Re: Why cut woodhead?
posted at 1/8/2014 7:27 PM EST
In response to PatsEng's comment:
In response to TrueChamp's comment:
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.
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.