Shane Vereen (2 Viewers)

[Biabreakable]

I have Vereen at 13G - 78 Rec - 700 Rec Yds - 425 Rush Yds - 7 TDs Total

If he's able to 16G (a gamble admittedly), I don't think 90/850 Receiving is outlandish at all which would put him as a top 20 WR without even running the ball once. With moderate Rushing estimates that would put him in RB5-7 range.

Over the last 3 seasons only one RB has had more than 77 receptions. That was Darrin Sproles in 2011 who had 86 receptions.

Going back further only 3 RB have had 90 or more receptions. LT in 2003 had 100, Steven Jackson in 2006 had 90, Brian Westbrook in 2007 had 90.

I have Shane Vereen getting 105 rushing attempts 452 rushing yards 2TD 65 targets 51 receptions 535 receiving yards 2TD. and I consider that projection to be optimistic.

Which would put him right within the RB2 tier in a PPR league, which I think is fair. I think he's a serviceable RB2 or a solid flex in PPR, but definitely not a No. 1. We won't see Sproles' 2011 numbers from this guy.

Over the last 3 seasons RB24 has averaged 166.7 points in PPR

So my my projection for Vereen would be a borderline RB2 to RB3

I was an English major, so my math might be off (and obviously scoring systems will vary) but to me this looks like:

452 rushing yards = 45 points

2TDs = 12 points

51 receptions = 51 points

535 receiving yards = 54 points

2TD = 12 points

That's 174 points (I rounded the receiving yards). That would've made him a top-20 back last year, and a solid RB2.

For yardage 1 yard = .1pts TD = 6pts

This means 122.65pts in standard leagues 173.65pts in PPR leagues.

Thanks I found an error in my spread sheet just now that had the formula projecting 10 points less because of a missing parentheses.

174 points would be RB 20 or so.

 

[Biabreakable]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think Kevin Faulk is a good comp for what to expect from Vereen. Faulk played 15 or more games 8 times with New England and had one season with 226 touches (24 years old) and one season with 215 touches (27) so it is certainly possible that Vereen gets 200+ touches. However in those six other seasons Faulk had 141 (32), 109 (31), 99 (33), 89 (26), 71 (25) & 68 (30) touches.

Faulk also never had more than 58 receptions in a season. Those 58 receptions represents the most receptions by any running back in 14 years of the Belichick/Brady offense in New England.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for 75 receptions or 200 touches for Vereen.

A WR had also never caught more than 101 balls in a season or gone over 1,200 receiving yards or caught 21 touchdowns before Randy Moss and Wes Welker got there.

No, I am not equating Vereen to Randy Moss, but simply pointing out that what they have done with past RBs is fairly irrelevant, since Belichick has shown that he will change his offensive philosophy from year to year. If he thinks Vereen getting the ball in his hands will help them win, he'll do it, and based on what we saw last year, I feel confident that he thinks that.

Also, with all due respect to Kevin Faulk, Vereen is more dynamic than he was; I am just not sure he is as durable. That is the big question with Vereen: can he stay healthy?

No it's not irrelevant, it's a historical trend that should not be ignored unless you actually are suggesting that Vereen is close to a Wes Welker caliber player. Frankly I doubt he is a better player than Kevin Faulk and I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that Vereen is more dynamic than Faulk. Faulk was probably the most dynamic player on their offense for many seasons he did it all for the Pats for 13 years. Vereen needs to show a lot more than a single broken play before I will be willing to concede that he is a better player than Faulk.

You think 75 receptions is realistic which is fine but it is based on little more than hope. I will bet on the historical record and gladly take the under on that one.

Right, cause a single broken play is all I am basing this off...

In 2008, the year Faulk got his most (58), NE RBs caught 81 balls. So, throwing a lot to the RBs wouldn't be a new thing for the Belichick-era Patriots. Hell, RBs caught 84 for the Patriots last year, and Vereen had 47 of those in only 8 games, so I think it's natural to assume that while his catches per game will go down - I doubt anyone will predict 94 catches for him - if he catches around 70-80, no one should be surprised.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

If you are doing projections and you have Vereen at about 80, I think you're making a big mistake.

This is my thinking, too. If you are drafting Vereen, you are pretty much living on a prayer. You NEED Ridley to get in the dog house and for White to be a bust and another Gronk/Dola injury. Vereen was featured last year in the passing game because they had no other options. This year they don't have as nice of receiving options as they've had in the past, but this set of options is an embarrassment of riches compared to last year. Their #1 option in week 1 was an undrafted FA who caught 4 of 14 targets. Amendola is actually pretty good when healthy, some of the best hands in the game. Plus they just paid Edelman. Both of those guys will eat into Vereen's would-be (read: short) targets. Thompkins and Dobson should both be improved and they brought in LaFell for some reason I have to assume. A healthy Gronk will command a lot of targets.

Bottom line is that this is a different team than last year. Vereen won't be as needed as a safety valve. If you draft him, you desperately need some outside help. You are pretty much going for a runner-runner flush in hold'em. Don't be that guy.

Also, most of his supporters make sure to qualify "PPR" in their posts, but do you guys still draft him in 0.5 leagues? What about 0 ppr leagues where his ADP drops from RB18 to RB24?

Vereen is not a smart play this year, but there are some possible, albeit unpredictable, scenarios where his supporters could foul hook an RB2 here and act like they saw it coming all along.

What makes you think that his performance on the field in 2013 didn't impact how the coaches perceive his utility this season?

You act as if it's unheard of for a guy to get on the field and actually earn more touches based on how effective he is once he gets out there.

Earning more touches is one thing, but drawing 100 short passes is another. With all the weapons they've got, you think they are going to run 1/5th or 1/4th of their plays (pass+rush) through Vereen? He's a committee back. They've got several well paid, talented short target players. Why is Vereen going to get a ton of targets combined with a handful of rushing attempts?

They utiilized Vereen in that role for the first time Week 1. I think its safe to say they had plans to use him that way regardless of the fact that they were heavily handicapped.

What? I think it is safe to say they had very few other options in week 1, so yeah, of course they planned to use him. Now that they have other options, it is no longer a safe assumption to expect 2013 utilization.

Also, Brady threw the ball 628 times last year, making the third straight year for over 600 attempts. Should they pull the plug on that style, things won't be pretty for fantasy owners. Last year they threw 120 passes to RBs. If people think Vereen is going to have 75 receptions, then they must be expecting at least 100 targets. So that means almost no passes for White, Ridley, or Bolden. Good luck with that.

was that the year vereen missed half of?

how many targets did a rb get in the half season he played?

 

[Chaka]

I think Kevin Faulk is a good comp for what to expect from Vereen. Faulk played 15 or more games 8 times with New England and had one season with 226 touches (24 years old) and one season with 215 touches (27) so it is certainly possible that Vereen gets 200+ touches. However in those six other seasons Faulk had 141 (32), 109 (31), 99 (33), 89 (26), 71 (25) & 68 (30) touches.

Faulk also never had more than 58 receptions in a season. Those 58 receptions represents the most receptions by any running back in 14 years of the Belichick/Brady offense in New England.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for 75 receptions or 200 touches for Vereen.

A WR had also never caught more than 101 balls in a season or gone over 1,200 receiving yards or caught 21 touchdowns before Randy Moss and Wes Welker got there.

No, I am not equating Vereen to Randy Moss, but simply pointing out that what they have done with past RBs is fairly irrelevant, since Belichick has shown that he will change his offensive philosophy from year to year. If he thinks Vereen getting the ball in his hands will help them win, he'll do it, and based on what we saw last year, I feel confident that he thinks that.

Also, with all due respect to Kevin Faulk, Vereen is more dynamic than he was; I am just not sure he is as durable. That is the big question with Vereen: can he stay healthy?

No it's not irrelevant, it's a historical trend that should not be ignored unless you actually are suggesting that Vereen is close to a Wes Welker caliber player. Frankly I doubt he is a better player than Kevin Faulk and I have no idea what you mean by suggesting that Vereen is more dynamic than Faulk. Faulk was probably the most dynamic player on their offense for many seasons he did it all for the Pats for 13 years. Vereen needs to show a lot more than a single broken play before I will be willing to concede that he is a better player than Faulk.

