Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

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

    Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    Has anyone noticed that there has been a slight dropoff in the reps that Woodhead is getting? I was watching how well they worked him into the fold in the second half last Sunday, and was thinking about how he has been quiet this season.

    Here is his 2011 season pace:
    15 game pace
    78 rushes
    21 catches
    0TDS

    2010
    14 games
    96 rushes
    36 catches
    5 TDs rushing
    1 TD recieving

    I think they should try to get him involved a little bit more. As a runner and as a reciever. He can be such a spark for the offense. He is the best Pat with the ball in the open field, and despite his size, he is actually pretty good at fighting for tough yardage (imagine a bar of soap with 150 horsepower, lol). 

    He's obviously not big enough to carry a full load without getting hurt, which is why you have other runners to make up the other 300-350 rushing plays and he is the change of pace back, but he should get more touches when they are not in shotgun as a straight runner, and more touches that Faulk is getting (though I like Faulk on the roster).

    Anyone else notice this, have thoughts about the drop off? 

    Also, is it possible they are trying to protect him a bit better this season because of his injury?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Homecheese. Show Homecheese's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    I have no idea why the dropoff other then O'Brien. I would really like to see him more involved though especially if you're giving BGE 15 to 20 carries to wear down the defense and then insert Woodhead who can break some big runs. They need to run more. They use the pass to set up the run but never seem to run to set up the pass
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    We should get him a jester outfit and have him juggle on the sideline.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]I have no idea why the dropoff other then O'Brien. I would really like to see him more involved though especially if you're giving BGE 15 to 20 carries to wear down the defense and then insert Woodhead who can break some big runs. They need to run more. They use the pass to set up the run but never seem to run to set up the pass
    Posted by Homecheese[/QUOTE]


    This is also about the passing game. He's seen an even greater hit in reps there. I just mean to say, that the kid is electric in the open field, and can be a real spark-plug. 

    I'm talking about more reps, in total, passing or running. 

    Instead of blaming O'brien, what situations might have caused this? 

    I wish there were a "snaps per" record out there, outside of the weekly offering (which is a pain to get to) on ESPN Boston. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]We should get him a jester outfit and have him juggle on the sideline.
    Posted by Davedsone[/QUOTE]

    Not sure of your joke. Was it a pun on getting him more touches? LOL.

    Anyhow, love the Admiral Akbar avatar. Man, that dude was the grossest good-guy in a sci-fi film. 

    Usually the really ugly sci-fi folks are always bad.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Homecheese. Show Homecheese's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    Thats true. Why they aren't throwing more screens and just getting him the ball more in general is beyond me. With teams now focusing more on Welker and Gronk (whos playing even better this year) that should open things up more for Woodhead. I still think Faulk is the better blocker of the 2 but at this point Woodhead is more electrifying with the ball in his hands. Maybe they're saving him for the playoffs but I still don't get why he wasn't used more when Faulk was out. He doesn't seem to be injured in any way
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]Thats true. Why they aren't throwing more screens and just getting him the ball more in general is beyond me. With teams now focusing more on Welker and Gronk (whos playing even better this year) that should open things up more for Woodhead. I still think Faulk is the better blocker of the 2 but at this point Woodhead is more electrifying with the ball in his hands. Maybe they're saving him for the playoffs but I still don't get why he wasn't used more when Faulk was out. He doesn't seem to be injured in any way
    Posted by Homecheese[/QUOTE]

    Didn't he get hurt a few weeks ago? He didn't seem hurt, like you say. 

    In fact, he was more effective against the Jets than any other RB last Sunday. 

    Faulk is definitely the better blocker, but Woodhead is the second best blocker in the RB group. Was that him, though, that was essentially eaten alive on the safety last week? Or was it Benny or Faulk? I can't recall. One of them was steamrolled. 

    Anyhow, yeah. I think NE should dip back into the playbooks. They ran screens very effectively when Weiss was here, and even during McDaniel's brief stint.

    It seems like they have used less since they went the the 2TE monster they have now. 

    It seems like a minor tweek, but running a couple more of those could be an effective way of getting him more involved. 

    Also, running him right out of the backfield, and up the gut as well. He did muff that catch that caused an INT against Buffalo, but I still think he can get separation. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    Woodhead should get the ball more, I think they're outsmarting themselves with the 4 RB rotation.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Homecheese. Show Homecheese's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    I think it was Benny but I could be wrong. I think the 2TE monster they have would also make the screen more effective with bigger, faster bodies to block downfield. Send them out on routes, set up the screen and use Gronk and Hernandez to pick up safeties and corners and send Mankins, Waters ect. to pick up the DE's and Lb's. Like you said though, some simple tweaking is all it would take.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    Woody certainly got the playing time last week, and had the best production. He had the ankle sprain and missed a few games didn't he? Now with Faulk back I think its just a matter of his injury and trying to get each guy some touches.

