Why cut woodhead?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Why did they cut him?....maybe because he doubles as a smurf? Although Woodhead had a few good plays here & there, and picked up a few 3rd downs....he was never that good.

    The question should be:

    With backs like Vereen, Ridley, Blount & Boldin....why did they keep him around for as long as they did? Sorry, you are never going to convince me a guy who is "5 foot nothin" is going to be a force in the NFL. God I hated that little runt!!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Cloudyandrain's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What is the point? Pats have  three powerhouse RBs. I like Woodhead but I don't see we have to discuss about his release when Veereen can produce 2X much than Woodhead.

    Pats needed a running game to balance the offense for the last previous seasons.

     

    (Yay for editing button)

    [/QUOTE]

    Because Vereen hadn't proved to be able to stay healthy with the Pats, hence why Woodhead was critical last year. When you have to rely on an injury prone player you need to have a good backup, and who backed up Vereen when he went down?

    [/QUOTE]

    Vereen is not injury prone.  Bad luck with some one off injury is not "injury prone".

    It's football. Look around the league, BBW.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, neither is Amendola.  Just bad luck.  

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why did they cut him?....maybe because he doubles as a smurf? Although Woodhead had a few good plays here & there, and picked up a few 3rd downs....he was never that good.

    The question should be:

    With backs like Vereen, Ridley, Blount & Boldin....why did they keep him around for as long as they did? Sorry, you are never going to convince me a guy who is "5 foot nothin" is going to be a force in the NFL. God I hated that little runt!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Hmm. What about ray rice? He was a force. Steve smith? Force. Welker, force. There are plenty of forces under 6 foot in the nfl. I would have liked to resign woodhead, butosi think Vereen when healthy is better. It's just a shame that Vereen has missed so much time. May the force be with you.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcherbrook. Show Fletcherbrook's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Mistake on gm BB's part. Clearly. Money and ROI was a no brainer.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    BB had expended a 2nd and 3rd round draft pick on RBs. He wasn't about to ignore them if they were remotely near Woodhead in ability after spending those kind of resources. That took up two spots, and he also had Bolden who showed skill at a very cheap price. Woodhead also was less and less effective role player as time went on. BB also found Blount at a bargain price who had a very nice 1K yard rookie season and was wasting away on the TB bench.

    If Bolden wasn't around or the Blount deal didn't come across BB's roster, Woody may have stayed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wozzy whether you like it or not Woodhead showed he could return kicks, Vereen has yet to show that so your first assumption needs more time to prove out but it's not a sure thing.

    As for your second statement, Woodhead didn't get a large contract so how could you say he was going to? I'm sure he checked in with the Pats after the offer, the Pats weren't flying blind thinking he was going to get big money. 

    As for you last point I generally agree except who was the rook that came in and replaced him? For how little he got paid and the production he provided his price per production far outweighted his replacement, so while I can understand the thinking this time around it didn't pay off.

    [/QUOTE]

    I liked Woodhead as a player, but with Ridley, Blount, Bolden, Vereen and Washington he was the odd man out.  They probably envisioned Washington returning kicks and for the life of me I don't know why he wasn't, outside of some injury we were unaware of. 

    But Woody got destroyed on a kickoff at the tail end of his first year with us and the coaching staff decided it would be unwise to use him there.  He didn't return kicks going forward. 

    He might be able to return kicks, but I wouldn't risk his life doing it if it were my decision to make when there are bigger players just as capable.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hmm. What about ray rice? He was a force. Steve smith? Force. Welker, force. There are plenty of forces under 6 foot in the nfl. I would have liked to resign woodhead, butosi think Vereen when healthy is better. It's just a shame that Vereen has missed so much time. May the force be with you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ray Rice is a lot thicker than Woodhead, and (was) a whole lot more effective....even though he seems to suck now for some odd reason. Smith & Welker are receivers, and they play a different role. Smith & Welker don't get sent into the line running off tackle.

    If Smith & Welker are....let's say....5'9".....Woodhead must be around 5'4" LOL....he seriously looks like a pop warner kid out there. The only reason he squeaks out a few decent gains here & there is because nobody can find him.

