Woodhead

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tenace4life. Show tenace4life's posts

    Woodhead

    How the hell did we let Woodhead go?  I know they expected Vereen to carry the 3rd down load but Vereen had a hard time staying on the field in his first few years . . . now watching that Charger game Woodhead was the whole difference in the Chargers winning that game . . . he does it all!  Even if Vereen was going to get most of the 3rd down plays, Woodhead would have been a better backup than Washington who cannot even get on the field . . . Woodhead had  0 (ZERO) drops last year and caught 72.2% of the throws he was a target for . . . Edelman/Collie/Amendola have filled in for Wes and combined have more receptions and the rookies are much better than Lloyd as wideouts but the Pats are missing the TE receptions and the Woodhead big time!  The Pats did not have control over what happen to AH and Gronks injury but they did have control over offering Woodhead a contract!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    This thread already exists, buddy. -_-...

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

    Re: Woodhead

    I know the other thread is not as clearly labeled, but there is already a large thread on this issue.

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

    Re: Woodhead

    I like Woody, but half the people on here complaining about him being gone were calling him a midget last year and wondering why we have to rely on UDFAs from Chaduby State when other teams have real running backs that they drafted. Yet another example of poor general managing that we're saddled with some reject from a sporting goods store.  Now, he's Gale Sayers. Please.

    Nice player, poor man's Sproles. But my team is 5-1, I'm fine with what we have. 

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

    Re: Woodhead


    Yeah...time to abandon this thread...nice kid, plays over his head (no pun intended), but he's not ours, can't pay em all, next subject...

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

    Re: Woodhead

    Yeah, and why isn't there a Woodhead statue in front of Gilette? I am starting to get very angry. 

     

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

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, but half the people on here complaining about him being gone were calling him a midget last year and wondering why we have to rely on UDFAs from Chaduby State when other teams have real running backs that they drafted. Yet another example of poor general managing that we're saddled with some reject from a sporting goods store.  Now, he's Gale Sayers. Please.

    Nice player, poor man's Sproles. But my team is 5-1, I'm fine with what we have. 

    [/QUOTE]

    He also fumbled vs Oakland last week and the Raiders got a TD and SD lost. He also got stoned at the goal line on a 4th down.

    He's their best back so they're trying to use him as a lead back and it won't work.  Good for him and a talented, fun plater to watch, but I don't get his pining for players we used to have or could have all the time.

    We have some of the whiniest, worst fans in sports.

    [/QUOTE]

    He is a pure complementary player, I saw him get steam rolled a few times on blitz pick up

    Fun player to watch , but they went to the well too often with him

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kevin13130. Show kevin13130's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    Because Shane Vereen is better. The injury to Vereen sucks, but when he comes back, you'll forget about Woodhead.

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

    Re: Woodhead

    He's gone. I wish him well but why bother thinking about him?

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

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, but half the people on here complaining about him being gone were calling him a midget last year and wondering why we have to rely on UDFAs from Chaduby State when other teams have real running backs that they drafted. Yet another example of poor general managing that we're saddled with some reject from a sporting goods store.  Now, he's Gale Sayers. Please.

    Nice player, poor man's Sproles. But my team is 5-1, I'm fine with what we have. 

    [/QUOTE]

    He also fumbled vs Oakland last week and the Raiders got a TD and SD lost. He also got stoned at the goal line on a 4th down.

    He's their best back so they're trying to use him as a lead back and it won't work.  Good for him and a talented, fun plater to watch, but I don't get his pining for players we used to have or could have all the time.

    We have some of the whiniest, worst fans in sports.

    [/QUOTE]

    He is a pure complementary player, I saw him get steam rolled a few times on blitz pick up

    Fun player to watch , but they went to the well too often with him

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree. I think some of our toolish, dork type fans like the small, underachieving white guy and then think it means they're a superstar.

    It's quite fascinating to watch, actually.  It's like they throw all logic and reason out the window.   Good player, but Vereen has the superior skills. Seemed pretty obvious last year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you out of you're mind? Listen Vareen is a better talent (no doubt), but calling him a better player than a guy who actually is doing it is ridiculous. And it "seemed pretty obvious last year"...what? Based off one game? All Vareen has proven thus far is that he'll get hurt and is a second round bust...that's it. Yeah he's shown he has excellent receiving skills, but it means nothing when he goes out there this year and literally brakes his arm (or hand, or whatever) on the first play of the season. This is what he does...at least you could count on Woodhead.

