Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Murray vs Vereen

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

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen : Dude. I wanted Torrey Smith so bad. NE worked him out, I was really hoping for it .... I even had him in my mock. Arr. But I won't whine about it ad nauseum like the Clay Matthews crowd, lol. At any rate. LOL. Water over a burned bridge, or somesuch. I hate second guessing drafts that way ... rate the players you have not the ones you could have had. But back to that in a bit. Sometimes I read through threads quickly, half paying attention to who said what, and end up responding to the one post that catches my eye. I think the drafting thing was meant because someone was criticzing drafting TWO RBs up top. It wasn't meant for you, just a response to the thread in general.  At any rate ... trading assumes you have a.) a deal in place, and b.) that the deal is good enough to take. NE took Vereen, they placed a pretty high value on the kid ... second rounders don't grow on trees. Perhaps he is just behind the curve, who knows? The thing is, you take the guy you want when he is there ... ... you develop him until you are comfortable that he is worth playing or not, if Vereen were on the field right now having 91 yard runs (haha! when was the last time NE had a back who could do that? Curtis Martin?) people wouldn't be upset. If he is on the field, highly productive, and doing good things as a runner and reciever (my hopes) NEXT SEASON, will you still doubt the pick?
    Posted by zbellino


    Z,
    I always respect your opinion. I know you weren't calling me out per se on the 2 RB drafting decision. I wanted 2 taken, but I also wanted 2 to be utilized. My poinnt was simple though..IF we knew we wouldn't use 2 because of who we already had, why draft 2? For next year? I don't like that strategy. BB has done this on many occasion. Invest a high draft pick in a position and hold that pick back 1-3 years. That doens't do the team any good in the short term, and my feeling is the longer that kid sits, the worse potentially things get for him that is. I haven't seen any good come as a result of this strategy. I can't think of a player that was intentially kept back, only to shine in 2 years from when they were drafted.
    If you look at the roster, the kids that are making impacts are the ones seeing the field quickly after being drafted...Solder, Gronk, McCourty, Spikes, etc.

    Regarding the draft...maybe we should pick up another thread on that one. I hate to look backwards as well, and typically don't, but the last 6 drafts have caused me to take notice ONLY because of the sheer number of failures we have seen in rounds 1-3. AND, kids who were drafted at the same position within 10-15 picks of our bust, who succeed.
    This frustrates me because this is seemingly a weak part of our overall organization.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen


    I'm with you on drafting slightly ahead of need. I guess this is a fine line. What further complicates matters is drafting ahead of need, and then, that draft pick not sticking. So, you spend a high pick 1-2 years before the need, bench them or play them sparingly, and when you finally have the need, that player turns bust. Not to be all doom and gloom, but I've seen this play out quite often over the past 6 years.
    If we could somehow tighten up how we scout and draft, I think we get better real fast with the bounty of picks that BB has added to the war chest.
     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Murray vs Vereen


    Okay Russ, you win by attrition!

    Yes, we need to use the run more, in the right places and with the right personnel.

    I would settle for 1 superior back vs. 4 so-so ones. I'm starting to question RB by committee if it really is the most effective use of resources to accomplish establishment of a superior run game, while masking what we do.

    You make a poinnt every now and then about who we sub in as RBs. Meaning, when we bring in BJGE, teams know what we will do, vs. Ridley or somethign like that. I cna't articulate like you did, but I understand what you were saying.

    IF we had one homerun threat, a kid that could run and catch the ball out of the backfield and was a threat to take it to the house every time he touched it, we woudl rarely have to sub other than for rest, and it adds a dynamic which we haven't had probably since Dillon.

    I don't know if BB is gun shy because of Maroney, or simply doesn't want to invest money in that position, but it would seem to me we would be a heck of al lot more effective across the board if we had an Adrian Peterson type vs. the 4 that we do have.

