Potential cuts who could be benificial to the pats

[manxman2601]

Some comments on the comments:

1. If there is one position where the Pats are stacked at its RB. so why would they even consider Mark Ingram, who hasn't had the production of Boldin, let alone Ridley, Blount, and Vareen.

As this was my idea, I'll address it.

1. Blount will as things stand be out of contract at the end of this year.

2. Ridley will be next year.

3. Blount and Ridley have a history of fumbling whereas Ingram, even through college, has been very solid.

4. He visited us pre-draft so there was certainly some interest from us and BB does like to pick up former first rounders that have failed elsewhere.

5. Boldin is a jag. He's fine as a #4 RB but I would never use him as a reason not to get someone else.

If they re-sign Blount, which I'm fine with, then it probably makes the idea moot but until Blount is re-signed, apart from Ingram's cap cost, I still like the idea.

 

[Off The Grid]

1. If there is one position where the Pats are stacked at its RB. so why would they even consider Mark Ingram, who hasn't had the production of Boldin, let alone Ridley, Blount, and Vareen.

To refuse to explore UpGrades & Depth of Talent at any Position at any time is demonstrably foolish.

Mad Bill has no equal in the Industry.

But his failure to seek out or retain Depth of Talent at many Roles has crippled this 2013 Team, as it crippled previous Teams, as have all Teams, to be fair, hamstrung themselves.

But to wave your hand and decree that the Pats are "stacked" at HalfBack seem especially foolish, to these eyes: Letting Uncanny Danny WoodHead walk for Chump Change a Year was horrifyingly foolish.

As it stands, we only have the one genuine FlexBack ~ a genuine Receiving Threat ~ in our BackField.

FlexBacks are outrageously cheap on the Market, easy to come by.

And having 3 or 4 genuine Dual Threats ~ Depth ~ would render our Offense dramatically more unpredictable and dangerous, as the Ascent of my Boy Shifty Shane Vereen should've made crystal clear.

Or do you prefer to pray that a guy ~ Vereen ~ who plays a violent Game will never get injured??

Why in the name of God would you object to our exploring Improvement??

 

[patsderoer]

But to wave your hand and decree that the Pats are "stacked" at HalfBack seem especially foolish, to these eyes: Letting Uncanny Danny WoodHead walk for Chump Change a Year was horrifyingly foolish.

As it stands, we only have the one genuine FlexBack ~ a genuine Receiving Threat ~ in our BackField.

McGuffie = Woodhead 2.0

 

[jsull87]

To refuse to explore UpGrades & Depth of Talent at any Position at any time is demonstrably foolish.

Mad Bill has no equal in the Industry.

But his failure to seek out or retain Depth of Talent at many Roles has crippled this 2013 Team, as it crippled previous Teams, as have all Teams, to be fair, hamstrung themselves.

But to wave your hand and decree that the Pats are "stacked" at HalfBack seem especially foolish, to these eyes: Letting Uncanny Danny WoodHead walk for Chump Change a Year was horrifyingly foolish.

As it stands, we only have the one genuine FlexBack ~ a genuine Receiving Threat ~ in our BackField.

FlexBacks are outrageously cheap on the Market, easy to come by.

And having 3 or 4 genuine Dual Threats ~ Depth ~ would render our Offense dramatically more unpredictable and dangerous, as the Ascent of my Boy Shifty Shane Vereen should've made crystal clear.

Or do you prefer to pray that a guy ~ Vereen ~ who plays a violent Game will never get injured??

Why in the name of God would you object to our exploring Improvement??

Just as an exercise. How many teams have 2 "flexbacks" or 3rd down backs at woodhead/sproles/vereen's skillset? I can't really think of any off the top of my head.

BB also did bring on board Leon Washington as the reserve 3rd down back and had hoped he would provide better ST production.

So as a big Woodhead fan I would have loved him to stay but I think the Pat's RB status quo is pretty good. To have 3-4 dual threats those dual threats would have to replace current RB's.

 

[Off The Grid]

To refuse to explore UpGrades & Depth of Talent at any Position at any time is demonstrably foolish.

Mad Bill has no equal in the Industry.

