Why cut woodhead?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

    [/QUOTE]


    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

    [/QUOTE]


    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

    [/QUOTE]


    OH Jeeze, maybe the fact that he's played in less than half the games in his 3 year career, might give you a clue.

    But, hey, I like the guy.  He's electric when on the field (minus the enormous amount of drops).  Unfortunately that doesn't happen more often than not.

    Fail

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest

    [/QUOTE]


    I have every right to say whatever I want when I want regardless of what you think.  I have requested proof for years of this theory of purposefully losing games.  No one's given me proof.  The statute of limitations has run out. 

    Woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You do have the right to troll websites and make an azz of yourself. After all this is America.

    [/QUOTE]

    And I have you as my example.  SurprisedSurprised

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

    [/QUOTE]


    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

    [/QUOTE]


    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

    [/QUOTE]


    OH Jeeze, maybe the fact that he's played in less than half the games in his 3 year career, might give you a clue.

    But, hey, I like the guy.  He's electric when on the field (minus the enormous amount of drops).  Unfortunately that doesn't happen more often than not.

    Fail

    [/QUOTE]


    You let me know when you develope the device that scientifically measures whether a player will get injured or not.

    The simple fact is that more and more players are getting injured every season as the size and speed of the players increases. That's why teams want to expand the cap and roster. The NFL season is battle of attrition. The healthiest playoff teams are more likely to go far. You can't deny that.

    You can't attach the 'injury prone' label to everyone that gets injured especially when it comes to broken bones. If your insurance company tripled your rates because you got hit a couple of times by people running stop signs you'd be pissed when they gave you the reason that you're accident prone wouldn't you?

    Most NFL injuries fall into the 'sheet happens' category. This guy hit the ground wrong. That guy got hit over while his cleat was solidly in the turf.

    Bones break. Kness and ankles only bend in certain directions and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest

    [/QUOTE]


    I have every right to say whatever I want when I want regardless of what you think.  I have requested proof for years of this theory of purposefully losing games.  No one's given me proof.  The statute of limitations has run out. 

    Woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You do have the right to troll websites and make an azz of yourself. After all this is America.

    [/QUOTE]

    And I have you as my example.  SurprisedSurprised

    [/QUOTE]


    Really? Have you ever seen me on the Colts site?

    Nice try redifining what trolling is. Just admit what you are.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Same thing will happen to Edelman... we will let him walk.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest

    [/QUOTE]


    I have every right to say whatever I want when I want regardless of what you think.  I have requested proof for years of this theory of purposefully losing games.  No one's given me proof.  The statute of limitations has run out. 

    Woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You do have the right to troll websites and make an azz of yourself. After all this is America.

    [/QUOTE]

    And I have you as my example.  SurprisedSurprised

    [/QUOTE]


    Really? Have you ever seen me on the Colts site?

    Nice try redifining what trolling is. Just admit what you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was focusing on the comment about making an azz of yourself.  LaughingLaughing  Glen's foot - meet isht. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

    [/QUOTE]


    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

    [/QUOTE]


    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

    [/QUOTE]


    OH Jeeze, maybe the fact that he's played in less than half the games in his 3 year career, might give you a clue.

    But, hey, I like the guy.  He's electric when on the field (minus the enormous amount of drops).  Unfortunately that doesn't happen more often than not.

    Fail

    [/QUOTE]


    You let me know when you develope the device that scientifically measures whether a player will get injured or not.

    The simple fact is that more and more players are getting injured every season as the size and speed of the players increases. That's why teams want to expand the cap and roster. The NFL season is battle of attrition. The healthiest playoff teams are more likely to go far. You can't deny that.

    You can't attach the 'injury prone' label to everyone that gets injured especially when it comes to broken bones. If your insurance company tripled your rates because you got hit a couple of times by people running stop signs you'd be pissed when they gave you the reason that you're accident prone wouldn't you?

    Most NFL injuries fall into the 'sheet happens' category. This guy hit the ground wrong. That guy got hit over while his cleat was solidly in the turf.

    Bones break. Kness and ankles only bend in certain directions and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, guys get injured, however it doesn't take a rocket scientist or device to figure out that some guys get injured more often than others.

    Some guys rarely get hurt.  Woody

    Some guys often get hurt. Vereen, Gronk, Amandola, RasI..... on and on and on

      It's really not that hard to see the difference.

