Why cut woodhead?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp'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]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    I only state facts and follow it up as reminder by saying "fact" for effect.  They don't like to accept what the facts are.

    People like Jizzdispenser just scramble to deflect away from Brady's poor postseason play of late, so they say what they say, as wrong as they are, to use rhetoric such as 
    "dead money" factors when they don't show us all other 31 NFL teams' dead money for context.

    It's suspicious, disingenuous and sneaky.

    BB carried dead money, plenty of it, while winning 3 SBs in 4 years.

    True Champ, you are smart enough to know what this is about here. They're on edge with Brady playing in the AFC title game or SB again. If he chokes it down again and plays poorly yet again, they will not hold him accountable again.

    That's how disingenuous they are as humans. Frauds and hypocrites.  The worst of humanity.

    [/QUOTE]


    The facts are the Pats have an excessive amount of dead money, almost always.

    The fact is, this is a result of poor FA acquisitions, not injuries.  Dead money is players cut and no longer on the team.  Very few of those are injury related , Ras I. But he was a bad pick to begin with.  ALWAYS INJURED!!!!!

    Dead money is Lloyd, Ocho, Fat Albert, Brace, Love, Cunningham.  FAILURES!

    The fact is, this has nothing to do with TB other than him bailing BB out of cap hell, because of his BAD picks, frequently.

    Your jealousy of TB is delicious, though.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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

    [/QUOTE]


    wow is this an attempt to hide the fact that youve agreed with everything he sais for the last 3 years??   If you are gonna slam my intelligence, you should atleast be able to spell the word, IJS. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?


    Glenr, why so many posts today? serious question.....you on vacation?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    The funniest part about this thread is that when he was here, Woodhead was a sub par, talentless, undrafted player who our worthless GM signed because he stinks at player evaluation... now that he's gone, he is the next coming of Barry Sanders and it's "why didn't we re-sign him."

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4'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]

    He made a play for someones wife .And not just anyones at that....

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp'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]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]


    Like, ice down your chest, so you don't bruise, kind of stuff?  Like your constant, so and so sucks, to make fun of another poster's opinion, threads?

    What a hypocrite.  What a rusty.  LMAO@U

     
  8. 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 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

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you just ask I was Commie COntrarian? lol

    Oh my.

    Let me get this straight:

    Shizzles just asked me to stop talking to myself when I responded to you, which means he thinks you and I are the same person, but you're aligning with Shizzles?

    How does that make sense?

    YOU SHOULD have a problme with Shizzles because his trolling just said you and I are the same person, when you and I know that is not true.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I've heard that idiotic childish excuse for ages. All it proves that they can't back their BS so they resort to silly excuses. It also proves that they are nothing but Babe clones in a circle jerk.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The funniest part about this thread is that when he was here, Woodhead was a sub par, talentless, undrafted player who our worthless GM signed because he stinks at player evaluation... now that he's gone, he is the next coming of Barry Sanders and it's "why didn't we re-sign him."

    [/QUOTE]


    Dude,. you know thats not the case. He was a fan favorite here but as usual you align with Rusty and BB so he can do wrong. Rusty is the only guy that complained of Woody being subbed in and blamed THAT for losing. I loved Woody and have been asking for BB to resign him since his 1st year here. Dont be a trolll like rusty. You are better than that. Why would anyone hate Woody? He was great here.

     
  10. 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 TrueChamp'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]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]


    Like, ice down your chest, so you don't bruise, kind of stuff?  Like your constant, so and so sucks, to make fun of another poster's opinion, threads?

    What a hypocrite.  What a rusty.  LMAO@U

    [/QUOTE]


    Like you never do it? Is there a single poster here who hasn't gone off on someone?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you just ask I was Commie COntrarian? lol

    Oh my.

    Let me get this straight:

    Shizzles just asked me to stop talking to myself when I responded to you, which means he thinks you and I are the same person, but you're aligning with Shizzles?

    How does that make sense?

    YOU SHOULD have a problme with Shizzles because his trolling just said you and I are the same person, when you and I know that is not true.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I've heard that idiotic childish excuse for ages. All it proves that they can't back their BS so they resort to silly excuses. It also proves that they are nothing but Babe clones in a circle jerk.

