Why cut woodhead?

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    Kevin Faulk's legacy comes from ALL of his years with the team. I don't see how any comparison can be made with guys who have played a couple of season. Personally I don't see a guy who seemed to have the ability to get 1/2 inch over the first down line time after time like he did coming around again for a long time.

    If ever

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. 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 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 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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady's last 3 home AFC Title games feature 3 TDs, 7 INTs.   The arrogance and heavy irony of you not acknowledging that the team's MOST EXPENSIVE and best player needs to be BETTER when it matters, is not lost on anyone here, especially me.

    Got that Brady blow up doll ready for action Saturday night, do ya? Industrial sized jar of Vaseline on hand?

    Our own draft picks and developed players have out-competed or been better than some FA acquisitions, too.

    You'll never win this because you can't see straight behind that Brady doll.

    [/QUOTE]

    also keep in mind those teams that Brady lost to went on to win the SB.  They were pretty good teams you are talking about. Baltimore beat everybody last year

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    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?



    So?  Every team in the NFL could be better because every team doesn't get every decision correct.  This is a completely useless argument to make.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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

    The Pats and other teams do it all the time for cap room considerations and as far as injures you have to play the odds and the odds said Vereen gets injured

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

     Woodhead was Vereens backup last year and got those numbers

     I think the label b.s. I think we redshirted vareen his 1st year because we had woodhead on the cheap.

     We can argue all day about injure prone players or not but there is always some type of injury or nagging injury with Vereen. He didn't have this many issues in college so this one really did come from left field but there is always something, hence the injury redshirt.

    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.

    I agree I loved the idea of Washington as a returner. Def one of the best in the league the previous 2 years. However, with the new kickoffs rules I would say a 3rd down backup for a player who averages 8 games a year might be a bit more important. Now if you argue Bolden for Washington I think you'd have a strong cause for Washington considering you already had 2 better players who fit the same role in Blount and Ridley

    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

    Ballard was a gamble and I always say never count on gambles which is why I didn't want to rely on Armstead. If they work out all the better but I don't like to count on them. Fells on the other hand imo they had to have known after a full healthy year what he was going to give. With the TE position I'll give them the bye because honestly no one could have seen the Hern situation coming but I still think they could have tried to bring a guy in camp or even tried to find a way to hold on to Sudfield if they were that thin (Hoom and that kid from GB at that point if I remember right)

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

    It's not 1 surgery (ie I don't label Kelly or Wilfork injury prone), it's when a guy has consistant injures throughout their career. Freak injures or nagging ones somehow they always get hurt. I don't know how it happens but there are certain players you know won't make it through a season. Talib, Amendola, Vereen. Heck it's not just this sport look at Ellsbury. The guy is constantly hurt. Who knows why it happens but some guys just have bad luck whether we like it or not. BTW it's not hindsight because I've been saying this since before the season. I said Talib won't last the full season so I wouldn't sign him long term, I said I didn't like Amendola because he was constantly injured, I wanted Woodhead back specifically because you couldn't count on Vereen lasting a season. I said I didn't like the Ras pick because of his nagging injury issues in college (he didn't miss many games but he was always knicked up every week). I said this at the beginning of last offseason so how is it hindsight? I'd agree if I just started say this by all means get on me for hindsight but True you know I've been ringing this bell for a long time now. If you are going to rely on players who constantly get injured their fault, your fault, no ones fault then you need to have effective backups. Now they did with Vollmer (Cannon) and they did with Talib in a way (Ryan, though I wonder if Ryan was drafted to be Talibs replacement next year) but they had an effective backup for Vereen and let him slip through their hands for $50k this year (difference in Washington orginal contract vs what Woodheads cap hit is this year) and potential $500k dead money next year. To me that wasn't worth the gamble. I also wish they got another vet WR just in case because of Amendola's and Edelmans history. Now it looks like they were thinking the same thing in Sanders but out thought themselves drawing too fine of a line in the contract sand but thankfully Edelman had his first full season with the Pats. However, I still think not having that extra vet hurt them and might hurt them in the playoffs. Hopefully Collie can find a way to make up for it because we are going to need him.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Stink, I know that, but you have to admit, Brady has played poorly and he and the offense alll but served up the games those teams won vs the Pats.

