Why cut woodhead?

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

     


    He got a large contract considering where he was on the Pats RB depth chart.



    He was the #3 RB on the Pats. $3.5mil for 2 years is on par for a #3 RB in a rotation considering the production he gave. Considering Arrington is 4th on the depth chart (behind Ryan, Dennard, Talib) and he's making $4mil per year I would say Woodhead would be a bargain.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

     


    He got a large contract considering where he was on the Pats RB depth chart.



    He was the #3 RB on the Pats. $3.5mil for 2 years is on par for a #3 RB in a rotation considering the production he gave. Considering Arrington is 4th on the depth chart (behind Ryan, Dennard, Talib) and he's making $4mil per year I would say Woodhead would be a bargain.




    No. Not when you consider what the planned make up of the team was at the end of last season.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

     


    No. Not when you consider what the planned make up of the team was at the end of last season.



    Enlighten me what was the plan? You know since you were in the know. From what I can see they invested heavily on injury prone players and crossed their fingers they wouldn't get injured. To me that screams if you are counting on injury prone players you better get them proper backups, and what would have been more proper than a productive player who was already in your system for a fairly reasonable price? Considering they spent the same amount on a player who was over his prime and showed heavy signs of slowing down at the end of his last season (A. Wilson), I would say they didn't invest wisely.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    When they drafted Vareen, at the time I thought, why? I mean I thought Woodhead was servicable...I thought we clearly had other defensive needs...the second round was no place to add another third down back when we already had one. Then I thought...well maybe this guy is really good...something we just can't pass up, otherwise why would they do it?

    I wrote last summer that I thought Vareen was a special talent catching the football - I also wrote that Woodhead is nothing special...then Vareen went on to disappoint/tease. I think he has done much the same this year - he is injury prone - leg, hip, knee, wrist, hamstring, groing...he has had it all. When he is on the field there is noubt he is a better talent in my mind (despite Woodhead's season). The question is could we of taken a defensive tackle with that second round pick and just signed Woodhead to a reasonable contract? With all the talk of value around here that would make perfect sense (but it won't because there is too many pink hat homers running around this place). Truth is there is no guarantee that the 2nd round defensive tackle would of worked out (especially with some of the second round picks we have had lately), but there is no denying Woodhead would of been solid for us.

    The real question is will Vareen be that special third down back they thought they were getting when they drafted him? Because that is what it comes down to. This is a great weekend to show this was the right move to make - we need Vareen to be HUGE in these playoffs - questions is, will he? Because if he doesn't do it now after three years of waiting...if he comes up grabbing his hamstring or groin in the third quarter, then this whole thing a mistake. If he does that I'd be hugely disappointed - I know truechamp will think it's just dapper - and rusty will just blame Brady, but I'l be pissed (I'm spoiled and tired of watching undrafted free agents fill in for draft busts/free agent signing busts).

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Vereen can return kicks in a pinch, Woodhead cannot.  Vereen has a rookie wage, Woodhead was going to receive a large contract.  

    This a a lot like the Law Firm move and the Kyle Love and Brandon Deaderick moves, if you can get the same production from a rookie or undrafted free agent rather than overpay for a guy then you do it.



    You must be high comparing Woodhead with the guys you mentioned. That said, BB gambled on Vereen and lost. Vereen has never remained healthy, despite a light workload.

    Woodhead played his butt off as a Patriot. His production has been missed. BB was a cheapskate moron for letting him go.

    In fact, you've just inspired me to make a new thread on the subject. Laughing

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to CubanPete's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Vereen can return kicks in a pinch, Woodhead cannot.  Vereen has a rookie wage, Woodhead was going to receive a large contract.  

    This a a lot like the Law Firm move and the Kyle Love and Brandon Deaderick moves, if you can get the same production from a rookie or undrafted free agent rather than overpay for a guy then you do it.

     



    You must be high comparing Woodhead with the guys you mentioned. That said, BB gambled on Vereen and lost. Vereen has never remained healthy, despite a light workload.