    When it's an anomaly for a player to last a whole season, well, there's your sign.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

    [/QUOTE]


    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

    [/QUOTE]


    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

    [/QUOTE]


    OH Jeeze, maybe the fact that he's played in less than half the games in his 3 year career, might give you a clue.

    But, hey, I like the guy.  He's electric when on the field (minus the enormous amount of drops).  Unfortunately that doesn't happen more often than not.

    Fail

    [/QUOTE]


    You let me know when you develope the device that scientifically measures whether a player will get injured or not.

    The simple fact is that more and more players are getting injured every season as the size and speed of the players increases. That's why teams want to expand the cap and roster. The NFL season is battle of attrition. The healthiest playoff teams are more likely to go far. You can't deny that.

    You can't attach the 'injury prone' label to everyone that gets injured especially when it comes to broken bones. If your insurance company tripled your rates because you got hit a couple of times by people running stop signs you'd be pissed when they gave you the reason that you're accident prone wouldn't you?

    Most NFL injuries fall into the 'sheet happens' category. This guy hit the ground wrong. That guy got hit over while his cleat was solidly in the turf.

    Bones break. Kness and ankles only bend in certain directions and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, guys get injured, however it doesn't take a rocket scientist or device to figure out that some guys get injured more often than others.

    Some guys rarely get hurt.  Woody

    Some guys often get hurt. Vereen, Gronk, Amandola, RasI..... on and on and on

      It's really not that hard to see the difference.

    When it's an anomaly for a player to last a whole season, well, there's your sign.

    [/QUOTE]

    How many snaps does Woody take per game compared to other players? He's small, low to the ground and hard to grasp. These things make it less likely he'll get hurt but they also limit his usefulness.

    Comparing what's asked of Woody to what's asked of Gronk and Vereen is dishonest. Both are more likely to be injured because of their job.

    Just so you know had the roster expension and cap increase gone into affect last year you would probably still see him here

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    I listed his whole contract because that is what it would have taken to keep him. Washington was one of the best KR's in the league. It was worth it. Woodhead was not a good KR, he was slow. Washington was hurt( or the coaches dididn't like him? I guess) . Again, hindsight. If we kept woodhead and vareen didn't get hurt then he doesn't see the field. Bottom line. Apparently bolden came in and did an adequate job as we are 12-4 with another bye week.

    And here is where we can end the discussion....if you think BB made mistakes by signing Gronk and volmer in the 2nd round of the draft then I can't go on. Gronk is injury prone, why? Because he was busy breaking the touch down record for 1st 3 years a guy has been in the league.  I guess there was a fully disclosed  condition in Gronk and Vareens medical reports that makes their acls tear easier when guys crash into their knee caps, or their bones crack when guys land on top of them. BB made a big mistake signing Gronkowski???????.....ok, now ive heard it all.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes that's what it would have taken to keep him but that's not what counts on a single year of the cap so it's very misleading to state $3.5mil vs $700k when in reality it was $1.25mil vs $700k. You see the difference? 

    Yes Washington was a better kick returner but this is where we differ, I would rather have a high productive player who averaged 5-10 carries and 5-10 pass a game than a pure kicker returner for the $50k difference. Esp, considering Vereen is injury prone and more than likely Woodhead would of had to start in his place. So, while Washington did get injured in my argument that's not even a concern since imo for their roles Woodhead would have been more productive than Washington as a whole for essentially the same amount of money (again for this year Washington was orginally signed for $50k less than what Woodhead was paid this season).

    For your 2nd point of course I'd want Gronk and Vollmer on the team but my point still stands if you are counting on those players you'd better have good backups to replace them. If you aren't going to spend the money on good backups then no I wouldn't want them. Why, because if they can't play when you need them to play and not having them effects your team to the point where they become one of the worst RZ teams in the league then what's the point of having them? It's a matter of production vs pay. The value of the production to what you pay them has to be closer to the value of production to the guy that replaces them when they aren't available. For example if you pay a player 10mil for half a seasons worth of production and because of that you can only give his replacement $700k and he only gives you 50% of the production then your team greatly suffes for half the season. However, if you have the ability to spend more on the backup and say the backup can give 80% of the production then the lose of half the season seems a bit more sustainable. Again, if you are going to rely on injury prone players you need proper backup plans for them otherwise maybe you shouldn't be signing/drafting them if the drop off for their backups is so great.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

    [/QUOTE]


    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

    [/QUOTE]


    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

    [/QUOTE]


    OH Jeeze, maybe the fact that he's played in less than half the games in his 3 year career, might give you a clue.