But his failure to seek out or retain Depth of Talent at many Roles has crippled this 2013 Team, as it crippled previous Teams, as have all Teams, to be fair, hamstrung themselves.

But to wave your hand and decree that the Pats are "stacked" at HalfBack seem especially foolish, to these eyes: Letting Uncanny Danny WoodHead walk for Chump Change a Year was horrifyingly foolish.

As it stands, we only have the one genuine FlexBack ~ a genuine Receiving Threat ~ in our BackField.

FlexBacks are outrageously cheap on the Market, easy to come by.

And having 3 or 4 genuine Dual Threats ~ Depth ~ would render our Offense dramatically more unpredictable and dangerous, as the Ascent of my Boy Shifty Shane Vereen should've made crystal clear.

Or do you prefer to pray that a guy ~ Vereen ~ who plays a violent Game will never get injured??

Why in the name of God would you object to our exploring Improvement??

Just as an exercise. How many teams have 2 "flexbacks" or 3rd down backs at woodhead/sproles/vereen's skillset? I can't really think of any off the top of my head.

Are you seriously suggesting that our thinking should be guided by what other Teams do? That would be foolish beyond words. Only the pathetically weak seek assurance from the Model of their Rivals. And whatever else one may say about Mad Bill, he most emphatically does not. That alone is reason to admire him.

BB also did bring on board Leon Washington as the reserve 3rd down back and had hoped he would provide better ST production.

Good Lord, man. Washington is 800 Years old. He caught 4 Balls in 2012.

So as a big Woodhead fan I would have loved him to stay but I think the Pat's RB status quo is pretty good. To have 3-4 dual threats those dual threats would have to replace current RB's.

Yep. I would've constructed the Team differently. That was sort of my Point.

You don't think we would've been a more dangerous Team with WoodHead instead'f, say, Bolden?

 

[captain stone]

McGuffie = Woodhead 2.0

In theory...

 

[Snake Eyes]

Are you seriously suggesting that our thinking should be guided by what other Teams do? That would be foolish beyond words. Only the pathetically weak seek assurance from the Model of their Rivals. And whatever else one may say about Mad Bill, he most emphatically does not. That alone is reason to admire him.

If your rivals are a good bit better than you it might make sense to model yourself after them, Sean Payton has spoken at length about how he's tried to emulate much of what BB has done with building a team, OTOH Sexy Rexy has completely rejected the idea that he's modeling the Jets on the Pats.

For the record, I think Rexy looked better when fat, he had a certain amount of gravitas with his weight, he doesn't look right with a more normal build.

 

[Off The Grid]

Are you seriously suggesting that our thinking should be guided by what other Teams do? That would be foolish beyond words. Only the pathetically weak seek assurance from the Model of their Rivals. And whatever else one may say about Mad Bill, he most emphatically does not. That alone is reason to admire him.

If your rivals are a good bit better than you it might make sense to model yourself after them

I vehemently disagree, my friend.

1 ~ If you're Rivals are "a good bit better than you" then you need to seek another line of Work. Do you really want to be a cheap and dirty imitation of someone else? I'll pass, thanks.

2 ~ In FootBall as in all Professions, Innovation certainly includes an enormous amount of mixing and matching of Concepts that've been around previously. That goes without saying, I hope. But to argue that one should carry X number of FlexBacks simply because no one else does is the weakest Argument I can imagine.

 

[Snake Eyes]

2 ~ In FootBall as in all Professions, Innovation certainly includes an enormous amount of mixing and matching of Concepts that've been around previously. That goes without saying, I hope. But to argue that one should carry X number of FlexBacks simply because no one else does is the weakest Argument I can imagine.

Fully Agreed.

I vehemently disagree, my friend.1 ~ If you're Rivals are "a good bit better than you" then you need to seek another line of Work. Do you really want to be a cheap and dirty imitation of someone else? I'll pass, thanks.

If imitating someone else results in an improvement then I don't know why it wouldn't be a good idea. That said, there's nothing in the rulebook that says you can't imitate and improve upon what your competition, the Romans were renowned for this and it served them well.

Just like I wouldn't advocate not doing something because my competition is doing it I'd never abstain from doing something just because others are.