    Woodhead played his butt off as a Patriot. His production has been missed. BB was a cheapskate moron for letting him go.

    In fact, you've just inspired me to make a new thread on the subject. Laughing



    Not sure what guys he mentioned, but how exactly has his production been missed? They're 12-4, the number 2 seed. What game would they have clearly won if Woodhead was in there?

    He was a PTer, a role player, that's what he is. He's OK, he's not some all-pro.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     



    That was my point. Vareen is a better pass catching back with woody, actually Vareen is better in every facet of the game then woody other then health...so far.

    I know woody just came off of 70 plus catches. I still would rather have Vareen and it isn't close. In 8 games Vaeen had 47 catches 427 yards and 4 tds, with 208 rushing yards at 4.7. In a 16 game season, that comes out to 94 receptions, 850 receiving yards, 8 tds with another 400 rushing ant 2 more tds...in his 1st year as a starting 3rd down running back. WOW. 


    Btw, those 94 receptions in his 1st year starting as a split time RB would have been 6 less then woodhead had in his entire 4 year Patriot career. Plus, considering we were 9th in the league in rushing, at 4.4 ypc, and the chargers averaged 4.0 ypc. I guess this running back core did pretty damn good without him.

    So unless you are one of these guys who think BB's is a bad GM because he drafts guys that break their hands, or tear acl's like Gronk, or murder people like Hernandez then you know that keeping Vareen at 600k over giving woodhead a new contract at 3.5 mill to be a back up certainly was not a mistake.



    I don't think anyone is questioning that Vereen is better than Woodhead when healthy the question is that health factor and why Vereen didn't have a better backup considering that. In two of those early season loses they went a combined 2 for 24 on 3rd downs and Vereen wasn't on the field because of the injury. Now if they make the SB the point is moot but if they get knocked out then the question is going to have to be asked, if Woodhead was in those games would the outcome been different. Would they have won 1 of those games giving them the #1 seed and give them a different path to the SB. If we were talking a bigger difference in contract then I'd agree but essentially what you paid Washington and A. Wilson to do nothing all year is what it would have cost to Woodhead who was proven production for the team.




    Yeah, I think BB wanted to spend the money trying to make his team better in the secondary by adding a mammoth in the box safety with great experience, and get a better kick returner then woodhead was. Both guys were injured and couldn't play. I guess BB shouldn't draft guys who will get hurt....it's so simple.

    1Rid 700k

    2Vareen 700k

    3Blount 750 k

    4Woodhead new 3.5 million dollar commitment to keep him. How many 3rd down backs do most teams carry?

    5Bolden 700 k

    6devilin 700k

    We see how BB values the RB position with the little amount of money he has invested since Dillion left. He even carried 2 undrafted over acheiving FA's as his 1-2 starters for 2 years. So why give a back up who would only see the field if option 1, 2 , and 3 are hurt? Easy to look in hindsight and say, oh 1 guy got hurt. But again I guess BB should only keep the guys who won't get injured.....it's so simple.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     



    Yeah, I think BB wanted to spend the money trying to make his team better in the secondary by adding a mammoth in the box safety with great experience, and get a better kick returner then woodhead was. Both guys were injured and couldn't play. I guess BB shouldn't draft guys who will get hurt....it's so simple.

    1Rid 700k

    2Vareen 700k

    3Blount 750 k

    4Woodhead new 3.5 million dollar commitment to keep him. How many 3rd down backs do most teams carry?

    5Bolden 700 k

    6devilin 700k

    We see how BB values the RB position with the little amount of money he has invested since Dillion left. He even carried 2 undrafted over acheiving FA's as his 1-2 starters for 2 years. So why give a back up who would only see the field if option 1, 2 , and 3 are hurt? Easy to look in hindsight and say, oh 1 guy got hurt. But again I guess BB should only keep the guys who won't get injured.....it's so simple.