You think 75 receptions is realistic which is fine but it is based on little more than hope. I will bet on the historical record and gladly take the under on that one.

Right, cause a single broken play is all I am basing this off...

In 2008, the year Faulk got his most (58), NE RBs caught 81 balls. So, throwing a lot to the RBs wouldn't be a new thing for the Belichick-era Patriots. Hell, RBs caught 84 for the Patriots last year, and Vereen had 47 of those in only 8 games, so I think it's natural to assume that while his catches per game will go down - I doubt anyone will predict 94 catches for him - if he catches around 70-80, no one should be surprised.

Everyone should be surprised if that happens.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And yet many of us won't be if it does.

Historical trends are just that: trends. They are not certainties.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wheel route - all year long.

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

Looks like the pats showed their hand for the season tonight. Ryan Mallet is the new QB and they will only be able to run about 25 plays a game(Is that a typo?-CBS). 12 passes, 13 runs for the entire game?

I'm sure BB and the Pats take these preseason games as seriously as we do.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

they ran some more plays after halftime

 

[[icon]]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

Sooo....

You're projecting the same number of receptions in 16G as 8G last year.. But INSIST you're not projecting a 50pct drop in utilization.

So new conditions:

1) you're projecting vereens drop rate to increase by 200-300%

2) you don't know what utilization means

Where do we stand?

 

[Chaka]

And yet many of us won't be if it does.

Historical trends are just that: trends. They are not certainties.

And I understand why you feel that way as Vereen seems to have great hands. And I am not putting out a trend as a certainty but I think it is very foolish to ignore 14 years of history...let me rephrase that I think it is foolish to make projections for Vereen, and draft him at that level, that would be so far out of whack with anything that has ever happened under BB & TB in New England (we're not talking about a small data set here). Also Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

I think Vereen is more than capable of hitting your projections but for him to do it in New England would require another season where five of their other receivers are out or hobbled regularly. Because if everyone stays reasonably healthy and on the field then you would be wise to bet on the probability that the historical trends will continue.

 

[Chaka]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

Sooo....

You're projecting the same number of receptions in 16G as 8G last year.. But INSIST you're not projecting a 50pct drop in utilization.

So new conditions:

1) you're projecting vereens drop rate to increase by 200-300%

2) you don't know what utilization means

Where do we stand?

To be fair aren't you basing projections on five New England pass catchers to continue to miss multiple games and play hurt through others?

 

[LawFitz]

Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

IMO, they are equally/similarly dynamic. Vereen is more explosive. Faulk was more durable.

 

[Ghost Rider]

And yet many of us won't be if it does.

Historical trends are just that: trends. They are not certainties.

And I understand why you feel that way as Vereen seems to have great hands. And I am not putting out a trend as a certainty but I think it is very foolish to ignore 14 years of history...let me rephrase that I think it is foolish to make projections for Vereen, and draft him at that level, that would be so far out of whack with anything that has ever happened under BB & TB in New England (we're not talking about a small data set here). Also Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

I think Vereen is more than capable of hitting your projections but for him to do it in New England would require another season where five of their other receivers are out or hobbled regularly. Because if everyone stays reasonably healthy and on the field then you would be wise to bet on the probability that the historical trends will continue.

Time will tell, but remember that the Patriots have been running more and more no-huddle over the last few years, which means they could run more plays, which means more runs and more targets in the passing game.

As for being more dynamic than Faulk, he looks to have more burst than the shiftier Faulk, and Vereen is already averaging around 2 more yards per catch than Faulk did over the course of his career (albeit Vereen has a much smaller sample size). Vereen just reminds me of Sproles in that you never know where he might be on the field, and you always have to worry if that guy gets the ball in space. And like Sproles in NO, Vereen is on a team that seems to know how to use him to maximize his talents and skill set, which is why many of us love his upside.

Like I said before, no WR had done what Moss or Welker had done in NE prior to 2007, so saying no RB has done what Vereen could do doesn't mean a lot to me. Kevin Faulk was a prime example of how much Belichick will use a RB in the passing game, and Vereen has the potential to be an even better Kevin Faulk...if he is durable enough, which is still the question.

Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

IMO, they are equally/similarly dynamic. Vereen is more explosive. Faulk was more durable.

I think that's fair.

 

[FF Ninja]

They utiilized Vereen in that role for the first time Week 1. I think its safe to say they had plans to use him that way regardless of the fact that they were heavily handicapped.

What? I think it is safe to say they had very few other options in week 1, so yeah, of course they planned to use him. Now that they have other options, it is no longer a safe assumption to expect 2013 utilization.

Also, Brady threw the ball 628 times last year, making the third straight year for over 600 attempts. Should they pull the plug on that style, things won't be pretty for fantasy owners. Last year they threw 120 passes to RBs. If people think Vereen is going to have 75 receptions, then they must be expecting at least 100 targets. So that means almost no passes for White, Ridley, or Bolden. Good luck with that.

Gronk was out and Dobson was a game time decision and didn't play, Thompkins, Amendola, Edelman, Vereen and Ridley were all 100% going into the game and they utilized Vereen all game.Im confused at how this doesn't look like a clear indication that using Vereen as a prototypical Sproles-esque role type player from the get-go? I mean, I watched the game - they very clearly wanted to use Vereen like that, and they did. I don't think it was an accident or out of necessity.

Yes. You do appear confused. What I keep saying is that they were missing weapons and had a bunch of scrubs/unknowns, so they game planned to use a known quantity - Vereen. That was 2013. The situation has obviously changed immensely in 2014, Vereen believers expect his usage from last year to carry over.

You guys will need a near perfect storm of injuries and circumstances for him to live up to his ADP. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely to happen? No.

 

[Run It Up]

They utiilized Vereen in that role for the first time Week 1. I think its safe to say they had plans to use him that way regardless of the fact that they were heavily handicapped.

What? I think it is safe to say they had very few other options in week 1, so yeah, of course they planned to use him. Now that they have other options, it is no longer a safe assumption to expect 2013 utilization.

Also, Brady threw the ball 628 times last year, making the third straight year for over 600 attempts. Should they pull the plug on that style, things won't be pretty for fantasy owners. Last year they threw 120 passes to RBs. If people think Vereen is going to have 75 receptions, then they must be expecting at least 100 targets. So that means almost no passes for White, Ridley, or Bolden. Good luck with that.

Gronk was out and Dobson was a game time decision and didn't play, Thompkins, Amendola, Edelman, Vereen and Ridley were all 100% going into the game and they utilized Vereen all game.Im confused at how this doesn't look like a clear indication that using Vereen as a prototypical Sproles-esque role type player from the get-go? I mean, I watched the game - they very clearly wanted to use Vereen like that, and they did. I don't think it was an accident or out of necessity.

Yes. You do appear confused. What I keep saying is that they were missing weapons and had a bunch of scrubs/unknowns, so they game planned to use a known quantity - Vereen. That was 2013. The situation has obviously changed immensely in 2014, Vereen believers expect his usage from last year to carry over.

You guys will need a near perfect storm of injuries and circumstances for him to live up to his ADP. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely to happen? No.

The only thing that has changed is Gronk is healthy and the rookies are a year older.

 

[Biabreakable]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

Sooo....

You're projecting the same number of receptions in 16G as 8G last year.. But INSIST you're not projecting a 50pct drop in utilization.

So new conditions:

1) you're projecting vereens drop rate to increase by 200-300%

2) you don't know what utilization means

Where do we stand?

I use career catch rate for all players based on targets. Vereen is 79%

Here are the Patriots running backs for 2014-

Stevan Ridley 280 4.5 1260 9 20 0.613 12 6.6 79 0 187.9 199.9

Shane Vereen 105 4.3 451.5 2 65 0.79 51 10.5 535 2 122.65 173.65

James White 75 4.2 315 2 35 0.73 26 7.7 197 0 63.2 89.2

James DeVelin 4 2.5 10 1 8 0.8 6 15.5 93 16.3 22.3

That is not a 50% reduction. You do not seem to understand the statements coming out of your own mouth, which makes it pretty pointless to debate.

I understand Vereen's utilization is situational. If there is a match up they can exploit with him, they will. If the defense does not take that away then they will do it a lot until the defense does take it away. Some defenses will cause Vereen to be not utilized as much as others. To take those situations where they did and just assume that they will be able to do that every game? It is not reasonable.

