Shane Vereen (1 Viewer)

[Carter_Can_Fly]

In short trust David Yudkin and stay away from this mess!

 

[Bayhawks]

I thought he looked real good in limited time.

Maybe it was just fresh legs, but he took it in when BJGE got stuffed on the previous play. That could earn him Belichec points....

This is just my opinion, but I think that run may have the opposite effect. Vereen appeared to have a small hole where the run was designed to go. He didn't hit that hole, rather he danced, and cut it back against the grain. Because KC was all bunched up inside, that worked, and he got the corner and the end zone, but in a normal situation, there would likely have been outside contain on the weak side to prevent that from happening. BB seems to be the kind of coach who wants his players to run the plays, as they are called (as does Brady), so "improvising" like Vereen did would likely (IMO) be frowned on.

This makes no sense to me at all. You think Belichick is going to be mad at Vereen because he made a cut to the outside when there was no hole in the middle? So Belichick rather Vereen run the ball up the middle for no gain setting up a 4th and 3 instead of Vereen cutting it to the outside for a 19 yard gain making it first and goal from the 3 yard line? To say it kindly, that's very illogical.

No, what I'm saying is there WAS a hole there. It was not, however, the huge holes RBs see in college. It seemed like Vereen passed up the hole that the play was designed to open (possibly because he was hoping/expecting a HUGE hole to open) and bounced it outside. Then he was able to get the corner because KC's D didn't have contain on the edge because they crashed to the inside. That bounce outside isn't there that often in the NFL, like it is in college. Only a few RBs have the burst and lateral agility necessary to get that edge. Could Vereen be one of them? Maybe, but Belicheck is the type of coach who likes things to go as drawn up, and Vereen free-lanced on that play, when he probably didn't have to. That is what I'm saying BB probably wasn't crazy about.

 

[steelwind]

Unless you are in a Dynasty league, stay away. It's nearing the FF playoffs and I wouldn't even want to count on any of these backs. BJGE is the closest thing to a RB2/Flex.

 

[Scooby1974]

Unless you are in a Dynasty league, stay away. It's nearing the FF playoffs and I wouldn't even want to count on any of these backs. BJGE is the closest thing to a RB2/Flex.

Is it safe to assume that anyone interested in Vereen's value is thinking Dynasty? No way would I try to get him for 2011!

 

[Sabertooth]

The Pats have basically opted for a RBBC approach for what, 7 years now? I don't see that changing any time soon, as they appear content to pay low dollars for RBs and invest the bigger dollars elsewhere.

I think the Pats would want BJGE back, but I am not sure they want to give him more than he makes now ($1.8 million) and probably would not want to lock him up to a multi-year deal. Faulk is getting $900K, but I doubt he would be back next year. The three headed hydra of Woodhead, Vereen, and Ridley are all paid peanuts ($375K - $550K).

I don't see any of the current backs dramatically better in their all around game or talent level that they would put the other guys on the bench and ride that one player. IMO, they like having different guys do different things and that keeps them all fresher both in game and season long.

Long story short, I would expect the status quo next year, and the best fantasy option will rotate from week to week (with little pregame knowledge of which guy that might be).

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

 

[Scooby1974]

The Pats have basically opted for a RBBC approach for what, 7 years now? I don't see that changing any time soon, as they appear content to pay low dollars for RBs and invest the bigger dollars elsewhere.

I think the Pats would want BJGE back, but I am not sure they want to give him more than he makes now ($1.8 million) and probably would not want to lock him up to a multi-year deal. Faulk is getting $900K, but I doubt he would be back next year. The three headed hydra of Woodhead, Vereen, and Ridley are all paid peanuts ($375K - $550K).

I don't see any of the current backs dramatically better in their all around game or talent level that they would put the other guys on the bench and ride that one player. IMO, they like having different guys do different things and that keeps them all fresher both in game and season long.

Long story short, I would expect the status quo next year, and the best fantasy option will rotate from week to week (with little pregame knowledge of which guy that might be).

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

Is the running game solely to blame though?

 

[Sabertooth]

The Pats have basically opted for a RBBC approach for what, 7 years now? I don't see that changing any time soon, as they appear content to pay low dollars for RBs and invest the bigger dollars elsewhere.

I think the Pats would want BJGE back, but I am not sure they want to give him more than he makes now ($1.8 million) and probably would not want to lock him up to a multi-year deal. Faulk is getting $900K, but I doubt he would be back next year. The three headed hydra of Woodhead, Vereen, and Ridley are all paid peanuts ($375K - $550K).

I don't see any of the current backs dramatically better in their all around game or talent level that they would put the other guys on the bench and ride that one player. IMO, they like having different guys do different things and that keeps them all fresher both in game and season long.

Long story short, I would expect the status quo next year, and the best fantasy option will rotate from week to week (with little pregame knowledge of which guy that might be).

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

Is the running game solely to blame though?

No, but having a guy like Lesean McCoy or Ray Rice back there may have helped.

 

[TwinTurbo]

By far the most frustrating RBBC in the league to figure out. This is even worse than trying to pick which Raiders WR to start each week.