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

    Re: Woodhead

    I think BB got tired of all the small guys and he had too many.

    maybe if we had  the taller Amendola in 46 with better hands the Pats would have won Lol

     

      

    I m still thinking Ridley is the best all around back He blocks well and can catch the ball. 

    Notice how he has his hands around the ball.  With VW and now our mlb we will need more from the O and Ridley 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, but half the people on here complaining about him being gone were calling him a midget last year and wondering why we have to rely on UDFAs from Chaduby State when other teams have real running backs that they drafted. Yet another example of poor general managing that we're saddled with some reject from a sporting goods store.  Now, he's Gale Sayers. Please.

    Nice player, poor man's Sproles. But my team is 5-1, I'm fine with what we have. 

    [/QUOTE]

    same goes for welker

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

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like Woody, but half the people on here complaining about him being gone were calling him a midget last year and wondering why we have to rely on UDFAs from Chaduby State when other teams have real running backs that they drafted. Yet another example of poor general managing that we're saddled with some reject from a sporting goods store.  Now, he's Gale Sayers. Please.

    Nice player, poor man's Sproles. But my team is 5-1, I'm fine with what we have. 

    [/QUOTE]

    He also fumbled vs Oakland last week and the Raiders got a TD and SD lost. He also got stoned at the goal line on a 4th down.

    He's their best back so they're trying to use him as a lead back and it won't work.  Good for him and a talented, fun plater to watch, but I don't get his pining for players we used to have or could have all the time.

    We have some of the whiniest, worst fans in sports.

    [/QUOTE]

    He is a pure complementary player, I saw him get steam rolled a few times on blitz pick up

    Fun player to watch , but they went to the well too often with him

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree. I think some of our toolish, dork type fans like the small, underachieving white guy and then think it means they're a superstar.

    It's quite fascinating to watch, actually.  It's like they throw all logic and reason out the window.   Good player, but Vereen has the superior skills. Seemed pretty obvious last year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you out of you're mind? Listen Vareen is a better talent (no doubt), but calling him a better player than a guy who actually is doing it is ridiculous. And it "seemed pretty obvious last year"...what? Based off one game? All Vareen has proven thus far is that he'll get hurt and is a second round bust...that's it. Yeah he's shown he has excellent receiving skills, but it means nothing when he goes out there this year and literally brakes his arm (or hand, or whatever) on the first play of the season. This is what he does...at least you could count on Woodhead.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly...it's so humorous how people continue to say how Disabled Again is better than welker and vareen is better than woodhead...etc.  Its not reality but why let that rain on your parade. Reality is that one is playing the other is not. Not playing equals zero production. Zero is less than something. Fact. It's like needing to get to the hospital and having a ferrari with no gas and Pacer with a full Tank.  The Ferrari useless.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    my bad... welker was not just a midget. they referred to welker as the midget who dropped passes. many of them are the same people who are complaining about the rookies dropping balls.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ugh. Not again.  Why do people think this guy is such a savior? Every time he was overused, we'd lose!

    [/QUOTE]

    Have to disagree with you on this one.

    First I didn't read anyone saying he was a savior. Now admittedly I am biased because I like Woody a lot and think he is a gamer. I was disappointed but understood why.

    Second, I am sure you must have some specifics in mind but the statement every time he was over used the Pats lost does seem to hold any merit to it. I mean the Pats did not lose very often from 2010 to 2012. I only looked at 2010 and 2011 before writing this.

    In 2010 they lost  twice in the regular season and one of the losses Woody did not even play in and the other he had a 6.0yrd/avg. meanwhile on the exact same number of carries BJGE had a 1.6 yrd/avg. How exactly are either of those losses his fault or rather tied to him? 2010 was the season he was used the most by the Pats and it was his best year and the Pats best regular season record since 2007.

    In each of the following two seasons, the Patriots used Woody a lil less and they won one fewer game each of the following two seasons as well. I am sure it is only cooincindence but still interesting fact none the less.