    Soooo glad he is gone.......

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcherbrook's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mistake on gm BB's part. Clearly. Money and ROI was a no brainer.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sounds great, Bustchise. Nice to see you use my ROI line.  Dead giveaway.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ???

     

    your borderline clinical bro.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    As Belichick says after every draft when they trade away a first round pick "Value"....didnt want to pay the kid, and he was Kevin Faulk 2......

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Can't keep everyone, Vereen has more upside, Woodhead = sizable vet $$, Vereen rookie contract. 

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    "Hey, I do what I can.  Glad I could be of service."

    Sorry dude, I forget you prefer to flip into rageaholic mode versus take things in a good natured manner. 

    That 3-2-1 was actually meant as a complement as you do stand by your convictions.

    For what it's worth we largely agree on Woodhead, Vereen is in a position to slam that one shut in the next couple playoff games. If so, we won't see any more Woodhead threads and you won't have to flip out about that anymore.

    I'd be very concerned if you approved of how I contribute to this board, I've seen the vitriol and herd mentality of those you approve of here. I'm not here to please anyone, least of all you, or to do your hammer and nail thing. 

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe it had to do with Woodys post season production in the running game...

    14 carries for 46 yards against the jets in 2010

    7 carries for 18 yards against the giants in the SB

    6 carries for 18 yards against baltimore in the afc game

    and his best game 4 carries for 25 yards in the denver blow out.

    He does well given opportunity coming out of the back field but Vareen is clearly a more dynamic receiving back. Vareen can also run between the tackles. I disagree with pats eng assesment that we should have kept both. Vareen will make 600k this year where woody would have made 2.5 million to back him up? Doesn't make sense.

    I am glad he has a pretty big role in S.D and nobody has more heart then Woody, but he wasn't a safe player to invest in imo, not when you alread had a better version in Vareen!

    [/QUOTE]

    And here are his playoff receiving numbers before being replaced by Vereen in 2013:

    6-52, 4-25, 1-7, 4-42 1td (super bowl) = 15-126 1TD.

    That averages out to 60 catches 504 yds and 4 tds for a full season against top flight competition. Pretty solid for a 3rd down back. He's making 3.5 mil for 2 years. Vereen is more talented but has trouble staying on the field. Letting Woodhead go and signing Washington was a mistake. Pretty impossible to say otherwise with a straight face.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe it had to do with Woodys post season production in the running game...

    14 carries for 46 yards against the jets in 2010

    7 carries for 18 yards against the giants in the SB

    6 carries for 18 yards against baltimore in the afc game

    and his best game 4 carries for 25 yards in the denver blow out.

    He does well given opportunity coming out of the back field but Vareen is clearly a more dynamic receiving back. Vareen can also run between the tackles. I disagree with pats eng assesment that we should have kept both. Vareen will make 600k this year where woody would have made 2.5 million to back him up? Doesn't make sense.

    I am glad he has a pretty big role in S.D and nobody has more heart then Woody, but he wasn't a safe player to invest in imo, not when you alread had a better version in Vareen!

    [/QUOTE]

    And here are his playoff receiving numbers before being replaced by Vereen in 2013:

    6-52, 4-25, 1-7, 4-42 1td (super bowl) = 15-126 1TD.

    That averages out to 60 catches 504 yds and 4 tds for a full season against top flight competition. Pretty solid for a 3rd down back. He's making 3.5 mil for 2 years. Vereen is more talented but has trouble staying on the field. Letting Woodhead go and signing Washington was a mistake. Pretty impossible to say otherwise with a straight face.

    [/QUOTE]


    That was my point. Vareen is a better pass catching back with woody, actually Vareen is better in every facet of the game then woody other then health...so far.

    I know woody just came off of 70 plus catches. I still would rather have Vareen and it isn't close. In 8 games Vaeen had 47 catches 427 yards and 4 tds, with 208 rushing yards at 4.7. In a 16 game season, that comes out to 94 receptions, 850 receiving yards, 8 tds with another 400 rushing ant 2 more tds...in his 1st year as a starting 3rd down running back. WOW. 