 

[Chaka]

And yet many of us won't be if it does.

Historical trends are just that: trends. They are not certainties.

And I understand why you feel that way as Vereen seems to have great hands. And I am not putting out a trend as a certainty but I think it is very foolish to ignore 14 years of history...let me rephrase that I think it is foolish to make projections for Vereen, and draft him at that level, that would be so far out of whack with anything that has ever happened under BB & TB in New England (we're not talking about a small data set here). Also Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

I think Vereen is more than capable of hitting your projections but for him to do it in New England would require another season where five of their other receivers are out or hobbled regularly. Because if everyone stays reasonably healthy and on the field then you would be wise to bet on the probability that the historical trends will continue.

Time will tell, but remember that the Patriots have been running more and more no-huddle over the last few years, which means they could run more plays, which means more runs and more targets in the passing game.

As for being more dynamic than Faulk, he looks to have more burst than the shiftier Faulk, and Vereen is already averaging around 2 more yards per catch than Faulk did over the course of his career (albeit Vereen has a much smaller sample size). Vereen just reminds me of Sproles in that you never know where he might be on the field, and you always have to worry if that guy gets the ball in space. And like Sproles in NO, Vereen is on a team that seems to know how to use him to maximize his talents and skill set, which is why many of us love his upside.

Like I said before, no WR had done what Moss or Welker had done in NE prior to 2007, so saying no RB has done what Vereen could do doesn't mean a lot to me. Kevin Faulk was a prime example of how much Belichick will use a RB in the passing game, and Vereen has the potential to be an even better Kevin Faulk...if he is durable enough, which is still the question.

Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

IMO, they are equally/similarly dynamic. Vereen is more explosive. Faulk was more durable.

I think that's fair.

Of course time will tell and I completely acknowledge that it could happen but, as you pointed out, Vereen is not Moss (he isn't Welker either) so I am really just cautioning against drafting him somewhere commensurate with a RB who will catch 70+ passes. IMO that's overpaying and taking too big a risk. You should put more stock into history.

 

[kutta]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

Sooo....

You're projecting the same number of receptions in 16G as 8G last year.. But INSIST you're not projecting a 50pct drop in utilization.

So new conditions:

1) you're projecting vereens drop rate to increase by 200-300%

2) you don't know what utilization means

Where do we stand?

I use career catch rate for all players based on targets. Vereen is 79%

Here are the Patriots running backs for 2014-

Stevan Ridley 280 4.5 1260 9 20 0.613 12 6.6 79 0 187.9 199.9

Shane Vereen 105 4.3 451.5 2 65 0.79 51 10.5 535 2 122.65 173.65

James White 75 4.2 315 2 35 0.73 26 7.7 197 0 63.2 89.2

James DeVelin 4 2.5 10 1 8 0.8 6 15.5 93 16.3 22.3

That is not a 50% reduction. You do not seem to understand the statements coming out of your own mouth, which makes it pretty pointless to debate.

I understand Vereen's utilization is situational. If there is a match up they can exploit with him, they will. If the defense does not take that away then they will do it a lot until the defense does take it away. Some defenses will cause Vereen to be not utilized as much as others. To take those situations where they did and just assume that they will be able to do that every game? It is not reasonable.

I think I have to agree with Icon here. Your projections are just fine. But if you are projecting him to catch about the same number of balls as last year, and you are projecting for 16 games, then you kind of are projecting a drop in utilization of about 50%.

There's nothing wrong with that. I tend to agree with you that he will be used differently and probably used less than he was in the 8 games last year. But I'm not sure why you are arguing so much about projecting a drop in his utilization.

 

[Anarchy99]

I caution people on looking at guys like Vereen or Edelman and conclude that they will see the targets they did last year. NE had so many injuries last year that they had few options to throw to . . . thus inflating the stats of the guys that were on the field and healthy. Vereen has not been used much as a rusher, and I don't think that will change, Put another way, I don't think the Pats want Vereen or Edelman to have a zillion targets and would much rather have other guys more involved and opening up the offense.

 

[*****]

I agree with the approaching Vereen and Edelman with caution, especially Edelman. It seems to me that a healthy Amendola--while he may not exceed Edelman's production--could get enough targets to hurt him. Vereen still seems like a decent mid-round PPR play to me. The Pats have had someone in a pass catching role for years (Woodhead, K. Faulk, etc.). So I suspect he has that role and will get enough targets to have value in PPR. I'd certainly prefer him as my RB3 and not my RB2. I suppose someone going WR/WR in redraft may have to consider him when it's time to pick an RB2 (with idea that his PPR can fill the spot and the pray that he can finally wrangle some meaningful rushing attempts as upside)

 

[Anarchy99]

I agree with the approaching Vereen and Edelman with caution, especially Edelman. It seems to me that a healthy Amendola--while he may not exceed Edelman's production--could get enough targets to hurt him. Vereen still seems like a decent mid-round PPR play to me. The Pats have had someone in a pass catching role for years (Woodhead, K. Faulk, etc.). So I suspect he has that role and will get enough targets to have value in PPR. I'd certainly prefer him as my RB3 and not my RB2. I suppose someone going WR/WR in redraft may have to consider him when it's time to pick an RB2 (with idea that his PPR can fill the spot and the pray that he can finally wrangle some meaningful rushing attempts as upside)

Vereen just went as RB13 in a ppr league draft I was in. For a guy that may not get 100 carries, that's too rich for my blood. He's going earlier and earlier the closer we get to the season.

And the other big target threat which neither of us mentioned was Gronk. Add in the other guys (Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, White, LaFell), and I think the target distribution will be a lot different than last year.

 

[Biabreakable]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

Sooo....

You're projecting the same number of receptions in 16G as 8G last year.. But INSIST you're not projecting a 50pct drop in utilization.

So new conditions:

1) you're projecting vereens drop rate to increase by 200-300%

2) you don't know what utilization means

Where do we stand?

I use career catch rate for all players based on targets. Vereen is 79%

Here are the Patriots running backs for 2014-

Stevan Ridley 280 4.5 1260 9 20 0.613 12 6.6 79 0 187.9 199.9

Shane Vereen 105 4.3 451.5 2 65 0.79 51 10.5 535 2 122.65 173.65

James White 75 4.2 315 2 35 0.73 26 7.7 197 0 63.2 89.2

James DeVelin 4 2.5 10 1 8 0.8 6 15.5 93 16.3 22.3

That is not a 50% reduction. You do not seem to understand the statements coming out of your own mouth, which makes it pretty pointless to debate.

I understand Vereen's utilization is situational. If there is a match up they can exploit with him, they will. If the defense does not take that away then they will do it a lot until the defense does take it away. Some defenses will cause Vereen to be not utilized as much as others. To take those situations where they did and just assume that they will be able to do that every game? It is not reasonable.

I think I have to agree with Icon here. Your projections are just fine. But if you are projecting him to catch about the same number of balls as last year, and you are projecting for 16 games, then you kind of are projecting a drop in utilization of about 50%.

There's nothing wrong with that. I tend to agree with you that he will be used differently and probably used less than he was in the 8 games last year. But I'm not sure why you are arguing so much about projecting a drop in his utilization.

I do not understand how you and icon can consider this a 50% reduction in utilization. That makes no sense mathematically. At all.

If you pro rate every player based on a small same size and consider that to be their expected utilization you would end up with a ton of players eclipsing reasonable expected performance levels. I very much doubt anyone is doing that. So if that is not the process of projection for every player it is not consistent to do so for only a few select players.

I think people use PPG or points/target far too liberally and this leads to over valuing those players because of that process. I see people doing that every year.

The utilization is situational. The situations that led to Vereen being highly targeted will not be repeated on a game to game basis. in some games it will when the situation merits it. That will not be every week of the season.

To say that my projections are a reduction of what the player has never done over a 16 game time frame? One of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Good luck to you all with that.

Reminds me of people going bonkers over David Wilsons small sample size last year.

 

[Run It Up]

I was gonna mention the comparisons between this thread and those of Mccluster and Wilson, with the exception of Vereen actually accomplishing the things he was said to be capable of.