 

[jsull87]

Are you seriously suggesting that our thinking should be guided by what other Teams do? That would be foolish beyond words. Only the pathetically weak seek assurance from the Model of their Rivals. And whatever else one may say about Mad Bill, he most emphatically does not. That alone is reason to admire him.



Good Lord, man. Washington is 800 Years old. He caught 4 Balls in 2012.



Yep. I would've constructed the Team differently. That was sort of my Point.

You don't think we would've been a more dangerous Team with WoodHead instead'f, say, Bolden?

Not sure I appreciate the tone of the answer but I always and respect your point of view.

The reality is Woodhead is a very good back, they decided to have him and Vereen was not the way to sign someone else would be cheaper. There is no argument from me either way here, woodhead is a good RB.

I do find it interesting that a poster such as yourself who loves the "grissly" but then also in the above post pushes for diversity in our attack; doesn't like the varied skillset Blount, Ridley and Vereen provide. Could there be an upgrade of Bolden? possibly for less cost? probably not.

BTW re Bolden... he did run for almost 300 yards on 4.9 YPC this year. He is hardly a scrub, you'd be hard pressed to find a better RB 4 in any team in the league. This year he also played solid roles in a good ST unit.

There is not much point of me arguing here either way because your hypothetical of "player x would be better" or "this group would have been better" is always going to beat me defending the way the FO handled this offseason RB situation.

All I can say is I have been consistent in my liking of our RB unit. I would have preferred Woodhead on the team rather than Washington. But at the time they made the decision they thought they were getting a dynamic PR/KR who can fill in and is an experienced 3rd down RB if in a pinch. Also he cost less.

RE should our thinking be guided by what others do. The answer is Yes. We should always be aware of both what other teams are doing and what will suit our team best. Should we copy it? nope, not if it won't help... should we copy it if it will make our team better? yep. Being different or difference sake is just counter intuitive.

Would 4 dynamic every down backs be ideal? Yep. But as I said, find me the team with them on their roster. If there are none then the next question may be why not? Is there something 32 NFL teams understand that I don't?.

I.E Could a team have a roster of Sproles, Woodhead, Vereen and Reggie Bush? Easily. How much would that cost? What are you losing not having the Blount type? What happens to your between the tackles run game?

I was in no way trying to be offensive in my post and in no way was I saying I wouldn't want woodhead on the team. I just think sometimes people here are critical of signings or not resignings because people easily forget both the context the decision was made in at the time and also posters can easily just pretend like they weren't critical of it when the signing actually works out. I.E the Edelman/Blount/Moss haters.

I'll say again Blount, Ridley, Vereen, Bolden and Devlin are a diverse , low cost, talented unit and I am happy with what the FO did here and the ROI.

 

[Off The Grid]

Not sure I appreciate the tone of the answer but I always and respect your point of view.

The reality is Woodhead is a very good back, they decided to have him and Vereen was not the way to sign someone else would be cheaper. There is no argument from me either way here, woodhead is a good RB.

I do find it interesting that a poster such as yourself who loves the "grissly" but then also in the above post pushes for diversity in our attack; doesn't like the varied skillset Blount, Ridley and Vereen provide. Could there be an upgrade of Bolden? possibly for less cost? probably not.

BTW re Bolden... he did run for almost 300 yards on 4.9 YPC this year. He is hardly a scrub, you'd be hard pressed to find a better RB 4 in any team in the league. This year he also played solid roles in a good ST unit.

There is not much point of me arguing here either way because your hypothetical of "player x would be better" or "this group would have been better" is always going to beat me defending the way the FO handled this offseason RB situation.

All I can say is I have been consistent in my liking of our RB unit. I would have preferred Woodhead on the team rather than Washington. But at the time they made the decision they thought they were getting a dynamic PR/KR who can fill in and is an experienced 3rd down RB if in a pinch. Also he cost less.

RE should our thinking be guided by what others do. The answer is Yes. We should always be aware of both what other teams are doing and what will suit our team best. Should we copy it? nope, not if it won't help... should we copy it if it will make our team better? yep. Being different or difference sake is just counter intuitive.