    [/QUOTE]


    sais the guy who has never had an original thought. Im on peoples radar cuz I dont always say whats popular but I DO back up everything I say with facts and/or insight,proof,. anaylsis, stats,whatever the case and the homers just say BB is always right and since he is a good coach they look good half the time and slam us for saying something negative. I dont mind which stance you take, what kind of poster you are, but if you dont bring any football discussion...why are you here?  Outside of you saying you like playaction Ive seen NO football thought from today in like 30 posts. You must be proud of yourself like Rusty is for being recognized on the previous page.

    Its been Fun Guys!

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:


    Glenr, why so many posts today? serious question.....you on vacation?



    Why are you asking child? You already claimed I post here everyday so you can halucinate any reason you like to satisfy your little ego.

    If I were on vacation the last place I'd be would be here. But if this is your fun vacation idea I feel even more pity for you.

    If you must know I have a rare week in the office and since I have 2 large monitors I can program, do research and post at the same time. Maybe your toy computer doesn't support extended desktop.

    Since you actually are here 24/7 what's your story? Obviously you have no life outside this board. Your whole male self image is wrapped around childish claims of spanking posters in discussions that have no actual effect on normal people's lives. Normal people find that pathetic.

    As for me 'liking play action'...if you were capable of an intelligernt thought you'd know that play action was big in all 3 of our SB runs. You'd also know that you need a running game for it to be affective. But hey why bother with these pesky little football facts when you can just toss around childish internet banter.

    Even if my mention of play action was the only thing I posted all day it would be one more intelligent post than you had in the hundred or so you posted today

     
  14. 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 glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    Did you just ask I was Commie COntrarian? lol

    Oh my.

    Let me get this straight:

    Shizzles just asked me to stop talking to myself when I responded to you, which means he thinks you and I are the same person, but you're aligning with Shizzles?

    How does that make sense?

    YOU SHOULD have a problme with Shizzles because his trolling just said you and I are the same person, when you and I know that is not true.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I've heard that idiotic childish excuse for ages. All it proves that they can't back their BS so they resort to silly excuses. It also proves that they are nothing but Babe clones in a circle jerk.

    [/QUOTE]


    sais the guy who has never had an original thought. Im on peoples radar cuz I dont always say whats popular but I DO back up everything I say with facts and/or insight,proof,. anaylsis, stats,whatever the case and the homers just say BB is always right and since he is a good coach they look good half the time and slam us for saying something negative. I dont mind which stance you take, what kind of poster you are, but if you dont bring any football discussion...why are you here?  Outside of you saying you like playaction Ive seen NO football thought from today in like 30 posts. You must be proud of yourself like Rusty is for being recognized on the previous page.

    Its been Fun Guys!

    [/QUOTE]


    Mommy calling you up from the basement or just disappointed because your internet tough guy act is being laughed at. Leon does the same thing. Preen and run

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dude,. you know thats not the case. He was a fan favorite here but as usual you align with Rusty and BB so he can do wrong. Rusty is the only guy that complained of Woody being subbed in and blamed THAT for losing. I loved Woody and have been asking for BB to resign him since his 1st year here. Dont be a trolll like rusty. You are better than that. Why would anyone hate Woody? He was great here.

    [/QUOTE]

    You align me with Rusty, I have my own original thoughts. 

    Nobody "hated" Woody, the way some of these fans act here are is pretty evident, after a great game the player is the best, after a poor game the player sux. 

    Woody was just another undrafted feel good story here, but he wasn't the answer, now that he is in San Diego he is greatly missed even though we're 12-4 and had a first round bye. 

    The playoffs are littered with Patriot castoffs, once again proving that just because you're good enough to start in San Diego or for the Colts doesn't mean you can even make the Patriot roster... we're that good.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?


    Vereen= Woodhead. easy. saved us money. yes vereen got hurt, but sh1t we went 12-4... would Woody have made much of a difference to make us 13-3 or 14-2? I don't think so.

    like i said, i love Woody. but it was his time to go and make bank. We found someone with more talent (if he could stay on the field) for less $ in the coming years. its easy.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The funniest part about this thread is that when he was here, Woodhead was a sub par, talentless, undrafted player who our worthless GM signed because he stinks at player evaluation... now that he's gone, he is the next coming of Barry Sanders and it's "why didn't we re-sign him."

    [/QUOTE]


    Dude,. you know thats not the case. He was a fan favorite here but as usual you align with Rusty and BB so he can do wrong. Rusty is the only guy that complained of Woody being subbed in and blamed THAT for losing. I loved Woody and have been asking for BB to resign him since his 1st year here. Dont be a trolll like rusty. You are better than that. Why would anyone hate Woody? He was great here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Woody was fine, but let's not go overboard for a guy who was a part timer. He averaged about 7 touches a game for the Pats last year. Seven touches!

