Why cut woodhead?

  1. 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 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?

    [/QUOTE]

    He would get top $$$$.. bet on that.

     
  2. 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]


    Woody does not move from the backfield and line up as a wide or slot does he?

    As for Gronk...this board has been loaded with get rid of Gronk because he's injury prone threads. After he rebroke his arm last years playoffs they were everywhere.

     
  3. 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 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.

    [/QUOTE]


    The concept of paying for good quality backups is mostly lost here. How many times has BB been bashed here for not picking up an expensive big name free agent? He understands that in todays NFL you have to plan on losing a half dozen of your starters for extended periods over the course of the season. He'd rather pay for some decent plug and play backups than a big name free agent who may or may not decide to mail it in after he signs for a lot of guarenteed money.

     

    As I said before had the increased roster and cap gone into effect he would still be here. And yes I know the roster has only increased for preseason but eventually the NFL is going to have to due something to compensate for the increase in injuries and the tightening rules for concussions. I'm not aguing against mandatory concussion sit outs but if they are serious about mandatory tests with low thresholds then they are going to have to allow for more backups.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Hey, lying loser, did you see where I caught you being a lying loser?  What a fool.  Working from home today, Mr President?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    stop talking to yourself.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hey, lying loser, did you see where I caught you being a lying loser?  What a fool.  Working from home today, Mr President?

    [/QUOTE]


    Poor little boy. Why so much anger. It wouldn't be due to the second year in row with NYC being the poster child of worthless sports teams would it?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    stop talking to yourself.

    [/QUOTE]


    Is this your big example of your great sports mind. Do you and Babe share the same idiotic halucinations as well as the same bed? I was posting here while you were still sucking your mom's bags. That is if you've stopped.

    Temper temper little boy

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.



    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.

    [/QUOTE]



     

    As I said before had the increased roster and cap gone into effect he would still be here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Glen, I don't think he would. THey have been searching for more power at RB. Bolden has some of it, Ridley has some, but Woodhead and Vereen aren't power backs and/or

    The day BB drafted Vereen, barring Vereen not being any good or a bust, that meant Woodhead wasn't going to see a new deal in a flat cap nor was BB going to get into a bidding war.

    The comedy of it all is that Woodhead would be the NY Jets' best RB by a mile. LOL

    They're utter morons. They drafted and then kept Joe McKnight. abwhahahah

    [/QUOTE]


    The bowling ball back. Every team needs one expecially in the winter. It had been replaced by the two huge receiver tight end formation but we no longer have that so we need the bowling ball back again.

    And don't forget we now have a true run leading fullback again.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    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.



    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, I understand your point, but still think it wouldnt have made sense to sign him if you intended to cut him next year of vareem didnt get injured

    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.but you wouldn't have got those numbers from wood as a back up 3rd down back. Do you see that? 

     

     

    Esp, considering Vereen is injury prone and more than likely Woodhead would of had to start in his placeI think the label b.s. I think we redshirted vareen his 1st year because we had woodhead on the cheap.

     

    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).again, I disagree, I think when you remove injuries from the equation washington was a great kick returner and woodhead was an insurance policy who wouldn't play unless.

    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.now, I agree with you here. I dont understand how we couldn't have known fells, and ballard were not the guys, and of they weren't then we should have had someone other them suddfield

    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.again, injury prone is a b.s label man. A guy had a back surgery so he's injury prone? Oops he broke a bone in his arm so yep, oh a guy crashed full force into his knee so yep, inju

    ry prone..yep... no, I don't think so. It is hindsight logic and its bogus imo.QUOTE]



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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Budgets for 10M in dead money?    Bwahahahaha

    Too bad 2012 was 23M and 2013, 16.6 M.  Guess he messed that up.  BAD!!!

    It's not hard for rookies to beat out pathetic draft picks and Fa's that suck.

    This is your dead money, and that leaves ONLY enough money left to sign rookies and UDFA's and cheap retreads..  who will also be replaced, because most of them suck too.  Vicious cycle!

    The reason they are playing with an unheard of, 15 rookies and UDFA's is because the past years rookies and FA's sucked and there is no money left to pay anyone else because of all that DEAD money (40 F'n million from paying players no longer on the team, over two years,)

    Pathetic.

    The only reason they even have a dime to spend is TB's constant restructures.  FACT!

    Learn the game

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. 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 DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Budgets for 10M in dead money?    Bwahahahaha

    Too bad 2012 was 23M and 2013, 16.6 M.  Guess he messed that up.  BAD!!!

    It's not hard for rookies to beat out pathetic draft picks and Fa's that suck.

    This is your dead money, and that leaves ONLY enough money left to sign rookies and UDFA's and cheap retreads..  who will also be replaced, because most of them suck too.  Vicious cycle!

    The reason they are playing with an unheard of, 15 rookies and UDFA's is because the past years rookies and FA's sucked and there is no money left to pay anyone else because of all that DEAD money (40 F'n million from paying players no longer on the team, over two years,)

    Pathetic.