    So why did you list Woodheads amount for the full 2 yrs but everyone else you only listed this one year? This year Woodheads cap hit is $1.25mil, next year it's $2.25 mil but $1.75 is in base so you can cut/extend him with only a $500k cap hit. That's a great contract and not nearly as you put it the $3.5mil.

     

    So in reality the difference better Washington and Woodhead was ~$.5 mil (orignal signing bonus $360k + salary paid after resign ~$400k). Actually they signed Washington at $1.2mil so if he played the full season the difference would have been $50k for this year. Are you really going to tell me that $50k for this year in cap savings was enough justification for Washington over Woodhead?

    And yes maybe BB shouldn't draft injury prone players high up in the draft:

    • Vollmer (love the guy but how many games missed?)
    • Gronk (could be one of the best in the game but when we needed him most is injured)
    • Ras

    We have a lot on money injured on the bench week in and week out. Some are freak injures (Wilfork, Kelly) because they have no history but some this year have track records longer than Gronks arm. That's a ton of money doing nothing most games when you didn't get them proper backups to begin with.

    *btw Vereen wasn't injured in college so I give him the pass but his career so far has been full of injures so you really need to have a good pass catching 3rd down back to back him up and non of the guys you mention fit that mold. 

    BTW I would have replaced Bolden with Woodhead in an instant. Bolden isn't that good of an RB. He hasn't proved to be anything but a 5th RB who cleans up in mop up duty. He averages less than 5 carries a game for ok yards but that is easily replacable by almost any UDFA so not sure why everyone thinks he's someone you'd want over a proven productive player. Esp considering Blount and Ridley do the same thing as Bolden only better.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to CubanPete's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Vereen can return kicks in a pinch, Woodhead cannot.  Vereen has a rookie wage, Woodhead was going to receive a large contract.  

    This a a lot like the Law Firm move and the Kyle Love and Brandon Deaderick moves, if you can get the same production from a rookie or undrafted free agent rather than overpay for a guy then you do it.

     



    You must be high comparing Woodhead with the guys you mentioned. That said, BB gambled on Vereen and lost. Vereen has never remained healthy, despite a light workload.

     

    Woodhead played his butt off as a Patriot. His production has been missed. BB was a cheapskate moron for letting him go.

    In fact, you've just inspired me to make a new thread on the subject. Laughing




    When you grow up, buy your own NFL team and try to manage payroll under the cap rules you can pay everyone what you want.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?


    woodhead's a traitor.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

     


    No. Not when you consider what the planned make up of the team was at the end of last season.



    Enlighten me what was the plan? You know since you were in the know. From what I can see they invested heavily on injury prone players and crossed their fingers they wouldn't get injured. To me that screams if you are counting on injury prone players you better get them proper backups, and what would have been more proper than a productive player who was already in your system for a fairly reasonable price? Considering they spent the same amount on a player who was over his prime and showed heavy signs of slowing down at the end of his last season (A. Wilson), I would say they didn't invest wisely.




    Grow up. What plan? How about the one with 2 healthy top TEs and 3 young RBs? Ever hear of that team? It's called the Pats at the end of last season with Gronk, Hernandez, Ridley, Vereen and Boldin.

    I love people like you who seem to think that the Pats front office has some sort device that enables them to forsee the future. Last year you were all whining that more money needed to be spent on defensive players and now you're whining that money should have been spent on Woodhead. You're never satisfied no matter what.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to UD6's comment:


    woodhead's a traitor.




    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability




    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:


    woodhead's a traitor.




    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest




    I have every right to say whatever I want when I want regardless of what you think.  I have requested proof for years of this theory of purposefully losing games.  No one's given me proof.  The statute of limitations has run out. 

    Woodhead's a traitor.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to glenr's comment:

     They did spend a bunch of $$$ on players to help shore up the D, unfortunately they are all sitting on their couch collecting a paycheck.


    No. Not when you consider what the planned make up of the team was at the end of last season.