    This whole argument that RB's are a dime a dozen is BS i think. It only holds water if you don't put much stock in the run game, and you see the RB as just anotehr position. Teams that have invested in it and use it correctly are few. However, if you took a serious threat like that and coupled it with our passing offense?....imagine...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    you mean like Arian Foster?  Championship!   lol
     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    Okay Russ, you win by attrition! Yes, we need to use the run more, in the right places and with the right personnel. I would settle for 1 superior back vs. 4 so-so ones. I'm starting to question RB by committee if it really is the most effective use of resources to accomplish establishment of a superior run game, while masking what we do. You make a poinnt every now and then about who we sub in as RBs. Meaning, when we bring in BJGE, teams know what we will do, vs. Ridley or somethign like that. I cna't articulate like you did, but I understand what you were saying. IF we had one homerun threat, a kid that could run and catch the ball out of the backfield and was a threat to take it to the house every time he touched it, we woudl rarely have to sub other than for rest, and it adds a dynamic which we haven't had probably since Dillon. I don't know if BB is gun shy because of Maroney, or simply doesn't want to invest money in that position, but it would seem to me we would be a heck of al lot more effective across the board if we had an Adrian Peterson type vs. the 4 that we do have. This whole argument that RB's are a dime a dozen is BS i think. It only holds water if you don't put much stock in the run game, and you see the RB as just anotehr position. Teams that have invested in it and use it correctly are few. However, if you took a serious threat like that and coupled it with our passing offense?....imagine...
    Posted by PatsLifer


    re:F we had one homerun threat, a kid that could run and catch the ball out of the backfield and was a threat to take it to the house every time he touched it, we woudl rarely have to sub other than for rest, and it adds a dynamic which we haven't had probably since Dillon. 

    hey lifer, been sayign the samer thing for a yr. sinc ewe havce ridley we should have played him all year to see what he is.

    thoghts on lamichael james?

    if we had that threat back wed be a lock for the sb likely.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen : I agree with the studly, all round RB, but those are hard to find and I don't get why Ridley can't be a version of something like that. We just don't know. Dallas plants in Murrauy and he looks good. We don't know that here, because they just won't let Ridley go. Look, if BJGE's toe has been the issue, then so be it.  I'd rather they get that thing rested up, etc, because when they used him as a lead back last year, less shotgun, etc, our offense was as lethal a 2007's, but actually in a more efficient way. It doesn;t explain not letting Ridley run with it, though, other than rookie fears. Whatever. You drafted the kid, give him the keys. The thing about subbing is there is so much film now on our shotgun base spread, the subbing tips off the play. We aren't putting enough pressure on the other team's D to guess if it's a pass or run. A lead back does this.  Designed checkdowns to BJGE does this. Screens do this. If you sub, teams know we aren't going to ground and pound with Woodhead, but we can do all 3 things (pass, run or use RB to block/protect) with one RB on a drive. Not saying every drive use BJGE or Ridley in a lead role, but for most of the drives. Teams are out of gas by the end of the 3rd qtr, the game is controlled in a sense we don't turn it over, we win field position and it's just a matter of putting a 5+ minute TD drive together in that 4th qtr. The 4th qtr is also shortened when we run the ball (clock keeps running n 3rd downs before punts, obviously v.s it stopping on a 3rd down incoomplete pass) and have a lead, which forces teams into stupid decisions. Just think how Weis would use our backs in that offense. I actually think BJGE is an ideal back because he sort of captures what they wanted from Maroney, but also captures what Dillon did as well. He's not that level of talent with Dillon, but you know what I mean. He's Antowain Smith on steroids and what Maroney was supposed to be at once.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing


    I was eating a cracker, ironing and a bit bored so I thought I'd respond.

    I like Benny in some sort of roll, perhaps limited/back up. The problem with Benny and really with most of our backs is that they give away what we are trying to do based off their skill set. Why? Because they are all limited in some sort of way. You bring Benny in and you know that we'd like to have him run up the middle because the speed isn't there to stretch it outside. So what happens? A good team will crowd the middle - forcing him outside - not good. 

    Comparing Benny as a bulked up or juiced Antoine Smith is in my opinion a stretch. Smith was actually bigger and faster than Benny. When he came out of Houston he was running an absurd 40. There was a reason he was drafted in the first...he was big, tall and fast and he played that way for two years for us. Dillon obviously shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

    Now you can say, well Antoine didn't put up great numbers for us, certainly no better than Benny, but Antoine ran with more power and speed in my opinion. We also had a young Faulk that could do some things to keep teams guessing.  

