I still don't see Vereen doing much more than Woodhead ever did . . .
Hmmm. NE averaged around 33 carries a game last season (2nd highest in the league), so there is a time share here as Ridley will not be getting close to 30 carries per game. They were 65/35 in the playoffs FWIW. Take away Hernandez, Welker, Lloyd and Woodhead and opportunities are piling up for a RB that is going to get alot of PT. Ridley is not a receiving threat, so would it be a surprise to see the Patriots operate in a 2 back set? As you know, it's been done before w/ Belichick (and look for it in 2013).
If your view is that roster fillers Bolden and Blount will get PT, that's another discussion. If you see NE going towards more of a passing offense w/ the unknown talent, I'll take the other option.
Let's break this down some. Here were the total number of plays on offense for the Pats since BB came to town . . .
2012 - 1191
2011 - 1082
2010 - 986
2009 - 1076
2008 - 1095
2007 - 1058
2006 - 1055
2005 - 1031
2004 - 1035
2003 - 1042
2002 - 1031
2001 - 1001
2000 - 1037
The Pats went into hyper accelerated mode on offense last year when the offense was clicking, at times running a no huddle as far as possible. They may choose to try that again this year, but the offense would need to be clicking.
So I take two things away from that. One, that they could go back to a more regular paced offense (cause running hurry up and not moving the ball would take no time off the clock and put the so-so defense back on the field. Or two, the offense is clicking and that means several players are making consistent contributions.
In those two scenarios, one would result in a lot fewer offensive plays. It's possible that the Pats could run 100-125 fewer plays this year (maybe even 150). IMO, the much larger majority of plays lost would be runs. NE is not going to take the ball out of their best players hands and have him hand off way more than pass.
In the second scenario, that approaches an offense that we've seen the past few years. I don't think the passing game will be only Amendola, Gronkowski, (and according to some) Vereen. There are many other receiving options on the roster.
I think some folks have played fantasy football so long they forget that in real football having 4 guys with 500 yards of offense is just as good as two players with 1,000 yards each.
We may see some of the roster depth start to chisel away into the void left by all the exiting players. Some of these guys could get 15-20 catches or 30-40 carries. When you get enough of those types of outcomes, you end up with decent team totals (but maybe not as many fantasy studs).
I think too many people are looking at Vereen and hoping / wanting / begging for him to put up huge numbers just so they can say they grabbed him as a fantasy sleeper. The Pats have had several guys line up all over the field before. Hernandez, Welker, Edelman, Woodhead, Vereen, Moss to name a few. Just being on the field more does not automatically mean a huge uptick in touches.
So IMO the Pats may not run the ball 523 times again. Vereen had 62 carries last year. Woodhead had 76. I think the most Vereen gets if Ridley stays healthy would be 100 carries. I also think the realistic upside of Vereen receiving is probably 50 catches. So I see upside of 1000 yards combined and 5-6 TDs. At those numbers he would be a fantasy asset . . . but not a fantasy game changer. Like Woodhead before him, that would likely rank him in the RB20s. And also like Woodhead, when he will have big games will be hard to predict, so he may have 3-4 weeks with very little to show for it then a big game (when he might be on the fantasy bench).
He might be more appealing in larger leagues or ones with multiple flex spots. But I still view him as the back up RB on the Pats with a chance to get used more in different formations (read as: not a bell cow running back).