    I would rather see them use Benny and Wood as the primary backs with Faulk in limited action. I think it's important to let a guy have an opportunity to find a  rythm.


    If Benny can't get it done, give Ridley a chance to be the work horse. In either case the current pass to run ratio makes me nervous. Brady is getting hit too much for his age.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]Has anyone noticed that there has been a slight dropoff in the reps that Woodhead is getting? I was watching how well they worked him into the fold in the second half last Sunday, and was thinking about how he has been quiet this season. Here is his 2011 season pace: 15 game pace 78 rushes 21 catches 0TDS 2010 14 games 96 rushes 36 catches 5 TDs rushing 1 TD recieving I think they should try to get him involved a little bit more. As a runner and as a reciever. He can be such a spark for the offense. He is the best Pat with the ball in the open field, and despite his size, he is actually pretty good at fighting for tough yardage (imagine a bar of soap with 150 horsepower, lol).  He's obviously not big enough to carry a full load without getting hurt, which is why you have other runners to make up the other 300-350 rushing plays and he is the change of pace back, but he should get more touches when they are not in shotgun as a straight runner, and more touches that Faulk is getting (though I like Faulk on the roster). Anyone else notice this, have thoughts about the drop off?  Also, is it possible they are trying to protect him a bit better this season because of his injury?
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    I think he may still be recovering from his 2nd concussion.  He may be a little gun shy from taking hard hits again; especially if he's being asked to take on blocks when picking up a blitz. He's missed a few of those and looks like he's getting bowled over at this point.

    The running lanes really have been closed as of late. I think he does better running behind a lead block because he can cut back so quickly since he's so hard to see.

    The type of calls by O'Brien has been lousy too.

    As you've mentioned before, the play calling should be less predictable...same is true whoever may be at the RB position.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    I want to see Vereen, lol.

    But yeah, Woodhead needs touches, he is great in the no huddle offense.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]Thats true. Why they aren't throwing more screens and just getting him the ball more in general is beyond me. With teams now focusing more on Welker and Gronk (whos playing even better this year) that should open things up more for Woodhead. I still think Faulk is the better blocker of the 2 but at this point Woodhead is more electrifying with the ball in his hands. Maybe they're saving him for the playoffs but I still don't get why he wasn't used more when Faulk was out. He doesn't seem to be injured in any way
    Posted by Homecheese[/QUOTE]

    screens tend to work best when D is over aggressive in pursuing the QB. Some teams have had sucess harrassing Brady with less - and dropping more in coverage - so, effectiveness of screens isn't as high.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]Woodhead should get the ball more, I think they're outsmarting themselves with the 4 RB rotation.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    I've been advocating getting rid of RB by committe for a while...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved? : I've been advocating getting rid of RB by committe for a while...
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    Two is OK, maybe three if you run a lot. Four guys splitting 20 carries is silly. I think the coaches need to say, "who gives us the best chance" and stick with it. We play more RBs in a game than WRs and they are on the field every snap at 2-3 at a time. I just don't think a RB needs a 20min break after every play, does more harm than good.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeffh102082. Show jeffh102082's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    Seems like he's had a bigger role the past few games to me, but I dont have any proof of it other then just watching and noticing


    In Response to Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]Has anyone noticed that there has been a slight dropoff in the reps that Woodhead is getting? I was watching how well they worked him into the fold in the second half last Sunday, and was thinking about how he has been quiet this season. Here is his 2011 season pace: 15 game pace 78 rushes 21 catches 0TDS 2010 14 games 96 rushes 36 catches 5 TDs rushing 1 TD recieving I think they should try to get him involved a little bit more. As a runner and as a reciever. He can be such a spark for the offense. He is the best Pat with the ball in the open field, and despite his size, he is actually pretty good at fighting for tough yardage (imagine a bar of soap with 150 horsepower, lol).  He's obviously not big enough to carry a full load without getting hurt, which is why you have other runners to make up the other 300-350 rushing plays and he is the change of pace back, but he should get more touches when they are not in shotgun as a straight runner, and more touches that Faulk is getting (though I like Faulk on the roster). Anyone else notice this, have thoughts about the drop off?  Also, is it possible they are trying to protect him a bit better this season because of his injury?
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

     I'm also a little confused with Woodhead's role at times. He looks great on that final drive against the Cowboys and a week later he's replaced by Faulk who seemed to really lack any burst against the Steelers. I also like Faulk but I thought they should have worked him in slower. Woodhead seems to finally be over his injuries and I feel he is being wasted as a kick returner. I picture another concussion every time i see woodhead returning a kick. The offensive line has not been playing that great recently so Woodhead has had to block a lot more than the Pats would probably prefer.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    SmileYes, electrifying (spark) is the way I describe Woodhead as well,  reliable, fast, and a great option on screens etc and for a smaller back he's tough and elusive. Tough to bring down for a small back and he makes them miss. Surprisingly, you're right about Danny up the middle on occassion for a small guy he does it well.
     