    He was not and is not now, a difference maker. He's a good story, a decent player. Change of pace, versatile, good solid player.

    He's no Kevin Faulk and he's not nearly the talent that Vereen is. Anybody that compares those two talent-wise, is really not paying attention. 

    He's more durable, I'll give him that. But this team would not be any better off record wise and would not be in a better position to win a championship, if Woodhead were on the roster. Period.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. 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 wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The funniest part about this thread is that when he was here, Woodhead was a sub par, talentless, undrafted player who our worthless GM signed because he stinks at player evaluation... now that he's gone, he is the next coming of Barry Sanders and it's "why didn't we re-sign him."

    [/QUOTE]

    Because that's  what they do, Wozzy. They shift around their argument.  If Nink was let go after this year after a 91 tackle, 8.5 sack, 2 FF season, they'd be all over BB.

    But, the trolls have whined about him for years.

    It's never enough. What has happened is the media brainwashed some of our fans into thinking BB stinks as a GM or isn't good enough, which is their way of rationalizing why Brady and the offense crapped the bed in two SBs and other playoff games for this fanbase.

    That's why they do this.

    And don't bother responding saying you don't agree with me, because I know you and TC do.

    We've been all over the root cause of the playoff losses for years now.  You don't have to go as far as I do with Brady needing to be held accountable as much as anyone on the offense, but the run game/Brady under Center factor we clearly agree on.

    Good news is, the odds favor that nightmare ideology coming to an end this postseason.

    Woodhead was a small representation of that offensive ideology addiction and failure.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Some of these same kids were whining about Nic the first quarter of the season. It's typical bandwagon know nothing posters. EVERY draftee and FA should immediately be a pro bowler 30 seconds after they are assigned their locker.

    In fact our whole team should be made up of future HofF players except that BB is an idiot and Kraft is cheap.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. 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 wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The funniest part about this thread is that when he was here, Woodhead was a sub par, talentless, undrafted player who our worthless GM signed because he stinks at player evaluation... now that he's gone, he is the next coming of Barry Sanders and it's "why didn't we re-sign him."

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for proving once again how clueless you are. Mr Big Football Knowledge Man! What a joke. Why not go all the way. Lets manage players based on fans clicking a 'like' button on facebook. Brilliant strategy sure to result in SB after SB
    Dude,. you know thats not the case. He was a fan favorite here but as usual you align with Rusty and BB so he can do wrong. Rusty is the only guy that complained of Woody being subbed in and blamed THAT for losing. I loved Woody and have been asking for BB to resign him since his 1st year here. Dont be a trolll like rusty. You are better than that. Why would anyone hate Woody? He was great here.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Vereen has had a handful of great games but has not had the consistent production woodhead has had the last couple years. maybe vereen continues to grow into the roll and has better luck with his health- maybe not

     
  24. 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 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?

    [/QUOTE]


    I would 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. 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.

    [/QUOTE]


    I grew up living minutes from Schaefer stadium.  I worked at the race track as a kid.  I was always there.

    I am well aware of the Sullivan years, however,  that will never and could never sway my opinion that this team could have been better with better draft picks, better FA acquisitions, keeping good players and better money management.

    Isn't that what it's all about?  Being better?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dude,. you know thats not the case. He was a fan favorite here but as usual you align with Rusty and BB so he can do wrong. Rusty is the only guy that complained of Woody being subbed in and blamed THAT for losing. I loved Woody and have been asking for BB to resign him since his 1st year here. Dont be a trolll like rusty. You are better than that. Why would anyone hate Woody? He was great here.

    [/QUOTE]

    You align me with Rusty, I have my own original thoughts. 

    Nobody "hated" Woody, the way some of these fans act here are is pretty evident, after a great game the player is the best, after a poor game the player sux. 

    Woody was just another undrafted feel good story here, but he wasn't the answer, now that he is in San Diego he is greatly missed even though we're 12-4 and had a first round bye. 

    The playoffs are littered with Patriot castoffs, once again proving that just because you're good enough to start in San Diego or for the Colts doesn't mean you can even make the Patriot roster... we're that good.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually the whole NFL is littered with cast offs from other teams. And they are not all worthless at their current team. Some people just excell under certain circumstances and with a certain group of players and coaches.

     

Share