    The only reason they even have a dime to spend is TB's constant restructures.  FACT!

    Learn the game

    [/QUOTE]


    Has the NFL gotten so bad that studying contracts is part of 'learning the game'?

    Fact is there is no magic formula to tell a GM and coach how a player is going to perform..rookie or FA. You can give an educated guess from past performance and character but there have been so many instances of players doing a 180 from one year to the next to ignore the reality that it will always be some part luck.

    That's why this site is always loaded with coulda/shoulda threads. Always has and always will be.

     
  15. 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 TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    stop talking to yourself.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's been blatantly obvious you've had a mental disorder here for a while, but this seals it.

    Not debatable now.

    [/QUOTE]


    I predate you here anyway. You were Commie at one time weren't you?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Budgets for 10M in dead money?    Bwahahahaha

    Too bad 2012 was 23M and 2013, 16.6 M.  Guess he messed that up.  BAD!!!

    It's not hard for rookies to beat out pathetic draft picks and Fa's that suck.

    This is your dead money, and that leaves ONLY enough money left to sign rookies and UDFA's and cheap retreads..  who will also be replaced, because most of them suck too.  Vicious cycle!

    The reason they are playing with an unheard of, 15 rookies and UDFA's is because the past years rookies and FA's sucked and there is no money left to pay anyone else because of all that DEAD money (40 F'n million from paying players no longer on the team, over two years,)

    Pathetic.

    The only reason they even have a dime to spend is TB's constant restructures.  FACT!

    Learn the game

    [/QUOTE]

    You guys ever notice other people can passionately disagree and still have an intelligent discussion without 5th grade tactics and proclaiming all their opinions as "FACT" LOSER,  LEARN THE GAME...and all that crap?

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Budgets for 10M in dead money?    Bwahahahaha

    Too bad 2012 was 23M and 2013, 16.6 M.  Guess he messed that up.  BAD!!!

    It's not hard for rookies to beat out pathetic draft picks and Fa's that suck.

    This is your dead money, and that leaves ONLY enough money left to sign rookies and UDFA's and cheap retreads..  who will also be replaced, because most of them suck too.  Vicious cycle!

    The reason they are playing with an unheard of, 15 rookies and UDFA's is because the past years rookies and FA's sucked and there is no money left to pay anyone else because of all that DEAD money (40 F'n million from paying players no longer on the team, over two years,)

    Pathetic.

    The only reason they even have a dime to spend is TB's constant restructures.  FACT!

    Learn the game

    [/QUOTE]

    False. They;ve been decimated by injuries this year to key starters (mostly on D) and the scouting and drafts since 2010 have been outstanding.  


    We've already talked about this and everyone with a brain sees it.

    The base has been built through the draft in a flat cap since 2011 (or 2010, really, sinice no one was spending in the uncapped year to avoid losing leverage in the lockout, minus stupid Washington and Dallas).

    Brady is wildly overpaid as is Manning, Flacco, etc. Fact.  So, he needed to restructure.  It was a ridiculous contract to begin with....Brady was due for a new deal in the uncapped 2010, into 2011, in the middle of a lockout and that contract has actually now sabotaged other franchises, which is what makes this so funny. You're too stupid to see that.

    Next, FAs and trendy names in FAs don't make a base of a team or win you SBs. NOs tried it, Philly just tried it, the Jets tried, etc, etc...What happened?  

    Baltimore, Detroit, NYGs, Steelers, GB Packers, etc, all had to pay their QBs and now are in a cap hell because their drafts and other salary allocation has been poor.  This is a fact.  All of those teams teetered around .500 or dropped below. Some have missed the postseason 2 years in a row in horrendous divisions.  Hmm.

    Our team loses almost it's entire starting Defensive front and have other All Pro injuries on offense (Vollmer, Gronk), and they go 12-4.

    It's over. You lost. I won. Clear as day. I nailed the analysis years ago for the entire board to read, called the Jets debacle to the T, and here we are, with you still not getting it, which means your IQ is very low or you're just being belligerent to be belligerent.

    The scouting, drafting and coaching of these younger players has been nothing short of outstanding in recent years, so any of the dead money here is not a factor to the overall team, as continuously proven. 

    Many of the FAs BB targeted in this time period have been strategic and helpful in some fashion, too. Crumpler, Warren, Donald Thomas, Andre Carter, Mark Anderson, Woodhead himself, now Sielver Siliga, Brandon Lloyd, Svitek, Tommy Kelly....All these names made the team and helped in various ways.

    You're just a moron who wants Mario Williams and MIke Wallace here, so you can get that media reassurance your small brain  needs, which is embarrassing for you as an adult.

    Think about that. YOU HAVE TO have reassurance to feel good about anything and cannot think for yourself as an adult.  THat's not only scary, it's pathetic.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. 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 DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Budgets for 10M in dead money?    Bwahahahaha

    Too bad 2012 was 23M and 2013, 16.6 M.  Guess he messed that up.  BAD!!!

    It's not hard for rookies to beat out pathetic draft picks and Fa's that suck.