    But, hey, I like the guy.  He's electric when on the field (minus the enormous amount of drops).  Unfortunately that doesn't happen more often than not.

    Fail

    [/QUOTE]


    You let me know when you develope the device that scientifically measures whether a player will get injured or not.

    The simple fact is that more and more players are getting injured every season as the size and speed of the players increases. That's why teams want to expand the cap and roster. The NFL season is battle of attrition. The healthiest playoff teams are more likely to go far. You can't deny that.

    You can't attach the 'injury prone' label to everyone that gets injured especially when it comes to broken bones. If your insurance company tripled your rates because you got hit a couple of times by people running stop signs you'd be pissed when they gave you the reason that you're accident prone wouldn't you?

    Most NFL injuries fall into the 'sheet happens' category. This guy hit the ground wrong. That guy got hit over while his cleat was solidly in the turf.

    Bones break. Kness and ankles only bend in certain directions and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, guys get injured, however it doesn't take a rocket scientist or device to figure out that some guys get injured more often than others.

    Some guys rarely get hurt.  Woody

    Some guys often get hurt. Vereen, Gronk, Amandola, RasI..... on and on and on

      It's really not that hard to see the difference.

    When it's an anomaly for a player to last a whole season, well, there's your sign.

    [/QUOTE]

    How many snaps does Woody take per game compared to other players? He's small, low to the ground and hard to grasp. These things make it less likely he'll get hurt but they also limit his usefulness.

    Comparing what's asked of Woody to what's asked of Gronk and Vereen is dishonest. Both are more likely to be injured because of their job.

    [/QUOTE]


    Woody took at least twice as many snaps as Vereen.  They are the same player.

    Not comparing Gronk to Woody, comparing oft injured players to healthy ones.  Some players are always hurt. their position is irrelevant.  Always being in the Prone position, is what matters.  Again, it's not difficult to see who is often injured and who is not and it's not difficult to project off that.

    Edelman didn't get a contract due to his injuries.  Vereen won't either, when his time comes.

    3, half years on the field, does not a contract make.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to auchhhhhhhhhhh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Same thing will happen to Edelman... we will let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]

    Care to wager?

    [/QUOTE]

    They better keep Edelman..  They are testing fate if they let him walk.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to stinkman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to auchhhhhhhhhhh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Same thing will happen to Edelman... we will let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]

    Care to wager?

    [/QUOTE]

    They better keep Edelman..  They are testing fate if they let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not so sure they would be testing fate to let him walk but might be to sign him depending on the contract. Imo Edelman is going to ask for a similar contract to Amendola, as he should. Personally I think that Amendola's contract wasn't all that great and they overpaid for him. The only thing I have to compare to was what the Rams reported offer was but the Pats blew that away and you didn't really hear about any other teams really tossing around big numbers with him. Now Edelman gives you a lot more, which includes PRs, but that extra also increase the risk of his red flag, staying healthy. I'm not sure giving an Amendola type contact is in their best interests of the team as they already have quite a lot of money tied up into players who have had issues staying healthy in their careers. If they can get Edelman to a reasonable deal then I'm all for it, if it will take a Amendola type deal or more then that's a big risk for a player who has only 1 healthy productive season under his belt.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stinkman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to auchhhhhhhhhhh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Same thing will happen to Edelman... we will let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]

    Care to wager?

    [/QUOTE]

    They better keep Edelman..  They are testing fate if they let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not so sure they would be testing fate to let him walk but might be to sign him depending on the contract. Imo Edelman is going to ask for a similar contract to Amendola, as he should. Personally I think that Amendola's contract wasn't all that great and they overpaid for him. The only thing I have to compare to was what the Rams reported offer was but the Pats blew that away and you didn't really hear about any other teams really tossing around big numbers with him. Now Edelman gives you a lot more, which includes PRs, but that extra also increase the risk of his red flag, staying healthy. I'm not sure giving an Amendola type contact is in their best interests of the team as they already have quite a lot of money tied up into players who have had issues staying healthy in their careers. If they can get Edelman to a reasonable deal then I'm all for it, if it will take a Amendola type deal or more then that's a big risk for a player who has only 1 healthy productive season under his belt.