     



    Enlighten me what was the plan? You know since you were in the know. From what I can see they invested heavily on injury prone players and crossed their fingers they wouldn't get injured. To me that screams if you are counting on injury prone players you better get them proper backups, and what would have been more proper than a productive player who was already in your system for a fairly reasonable price? Considering they spent the same amount on a player who was over his prime and showed heavy signs of slowing down at the end of his last season (A. Wilson), I would say they didn't invest wisely.

     




    Grow up. What plan? How about the one with 2 healthy top TEs and 3 young RBs? Ever hear of that team? It's called the Pats at the end of last season with Gronk, Hernandez, Ridley, Vereen and Boldin.

    I love people like you who seem to think that the Pats front office has some sort device that enables them to forsee the future. Last year you were all whining that more money needed to be spent on defensive players and now you're whining that money should have been spent on Woodhead. You're never satisfied no matter what.




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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability




    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?



    When are you gonna offer something to the board besides nonsense rhetorical questions?  What I said is that I understand why Woody was let go but if it was in favor of Bolden, it was a mistake. I never said BB should have known Vareen will get injured. Just go back to washing the floors stanley....you arent ready to talk football. Just play the backround in the peanut gallery

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:


    woodhead's a traitor.




    You have no right to comment on anything after your team purposely lost games in order to win the suckforLuck contest




    I have every right to say whatever I want when I want regardless of what you think.  I have requested proof for years of this theory of purposefully losing games.  No one's given me proof.  The statute of limitations has run out. 

    Woodhead's a traitor.




    You do have the right to troll websites and make an azz of yourself. After all this is America.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability




    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?




    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability




    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?



    When are you gonna offer something to the board besides nonsense rhetorical questions?  What I said is that I understand why Woody was let go but if it was in favor of Bolden, it was a mistake. I never said BB should have known Vareen will get injured. Just go back to washing the floors stanley....you arent ready to talk football. Just play the backround in the peanut gallery




    And whining about what a player coulda/woulda done in the future when others got injured isn't rhetorical ?

    And of course teenage insults about washing floors is a good way of showing how you carry on meaningful conversations isn't it?

    You're not 'talking' football. You're making idiotic statements about things that could not have been foreseen.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability




    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?




    He's injured every year.  Don't need a crystal ball.  HE needs a set of balls.




    So Dr Armchair tell me what breaking your hand has to do with having balls? Are you suggesting the if he had more guts he could hold and catch a football with a broken hand?

    If he tried playing and under performed you'd all be here attacking him anyway and you'd be attacking BB for playing him

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

     



    Yeah, I think BB wanted to spend the money trying to make his team better in the secondary by adding a mammoth in the box safety with great experience, and get a better kick returner then woodhead was. Both guys were injured and couldn't play. I guess BB shouldn't draft guys who will get hurt....it's so simple.

    1Rid 700k

    2Vareen 700k

    3Blount 750 k

    4Woodhead new 3.5 million dollar commitment to keep him. How many 3rd down backs do most teams carry?

    5Bolden 700 k

    6devilin 700k

    We see how BB values the RB position with the little amount of money he has invested since Dillion left. He even carried 2 undrafted over acheiving FA's as his 1-2 starters for 2 years. So why give a back up who would only see the field if option 1, 2 , and 3 are hurt? Easy to look in hindsight and say, oh 1 guy got hurt. But again I guess BB should only keep the guys who won't get injured.....it's so simple.

     

     



    So why did you list Woodheads amount for the full 2 yrs but everyone else you only listed this one year? This year Woodheads cap hit is $1.25mil, next year it's $2.25 mil but $1.75 is in base so you can cut/extend him with only a $500k cap hit. That's a great contract and not nearly as you put it the $3.5mil.

     

    So in reality the difference better Washington and Woodhead was ~$.5 mil (orignal signing bonus $360k + salary paid after resign ~$400k). Actually they signed Washington at $1.2mil so if he played the full season the difference would have been $50k for this year. Are you really going to tell me that $50k for this year in cap savings was enough justification for Washington over Woodhead?