 

[David Yudkin]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

 

[Boston]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

Agree and disagree...their biggest issue (by far) is their defense and a lack of pass-rush specifically...there can be zero debate about that...that being said while their running game has put up decent numbers it is not one that really worries defenses...defenses will focus on Brady more because they know the Pats running game is not going to kill you (which I believe helps their stats)...it's not a detriment by any means (and at times has been pretty effective) but it lacks big-play ability and a RB that can really keep defenses very honest...I don't think it's a fluke that the Pats won titles in the two best years a RB had under BB...while the Pats do have bigger issues having a legit #1 RB would only help balance this team and make it less dependent on Brady's arm...

 

[Sabertooth]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

So you don't think having Ray Rice instead of Kevin Faulk would help?

 

[David Yudkin]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

So you don't think having Ray Rice instead of Kevin Faulk would help?

Would you rather have had 2430 yfs and 12 TD (BAL) or 2437 yfs and 19 TD (NE) for low dollars like in 2010?

 

[todisco1]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

So you don't think having Ray Rice instead of Kevin Faulk would help?

Would you rather have had 2430 yfs and 12 TD (BAL) or 2437 yfs and 19 TD (NE) for low dollars like in 2010?

Is it really that simple? I mean wouldn't a game-breaking RB completely change the way defenses played the Pats? I'm not sure those stats are equal.

 

[jwb]

I'm convinced it's rbbc because it has to be. If someone is clearly better than the others, that guy will play.

There's no advantage to sitting your best guy. BB just hasn't *had* a "best guy" in quite some time. If one emerges, he'll play him.

 

[Sabertooth]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

So you don't think having Ray Rice instead of Kevin Faulk would help?

Would you rather have had 2430 yfs and 12 TD (BAL) or 2437 yfs and 19 TD (NE) for low dollars like in 2010?

I'd rather have the trophy (GB).

 

[Ping Pong]

You'd think that a coach such as Belichick would notice that this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in the corresponding time frame.

The Pats RB production most years has been at or near the top of the league, even without a bell cow RB. Clearly the main issue has been on the defensive side of the ball. There were many other peripheral issues, but having a stud fantasy running back is not one of them.

So you don't think having Ray Rice instead of Kevin Faulk would help?

Would you rather have had 2430 yfs and 12 TD (BAL) or 2437 yfs and 19 TD (NE) for low dollars like in 2010?

This is nonsense, I would much rather have Ray Rice than BJGE/Woodhead/Fred Taylor. If you switched the players, there's not a chance that the results would be even close to the same. The Pats RBs benefitted from having a hall of fame QB having an MVP season behind them, while Ray Rice had... Flacco. My guess is that the NE backs had such high TD totals because of a lot more redzone opportunities from their high-powered offense. And the similar yards are most likely the result of the NE backs facing defenses set up to stop the pass, while Ray Rice gets to run against defenses set up to stop the run. Also, where the hell are you getting these stats from? 2430 yards from scrimmage? According to pro football reference, the Ravens had 1831 rush yards, and the Pats had 1973 rush yards. Another comparison: the Minnesota Vikings RBs had 1822 yards and 14 TDs (removed Joe Webb's stats since he was a QB). These numbers don't tell me that the Pats have better RBs, just that their offensive system is much much better than the Ravens or Vikings. Now just think how much better it would be if they had a real RB...

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I'd rather have the trophy (GB).

Who we know rumbled to that SB trophy behind Ray Ri....oh, wait. James Starks was their starter by the time the SB rolled around, you say? Well. Poop. There goes that theory.Actually, I agree they'd probably be more dynamic with a true stud at RB....I just don't think Belly-chick cares.The Pats running game is fine. The Needy Hobo is obviously quite comfortable going with a RBBC. They've been successful running the football for a while doing it this way and I don't expect they're in any hurry to change. As mentioned....they're getting basically the same production for a fraction of the cost. That's likely all the Pats brass cares about. The production is there and they don't care about fantasy football.I love Vereen, the player, but hate his situation. As long as he's a Patriot his value is going to be mitigated.

 

[mjr]

Having a bellcow back played a very big role in allowing NE to become repeat Superbowl champions in 2004-05. This dynasty hasn't won another one since then. Like JWB said, if BB has a guy like that, he's going to play him.

In 5 of the last 7 years since Dillion rushed 345 times, there has been a RB with around 200 carries in the NE system. The only exception was in '08 (when Maroney was injured). This year BJGE already has 150 and will most likely have close to or more than 200 by week 16. So, while it has been a RBBC situation in NE for some time now, that one RB with around 200 carries will usually be a decent RB 2/3/bye-filler. BJGE is that NE guy right now and I seriously doubt they go into 2012 without him. Faulk would be lucky to get another 1 year deal. Woodhead has another year left on his deal, wouldn't fetch much in a trade and wouldn't cost them much to keep on. Neither Vereen or Ridley have showed enough on the field just yet to 1) convince the Pats to let BJGE go, or 2) allow the Pats to shop them around for worthwhile draft picks. So, I think BJGE comes back to the same role next year while Vereen and Ridley push for more playing time.

I dont think we'll get an accurate read on Vereen's value until midseason 2012.