 

[kutta]

Last season Shane Vereen had 44 rushing attempts 208 rushing yards 1TD 69 targets 47 receptions 427 receiving yards 3TD

My projection would not be a 50% drop in utilization. It is actually an increase.

Your numbers seem to be pro rating the 8 games he played into 16 games at the same level.

Of course my numbers project out to a 16 game season. Has the NFL shortened their season and I somehow missed it, or are you definitively projecting Vereen to only play 8 games again this year?

Because if you're not projecting a halving of his utilization, it kinda HAS to be one or the other.

Actually you said your first projection assumed 13 games.

I am projecting Vereen for 16 games which based on his track record is questionable, as he has not done that yet in his career.

I think it is erroneous to just pro rate a players performance in 8 games to 16. Especially for a player who has not managed to play that many games yet in a season yet in their career. If Vereen had already performed at that level over a 16 game time frame, and then missed 8 games the following season I would consider doing that to be more reasonable

Sooo....You're projecting the same number of receptions in 16G as 8G last year.. But INSIST you're not projecting a 50pct drop in utilization.

So new conditions:

1) you're projecting vereens drop rate to increase by 200-300%

2) you don't know what utilization means

Where do we stand?

I use career catch rate for all players based on targets. Vereen is 79%

Here are the Patriots running backs for 2014-

Stevan Ridley 280 4.5 1260 9 20 0.613 12 6.6 79 0 187.9 199.9

Shane Vereen 105 4.3 451.5 2 65 0.79 51 10.5 535 2 122.65 173.65

James White 75 4.2 315 2 35 0.73 26 7.7 197 0 63.2 89.2

James DeVelin 4 2.5 10 1 8 0.8 6 15.5 93 16.3 22.3

That is not a 50% reduction. You do not seem to understand the statements coming out of your own mouth, which makes it pretty pointless to debate.

I understand Vereen's utilization is situational. If there is a match up they can exploit with him, they will. If the defense does not take that away then they will do it a lot until the defense does take it away. Some defenses will cause Vereen to be not utilized as much as others. To take those situations where they did and just assume that they will be able to do that every game? It is not reasonable.

I think I have to agree with Icon here. Your projections are just fine. But if you are projecting him to catch about the same number of balls as last year, and you are projecting for 16 games, then you kind of are projecting a drop in utilization of about 50%. There's nothing wrong with that. I tend to agree with you that he will be used differently and probably used less than he was in the 8 games last year. But I'm not sure why you are arguing so much about projecting a drop in his utilization.

I do not understand how you and icon can consider this a 50% reduction in utilization. That makes no sense mathematically. At all.

If you pro rate every player based on a small same size and consider that to be their expected utilization you would end up with a ton of players eclipsing reasonable expected performance levels. I very much doubt anyone is doing that. So if that is not the process of projection for every player it is not consistent to do so for only a few select players.

I think people use PPG or points/target far too liberally and this leads to over valuing those players because of that process. I see people doing that every year.

The utilization is situational. The situations that led to Vereen being highly targeted will not be repeated on a game to game basis. in some games it will when the situation merits it. That will not be every week of the season.

To say that my projections are a reduction of what the player has never done over a 16 game time frame? One of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Good luck to you all with that.

Reminds me of people going bonkers over David Wilsons small sample size last year.

This is getting weird.I said I agree with you that his numbers will go down. So I, also, am predicting a decrease in his utilization.

He was used a certain way for 8 games last year. You do not think he will be used the same this year. Or, in other words, you think he will be utilized less. Based on how he was used on a per game basis last year, you are predicting a 50% decline per game.

Why is that so hard to admit? And why do you think it's so bad to say? I just don't understand.

 

[*****]

RB13? Oy! Too rich for my blood.

I just went backed and checked a mock that I did last night. He went RB21. Which support your point that he is moving up.

I agree with the approaching Vereen and Edelman with caution, especially Edelman. It seems to me that a healthy Amendola--while he may not exceed Edelman's production--could get enough targets to hurt him. Vereen still seems like a decent mid-round PPR play to me. The Pats have had someone in a pass catching role for years (Woodhead, K. Faulk, etc.). So I suspect he has that role and will get enough targets to have value in PPR. I'd certainly prefer him as my RB3 and not my RB2. I suppose someone going WR/WR in redraft may have to consider him when it's time to pick an RB2 (with idea that his PPR can fill the spot and the pray that he can finally wrangle some meaningful rushing attempts as upside)

Vereen just went as RB13 in a ppr league draft I was in. For a guy that may not get 100 carries, that's too rich for my blood. He's going earlier and earlier the closer we get to the season.And the other big target threat which neither of us mentioned was Gronk. Add in the other guys (Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, White, LaFell), and I think the target distribution will be a lot different than last year.

 

[LawFitz]

Is Vereen still wearing the soft cast on his wrist that he had last season?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Vereen has done nothing to convince me that he is markedly superior in any way to Kevin Faulk.

IMO, they are equally/similarly dynamic. Vereen is more explosive. Faulk was more durable.

I think that's fair.

Faulk also had significantly better hands.

 

[FF Ninja]

I agree with the approaching Vereen and Edelman with caution, especially Edelman. It seems to me that a healthy Amendola--while he may not exceed Edelman's production--could get enough targets to hurt him. Vereen still seems like a decent mid-round PPR play to me. The Pats have had someone in a pass catching role for years (Woodhead, K. Faulk, etc.). So I suspect he has that role and will get enough targets to have value in PPR. I'd certainly prefer him as my RB3 and not my RB2. I suppose someone going WR/WR in redraft may have to consider him when it's time to pick an RB2 (with idea that his PPR can fill the spot and the pray that he can finally wrangle some meaningful rushing attempts as upside)

Vereen just went as RB13 in a ppr league draft I was in. For a guy that may not get 100 carries, that's too rich for my blood. He's going earlier and earlier the closer we get to the season.

And the other big target threat which neither of us mentioned was Gronk. Add in the other guys (Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, White, LaFell), and I think the target distribution will be a lot different than last year.

Holy $***! A voice of reason in here. It will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, though.

 

[need2know]

I agree with the approaching Vereen and Edelman with caution, especially Edelman. It seems to me that a healthy Amendola--while he may not exceed Edelman's production--could get enough targets to hurt him. Vereen still seems like a decent mid-round PPR play to me. The Pats have had someone in a pass catching role for years (Woodhead, K. Faulk, etc.). So I suspect he has that role and will get enough targets to have value in PPR. I'd certainly prefer him as my RB3 and not my RB2. I suppose someone going WR/WR in redraft may have to consider him when it's time to pick an RB2 (with idea that his PPR can fill the spot and the pray that he can finally wrangle some meaningful rushing attempts as upside)

Vereen just went as RB13 in a ppr league draft I was in. For a guy that may not get 100 carries, that's too rich for my blood. He's going earlier and earlier the closer we get to the season.And the other big target threat which neither of us mentioned was Gronk. Add in the other guys (Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, White, LaFell), and I think the target distribution will be a lot different than last year.

Holy $***! A voice of reason in here. It will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, though.

I agree that the offense will look different. Do people still view vereen as a rb2 in a .5 ppr? Or is he more of a flex / rb3?

 

[rjv]

In a ppr IMO RB2

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree with the approaching Vereen and Edelman with caution, especially Edelman. It seems to me that a healthy Amendola--while he may not exceed Edelman's production--could get enough targets to hurt him. Vereen still seems like a decent mid-round PPR play to me. The Pats have had someone in a pass catching role for years (Woodhead, K. Faulk, etc.). So I suspect he has that role and will get enough targets to have value in PPR. I'd certainly prefer him as my RB3 and not my RB2. I suppose someone going WR/WR in redraft may have to consider him when it's time to pick an RB2 (with idea that his PPR can fill the spot and the pray that he can finally wrangle some meaningful rushing attempts as upside)

Vereen just went as RB13 in a ppr league draft I was in. For a guy that may not get 100 carries, that's too rich for my blood. He's going earlier and earlier the closer we get to the season.

And the other big target threat which neither of us mentioned was Gronk. Add in the other guys (Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, White, LaFell), and I think the target distribution will be a lot different than last year.