    And yes maybe BB shouldn't draft injury prone players high up in the draft:

    • Vollmer (love the guy but how many games missed?)
    • Gronk (could be one of the best in the game but when we needed him most is injured)
    • Ras

    We have a lot on money injured on the bench week in and week out. Some are freak injures (Wilfork, Kelly) because they have no history but some this year have track records longer than Gronks arm. That's a ton of money doing nothing most games when you didn't get them proper backups to begin with.

    *btw Vereen wasn't injured in college so I give him the pass but his career so far has been full of injures so you really need to have a good pass catching 3rd down back to back him up and non of the guys you mention fit that mold. 

    BTW I would have replaced Bolden with Woodhead in an instant. Bolden isn't that good of an RB. He hasn't proved to be anything but a 5th RB who cleans up in mop up duty. He averages less than 5 carries a game for ok yards but that is easily replacable by almost any UDFA so not sure why everyone thinks he's someone you'd want over a proven productive player. Esp considering Blount and Ridley do the same thing as Bolden only better.



    I listed his whole contract because that is what it would have taken to keep him. Washington was one of the best KR's in the league. It was worth it. Woodhead was not a good KR, he was slow. Washington was hurt( or the coaches dididn't like him? I guess) . Again, hindsight. If we kept woodhead and vareen didn't get hurt then he doesn't see the field. Bottom line. Apparently bolden came in and did an adequate job as we are 12-4 with another bye week.

    And here is where we can end the discussion....if you think BB made mistakes by signing Gronk and volmer in the 2nd round of the draft then I can't go on. Gronk is injury prone, why? Because he was busy breaking the touch down record for 1st 3 years a guy has been in the league.  I guess there was a fully disclosed  condition in Gronk and Vareens medical reports that makes their acls tear easier when guys crash into their knee caps, or their bones crack when guys land on top of them. BB made a big mistake signing Gronkowski???????.....ok, now ive heard it all.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

     



    Yeah, I think BB wanted to spend the money trying to make his team better in the secondary by adding a mammoth in the box safety with great experience, and get a better kick returner then woodhead was. Both guys were injured and couldn't play. I guess BB shouldn't draft guys who will get hurt....it's so simple.

    1Rid 700k

    2Vareen 700k

    3Blount 750 k

    4Woodhead new 3.5 million dollar commitment to keep him. How many 3rd down backs do most teams carry?

    5Bolden 700 k

    6devilin 700k

    We see how BB values the RB position with the little amount of money he has invested since Dillion left. He even carried 2 undrafted over acheiving FA's as his 1-2 starters for 2 years. So why give a back up who would only see the field if option 1, 2 , and 3 are hurt? Easy to look in hindsight and say, oh 1 guy got hurt. But again I guess BB should only keep the guys who won't get injured.....it's so simple.

     

     



    So why did you list Woodheads amount for the full 2 yrs but everyone else you only listed this one year? This year Woodheads cap hit is $1.25mil, next year it's $2.25 mil but $1.75 is in base so you can cut/extend him with only a $500k cap hit. That's a great contract and not nearly as you put it the $3.5mil.

     

    So in reality the difference better Washington and Woodhead was ~$.5 mil (orignal signing bonus $360k + salary paid after resign ~$400k). Actually they signed Washington at $1.2mil so if he played the full season the difference would have been $50k for this year. Are you really going to tell me that $50k for this year in cap savings was enough justification for Washington over Woodhead?

    And yes maybe BB shouldn't draft injury prone players high up in the draft:

    • Vollmer (love the guy but how many games missed?)
    • Gronk (could be one of the best in the game but when we needed him most is injured)
    • Ras

    We have a lot on money injured on the bench week in and week out. Some are freak injures (Wilfork, Kelly) because they have no history but some this year have track records longer than Gronks arm. That's a ton of money doing nothing most games when you didn't get them proper backups to begin with.

