen? Or had Woodhead sitting on the bench while he played?

 

[Deus Irae]

Once they decided to have Vereen supplant him on the depth chart, there was no way he was staying. The Patriots weren't going to pay him 2 years, $3.5 million to serve as their #4 RB, and he wasn't going to want to ride the pine as that #4 RB.

I would have loved for them to keep him but, of the 'big 3' (Welker/Lloyd/Woodhead), his not returning is the one that made the most sense.

 

[borg]

Vereen has managed to play in 19 of 36 regular season games...which is very exciting.
In all seriousness, NE has given prominent offensive roles to 3 players with durability issues.
Ah.....The choices a team must face when bumping up against the cap....Oh wait.....the team isn't bumping up against the cap. Never mind
Ah....The choices a team must make when trying to squeeze blood from two nickels.
We do have Leon Washington ready to enter the game....any minute now....which is also exciting. Can't wait for the Washington-Blount Two Headed Serpent to appear for kick offs. LW fields the kickoff, then executes a crisp reverse hand off to our kick off missile....Mr Blount. That BB....always three steps ahead of the pack (excluding 2nd round DB draft picks of course)