Isn't this where we left off in summer 2013, talking about the picture when Gronk gets back? Things have not been the same without Hernandez and Welker. It seems to me, when all are healthy, the corners of this passing offense are Gronk, Vereen, and Edelman (or Amendola or Dobson or the combination of the guys you mention, who are basically a mish-mash, and maybe that third piece is still in flux as it was last year).

 

[DropKick]

They utiilized Vereen in that role for the first time Week 1. I think its safe to say they had plans to use him that way regardless of the fact that they were heavily handicapped.

What? I think it is safe to say they had very few other options in week 1, so yeah, of course they planned to use him. Now that they have other options, it is no longer a safe assumption to expect 2013 utilization.

Also, Brady threw the ball 628 times last year, making the third straight year for over 600 attempts. Should they pull the plug on that style, things won't be pretty for fantasy owners. Last year they threw 120 passes to RBs. If people think Vereen is going to have 75 receptions, then they must be expecting at least 100 targets. So that means almost no passes for White, Ridley, or Bolden. Good luck with that.

Gronk was out and Dobson was a game time decision and didn't play, Thompkins, Amendola, Edelman, Vereen and Ridley were all 100% going into the game and they utilized Vereen all game.

Im confused at how this doesn't look like a clear indication that using Vereen as a prototypical Sproles-esque role type player from the get-go? I mean, I watched the game - they very clearly wanted to use Vereen like that, and they did. I don't think it was an accident or out of necessity.

First of all, a single game can simply be the "game plan"... I do remember this game; With the recent loss of Hernandez and the Gronk injury, plus the exodus of receivers - it was ripe with fantasy implications. The was the first game for Thompkins and Amendola tore his groin. It stands out to me because Amendola returned later in the game. Gutsy performance but I think he paid the price (injury wise) for most of the season. I recall Vereen being used heavily but you have to think some of this was necessity as NE had a very limited number of receiving options.

Looking back at Vereen's stats - he was hurt too (wrist?) in that game and didn't return until week 10 where he put up a string of 8, 8, 5, 12 receptions per game. Obviously, 12 (on 17 targets) is an aberration. Is this when Gronk got hurt? He then closed the season with 3, 1 and 3 receptions. Was this when it turned into the Blount show?

My feeling is that Vereen could be a great PPR back. Durability is a concern so you expect him to miss some time. But, 4-5 receptions per game (when he plays) seems reasonable. I could see 60-70 receptions in a "healthy" season.

For the pessimists, Belichick can be unpredictable. With a better defense, might you see a more conservative offense? Also, we could be looking at a deep RBBC with Ridley/Vereen/Bolden/White.

 

[Chaka]

Vereen's career catch rate is 65.1% (including playoffs) and last season he catch rate was 68.1%. So with the latter number he would need 102 targets to catch 70 balls.

One running back hit 100+ targets last year (Charles with 104) and only 5 others came within 20 targets of 102, the Forte (94), Sproles (89), Woodhead (87), Pierre Thomas (84), Dexter McCluster (83).

In 2012 only Sproles broke 100 (104) and only Rice (83) was within 20 targets of 102.

2011 Sproles (111), Rice (104) no others within 20

2010 McCoy (90), Foster (84), Rice (82)

2009 Rice (101)

2008 No one

2007 Westbrook (120), Bush (98), LT (86)

2006 Bush (121), Jackson (111), Westbrook (109), Gore (86), Tiki (82)

2005 Lamont Jordon (103), Westbrook (96)

2004 Westbrook (86), Dominick Williams (84)

2003 LT (137), Pittman (119), Tiki (98), Priest (90), Richie Anderson (87), Deuce (86), Moe Williams (85)

2002 Charlie Garner (111), Faulk (103), LT (101), Tiki (95), Jamel White (86), Pittman (86)

That's as far back as the data goes. To sum up in the past 12 seasons only 15 RBs have had over 100 targets and only Michael Pittman (2003 Den) & Darren Sproles (2011, 2012 NO) were not the full time featured RB in their offense.

Of the 24 RBs who have come within 20 targets of 102 Pittman (2002), Jamel White (2002), Moe Williams (2003), Richie Anderson (2003), McCluster (2013), Woodhead (2013), Sproles (2013), & Thomas (2013) were not the full time featured back of their offense. Vereen owners are praying that 2013 was not an outlier.

Coupled with the fact that a Belichick/Brady offense has never had a 70 reception RB in 14 seasons, even if Gronk doesn't play this season I think 70 receptions would be incredibly difficult for Vereen to achieve.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Vereen's career catch rate is 65.1% (including playoffs) and last season he catch rate was 68.1%. So with the latter number he would need 102 targets to catch 70 balls.

One running back hit 100+ targets last year (Charles with 104) and only 5 others came within 20 targets of 102, the Forte (94), Sproles (89), Woodhead (87), Pierre Thomas (84), Dexter McCluster (83).

In 2012 only Sproles broke 100 (104) and only Rice (83) was within 20 targets of 102.

2011 Sproles (111), Rice (104) no others within 20

2010 McCoy (90), Foster (84), Rice (82)

2009 Rice (101)

2008 No one

2007 Westbrook (120), Bush (98), LT (86)

2006 Bush (121), Jackson (111), Westbrook (109), Gore (86), Tiki (82)

2005 Lamont Jordon (103), Westbrook (96)

2004 Westbrook (86), Dominick Williams (84)

2003 LT (137), Pittman (119), Tiki (98), Priest (90), Richie Anderson (87), Deuce (86), Moe Williams (85)

2002 Charlie Garner (111), Faulk (103), LT (101), Tiki (95), Jamel White (86), Pittman (86)

That's as far back as the data goes. To sum up in the past 12 seasons only 15 RBs have had over 100 targets and only Michael Pittman (2003 Den) & Darren Sproles (2011, 2012 NO) were not the full time featured RB in their offense.

Of the 24 RBs who have come within 20 targets of 102 Pittman (2002), Jamel White (2002), Moe Williams (2003), Richie Anderson (2003), McCluster (2013), Woodhead (2013), Sproles (2013), & Thomas (2013) were not the full time featured back of their offense. Vereen owners are praying that 2013 was not an outlier.

Coupled with the fact that a Belichick/Brady offense has never had a 70 reception RB in 14 seasons, even if Gronk doesn't play this season I think 70 receptions would be incredibly difficult for Vereen to achieve.

so, you're saying there's a chance...?

 

[Chaka]

Vereen's career catch rate is 65.1% (including playoffs) and last season he catch rate was 68.1%. So with the latter number he would need 102 targets to catch 70 balls.

One running back hit 100+ targets last year (Charles with 104) and only 5 others came within 20 targets of 102, the Forte (94), Sproles (89), Woodhead (87), Pierre Thomas (84), Dexter McCluster (83).

In 2012 only Sproles broke 100 (104) and only Rice (83) was within 20 targets of 102.

2011 Sproles (111), Rice (104) no others within 20

2010 McCoy (90), Foster (84), Rice (82)

2009 Rice (101)

2008 No one

2007 Westbrook (120), Bush (98), LT (86)

2006 Bush (121), Jackson (111), Westbrook (109), Gore (86), Tiki (82)

2005 Lamont Jordon (103), Westbrook (96)

2004 Westbrook (86), Dominick Williams (84)

2003 LT (137), Pittman (119), Tiki (98), Priest (90), Richie Anderson (87), Deuce (86), Moe Williams (85)

2002 Charlie Garner (111), Faulk (103), LT (101), Tiki (95), Jamel White (86), Pittman (86)

That's as far back as the data goes. To sum up in the past 12 seasons only 15 RBs have had over 100 targets and only Michael Pittman (2003 Den) & Darren Sproles (2011, 2012 NO) were not the full time featured RB in their offense.

Of the 24 RBs who have come within 20 targets of 102 Pittman (2002), Jamel White (2002), Moe Williams (2003), Richie Anderson (2003), McCluster (2013), Woodhead (2013), Sproles (2013), & Thomas (2013) were not the full time featured back of their offense. Vereen owners are praying that 2013 was not an outlier.

Coupled with the fact that a Belichick/Brady offense has never had a 70 reception RB in 14 seasons, even if Gronk doesn't play this season I think 70 receptions would be incredibly difficult for Vereen to achieve.

so, you're saying there's a chance...?