    NYGs D, Balt's, NYJs, all those Ds were overrated. They just get up to play the PAts and want to kill Brady, but Brady's shotgun spread addiction just played right into that, which is why his postseasons of late have been so poor.

    BJGE may not have been a great RB here, but he was certainly consistent, moved the sticks nicely, a solid goal in back, fightting for extra yards, etc, and never fumbled while here.

    To ignore that as a value is absolutely ludicrous.  

    Balt's D was shredded by Denver and SF, too, last year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes he needs to play better.. I agree, and i expect the team to follow the same path as well.

     
  9. 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 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 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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Brady's last 3 home AFC Title games feature 3 TDs, 7 INTs.   The arrogance and heavy irony of you not acknowledging that the team's MOST EXPENSIVE and best player needs to be BETTER when it matters, is not lost on anyone here, especially me.

    Got that Brady blow up doll ready for action Saturday night, do ya? Industrial sized jar of Vaseline on hand?

    Our own draft picks and developed players have out-competed or been better than some FA acquisitions, too.

    You'll never win this because you can't see straight behind that Brady doll.

    [/QUOTE]


    If Brady sucks that is the fault of the same guy who fails at the draft, fails at FA acquisitions, Fails at money management, starts the sucky QB and allows him to ruin his team,  and fails to put a SB winning team together.

    You, little fluffy azz, pathological liar, narcissistic, bigoted tool, are too stupid to know what you are even saying, and the obvious loser.

     

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Woodhead wasn't a high priced FA and the difference in cap space between him and Washingtons orignial contract was $50k so cap room wasn't an issue. Woodhead was a well needed depth piece last year as he backed up Vereen so not sure if you were agreeing with me or not on this one. Either case what I am suggesting is if you are figuring half your starters to get injured you do need to pay a little more up front for backups. BB has used this philosphy in the past giving the backup players almost dble vet min to come and play here but for some reason this year was a different case. This year we also relied more heavily on players that tend to miss large chunks of the season more than ever so I wonder why the change in his old philosphy of building strong depth by giving depth guys a little more upfront and not over paying starters to pinching pennies on backups and giving out larger contracts to the starters?

     
  11. 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 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?

    [/QUOTE]


    Hindsight is always 20/20. As for 'could have been better'...yeah so what? Do you expect perfection from people? You must be permently disappointed. BB has had his screwups but they are greatly outwieghed by his successes. We could have been looking at 5 SB wins but for a few key injuries, a circus lucky catch and the refs swallowing their whistles. Would you be happy then or would you be wanting a 6th and 7th?

    As for being better...we would have been unstoppable this season if it wasn't for the injuries and we still did well despite them.

    Schaefer stadium...even worse than the beer of the same name but slightly better than the family that built it. I'm surprised it never just fell down.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So?  Every team in the NFL could be better because every team doesn't get every decision correct.  This is a completely useless argument to make.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    you mean the people that run them aren't perfect? who would have thunk it

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Hey guys...Just be happy we don't have a clone of Al Davis in his later years as an owner and anyone named Ryan as a head coach.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    this is fine and very well may be true. I dont make more of it than what it is but i take offense to someone saying he was bashed here and now we are playing the grass is greener. Im just speaking for myself. Ive been wanting Woody to be resigned before vareen even got here. I love vareen as well , just wish he was more durable. Thats all

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So?  Every team in the NFL could be better because every team doesn't get every decision correct.  This is a completely useless argument to make.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not talking about every team.  I'm talking about this team and your statement is absurd as usual.  There is a reason, THIS TEAM, with it's Hof Qb and coach haven't won a SB since 2005.  Don't you think a HoF QB and coach and best owner in the league, should do better?