    I think our running hopes lay on Ridley and that worries me, simply because he's young and hasn't played enough. Truthfully Vareen needs (or needed) to play. This would give us two guys with game changing legs that could help this team. It's probably too late at this point, I doubt their going to experiment with two young guys when a playoff bye is at stake. Or risk one of these guys missing a key block that ends our season.

    This Vareen thing is puzzling to me, why take him in the second and not use him? This guy would take a screen pass 75 yards first catch...guaranteed. From what I saw in pre season, he'll also go down on first contact, but why not use him a tad?

    So I guess I disagree that Benny is the answer at lead back. I think he's just too limited to provide you with enough to run it more. I think he's too slow to be very effective on screens as well. I also don't consider him a very effective power back. I like him as a safe option that will get you a third and one, and as a guy that will give you 60 to 70 yards a game if used on a regular basis. Not bad, just not enough.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Murray vs Vereen


    Yes, please dont' remind me.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Murray vs Vereen :      The Pats could have also drafted WRs Torrie Smith or Randall Cobb. Both, especially Smith, could have served as the deep threat that Tom Brady so desperately needs.
    Posted by TexasPat3



    totally! if we couold see i tpredraft what are they smoking in the draft room?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen : I was eating a cracker, ironing and a bit bored so I thought I'd respond. I like Benny in some sort of roll, perhaps limited/back up. The problem with Benny and really with most of our backs is that they give away what we are trying to do based off their skill set. Why? Because they are all limited in some sort of way. You bring Benny in and you know that we'd like to have him run up the middle because the speed isn't there to stretch it outside. So what happens? A good team will crowd the middle - forcing him outside - not good.  Comparing Benny as a bulked up or juiced Antoine Smith is in my opinion a stretch. Smith was actually bigger and faster than Benny. When he came out of Houston he was running an absurd 40. There was a reason he was drafted in the first...he was big, tall and fast and he played that way for two years for us. Dillon obviously shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Now you can say, well Antoine didn't put up great numbers for us, certainly no better than Benny, but Antoine ran with more power and speed in my opinion. We also had a young Faulk that could do some things to keep teams guessing.   I think our running hopes lay on Ridley and that worries me, simply because he's young and hasn't played enough. Truthfully Vareen needs (or needed) to play. This would give us two guys with game changing legs that could help this team. It's probably too late at this point, I doubt their going to experiment with two young guys when a playoff bye is at stake. Or risk one of these guys missing a key block that ends our season. This Vareen thing is puzzling to me, why take him in the second and not use him? This guy would take a screen pass 75 yards first catch...guaranteed. From what I saw in pre season, he'll also go down on first contact, but why not use him a tad? So I guess I disagree that Benny is the answer at lead back. I think he's just too limited to provide you with enough to run it more. I think he's too slow to be very effective on screens as well. I also don't consider him a very effective power back. I like him as a safe option that will get you a third and one, and as a guy that will give you 60 to 70 yards a game if used on a regular basis. Not bad, just not enough.
    Posted by mthurl



    totally agree adn have posted the same on bdc
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bspikes55. Show Bspikes55's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    This shouldent even be a discussion vereen was a bb getting into his im smarter than everyone mode and does dumb things like pick him over torrey smith
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen : Disagree.  I say Smith on steroids because our offense is run worse than it was back in the Weis era and the idea that BJGE is a better pass receiver than the slow footed Smith.  Smith also failed conditioning tests here, so I used to chuckle why he looked so serviceable on gamedays.  But, if I had to rank NE's lead backs the last 10 years, I would put the talent of BJGE above Smith.  Dilllon would obviously be first. Literally every single game BJGE has been used as a lead back he basically hits 100 yards, 1 TD and has some catches on checkdowns to move the sticks. Since we clearly struggle to move the chains beyond Gronk/Welker, IMO, the lone reason why BJGE hasn't been used much lately is due to the turf toe. But, when I see BJGE used as the lead back as part of the gameplan (into the 2nd qtr of games and beyond), I have a very good feeling we win the game. I can't give the guy more of a compliment than that. He gets it. He knows how to run. He just does. Those 3 yard gains off of what should have been nothing at the line all add up. If he's not healthy enough to be a lead back right now, let Ridley do it and start filtering in Woodhead/Vereen more as the scatbacks.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing

    I agree Smith did have slow feet and his laziness basically wasted a career (although he had a couple of good years here, but should of had more). I just thought his size and stength were better and if he got free he could take it further. 

