Why cut woodhead?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:



    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.



    I'm with you. I figured I'd throw him a couple of bones. lol

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    Funny how Pats fans flip flop

    This past summer: Vereen is an upgrade! We don't need Woodhead!

    Now: Why did BB let Woodhead go?? Waaa!!!!

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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]


    [/QUOTE]

    You were vocal about ballard, washington, armstead and A Wilson, I acknowledge it. I disagree they were bad signings as I think that is how BB's value system works, only pay your core( which he almost a 100% track record with) and turn lots of stones looking for the best role players who fit the coaches needs. But, the fact is none of them are helping us now, so I understand your gripe.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    I completely understand diggers point, but I would say the 2 years are 06 and 09. 06 was the worst offense we ever fielded and 09 was weaker talent and Brady comong off the knee injury didn't help, but that was year 1 of a defensive rebuild.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You were vocal about ballard, washington, armstead and A Wilson, I acknowledge it. I disagree they were bad signings as I think that is how BB's value system works, only pay your core( which he almost a 100% track record with) and turn lots of stones looking for the best role players who fit the coaches needs. But, the fact is none of them are helping us now, so I understand your gripe.

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't get me wrong, I thought all but A. Wilson was a good singing. They were all low cost signings worth gambles. A. Wilson though I saw signs of slowing down greatly and didn't think for what they paid they'd get the production back. The gripe I have is putting your eggs into those baskets and not getting the right backups. Ballard and Armstead were both unprovens (Ballard coming back from major knee injury, Armstead never playing in the NFL) so counting on them I think was a big risk and I wanted better depth going into and out of camp at those positions. Washington I loved if he was a kick returner only. When he was the main backup for Vereen I was less then happy because he wasn't that great as a 3rd down RB and I knew eventually Vereen was going to get injured, hence I wanted Woodhead resigned. But, I would have been perfectly happy to have both on the team honestly.

    My main gripe this offseason was they put too much faith in players who have (for one reason or another) missed significant time in their careers because of injury without getting proper backups. If Woodhead was resigned, they invested in another vet DT or a higher pick DT in a DT heavy draft who could spell/spot start for Kelly/Wilfork, signed Sanders (to give Brady a more reliable WR, didn't have much faith both Edelman and Amendola would stay healthy but Edelman surprised me), and got a backup for Talib (Ryan turned out to be that guy so I'm actually fairly happy how that turned out) then I'd have no gripe and be pretty happy even with Welker gone (my main gripe with Amendola over Welker was injury concern but the extra vet WR with the rooks would have dispelled that for me).

    True I don't hate every move the Pats make but I do question some and in this case Washington over Woodhead I think is a good one to question for the reasons I gave

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Just another case of hindsight by the armchair GMs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not hindsight. Right now Woodhead has been a more effective player than Vereen, period there's no debate in that.  Woodhead can stay on the field, that clearly can't be said about Shane.  Woodhead also has far better hands. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL!!!

    So, BB's superior GM work opposed to those crappier organizations is somehow because those teams just randomly had an off year?

    LOL!

    You're so stupid it's amazing.   

    Do you read what you write in other threads before putting your foot in your mouth?

    Things have gone their way? Are you in the mental institution now?

    [/QUOTE]

    RUSTY!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd'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]

    Sorry Muzz but he is a huge diferrance maker on the Chargers. The head coach, Rivers, his other team mates, the ex Chargers all over so cal radio say he is the main reason Rivers is back to being a pro bowler. He is a good blocker and a third down conversion machine on the Chargers and he hardly ever drops a pass. He may be the most popular Charger player on the team sans Rivers. He's not as good as Sproles but he undoubtedly gave River's that 3rd down option he had been missing the past few years. McCoy says he is one of the smartest, most team oriented football players he has ever seen. The guy brought a winning selfless attitude to the team. They still can't believe their good fortune. Even Dan Fouts says he may have been the best free agent pick up the team has had in years and he said this before the season started (Fouts of course is a god to San Diego fans). I don't think Woodhead will ever be as good a player as Faulk was but I don't know if Faulk  ever had the impact Woodhead has had this year for his team. After Rivers he might be the team's MVP. 

    Vereen is more talented but we need to see him play for a full season before we decide letting Woodhead go was a good move.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Just another case of hindsight by the armchair GMs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not hindsight. Right now Woodhead has been a more effective player than Vereen, period there's no debate in that.  Woodhead can stay on the field, that clearly can't be said about Shane.  Woodhead also has far better hands. 

    [/QUOTE]

    We never won a game with Woodhead as a lead back vs a good or great D. Not only is it debatable, Vereen had 3 TDs in the divisional round last year vs Houston and is the superior receiver.

    Apparently, you are clueless.  Woodhead was undrafted in 2010 and Vereen a 2nd rd talent in 2011.

    Woodhead has become a very good player, but to pretend he is better than the skill set duo of Vereen/Blount for the same kind of money is assinine.

    I also don't see a broken wrist as some kind of a flaw in terms of avoiding injury. I am glad Woodhead avoided injury so far.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Lol, you are such a delusional fool.  It's my opinion that right now Danny does more for his team, 76 catches this yr, 429 yds rushing, played 16 gms. I get why everyone on here despises you, if you don't like my comment why attack.  And where someone gets drafted means nothing, you should of all people (you being a huge BB supporter) should know that fool. 

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cue Rusty in 3........ 2.......  1.........

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey, I do what I can.  Glad I could be of service.  You'd be better off slapping trolls and calling out disingeuous people here, by the way.

    "Troll Spanker"? You don't do any spanking.

    [/QUOTE]


    He just called out the most disingenuous poster here (well, you're sort of tied with UD6).

    (Use spell check Megatool.)

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [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]

    Sorry Muzz but he is a huge diferrance maker on the Chargers. The head coach, Rivers, his other team mates, the ex Chargers all over so cal radio say he is the main reason Rivers is back to being a pro bowler. He is a good blocker and a third down conversion machine on the Chargers and he hardly ever drops a pass. He may be the most popular Charger player on the team sans Rivers. He's not as good as Sproles but he undoubtedly gave River's that 3rd down option he had been missing the past few years. McCoy says he is one of the smartest, most team oriented football players he has ever seen. The guy brought a winning selfless attitude to the team. They still can't believe their good fortune. Even Dan Fouts says he may have been the best free agent pick up the team has had in years and he said this before the season started (Fouts of course is a god to San Diego fans). I don't think Woodhead will ever be as good a player as Faulk was but I don't know if Faulk  ever had the impact Woodhead has had this year for his team. After Rivers he might be the team's MVP. 

    Vereen is more talented but we need to see him play for a full season before we decide letting Woodhead go was a good move.

    [/QUOTE]

    In New England, he was a part timer, seven touches a game. In San Diego, he's a stud. That's because they're a 9-7 team that is fortunate to even be in the playoffs. In other words, an average player like Woody is a major upgrade. In Foxboro, he's a JAG.

    Vereen is a way better athlete. The only attribute Woody has over Vereen is he's been more durable.

     

Share