      Who else has that advantage?

    Don't even bother to respond.  It's like trying to have a conversation with BB's left one.

     
  16. 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 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]


    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, can you please stop following me? You not only bring NO football Knowledge, discussion,etc, but you apparently cant spell either and now youve proven you dont even KNOW how to post correctly. Maybe thats why you post infequently but today, you ps worked??  Learn how to post cuz you made my post intertwine with yours and now folks will think im as dumb as you. Leave me alone! You wanna talk football, Lets go! If not, stop harassing me and ruining my posts. I have a wife. Try chinatown and see if you can get someone to spank you creepy *ss down there. Jeeeesh! 

    What the Feezy!,  did the looney bin get shut down today?

     

    You rebuttal GOES UNDER mine. NOT ON TOP TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ONE POST. Seek Help, Glenr

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    I'm not talking about every team.  I'm talking about this team and your statement is absurd as usual.  There is a reason, THIS TEAM, with it's Hof Qb and coach haven't won a SB since 2005.  Don't you think a HoF QB and coach and best owner in the league, should do better?

      Who else has that advantage?

    Don't even bother to respond.  It's like trying to have a conversation with BB's left one.



    As usual you completely missed the point.  Saying the team could be better and trying to use that as criticism is meaningless. That standard does not separate them from any other sports franchise in any other professional sport.  There has never been and never will be a perfect team.  Saying the team could be better is not a substantive criticism and would be akin to me criticizing Brady because he could have had better stats if he made the correct read and perfect throw on every play.  Is this theoretically true?  Sure, but it is just as useless.

    You are the one that takes the extreme position and isn't worth having a conversation with.  If you were to poll fans of neutral teams (i.e. not rival teams and not patriots fans) I guarantee you more people would share my opinion that BB knows what he's doing than your opinion that BB is a horrible GM who sucks at drafting, FA and cap management and is ruining the team.  Btw if Kraft is such a great owner then why does he let such a clueless buffoon run his football team year in and year out?  You roast Rusty (correctly) for his absurd positions on Brady precisely because BB is HC and continues to play Brady and support him yet you insist Kraft is the best owner in the NFL despite the fact that he continues to employ the incompetent BB.  You are a raging hypocrite and are even worse than Rusty because you never comment in any thread except to bash BB and put down the team.

    You aren't even man enough to admit you were wrong about this year and how you predicted the demise of this team and instead have backpedaled to this pathetic argument that this team should have won 7 games, but was just lucky and had Brady.  Coward.

     
  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 pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So?  Every team in the NFL could be better because every team doesn't get every decision correct.  This is a completely useless argument to make.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not talking about every team.  I'm talking about this team and your statement is absurd as usual.  There is a reason, THIS TEAM, with it's Hof Qb and coach haven't won a SB since 2005.  Don't you think a HoF QB and coach and best owner in the league, should do better?

      Who else has that advantage?

    Don't even bother to respond.  It's like trying to have a conversation with BB's left one.

    [/QUOTE]


    Once again..

    BB has had his screwups but they are greatly outwieghed by his successes. We could have been looking at 5 SB wins but for a few key injuries, a circus lucky catch and the refs swallowing their whistles. Would you be happy then or would you be wanting a 6th and 7th?

    Please don't use the HofF line of reasoning. It makes you sound like Babe. Brady has had bad games in the playoffs. His credentials and past performances are meaningless when he walks on the field for a new game. That's like thinking your megamillions number has a better chance of coming up because you're been playing it for years.

    Once again again...

    There are other QBs, head coaches and teams in the league with the talent and drive to win games.

    Montana was with the 49ers for 14 years but only won 4 times. Other than him only Bradshaw and Aikman have 3 or 4. That's a total of 4 QBs with 3+ wins out of 23 enshrined in Canton.

    Brady is already ahead of the curve.

