A Case for Waiving Woodhead

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I like Danny Woodhead, but I'm wondering if we need to move in a different direction with him.  My guess is Vereen and Ridley are locks. Bolden is slightly taller and heavier than Woodhead - and considering the status of the OL, we need some extra insurance that a RB or TE can protect Brady. There are only so many roster spots, so, I'm thinking a FB, Bolden, and a 3rd TE is a must.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I think you will need 4 RBs as they take a pounding; Vereen did not make it to last year so am not sure as to durability.  I thik Waters does come back and the line gels when Makins returns as well
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I think you can absolutely trade him for a late round pick to a team that needs a third down back...

    That being said... I think they should and will keep him. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    With Addai not working out, I'd be surprised if they got rid of him.  Even if Vereen does become the "starter" at the passing back position, they'll want a back-up and Woodhead is the only guy on the roster right now who fits that bill. Plus he's the only back now with a few years of experience. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]I think you will need 4 RBs as they take a pounding; Vereen did not make it to last year so am not sure as to durability.  I thik Waters does come back and the line gels when Makins returns as well
    Posted by provpats[/QUOTE]

    agree, but why not take a chance on Bolden - who has more upside than Woody....and keep a FB who might be able to play ST and be a bigger body for 3rd and short situations, and who can protect brady better?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]I like Danny Woodhead, but I'm wondering if we need to move in a different direction with him.  My guess is Vereen and Ridley are locks. Bolden is slightly taller and heavier than Woodhead - and considering the status of the OL, we need some extra insurance that a RB or TE can protect Brady. There are only so many roster spots, so, I'm thinking a FB, Bolden, and a 3rd TE is a must.
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

    Hmmm...sorry, there ain't one IMHO.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I don't think there will be enough experience at the position if you release him, plus he's a pretty good player. Never mind the fact that runners go down with injuries every week - we need all the good players we can get. I do see some of the logic in the thread, but really if we just use him in more a Kevin Faulk type of roll, rather than the way tended to use him last year...he should do well.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    Agreed, plus if we put Woody in the slot he would probably become our best slot receiver after Welker...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I say keep him.  I think Vereen, Ridley and Bolden are competing for 2 spots, with Woodhead being the 3rd guy.  BUT we kept 5 before, so no surprise if we keep 4 here.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sfpat. Show sfpat's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I think they should cut everyone (except TB).  Then most posters on this board will be happy as they will have no-one to complain about.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    I don't see any scenario in which Woody is waived... kid's too versatile (RB/Slot/ST duties) and is clearly a player that BB likes/trusts.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]Agreed, plus if we put Woody in the slot he would probably become our best slot receiver after Welker...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Isn't that why we have Edelman?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]I don't see any scenario in which Woody is waived... kid's too versatile (RB/Slot/ST duties) and is clearly a player that BB likes/trusts.
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]

    the only knock on Woody is that he's not a good blocker, and can be a liability regarding health of Brady. Until guys like Solder and Cannon mature/improve, the OL needs a lil more help to protect Brady.  The offense can't afford to keep Gronk or Hernandez back to block all the time because we need them catching balls, hence, a 3rd all-around TE or a FB who can block, run, and play ST.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : the only knock on Woody is that he's not a good blocker, and can be a liability regarding health of Brady. Until guys like Solder and Cannon mature/improve, the OL needs a lil more help to protect Brady.  The offense can't afford to keep Gronk or Hernandez back to block all the time because we need them catching balls, hence, a 3rd all-around TE or a FB who can block, run, and play ST.
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

    BB seems to have some confidence in him as a blocker because he keeps sending him out there (would be curious on what % of 3rd down snaps he saw last season), but I'd have to think that Vereen is a kid that they hope can help out on 3rd down as well and still provide the flexibility to catch the football on dump passes/screens or run draws as needed... giving teams another option that they'd need to account for.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bspikes55. Show Bspikes55's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : the only knock on Woody is that he's not a good blocker, and can be a liability regarding health of Brady. Until guys like Solder and Cannon mature/improve, the OL needs a lil more help to protect Brady.  The offense can't afford to keep Gronk or Hernandez back to block all the time because we need them catching balls, hence, a 3rd all-around TE or a FB who can block, run, and play ST.
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

    Woodhead is our second best rb.... also who do you have in mind as this mysterious blocking back all our fbs are hurt and TE are inline blockers not blitz pickup guys woodhead isnt even THAT bad at that
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    Woodhead will be the main 3rd down back.  Now way Woodhead gets cut this season.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    Ridley/Vereen/Bolden/Woodhead + FB

    I don't see BB keeping more then 5 total backs and I don't see him keeping less at a position where injuries are so common place.

    You don't cut your third down back, while Vereen supposedly has all the tools to be a great 3rd down back, what if he goes down with injury?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    Anyone know what Woody's cap hit is?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : BB seems to have some confidence in him as a blocker because he keeps sending him out there (would be curious on what % of 3rd down snaps he saw last season), but I'd have to think that Vereen is a kid that they hope can help out on 3rd down as well and still provide the flexibility to catch the football on dump passes/screens or run draws as needed... giving teams another option that they'd need to account for.
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure what his third down % was last season, but I was surprised he wasn't used more like they used to use Faulk. I expected screens, draws, swing passes, delays, etc. Instead it looked like they were using him like a normal back - I personally think it was because of a lack of "lead" back talent and maybe because he wasn't capable of doing the things Faulk did? IDK, but it was strange to me. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : I'm not sure what his third down % was last season, but I was surprised he wasn't used more like they used to use Faulk. I expected screens, draws, swing passes, delays, etc. Instead it looked like they were using him like a normal back - I personally think it was because of a lack of "lead" back talent and maybe because he wasn't capable of doing the things Faulk did? IDK, but it was strange to me. 
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    IMO, it prob had more to do with schematics than skill set (both Vereen and Woody could be really effective in this area)... hopefully McDaniels will work a lot more of the screen game into the offense.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : Isn't that why we have Edelman?
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

    Edelman or Woody seem to be the only two guys on our team that can return kicks...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : agree, but why not take a chance on Bolden - who has more upside than Woody....and keep a FB who might be able to play ST and be a bigger body for 3rd and short situations, and who can protect brady better?
    Posted by anonymis[/QUOTE]

         The Pats will need at least four RBs. Too many injuries at that position to gamble on keeping just three, plus a FB. But, who knows? BB has done stranger things.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead

    posted at 8/12/2012 10:20 AM EDT
     
    Posts: 4154
    First: 7/20/2006
    Last: 8/12/2012
    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead:
    In Response to Re: A Case for Waiving Woodhead : I'm not sure what his third down % was last season, but I was surprised he wasn't used more like they used to use Faulk. I expected screens, draws, swing passes, delays, etc. Instead it looked like they were using him like a normal back - I personally think it was because of a lack of "lead" back talent and maybe because he wasn't capable of doing the things Faulk did? IDK, but it was strange to me. 
    Posted by mthurl


    IMO, it prob had more to do with schematics than skill set (both Vereen and Woody could be really effective in this area)... hopefully McDaniels will work a lot more of the screen game into the offense.


    I agree MB. I don't think those plays were part of what OB liked to call, unfortunately for the offense. Talent is not an excuse for calling a one dimensional game plan. I think McD is bringing back some I formation, and some FB work. The RB receptions/screens etc should increase this year!
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share