    Yes, I believe injury (near concussion) is the reason. I'm hoping they use him
    more as I miss his presence and seems healthy again. I think we will see more of Danny Woodhead coming up on the edge using the TE and pulling guard as before. The kid is a weapon for sure. I feel more confident with Danny out there.
     

    Ellis and Woodhead did well together last year But to get far in the playoffs the Pats got to show the run much more often and now is the time for it and showcase both the new RB's a bit more to see what they have in real game action. I think they have a real good one in either Ridley or Vereen but wo'nt know unless they play them, now is that time to find out.

    Wishing you and all good health and happiness....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hang3xc. Show hang3xc's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    It would have been nice if Brady connected with him those couple of off throws. Woodhead was definitely "on" last week.

    I think a lot of RB's like more carries so they can get feel out what the defense is doing, find a way to counter if it's not going great to start, get in a groove, and then by the later part of the game they are breaking through regularly and picking up good chunks of yardage, picking up 1st downs, & running the clock out.

    Just my 2 cents... and worth at least 1/2 of that... maybe
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from palookaski. Show palookaski's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]It would have been nice if Brady connected with him those couple of off throws. Woodhead was definitely "on" last week. I think a lot of RB's like more carries so they can get feel out what the defense is doing, find a way to counter if it's not going great to start, get in a groove, and then by the later part of the game they are breaking through regularly and picking up good chunks of yardage, picking up 1st downs, & running the clock out. Just my 2 cents... and worth at least 1/2 of that... maybe
    Posted by hang3xc[/QUOTE]

    Your point is well taken, hang3xc. Getting in the groove running! Doing a Run play in a walkthrough is one thing but in addition the O'Line is also losing out on the in-game Run Block techniques and getting in the groove from what the D is showing them. They need more run blocking experience, and that translates to the RB. it all adds up.

    Have a good night....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    I think he has been limited because he isn't a good blocker and isn't that great a receiver. He can run, but in those other two areas he is not up to snuff compared to Faulk in his day.

    Unlike some, I thought he was more to blame on the throw to the end zone corner vs the jets.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

     The endzone throw would have been fine if it was to Moss who was great at catching those wrong side passes but Woodhead was wide open and there is no way at his height he was catching that inbounds. If Brady throws it too the other shoulder it's an easy TD. Brady is probably not used to throwing that pass to someone like Woodhead so I do not lose sleep over it but Woodhead beat his man and the ball was uncatchable (at least for someone Woodhead's size) so i blame Brady for that one. People here expect Brady to be perfect on every pass, but i don't but on occasion even the best miss an easy one.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FrnkBnhm. Show FrnkBnhm's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]I think he has been limited because he isn't a good blocker and isn't that great a receiver. He can run, but in those other two areas he is not up to snuff compared to Faulk in his day. Unlike some, I thought he was more to blame on the throw to the end zone corner vs the jets.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    He is not usually a bad blocker, do not judge by the one play vs the Jets. I am pretty sure I remember Faulk getting trucked once in the game vs the Steelers. As far as coming him to Faulk in his day, that is all well and good, but, unfortunately, Faulk's day has long since passed... And, by the way, his 11.1 yards per catch last year is higher than Faulk ever put up and is 5.6 yards per carry is not far off. 

    If now in his second season with the team he doesn't know how to pick up blitzes doesn't some of that have to be on the coaching staff.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved? : screens tend to work best when D is over aggressive in pursuing the QB. Some teams have had sucess harrassing Brady with less - and dropping more in coverage - so, effectiveness of screens isn't as high.
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    Losing RB by committee would entail bringing in a back that simply doesn't exist. 

    BJGE is a practical no-show in the passing game. Woody is too small to take the pounding. You would need to merge the two of them to make a 'feature back' for this offense. 

    You are correct. Screens wouldn't have helped much (a little) against the Gints. But they looked good the couple of times they used them against the Jests. 

    I was wishing they had called a few against the Steelers. They did not. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?

    In Response to Re: Getting Danny Woodhead Involved?:
    [QUOTE]I think he has been limited because he isn't a good blocker and isn't that great a receiver. He can run, but in those other two areas he is not up to snuff compared to Faulk in his day. Unlike some, I thought he was more to blame on the throw to the end zone corner vs the jets.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    I think he is an ok blocker, and a good one for a 3rd down back. He isn't the chip-artist Faulk was in his prime, but he's getting there.

    I certainly think he is as good a receiving back his size in the NFL.

    The guy has a small frame, but makes some pretty good catches. 

    The pass on the wheel route was tough to figure, because we don't really know who is supposed to be where, when. 

    I would tend to put it on Brady, even though it is a tough throw with a small target. Whatever, the guy was basically stellar for most of the game. He only missed on like four or five passes in the entire game. 

    The play/scramble in front of the endzone on 3rd down (that was negated) was pure artistry ... it's the one I would show Manning fans to demonstrate his superiority. 
     

Share