Absolutely. Somewhere between my chances of nailing Sophia Vergara and me not minding if she gave me The Herp.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

you'll probably take this personally, like it's directed at you, but you shouldn't --- I think that's kind of lazy analysis, and I'll explain why after I get a coffee.

edit: unless I find myself banned when I get back

 

[Chaka]

you'll probably take this personally, like it's directed at you, but you shouldn't --- I think that's kind of lazy analysis, and I'll explain why after I get a coffee.

edit: unless I find myself banned when I get back

I won't take it personally. But just in case you should know that I peed in your coffee.

 

[bostonfred]

Ok now here's the other side:

1) vereen's role is most comparable to sproles

2) the Patriots scrimmages with the saints may have rubbed off some on belichick

3) past history is not a good predictor of future results when it comes to the patriots. Before moss, they were never a deep threat offense. Before Gronkowski and hernandez, they were never a tight end offense. Before Welker and hernande departed, they never threw to their running backs.

4) even before hernandez was arrested, there was talk of using vereen more in the passing game. Afterwards, there was talk of using him in a role similar to the move TE role hernandez had held.

5) vereen had big games with and without gronk.

6) vereen's 9.1 yards per reception laat year and 10.6 career is close to Edelman'a 9.99 ypr last year

7) the reports about vereen have been positive all offseason. Like this one today http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2014/08/practice_observations_shane_vereen_jamie_collins_rule_the

"Bradys targets: Shane Vereen (5 of 5), Julian Edelman (5 of 7), Kenbrell Thompkins (3 of 5), Brandon LaFell (2 of 4), Danny Amendola (1 of 2), Brian Tyms (1 of 2). One incompletion was batted."

So there's reason for optimism. There's also reason for pessimism - vereen had just 7 catches for 76 yards and 2 TDs on 14 targets in his final three games of the regular season. Without those TDs his numbers would have sucked. And his spike in production not only coincided with the lack of passing targets, but ridley being in the doghouse.

Overall it's not a slam dunk. And his upside is capped by his lack of carries. In non ppr i can't see getting excited about owning him, but he can spot start. In ppr you could do worse in the mid rounds. He has legit low end RB1 upside and should get fairly good week to week scoring if his receptions start to smooth out.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Ok now here's the other side:

1) vereen's role is most comparable to sproles

2) the Patriots scrimmages with the saints may have rubbed off some on belichick

3) past history is not a good predictor of future results when it comes to the patriots. Before moss, they were never a deep threat offense. Before Gronkowski and hernandez, they were never a tight end offense. Before Welker and hernande departed, they never threw to their running backs.

4) even before hernandez was arrested, there was talk of using vereen more in the passing game. Afterwards, there was talk of using him in a role similar to the move TE role hernandez had held.

5) vereen had big games with and without gronk.

6) vereen's 9.1 yards per reception laat year and 10.6 career is close to Edelman'a 9.99 ypr last year

7) the reports about vereen have been positive all offseason. Like this one today http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2014/08/practice_observations_shane_vereen_jamie_collins_rule_the

"Bradys targets: Shane Vereen (5 of 5), Julian Edelman (5 of 7), Kenbrell Thompkins (3 of 5), Brandon LaFell (2 of 4), Danny Amendola (1 of 2), Brian Tyms (1 of 2). One incompletion was batted."

So there's reason for optimism. There's also reason for pessimism - vereen had just 7 catches for 76 yards and 2 TDs on 14 targets in his final three games of the regular season. Without those TDs his numbers would have sucked. And his spike in production not only coincided with the lack of passing targets, but ridley being in the doghouse.

Overall it's not a slam dunk. And his upside is capped by his lack of carries. In non ppr i can't see getting excited about owning him, but he can spot start. In ppr you could do worse in the mid rounds. He has legit low end RB1 upside and should get fairly good week to week scoring if his receptions start to smooth out.

Good points.

Somewhat expensive NE duo but I could see owning SV & Gronk and having some sort of performance balance.

 

[Chaka]

Ok now here's the other side:

1) vereen's role is most comparable to sproles

2) the Patriots scrimmages with the saints may have rubbed off some on belichick

3) past history is not a good predictor of future results when it comes to the patriots. Before moss, they were never a deep threat offense. Before Gronkowski and hernandez, they were never a tight end offense. Before Welker and hernande departed, they never threw to their running backs.

4) even before hernandez was arrested, there was talk of using vereen more in the passing game. Afterwards, there was talk of using him in a role similar to the move TE role hernandez had held.

5) vereen had big games with and without gronk.

6) vereen's 9.1 yards per reception laat year and 10.6 career is close to Edelman'a 9.99 ypr last year

7) the reports about vereen have been positive all offseason. Like this one today http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2014/08/practice_observations_shane_vereen_jamie_collins_rule_the

"Bradys targets: Shane Vereen (5 of 5), Julian Edelman (5 of 7), Kenbrell Thompkins (3 of 5), Brandon LaFell (2 of 4), Danny Amendola (1 of 2), Brian Tyms (1 of 2). One incompletion was batted."

So there's reason for optimism. There's also reason for pessimism - vereen had just 7 catches for 76 yards and 2 TDs on 14 targets in his final three games of the regular season. Without those TDs his numbers would have sucked. And his spike in production not only coincided with the lack of passing targets, but ridley being in the doghouse.

Overall it's not a slam dunk. And his upside is capped by his lack of carries. In non ppr i can't see getting excited about owning him, but he can spot start. In ppr you could do worse in the mid rounds. He has legit low end RB1 upside and should get fairly good week to week scoring if his receptions start to smooth out.

1) Sure, why not. Is his talent? Sproles has a career 77% catch rate. Will Brady throw the ball as much as Brees who averaged 659 passes over the past 4 years, Brady 625 over the past 3. The plus side is the Pats have shown a significant increase in pass attempts over the past three seasons.

2) It's certainly possible

3) Of course it doesn't but it should modify probabilities. You don't just throw history out the window every year otherwise why would you draft Calvin Johnson over Andre Johnson? (answer: because it's not 2008 anymore)

4) This is a very solid argument in favor of Vereen hitting the 70 reception mark.

5) Yes he did and that is a nice trend and if we project out his targets from the four games they played together then he should receive 180 targets. Another argument in favor of Vereen. Then again that would be based upon historical data and, well...y'know. But as you alluded to when you bump Vereen's numbers from those games, and the four that followed, against Ridley's numbers from those games it paints a more questionable picture.

6) Yes it is.

7) Good news for Vereen...mostly

Good bounce-back effort from Vereen through the air after only catching four of his previous 10 targets from Brady in the past two joint practices, including the final padded session with the Redskins.

I absolutely agree that people should be optimistic about Vereen (at least in a PPR) but him achieving 70 receptions (which is really the only thing I am cautioning against) is an outside shot at best. Of course it could happen, heck he could have a Westbrook/Sproles like 100 catch season, but I just think it is not something I would bet on. His current ADP in PPR is RB19 ahead of Matthews, Jennings, Sankey, Rice, J.Bell, Richardson, CJ, Gore, Tate and Pierre Thomas. Way too rich for my blood.

 

[Chaka]

Pierre Thomas caught 77 passes last year and that was with Sproles on the team. He has a career 84% catch rate and last season PT had 147 rushing attempts. But people are drafting him 10 spots later than Vereen in PPR leagues? Something is out of whack with that.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Pierre Thomas caught 77 passes last year and that was with Sproles on the team. He has a career 84% catch rate and last season PT had 147 rushing attempts. But people are drafting him 10 spots later than Vereen in PPR leagues? Something is out of whack with that.

that's probably because, according to a list somebody posted, that 77 catches was an outlier

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

So there's reason for optimism. There's also reason for pessimism - vereen had just 7 catches for 76 yards and 2 TDs on 14 targets in his final three games of the regular season. Without those TDs his numbers would have sucked. And his spike in production not only coincided with the lack of passing targets, but ridley being in the doghouse.