     
  19. 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 glenr's comment:
    [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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Woodhead wasn't a high priced FA and the difference in cap space between him and Washingtons orignial contract was $50k so cap room wasn't an issue. Woodhead was a well needed depth piece last year as he backed up Vereen so not sure if you were agreeing with me or not on this one. Either case what I am suggesting is if you are figuring half your starters to get injured you do need to pay a little more up front for backups. BB has used this philosphy in the past giving the backup players almost dble vet min to come and play here but for some reason this year was a different case. This year we also relied more heavily on players that tend to miss large chunks of the season more than ever so I wonder why the change in his old philosphy of building strong depth by giving depth guys a little more upfront and not over paying starters to pinching pennies on backups and giving out larger contracts to the starters?

    [/QUOTE]


    What was everyone screaming should be the priority during the offseason? The running game? Half the posters here don't even know what that is since they think we can win SB after SB on just Brady's arm.

    No the big scream was defense with a lesser one one a tall, fast receiver to revive the vert threat.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So?  Every team in the NFL could be better because every team doesn't get every decision correct.  This is a completely useless argument to make.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not talking about every team.  I'm talking about this team and your statement is absurd as usual.  There is a reason, THIS TEAM, with it's Hof Qb and coach haven't won a SB since 2005.  Don't you think a HoF QB and coach and best owner in the league, should do better?

      Who else has that advantage?

    Don't even bother to respond.  It's like trying to have a conversation with BB's left one.

    [/QUOTE]


    Bingo! Nailed it. If you have the best coach in football...the best QB...and the most draft picks over the last five years than any NFL team you should of done better. There were too many mistakes and Belichick has said as much. When he goes on the radio and says "listen no one has made more mistakes regarding this team than me",  he's no longer kidding, he means it. And I'd venture to guess it's not his coaching he is talking about - it's some of the dopes he's brought in.

     
  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 Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    this is fine and very well may be true. I dont make more of it than what it is but i take offense to someone saying he was bashed here and now we are playing the grass is greener. Im just speaking for myself. Ive been wanting Woody to be resigned before vareen even got here. I love vareen as well , just wish he was more durable. Thats all

    [/QUOTE]


    Yet you followed me all day. I just don't whine about it. Another example of the level of your self delusion

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm not talking about every team.  I'm talking about this team and your statement is absurd as usual.  There is a reason, THIS TEAM, with it's Hof Qb and coach haven't won a SB since 2005.  Don't you think a HoF QB and coach and best owner in the league, should do better?

      Who else has that advantage?

    Don't even bother to respond.  It's like trying to have a conversation with BB's left one.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    As usual you completely missed the point.  Saying the team could be better and trying to use that as criticism is meaningless. That standard does not separate them from any other sports franchise in any other professional sport.  There has never been and never will be a perfect team.  Saying the team could be better is not a substantivecriticism and would be akin to me criticizing Brady because he could have had better stats if he made the correct read and perfect throw on every play.  Is this theoretically true?  Sure, but it is just as useless.

     

    You are the one that takes the extreme position and isn't worth having a conversation with.  If you were to poll fans of neutral teams (i.e. not rival teams and not patriots fans) I guarantee you more people would share my opinion that BB knows what he's doing than your opinion that BB is a horrible GM who sucks at drafting, FA and cap management and is ruining the team.  Btw if Kraft is such a great owner then why does he let such a clueless buffoon run his football team year in and year out?  You roast Rusty (correctly) for his absurd positions on Brady precisely because BB is HC and continues to play Brady and support him yet you insist Kraft is the best owner in the NFL despite the fact that he continues to employ the incompetent BB.  You are a raging hypocrite and are even worse than Rusty because you never comment in any thread except to bash BB and put down the team.

    You aren't even man enough to admit you were wrong about this year and how you predicted the demise of this team and instead have backpedaled to this pathetic argument that this team should have won 7 games, but was just lucky and had Brady.  Coward.