    In 2011 he only played in 2 of the teams 3 regular season losses. So out of the 5 losses from 2010-2011 Woody only even played in 3 of them. Woody was only involved in 3 lost regular season games out of 5 over that 2 year stretch.

    I'm just not sure you can say they lost everytime they overused him. I did not check the wins but I am pretty sure he was used a lot in some of those wins over the 2 years.

    I was too lazy to go look up 2012 details, the year they used him the least.

    I'll take a best guess and assume you mean you dislike how and when he was used at times and not so much that you actually believe the Pats lost every time because Woody played to much?

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    Whoops sorry that was meant to say does not seem to hold any merit.

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

    Re: Woodhead

    What? Woodhead is gone? When did this happen?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: Woodhead


    Don't forget "how did we let Welker go" . There were only 30 threads about him.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TB17JM16. Show TB17JM16's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    I do miss the mighty midget, he is a matchup nightmare for any defense. Vereen is just better though.

    I enjoyed watching him last night even though it was for S.D.

    Now the Colts need a big bounce back win next week and Denver with the LAST ranked pass defense is going down in Indy.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatFanInBA2. Show PatFanInBA2's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to raptor64d's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Don't forget "how did we let Welker go" . There were only 30 threads about him.

    [/QUOTE]

    do we need #31 ?

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

    Re: Woodhead

    Vereen is 5X better than Woodhead.  That's why he's gone.  Again with this nonsense.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Woodhead

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ugh. Not again.  Why do people think this guy is such a savior? Every time he was overused, we'd lose!

    [/QUOTE]

    Have to disagree with you on this one.

    First I didn't read anyone saying he was a savior. Now admittedly I am biased because I like Woody a lot and think he is a gamer. I was disappointed but understood why.

    Second, I am sure you must have some specifics in mind but the statement every time he was over used the Pats lost does seem to hold any merit to it. I mean the Pats did not lose very often from 2010 to 2012. I only looked at 2010 and 2011 before writing this.

    In 2010 they lost  twice in the regular season and one of the losses Woody did not even play in and the other he had a 6.0yrd/avg. meanwhile on the exact same number of carries BJGE had a 1.6 yrd/avg. How exactly are either of those losses his fault or rather tied to him? 2010 was the season he was used the most by the Pats and it was his best year and the Pats best regular season record since 2007.

    In each of the following two seasons, the Patriots used Woody a lil less and they won one fewer game each of the following two seasons as well. I am sure it is only cooincindence but still interesting fact none the less.

    In 2011 he only played in 2 of the teams 3 regular season losses. So out of the 5 losses from 2010-2011 Woody only even played in 3 of them. Woody was only involved in 3 lost regular season games out of 5 over that 2 year stretch.

    I'm just not sure you can say they lost everytime they overused him. I did not check the wins but I am pretty sure he was used a lot in some of those wins over the 2 years.

    I was too lazy to go look up 2012 details, the year they used him the least.

    I'll take a best guess and assume you mean you dislike how and when he was used at times and not so much that you actually believe the Pats lost every time because Woody played to much?

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty has a theory that can be summarized as follows:

    • Pats (through last year, at least) used way too much shotgun and threw too much (because Brady is addicted to shotgun and throwing)
    • Woodhead was the passing back used in shotgun formations a lot
    • Subbing for the "lead" back (i.e., BJGE or later Ridley/Bolden) is bad because it tips the defense on whether you are more likely to run or pass

    So by Rusty's theory, whenever Woodhead was on the field, the Pats were tipping off pass and were probably in the shotgun and therefore, in Rusty's mind, likely to lose. 

    By this theory any use of Woodhead is bordering on "overuse."  Personally, I think this theory reveals a weak grasp of Belichick's offensive strategy and approach to utilizing talent, but there you have it.

    My own feeling on Woodhead is that he was a pretty smart player who did lots of good things, but wasn't really a big impact runner or receiver.  I think the Pats let him go mostly because they thought there was an opportunity to upgrade the passing back position, and Vereen had the physical skills to be both a better runner and better receiver at that position.  I think the long term plan since 2011 has been to replace BJGE with Ridley and Woodhead with Vereen.  Letting Woodhead go was simply the next step in executing that plan. 

     

     

Share