I'd expect better from a pats fan

 

[Chaka]

Pierre Thomas caught 77 passes last year and that was with Sproles on the team. He has a career 84% catch rate and last season PT had 147 rushing attempts. But people are drafting him 10 spots later than Vereen in PPR leagues? Something is out of whack with that.

that's probably because, according to a list somebody posted, that 77 catches was an outlier

Well if you are referring to my list then you should also note that since Payton arrived in New Orleans 8 seasons ago he has had a RB exceed the 82 target threshold I set (kind of arbitrary, I know) five times. So no, it's not really an outlier, it seems to be a significant part of Sean Payton's offense. Remove Payton RBs from that list and it becomes even more bleak for Vereen.

 

[Anarchy99]

I really don't know what to expect heading in to the season this year from the Pats offense. I have heard contradicting things from so many sources that at this point I am thoroughly confused. On the receiving side, first there was fear that Gronk would be late to the table again, and then he started practicing, and then there were mixed signals about how he was doing (even though the hype was positive), and now he is back to being questionable for Week 1. I still wonder how far back he actually is, but the Pats need him on the field so I would guess he will play a little sooner than the Pats would like. After Gronk, they have the ghost of Aaron Hernandez and no one else. There was some speculation that LaFell would be used similar to the role Hernandez used to fill, but that seemingly was a passing thing and I have not seen much of that in practice.

With regard to the receivers, Edelman was the darling of camp early, then Amendola was getting pimped, then Thompkins, and now LaFell as being the star of the day. Dobson finally is off the PUP, but he really isn't doing much more than conditioning at this stage. The only thing that seems to be universal at this stage is that Boyce hasn't done much and is on the roster bubble. Tyms did well against the Redskins scrubs last week, but he is will be suspended to start the season and who knows how he would do in a more realistic offensive situation. Some people that have reported on the team felt that Edelman would see a greatly reduced role if everyone stayed healthy, but more recently I have seen reports where he is still the go to guy for Brady and some people thought he was still a lock for 100 receptions (which I don't see happening, but that's just me).

The RB corps is just as volatile. When camp started, Vereen was thought to be Superman, then quickly Ridley was projected to tote the rock a ton if he could hold onto the football as the between the tackles guy, and White ended up sounding like the second coming of LT. Then there were some whispers of a 4 man RBBC.

To make matters worse, I have heard all possible combinations of NE going to a balanced, ball control offense to try to keep Brady fresh and upright. But I have also heard that they might go more hurry up again if Gronk is on the field and pass or run based on the defense the opposition is stuck with. Then I heard more of the Pats going 3 wide with Gronk and putting the lone RB in motion to basically set up a jailbreak, quick hitter scheme in an empty backfield. Then things came full circle and the "experts" that cover the team felt the defense was so impressive that the Pats would be running the ball a ton in the second half as the team would have games locked up by halftime.

Bottom line, there is no clear roadmap of what to expect from the NE offense this year (assuming there was in other years). No matter what the general big picture theme may be, I still think they will do their usual individual game plans that will lean heavily on passing, running, or mismatch isolations in coverage and some weeks Vereen could get 10 receptions and no carries and other weeks he might see no receptions and 15 carries.

I originally felt Dobson was going to be a major fantasy sleeper, as he would have been the leading candidate to stay on the field no matter what the situation or formation, but he hasn't been able to practice and who knows the shape of his foot at this point.

 

[dickey moe]

I really don't know what to expect heading in to the season this year from the Pats offense. I have heard contradicting things from so many sources that at this point I am thoroughly confused. On the receiving side, first there was fear that Gronk would be late to the table again, and then he started practicing, and then there were mixed signals about how he was doing (even though the hype was positive), and now he is back to being questionable for Week 1. I still wonder how far back he actually is, but the Pats need him on the field so I would guess he will play a little sooner than the Pats would like. After Gronk, they have the ghost of Aaron Hernandez and no one else. There was some speculation that LaFell would be used similar to the role Hernandez used to fill, but that seemingly was a passing thing and I have not seen much of that in practice.

With regard to the receivers, Edelman was the darling of camp early, then Amendola was getting pimped, then Thompkins, and now LaFell as being the star of the day. Dobson finally is off the PUP, but he really isn't doing much more than conditioning at this stage. The only thing that seems to be universal at this stage is that Boyce hasn't done much and is on the roster bubble. Tyms did well against the Redskins scrubs last week, but he is will be suspended to start the season and who knows how he would do in a more realistic offensive situation. Some people that have reported on the team felt that Edelman would see a greatly reduced role if everyone stayed healthy, but more recently I have seen reports where he is still the go to guy for Brady and some people thought he was still a lock for 100 receptions (which I don't see happening, but that's just me).

The RB corps is just as volatile. When camp started, Vereen was thought to be Superman, then quickly Ridley was projected to tote the rock a ton if he could hold onto the football as the between the tackles guy, and White ended up sounding like the second coming of LT. Then there were some whispers of a 4 man RBBC.

To make matters worse, I have heard all possible combinations of NE going to a balanced, ball control offense to try to keep Brady fresh and upright. But I have also heard that they might go more hurry up again if Gronk is on the field and pass or run based on the defense the opposition is stuck with. Then I heard more of the Pats going 3 wide with Gronk and putting the lone RB in motion to basically set up a jailbreak, quick hitter scheme in an empty backfield. Then things came full circle and the "experts" that cover the team felt the defense was so impressive that the Pats would be running the ball a ton in the second half as the team would have games locked up by halftime.

Bottom line, there is no clear roadmap of what to expect from the NE offense this year (assuming there was in other years). No matter what the general big picture theme may be, I still think they will do their usual individual game plans that will lean heavily on passing, running, or mismatch isolations in coverage and some weeks Vereen could get 10 receptions and no carries and other weeks he might see no receptions and 15 carries.

I originally felt Dobson was going to be a major fantasy sleeper, as he would have been the leading candidate to stay on the field no matter what the situation or formation, but he hasn't been able to practice and who knows the shape of his foot at this point.

It always seems to come back to this: the surest thing about this offense is Tom Brady.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Pierre Thomas caught 77 passes last year and that was with Sproles on the team. He has a career 84% catch rate and last season PT had 147 rushing attempts. But people are drafting him 10 spots later than Vereen in PPR leagues? Something is out of whack with that.

that's probably because, according to a list somebody posted, that 77 catches was an outlier

Well if you are referring to my list then you should also note that since Payton arrived in New Orleans 8 seasons ago he has had a RB exceed the 82 target threshold I set (kind of arbitrary, I know) five times. So no, it's not really an outlier, it seems to be a significant part of Sean Payton's offense. Remove Payton RBs from that list and it becomes even more bleak for Vereen.

I'm starting to wonder if it was actually lazy, or simply trolling.

when you want to make a case against vereen you seem pretty content to compare his situation to a historical nfl average with no regard for situation, but when sproles or p thomas get brought up you're pretty quick to split off that data subset --- I guess specific situations and scheme only mean something when you want to make a point.

in your big list that you posted to show us how unlikely it is for a random rb out of the general nfl population to get however many targets you didn't seem to care much about brady 'only' throwing 625 balls, but when you want to compare him to brees it comes up pretty quick.

1) Sure, why not. Is his talent? Sproles has a career 77% catch rate. Will Brady throw the ball as much as Brees who averaged 659 passes over the past 4 years, Brady 625 over the past 3. The plus side is the Pats have shown a significant increase in pass attempts over the past three seasons.

3) Of course it doesn't but it should modify probabilities. You don't just throw history out the window every year otherwise why would you draft Calvin Johnson over Andre Johnson? (answer: because it's not 2008 anymore)

just a bit earlier you were posting about what the pats have been doing over the last 14 years (hint: it's not 2001 anymore)

last year the pats were 7th in pass attempts, 2nd in total plays, and 3rd in total points.

in 2012 they were 4th in pass att, 1st in plays, and first in points.

compared to the general nfl population year in and year out the patriots are an outlier, so what relevance do you feel the 2013 seahawks, or 2008 detroit lions have in this discussion?

why not gather up data from the nfl's inception and present it like it means something, since it might show us 625 pass attempts are an outlier?

last year forte did exactly what I drafted him to do, but happened to get 95 targets under trestman -- outlier?

why shouldn't he get drafted at the turn this year, like he probably did the year before?

brady threw 611 balls in 2011 -- outlier?

welker caught 112 balls on 145 targets in 2007 -- outlier?

if brady throws 40 balls/game, is it so impossible for one guy to manage 7 targets/game --- wouldn't that leave plenty of targets for the rest of the team?

in week 1 last year vereen played 55 snaps, which was 60% of their total --- he hurt himself and didn't play again 'til week 11.

week 11 - 34 snaps (47%)

week 12 - 46 snaps (53%)

week 13 - 41 snaps (59%)

week 14 - 45 snaps (54%)

week 15 - 48 snaps (59%)

pretty consistently in the 45 snap range, just a bit more than half their total.

week 16 - he hurt his groin and came out after managing only 2 targets and 2 carries on 7 snaps

week 17 - 5 targets on 19 snaps

on the year, he averaged about 1 target for every 4.3 snaps, or about 10 targets/game based on his first 6 weeks.