    [/QUOTE]


    Not a coward at all. I stand true in my prediction.  I don't think this is a particularly talented team.  I think it is a gritty team and often clutch team that had some things go it's way and I think the fact that the Ravens, Steelers, Texans and every other last year play-off team that stunk, helped them.

    I think the Fa acquisitions or lack of them, with 18Min cap hurt this team.

    I think last years, this years and the prior years, failures and the limited cap because of the dead money, have hurt this team.

    I think having starters that wouldn't start on any other team, have hurt this team.

    I think the FACT that the D has sucked for years has hurt this team.

    I don't expect perfection but I do expect a team with a HoF QB, HoF Coach and best owner in the league, to do better.  Like I said, no other team has those advantages, but there are many teams doing more.  THERE IS A REASON,  and if you have any opinion of  what that reason might be, than you concur. Unwittingly.

    Maybe you are happy with AFC champs every year but I think they shoulda, woulda, coulda done better.

    That's MY opinion and I couldn't care less, if you or anyone else agrees.

    I do, however, apologize for my comment about talking to you is like talking to BB's left one.  We all know that is rusty and you are not in his class..  LOL

    That was rude and I shouldn't have said it.

    Peace

     
  23. 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 TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    this is fine and very well may be true. I dont make more of it than what it is but i take offense to someone saying he was bashed here and now we are playing the grass is greener. Im just speaking for myself. Ive been wanting Woody to be resigned before vareen even got here. I love vareen as well , just wish he was more durable. Thats all

    [/QUOTE]


    Yet you followed me all day. I just don't whine about it. Another example of the level of your self delusion

    [/QUOTE]


    I did?  Go back and check nutty. You have responded to MY posts when i have been speaking to others...like right now. I responded to Muz and here you come with more irrelevant blabber!  Gosh the board was crazy today!  Gotta go Guys! Have Fun talkin to each other

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    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?



    The talent has been there for the most part. Execution at critical times has been the Patriots downfall. I'll give you 2 of the last 9 seasons losing due to a lack of talent.

    2005 Plenty of talent.
    2006 Plenty of talent.
    2007 Amazing talent. Lack of execution lost the super bowl.
    2008 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB. Amazing no matter the schedule.
    2009 Lack of talent.
    2010 Patriots beat 6 playoff teams in the regular season, including both super bowl teams. Plenty of talent.
    2011 Plenty of talent. Lack of execution lost the super bowl.
    2012 Lack of talent.
    2013 Losing Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk and Vollmer for the season yet still finishing 12-4 securing the 2 seed. Plenty of talent.

    It's baffling to me that some fans expect more.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [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?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The talent has been there for the most part. Execution at critical times has been the Patriots downfall. I'll give you 2 of the last 9 seasons losing due to a lack of talent.

    2005 Plenty of talent.
    2006 Plenty of talent.
    2007 Amazing talent. Lack of execution lost the super bowl.
    2008 11-5 with Matt Cassel at QB. Amazing no matter the schedule.
    2009 Lack of talent.
    2010 Patriots beat 6 playoff teams in the regular season, including both super bowl teams. Plenty of talent.
    2011 Plenty of talent. Lack of execution lost the super bowl.
    2012 Lack of talent.
    2013 Losing Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk and Vollmer for the season yet still finishing 12-4 securing the 2 seed. Plenty of talent.

     

    It's baffling to me that some fans expect more.

    [/QUOTE]

    I would respectfully disagree regarding the 2012 team. With talib in the game in the AFCCG the D was very good. Once he left it created match-up issues. I would say the talent you question could be more attributed to depth especially in the secondary. That being said they were up 13-7 at the Balt 34 going in for more points before welker decided to drop a huge 3rd down pass that would have given them 1st and 10 at the 21 which most likely would have resulted in them going up by 2 scores... instead the drop changed the complexsion of he entire game.

    i would agree about 2009. Poor lockerroom for that team also.

     

Share