    This is what I think Benny gives...decent strength and size (nowhere near spectacular), very very good pad level runner, outstanding ball security, good vision, decent feet, smart runner and he get's what is there. 

    He's missing a couple of things that in my opinion keep him from being dynamic...speed, outstanding tackle breaking ability, unusual change of direction/make you miss ability, superb quickness and rare athleticism and hands that he can use in the passing game.

    I do think Benny has some skills, I just don't see enough of them. In my opinion if he was a guy that came off the bench and gave you ten touches or had to fill in for a few games he'd be perfect.

    This team had some serious defensive needs. I find it very telling that Belichick chose to select not one, but two running backs when he had two young ones as starters (Woodhead, Benny). It tells me he was looking for more out of that position. Why he hasn't used either one enough is beyond me.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    Vereen looked good tonight!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bspikes55. Show Bspikes55's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    damn il admit im eating crow on this one still just a small sample of the main corse
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen : I agree Smith did have slow feet and his laziness basically wasted a career (although he had a couple of good years here, but should of had more). I just thought his size and stength were better and if he got free he could take it further.  This is what I think Benny gives...decent strength and size (nowhere near spectacular), very very good pad level runner, outstanding ball security, good vision, decent feet, smart runner and he get's what is there.  He's missing a couple of things that in my opinion keep him from being dynamic...speed, outstanding tackle breaking ability, unusual change of direction/make you miss ability, superb quickness and rare athleticism and hands that he can use in the passing game. I do think Benny has some skills, I just don't see enough of them. In my opinion if he was a guy that came off the bench and gave you ten touches or had to fill in for a few games he'd be perfect. This team had some serious defensive needs. I find it very telling that Belichick chose to select not one, but two running backs when he had two young ones as starters (Woodhead, Benny). It tells me he was looking for more out of that position. Why he hasn't used either one enough is beyond me.
    Posted by mthurl


    Looks like drafting two RB's was a move for the future, and depth at a position of need.

    BB has often filled defensive "needs" with veteran FA's more then the draft. Tough to see playing time as rookie in BB's game plan.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    In Response to Re: Murray vs Vereen:
    In Response to Murray vs Vereen :      The Pats could have also drafted WRs Torrie Smith or Randall Cobb. Both, especially Smith, could have served as the deep threat that Tom Brady so desperately needs.
    Posted by TexasPat3


    Are you serious? Look at it like this, Brandon Tate had more catches, more yards, more TD's, and fewer fumbles (3 to 1) and was a far better kick returner than Cobb had by 10 games last year- and he was drafted a round later. And people couldn't wait to run him out of town. If the Pats drafted Cobb the pitchforks would already be out and there would be 50 threads on what a bust he is.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from arodrambone. Show arodrambone's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    Murray thought the Patriots were going to draft him. www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20110620-demarco-murray-wants-to-pack-on-the-pounds-return-kicks-this-fall.ece
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    DeMarco Murray has been diagnosed with a broken right ankle.

    He has also suffered a high-ankle sprain. It's the worst possible news for the Cowboys' dynamic rookie back, who will not play another down this season. Injury prone in college, it's a sad, if predictable, end to Murray's year. With Phillip Tanner placed on injured reserve two days ago, Felix Jones is now the Cowboys' only healthy running back. Although a backup will be signed, Jones should be in for monster workloads down the stretch as Dallas looks to secure a playoff berth.


    Hindsight, can't predict the future, but he's injury prone.  Well played BB.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Murray vs Vereen

    murray just broke an ankle and may never be as fast and shifty as he was. 50/50 hindsight says Bill made the right choice.
     
Sections
Shortcuts