    Btw, those 94 receptions in his 1st year starting as a split time RB would have been 6 less then woodhead had in his entire 4 year Patriot career. Plus, considering we were 9th in the league in rushing, at 4.4 ypc, and the chargers averaged 4.0 ypc. I guess this running back core did pretty damn good without him.

    So unless you are one of these guys who think BB's is a bad GM because he drafts guys that break their hands, or tear acl's like Gronk, or murder people like Hernandez then you know that keeping Vareen at 600k over giving woodhead a new contract at 3.5 mill to be a back up certainly was not a mistake.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As Belichick says after every draft when they trade away a first round pick "Value"....didnt want to pay the kid, and he was Kevin Faulk 2......

    [/QUOTE]


    Woody was nowhere near the receiver Faulk was.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Say hey, do you think Brady will avoid an INT in the AFC title game this year?

    [/QUOTE]

    Say hey, do you think the D can avoid giving up 80+ yard TD drives in the final couple minutes should Tom give them the lead late in the 4th quarter?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     



    That was my point. Vareen is a better pass catching back with woody, actually Vareen is better in every facet of the game then woody other then health...so far.

    I know woody just came off of 70 plus catches. I still would rather have Vareen and it isn't close. In 8 games Vaeen had 47 catches 427 yards and 4 tds, with 208 rushing yards at 4.7. In a 16 game season, that comes out to 94 receptions, 850 receiving yards, 8 tds with another 400 rushing ant 2 more tds...in his 1st year as a starting 3rd down running back. WOW. 


    Btw, those 94 receptions in his 1st year starting as a split time RB would have been 6 less then woodhead had in his entire 4 year Patriot career. Plus, considering we were 9th in the league in rushing, at 4.4 ypc, and the chargers averaged 4.0 ypc. I guess this running back core did pretty damn good without him.

    So unless you are one of these guys who think BB's is a bad GM because he drafts guys that break their hands, or tear acl's like Gronk, or murder people like Hernandez then you know that keeping Vareen at 600k over giving woodhead a new contract at 3.5 mill to be a back up certainly was not a mistake.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think anyone is questioning that Vereen is better than Woodhead when healthy the question is that health factor and why Vereen didn't have a better backup considering that. In two of those early season loses they went a combined 2 for 24 on 3rd downs and Vereen wasn't on the field because of the injury. Now if they make the SB the point is moot but if they get knocked out then the question is going to have to be asked, if Woodhead was in those games would the outcome been different. Would they have won 1 of those games giving them the #1 seed and give them a different path to the SB. If we were talking a bigger difference in contract then I'd agree but essentially what you paid Washington and A. Wilson to do nothing all year is what it would have cost to Woodhead who was proven production for the team.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to piersall's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I always enjoyed the fact that Rex Ryan cut Woodhead, and seeing the Pats get so much production from him.  Then the Pats let him go. Never knew why.  Was it a salary issue?  Anyone read anything on this.  He's such a popular team player, and a proven toughie on the field.

    [/QUOTE]


    Typical stupid bandwagon fan post. You don't pay that kind of money to a #4 back.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Vereen can return kicks in a pinch, Woodhead cannot.  Vereen has a rookie wage, Woodhead was going to receive a large contract.  

    This a a lot like the Law Firm move and the Kyle Love and Brandon Deaderick moves, if you can get the same production from a rookie or undrafted free agent rather than overpay for a guy then you do it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wozzy whether you like it or not Woodhead showed he could return kicks, Vereen has yet to show that so your first assumption needs more time to prove out but it's not a sure thing.

    As for your second statement, Woodhead didn't get a large contract so how could you say he was going to? I'm sure he checked in with the Pats after the offer, the Pats weren't flying blind thinking he was going to get big money. 

    As for you last point I generally agree except who was the rook that came in and replaced him? For how little he got paid and the production he provided his price per production far outweighted his replacement, so while I can understand the thinking this time around it didn't pay off.

    [/QUOTE]


    He got a large contract considering where he was on the Pats RB depth chart.

     

Share