    *btw Vereen wasn't injured in college so I give him the pass but his career so far has been full of injures so you really need to have a good pass catching 3rd down back to back him up and non of the guys you mention fit that mold. 

    BTW I would have replaced Bolden with Woodhead in an instant. Bolden isn't that good of an RB. He hasn't proved to be anything but a 5th RB who cleans up in mop up duty. He averages less than 5 carries a game for ok yards but that is easily replacable by almost any UDFA so not sure why everyone thinks he's someone you'd want over a proven productive player. Esp considering Blount and Ridley do the same thing as Bolden only better.



    I listed his whole contract because that is what it would have taken to keep him. Washington was one of the best KR's in the league. It was worth it. Woodhead was not a good KR, he was slow. Washington was hurt( or the coaches dididn't like him? I guess) . Again, hindsight. If we kept woodhead and vareen didn't get hurt then he doesn't see the field. Bottom line. Apparently bolden came in and did an adequate job as we are 12-4 with another bye week.

    And here is where we can end the discussion....if you think BB made mistakes by signing Gronk and volmer in the 2nd round of the draft then I can't go on. Gronk is injury prone, why? Because he was busy breaking the touch down record for 1st 3 years a guy has been in the league.  I guess there was a fully disclosed  condition in Gronk and Vareens medical reports that makes their acls tear easier when guys crash into their knee caps, or their bones crack when guys land on top of them. BB made a big mistake signing Gronkowski???????.....ok, now ive heard it all.




    This may come as a surprise to a lot of posters but big guys flying around recklessly and crashing into each other results in injuries. This is the NFL. It's not going to change and it will probably get worse.

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

    Re: Why cut woodhead?

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    I like Woody, he's a good story and a good player. Wish he could have stayed.

    But sometimes you have to make tough choices. The combined cap hit for Bolden and Blount is about $1.1 mil. Woody's is $1.25 mil. One of those guys would have been cut if Woody stayed.

    RB is the most interchangeable position in football. Unless we're talking elite difference-maker guys like AP, McCoy and maybe three or four other backs in all of football, there is minimal difference between any of them. Would they have been a noticeably better football team (or better in any way at all) with Woody instead of Blount or Bolden?

    I really don't see it. He'd have been useful when Vereen went down, but would they have won one single game that they lost if he was there instead of B or B?

    Nah.



    I think you can certainly make the case when Brady was struggling to find targets on 3rd down. Bolden was our 3rd down back by default but he was nowhere near what Woody would have done. I know why he was let go but I think its pretty clear he would have helped when Vareenw as down. We had noone to catch out the backfield and Danny is 10 times more valuble than Bolden so if was THAT, than yes BB messed up. Bolden is a jag if there ever was one and Danny is already a fan favorite in S.D.. He has heart and Ive yet to see his size hinder his ability




    And of course your future seeing magical device told you that Vereen would be injured this year right?



    When are you gonna offer something to the board besides nonsense rhetorical questions?  What I said is that I understand why Woody was let go but if it was in favor of Bolden, it was a mistake. I never said BB should have known Vareen will get injured. Just go back to washing the floors stanley....you arent ready to talk football. Just play the backround in the peanut gallery




    And whining about what a player coulda/woulda done in the future when others got injured isn't rhetorical ?

    And of course teenage insults about washing floors is a good way of showing how you carry on meaningful conversations isn't it?

    You're not 'talking' football. You're making idiotic statements about things that could not have been foreseen.




    No I am talking football but its a language YOU dont understand. For years you have done nothing but piggyback the biggest loser on this board. Thats your claim to fame. Enjoy!  I will go back to talking football while you use your time to question WHY I am talking football on a forum. Why dont you just change your name to 1966 and go on every thread and ask why they are discussing football loser.  Btw, you are going to ignore since you offer nothing here so dont bother responding..stanley. Floors are Dirty..

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share