(edit: sproles got a target every 4 snaps last year)

just 6 targets/game would give him 96 on the year, assuming 16 games, which is another point.

your big list is filtered by year end cumulative totals, which are most relevant if we're looking backwards, or have some kind of magic crystal ball --- otherwise, ppg is probably better methodology.

if you're making a list based on guys who got 100 whatevers you'll be excluding the guy who only managed 95 because he missed a week or two, meanwhile, you probably plugged in a a guy off your bench to cover those 2 weeks.

if I can look in my crystal ball and find out vereen only plays 6 weeks this year I'll probably factor that in when I'm drafting, but that crystal ball isn't available to me.

 

[Chaka]

I'm starting to wonder if it was actually lazy, or simply trolling.

when you want to make a case against vereen you seem pretty content to compare his situation to a historical nfl average with no regard for situation, but when sproles or p thomas get brought up you're pretty quick to split off that data subset --- I guess specific situations and scheme only mean something when you want to make a point.

in your big list that you posted to show us how unlikely it is for a random rb out of the general nfl population to get however many targets you didn't seem to care much about brady 'only' throwing 625 balls, but when you want to compare him to brees it comes up pretty quick.

1) Sure, why not. Is his talent? Sproles has a career 77% catch rate. Will Brady throw the ball as much as Brees who averaged 659 passes over the past 4 years, Brady 625 over the past 3. The plus side is the Pats have shown a significant increase in pass attempts over the past three seasons.

3) Of course it doesn't but it should modify probabilities. You don't just throw history out the window every year otherwise why would you draft Calvin Johnson over Andre Johnson? (answer: because it's not 2008 anymore)

just a bit earlier you were posting about what the pats have been doing over the last 14 years (hint: it's not 2001 anymore)

last year the pats were 7th in pass attempts, 2nd in total plays, and 3rd in total points.

in 2012 they were 4th in pass att, 1st in plays, and first in points.

compared to the general nfl population year in and year out the patriots are an outlier, so what relevance do you feel the 2013 seahawks, or 2008 detroit lions have in this discussion?

why not gather up data from the nfl's inception and present it like it means something, since it might show us 625 pass attempts are an outlier?

last year forte did exactly what I drafted him to do, but happened to get 95 targets under trestman -- outlier?

why shouldn't he get drafted at the turn this year, like he probably did the year before?

brady threw 611 balls in 2011 -- outlier?

welker caught 112 balls on 145 targets in 2007 -- outlier?

if brady throws 40 balls/game, is it so impossible for one guy to manage 7 targets/game --- wouldn't that leave plenty of targets for the rest of the team?

in week 1 last year vereen played 55 snaps, which was 60% of their total --- he hurt himself and didn't play again 'til week 11.

week 11 - 34 snaps (47%)

week 12 - 46 snaps (53%)

week 13 - 41 snaps (59%)

week 14 - 45 snaps (54%)

week 15 - 48 snaps (59%)

pretty consistently in the 45 snap range, just a bit more than half their total.

week 16 - he hurt his groin and came out after managing only 2 targets and 2 carries on 7 snaps

week 17 - 5 targets on 19 snaps

on the year, he averaged about 1 target for every 4.3 snaps, or about 10 targets/game based on his first 6 weeks.

(edit: sproles got a target every 4 snaps last year)

just 6 targets/game would give him 96 on the year, assuming 16 games, which is another point.

your big list is filtered by year end cumulative totals, which are most relevant if we're looking backwards, or have some kind of magic crystal ball --- otherwise, ppg is probably better methodology.

if you're making a list based on guys who got 100 whatevers you'll be excluding the guy who only managed 95 because he missed a week or two, meanwhile, you probably plugged in a a guy off your bench to cover those 2 weeks.

if I can look in my crystal ball and find out vereen only plays 6 weeks this year I'll probably factor that in when I'm drafting, but that crystal ball isn't available to me.

Not trolling at all. Sorry you feel that way.

It's not cherry picking, either. There is no selective picking and choosing of facts. When I mention Thomas has a coach who regularly puts a RB in position to catch 70 passes and Vereen has a coach who has never put a RB in position to catch 70 passes it is a fact that has nothing to do with the list. But it is a fact.

And BTW going back to the list 7 of the non Sean Payton coached backs to hit 82 targets were coached by Andy Reid. How can you say that is not a coaching trend for those two?

I also pointed out Brady's uptick in pass attempts the past three seasons as a benefit to Vereen's chances so what is the problem there? That I also pointed out that Brees throws a shade over 2 more passes/game than Brady over that same time period? Sorry those are facts, not cherry picked data. And that fact favors PT over Vereen.

If you don't think that looking at a coaches history when evaluating their players is significant then don't but don't but that doesn't make it invalid. Coaches have trends and philosophies, are you telling me that you weren't a little bit more excited about Jamaal Charles' prospects under Andy Reid then Romeo Crennel? Now I will absolutely agree that Belichick has proven to be incredibly flexible as a head coach, I am not sure there is a coach who is more difficult to predict than him but that doesn't mean you just throw all the data out the window. I pointed out the 3 year trend in pass increases, why are you comfortable using that as the baseline for the future with such an unpredictable coach? Does history matter or doesn't it?

It's also interesting that you mention Trestman because Derek Loville, Larry Centers, Michael Pittman & Charlie Garner all had 70 or more receptions with him in 8 seasons as an offensive coordinator (Eric Metcalf & Terry Kirby both caught 50+). No point, just an observation (that and he may have demonstrated a trend for heavily utilizing RBs in the passing game).

I do absolutely agree, however, that year end results are a bit crude as they exclude cases of injury, conversely if you look at too small of a data set you run the risk of overemphasizing a false positive.

Again I must emphasize that I am not saying Vereen cannot hit 70 receptions, of course he can, he was well on pace to do it last season. However when I look at where he is being drafted, RB19 in a PPR, bump it against history* and see who is available around him then that price is just too steep for a pass catching specialist who may not even see 100 carries or any goal line work. That is really the only point of any of my posts in here, I am not knocking Vereen I am knocking his price tag.

*Last season counts very heavily in that for me as well with all the problems in the passing game from multiple rookie WRs and injuries across the board coupled with Ridley being sent to the bench for fumbling which created a very good situation for Vereen to step into the breech.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Not trolling at all. Sorry you feel that way.

It's not cherry picking, either. There is no selective picking and choosing of facts. When I mention Thomas has a coach who regularly puts a RB in position to catch 70 passes and Vereen has a coach who has never put a RB in position to catch 70 passes it is a fact that has nothing to do with the list. But it is a fact.

really?

a FACT?

reid, trestman, and payton have all bucked this list you chronicled above, but vereen getting a target every 4.3 snaps is what --- just pure random chance over a 10 game sample?

*Last season counts very heavily in that for me as well with all the problems in the passing game from multiple rookie WRs and injuries across the board coupled with Ridley being sent to the bench for fumbling which created a very good situation for Vereen to step into the breech.

what's ridley got to do with it?

he doesn't catch balls --- that's blount subbing in for him when he's in the doghouse.

vereen did all his damage last year in ppr on half the snaps --- somebody's gettin' that other half.

just like p thomas and sproles don't get every snap.

edit:

And BTW going back to the list 7 of the non Sean Payton coached backs to hit 82 targets were coached by Andy Reid. How can you say that is not a coaching trend for those two?

where did I say that?

you might not have a point with your trestman observation, but I did.