    This is your dead money, and that leaves ONLY enough money left to sign rookies and UDFA's and cheap retreads..  who will also be replaced, because most of them suck too.  Vicious cycle!

    The reason they are playing with an unheard of, 15 rookies and UDFA's is because the past years rookies and FA's sucked and there is no money left to pay anyone else because of all that DEAD money (40 F'n million from paying players no longer on the team, over two years,)

    Pathetic.

    The only reason they even have a dime to spend is TB's constant restructures.  FACT!

    Learn the game

    [/QUOTE]


    Has the NFL gotten so bad that studying contracts is part of 'learning the game'?

    Fact is there is no magic formula to tell a GM and coach how a player is going to perform..rookie or FA. You can give an educated guess from past performance and character but there have been so many instances of players doing a 180 from one year to the next to ignore the reality that it will always be some part luck.

    That's why this site is always loaded with coulda/shoulda threads. Always has and always will be.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not disputing the draft is a crap shoot but FA's shouldn't be and the number of failures is astounding, as evidenced by the excessive Dead money..  With the amount of picks Bb has had, is it better to draft 6 or 7 and have to cut and pay 3 or 4; or draft 15, where 10 0r 12 of them have to be cut and paid?   Hmm cut and pay 3 or cut and pay 10, every year.. 

    That's expensive and a waste of resources..

    It's not disputable that those failures have caused them to enlist the cheap player.

    I do think that a troll that says BB budgets for 10M in dead money should have a clue before he makes such a foolish statement.  In other words, know what the hell he is talking about.  Don't you?

     
  22. 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 glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    stop talking to yourself.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's been blatantly obvious you've had a mental disorder here for a while, but this seals it.

    Not debatable now.

    [/QUOTE]


    I predate you here anyway. You were Commie at one time weren't you?

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you talking to Shizzles/Triple OG?

    [/QUOTE]


    only if by talk you mean exchanging words. If you mean interlligent conversation...no. I haven't had a problem with shizzles. I fact I've argued with you over the years more often than him

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. 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:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly, Glen. It's why I've said before BB also adds in contingencies for the possibility of dead money, probably around 10 mil per, from the simple fact of injury OR the player being beaten out by a hungrier, younger and cheaper player.

    But, the point is, that stuff is already built in to the budget.  

    Some people here don't get this. Like the Hernandez cap hit next year, while making it more difficutl simply not having that person here already paid for, won't hurt the team because BB is so good at finding and using talent here, while coaching it up.

    If the choice is Woodhead or Blount, at this rate, I am going with Blount due to a need of skill set and the fact we have Vereen here anyway.

     

     




    Budgets for 10M in dead money?    Bwahahahaha

     

    Too bad 2012 was 23M and 2013, 16.6 M.  Guess he messed that up.  BAD!!!

    It's not hard for rookies to beat out pathetic draft picks and Fa's that suck.

    This is your dead money, and that leaves ONLY enough money left to sign rookies and UDFA's and cheap retreads..  who will also be replaced, because most of them suck too.  Vicious cycle!

    The reason they are playing with an unheard of, 15 rookies and UDFA's is because the past years rookies and FA's sucked and there is no money left to pay anyone else because of all that DEAD money (40 F'n million from paying players no longer on the team, over two years,)

    Pathetic.

    The only reason they even have a dime to spend is TB's constant restructures.  FACT!

    Learn the game




    Has the NFL gotten so bad that studying contracts is part of 'learning the game'?

    Fact is there is no magic formula to tell a GM and coach how a player is going to perform..rookie or FA. You can give an educated guess from past performance and character but there have been so many instances of players doing a 180 from one year to the next to ignore the reality that it will always be some part luck.

    That's why this site is always loaded with coulda/shoulda threads. Always has and always will be.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not disputing the draft is a crap shoot but FA's shouldn't be and the number of failures is astounding, as evidenced by the excessive Dead money..  With the amount of picks Bb has had, is it better to draft 6 or 7 and have to cut and pay 3 or 4; or draft 15, where 10 0r 12 of them have to be cut and paid?   Hmm cut and pay 3 or cut and pay 10, every year.. 

    That's expensive and a waste of resources..

    It's not disputable that those failures have caused them to enlist the cheap player.

    I do think that a troll that says BB budgets for 10M in dead money should have a clue before he makes such a foolish statement.  In other words, know what the hell he is talking about.  Don't you?

    [/QUOTE]


    I wouldn't say that it's a given with FAs. Depends on how hungry they are for a ring or whether they are just looking to cash in one last time.

    I'm not ready to question the practices of BB or the front office. Maybe those decades of suffering under the Sullivans has something to do with it. Fans who were not raised with the Lombardi Trophy shaped silver spoon tend to be more realistic about winning every year. I've also lived from the 60s/early 70s Celtics through the the crap years before Bird then the crap years from then on. Same goes for the Bruins.

    There's a reason why not many teams have more than 2 SBs and half of those haven't won one in decades. I don't think any of the 4+ teams did it with the same QB except San Fran.

     

Share