Would 4 dynamic every down backs be ideal? Yep. But as I said, find me the team with them on their roster. If there are none then the next question may be why not? Is there something 32 NFL teams understand that I don't?.

I.E Could a team have a roster of Sproles, Woodhead, Vereen and Reggie Bush? Easily. How much would that cost? What are you losing not having the Blount type? What happens to your between the tackles run game?

I was in no way trying to be offensive in my post and in no way was I saying I wouldn't want woodhead on the team. I just think sometimes people here are critical of signings or not resignings because people easily forget both the context the decision was made in at the time and also posters can easily just pretend like they weren't critical of it when the signing actually works out. I.E the Edelman/Blount/Moss haters.

I'll say again Blount, Ridley, Vereen, Bolden and Devlin are a diverse , low cost, talented unit and I am happy with what the FO did here and the ROI.

You're right, Brother Sully: My tone was astringent. I apologize.

We actually agree on most of this. It's a fine Crew of HalfBacks.

1 ~ But it seemed incredibly clear last Year that WoodHead ~ who I loudly raved about before he ever played a Down hereabouts ~ was so clearly and so demonstrably worth far more than his Price Tag, that it was Insanity to let'm go. And the way our Offense shriveled up when Vereen got hurt proved that, all too painfully well.

2 ~ I can't imagine why you consider my Admiration of the Grizzlies even remotely contradictory of my Admiration of FlexBacks. I've always argued vehemently for a dominant Offensive Line and for a Balanced Attack, full of Hybrids like Tight Ends, Flex Ends, and FlexBacks who are genuine Threats in the Running Game and the Passing Game. Yet you and so many others continue to interpret my rather clearly stated views as being ambivalent or even hostile to the Passing Game. That's on you, my friend, not me.

3 ~ And nobody has argued more vehemently than I against spending money on Free Agents, so any Extrapolation of "Sure it would be nice to have all those guys if we could pay'm." doesn't apply hither. My Approach has always been Build Through The Draft. Let the Fools chase High Ticket Free Agents.

4 ~ As for the notion of whether or not we should be "guided by what other teams do." Um. Yeah. We will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one, my friend!!

Good Debate. Sorry I got hot under the collar. I'm detoxing Caffeine, this weekend.

 

[Off The Grid]

Fully Agreed.



If imitating someone else results in an improvement then I don't know why it wouldn't be a good idea. That said, there's nothing in the rulebook that says you can't imitate and improve upon what your competition, the Romans were renowned for this and it served them well.

Just like I wouldn't advocate not doing something because my competition is doing it I'd never abstain from doing something just because others are.

Well, sure. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

 

[jsull87]

You're right, Brother Sully: My tone was astringent. I apologize.

We actually agree on most of this. It's a fine Crew of HalfBacks.

1 ~ But it seemed incredibly clear last Year that WoodHead ~ who I loudly raved about before he ever played a Down hereabouts ~ was so clearly and so demonstrably worth far more than his Price Tag, that it was Insanity to let'm go. And the way our Offense shriveled up when Vereen got hurt proved that, all too painfully well.

2 ~ I can't imagine why you consider my Admiration of the Grizzlies even remotely contradictory of my Admiration of FlexBacks. I've always argued vehemently for a dominant Offensive Line and for a Balanced Attack, full of Hybrids like Tight Ends, Flex Ends, and FlexBacks who are genuine Threats in the Running Game and the Passing Game. Yet you and so many others continue to interpret my rather clearly stated views as being ambivalent or even hostile to the Passing Game. That's on you, my friend, not me.

3 ~ And nobody has argued more vehemently than I against spending money on Free Agents, so any Extrapolation of "Sure it would be nice to have all those guys if we could pay'm." doesn't apply hither. My Approach has always been Build Through The Draft. Let the Fools chase High Ticket Free Agents.

4 ~ As for the notion of whether or not we should be "guided by what other teams do." Um. Yeah. We will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one, my friend!!

Good Debate. Sorry I got hot under the collar. I'm detoxing Caffeine, this weekend.

Hey all good mate and as I said I always really appreciate the great debates and work you put in especially to the draft forum.