    [/QUOTE]

    He is young . A good punt returner..  As long is brady is healthy he will put up numbers..  They can always ask someone to take a pay cut. They have no need to look any where else, no need to let brady get aquainted to a slot reciever.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    I don't 2nd guess many of BB's decisions but this one I did and it's clear I'm not alone.  Always thought it was a mistake.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

    [/QUOTE]


    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

    [/QUOTE]


    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

    [/QUOTE]


    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

    [/QUOTE]


    OH Jeeze, maybe the fact that he's played in less than half the games in his 3 year career, might give you a clue.

    But, hey, I like the guy.  He's electric when on the field (minus the enormous amount of drops).  Unfortunately that doesn't happen more often than not.

    Fail

    [/QUOTE]


    You let me know when you develope the device that scientifically measures whether a player will get injured or not.

    The simple fact is that more and more players are getting injured every season as the size and speed of the players increases. That's why teams want to expand the cap and roster. The NFL season is battle of attrition. The healthiest playoff teams are more likely to go far. You can't deny that.

    You can't attach the 'injury prone' label to everyone that gets injured especially when it comes to broken bones. If your insurance company tripled your rates because you got hit a couple of times by people running stop signs you'd be pissed when they gave you the reason that you're accident prone wouldn't you?

    Most NFL injuries fall into the 'sheet happens' category. This guy hit the ground wrong. That guy got hit over while his cleat was solidly in the turf.

    Bones break. Kness and ankles only bend in certain directions and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, guys get injured, however it doesn't take a rocket scientist or device to figure out that some guys get injured more often than others.

    Some guys rarely get hurt.  Woody

    Some guys often get hurt. Vereen, Gronk, Amandola, RasI..... on and on and on

      It's really not that hard to see the difference.

    When it's an anomaly for a player to last a whole season, well, there's your sign.

    [/QUOTE]

    How many snaps does Woody take per game compared to other players? He's small, low to the ground and hard to grasp. These things make it less likely he'll get hurt but they also limit his usefulness.

    Comparing what's asked of Woody to what's asked of Gronk and Vereen is dishonest. Both are more likely to be injured because of their job.

    [/QUOTE]


    Woody took at least twice as many snaps as Vereen.  They are the same player.

    Not comparing Gronk to Woody, comparing oft injured players to healthy ones.  Some players are always hurt. their position is irrelevant.  Always being in the Prone position, is what matters.  Again, it's not difficult to see who is often injured and who is not and it's not difficult to project off that.

    Edelman didn't get a contract due to his injuries.  Vereen won't either, when his time comes.

    3, half years on the field, does not a contract make.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And how important has Edelman been to the offense this season when he's been uninjured? According to your formula we wouldn't even have him this year had his contract expired end of last season. Woody could blow out a knee in practice today and where would that put this injury theory? It's a roll of the dice. Sometimes you roll a 7 sometimes you crap out.

    If I'm wrong...I've never actually shot craps

     
  19. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to stinkman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    He is young . A good punt returner..  As long is brady is healthy he will put up numbers..  They can always ask someone to take a pay cut. They have no need to look any where else, no need to let brady get aquainted to a slot reciever.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And if not for the injury history he wouldn't even be on the team right now. This past offseason the only reason another team didn't scoop him up was because of that injury history. That's the major risk you are taking to sign him to a deal. Let's put it in context with the Amendola deal:

    5yrs $32.5 mil 6mil signing 4 mil guaranteed. Now on face value that looks like a pretty good deal and most who don't know much about the cap would jump on that saying it's an excellent deal. However, it's only excellent if he plays out 3yrs of that contract at the level at which his value is. I'll explain. His first year he's on the books for $3.2mil. Now that is pretty good but comparitively to other vet receivers he underperformed that type of cap hit. The reason mainly being the time he missed for injures, now that can change this postseason but with ability to work around the cap a $3.2mil cap hit you should expect slightly more production. Next year his cap becomes $4.2mil. It's well worth keeping him around because the dead money if cut is 6.8 mil so it costs you less regardless if he underperforms or overperforms but for the sake of argument lets say he has another year like this year. Again he'll underperform his contract hit mainly due to injures. Going into the 3rd year his cap hit becomes $5.2mil. At this point if his production didn't improve from the 1st year it's worth cutting him lose as the cap hit of $3.6 actually saves you $1.6mil on the cap (about the price you would pay a replacement WR for similar production in the 1st year of their contracts). So, essentially you paid $11mil for 2 years of sub par production or $5.5mil per year (Amendola's production certainly doesn't warrent that much money if next year repeats this year). His contracts value is directly related to amount of time played and production. If he produces more and is healthy then it can become a good contract, however, if if continues to follow his career averages then this contract looks like a flop. Edelmans contract would essentially work the same way. If he remains healthy and he produces as he did this year it would be a great contract for production given, however, if his health this year was more of the exception than the rule then that contract becomes a liability. If you need a contract to weight it against look at Lloyds. Now the contracts were setup in a similar manner but the reason why it turned into a bad contract is different. Lloyd didn't fit on the team and was a bad locker room influence but all in all it boils down to production vs price and it was ruled that his production didn't warrent the headache. As such his dead money this year gets added to what he made in that first year. Now Lloyd made $2mil the first year and the dead money was $3.5mil effectively meaning we paid $5.5mil for Lloyds 12' performance (oddly enough same as Amedola's price if cut after next year). You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say Lloyd's production warrented that much of a hit and similarly you'd be hard pressed to find anyone argee Amendola's current production (per season) would warrent it either. So, it would be a gamble if Edelman will stay healthy or not. If Healthy it's worth it, if not healthy then it would be considered a bad contract for production given. 

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't 2nd guess many of BB's decisions but this one I did and it's clear I'm not alone.  Always thought it was a mistake.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is Blount/Vereen over Woodhead a mistake? We don't need 2 scatbacks where one never would see the field.

    Vereen is cheaper than Woodhead adn Vereen/Blount together actually may be cheaper overall.

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out why people are obsessed with this topic.  Woodhead fumbled against the Raiders and they lost the game. SD barely qualified for the postseason. They lost to Houston.

    Woodhead is a fine little scatbacke, but he can't do what Vereen does, like line up as a WR and produce.

    Blount/Vereen with varying skill sets at RB tare clearly better for the team.

    Do people want to win a SB or not? Finesse dwarf scatbacks all up and down your roster don't win you SBs.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Just another case of hindsight by the armchair GMs.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't 2nd guess many of BB's decisions but this one I did and it's clear I'm not alone.  Always thought it was a mistake.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is Blount/Vereen over Woodhead a mistake? We don't need 2 scatbacks where one never would see the field.

    Vereen is cheaper than Woodhead adn Vereen/Blount together actually may be cheaper overall.

    For the life of me, I cannot figure out why people are obsessed with this topic.  Woodhead fumbled against the Raiders and they lost the game. SD barely qualified for the postseason. They lost to Houston.

    Woodhead is a fine little scatbacke, but he can't do what Vereen does, like line up as a WR and produce.

    Blount/Vereen with varying skill sets at RB tare clearly better for the team.

    Do people want to win a SB or not? Finesse dwarf scatbacks all up and down your roster don't win you SBs.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Just another case of hindsight by the armchair GMs.

    [/QUOTE]

    David Meggett lol. I get the point though.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to stinkman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to auchhhhhhhhhhh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Same thing will happen to Edelman... we will let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]

    Care to wager?

    [/QUOTE]

    They better keep Edelman..  They are testing fate if they let him walk.

    [/QUOTE]


    My first question to that would be...is Boras his agent?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest

    [/QUOTE]


    I have every right to say whatever I want when I want regardless of what you think.  I have requested proof for years of this theory of purposefully losing games.  No one's given me proof.  The statute of limitations has run out. 

    Woodhead's a traitor.

    [/QUOTE]


    You do have the right to troll websites and make an azz of yourself. After all this is America.

    [/QUOTE]

    And I have you as my example.  SurprisedSurprised

    [/QUOTE]


    Really? Have you ever seen me on the Colts site?

    Nice try redifining what trolling is. Just admit what you are.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was focusing on the comment about making an azz of yourself.  LaughingLaughing  Glen's foot - meet isht. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yup a troll says so then it must be true. You and Leon should get married then you can troll this board together

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share