Shane the Giant: 3/$12.35m, $4.75m gtd
- Thread starter TheoShmeo
- Start date
He had 11 catches, and some pretty big plays, but IMO left YAC on the field as he often does. He was great in that game, but not phenomenal, not transcendent and not the potential MVP candidate some folks I've talked to, read on boards, seem to think. A bit overrated.
Okay, my bad. His YAC, as always, was fantastic, and saying that he was "great" in the Super Bowl is insufficient. Awesome call.
Enough with the Felger shtick. You shit on him ("He left YAC on the field like always!!1!"), called him "great", and then created your own narrative about people calling him transcendent.
Nobody thinks he's transcendent, but he had a great game against the best tackling and most disciplined defense in football. Can't that be enough? We need to give him the boot ("Tell Billy in Houston we said hi!!") and disparage a great game because it wasn't legendary?
Give me a fucking break.
Nobody thinks he's transcendent, but he had a great game against the best tackling and most disciplined defense in football. Can't that be enough? We need to give him the boot ("Tell Billy in Houston we said hi!!") and disparage a great game because it wasn't legendary?
Give me a fucking break.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
No shit, right? In Lit-Crit circles, there's a jokey term known as "The Maya Angelou Standard." It denotes the idiot in any group who inevitably, when people are discussing a new up-and-coming author says something like, "Well, I mean, he's good... but he's no Maya Angelou."
An appropriate rejoinder is: STFU.
Five of Vereen's reception in the Super Bowl were for first downs and two other were for eight and nine yards respectively (one got the 1st anyway due to a penalty). He had three receptions in the Patriots last drive for a TD before halftime, two for first downs. The guy was nails and was clearly a key part of the game plan for moving the chains against an historically good pass defense--a game plan that, as I recall, worked.
I have watched the full game at least 4 times now and I completely disagree that he left YAC on the field. The Seattle LBs generally did a fantastic job tackling him right as he caught the ball. He didn't have many opportunities to break tackles, but he got some great YAC on at least two or three of his catches.
How do we compare him to Kevin Faulk? My first impression was that Faulk was a better runner and better receiver out of the backfield. Vereen was great in the Superbowl, but did he do anything that a Kevin Faulk, or even a Danny Woodhead, could not have done?
Here is how they compare after 4 years:
Faulk had 1237 yards rushing at 3.8 yards per carry, and 130 catches (out of 176 targets; 74%) for 1,131 yards (8.7 yards per catch). 15 TDs (8 rushing, 7 receiving). But on the fateful drive in 2001, he was on the bench watching JR Redmond make the key catches.
Vereen had 907 rushing yards (4.2 per carry) and 107 catches (out of 152 targets; 70%) for 1023 yards (10.3 yards per catch). 14 TDs (7 rushing, 7 receiving).
Actually pretty close - and Vereen missed half a season with a broken wrist.
Here is how they compare after 4 years:
Faulk had 1237 yards rushing at 3.8 yards per carry, and 130 catches (out of 176 targets; 74%) for 1,131 yards (8.7 yards per catch). 15 TDs (8 rushing, 7 receiving). But on the fateful drive in 2001, he was on the bench watching JR Redmond make the key catches.
Vereen had 907 rushing yards (4.2 per carry) and 107 catches (out of 152 targets; 70%) for 1023 yards (10.3 yards per catch). 14 TDs (7 rushing, 7 receiving).
Actually pretty close - and Vereen missed half a season with a broken wrist.
I disagree. Perhaps we have come across different folks who have gone over the top over his performance. I said, and said again, and continue to believe he had a great game. The vitriol from a few of you on this board is striking, though. Holy smokes.
I understand the reactions about not Vereen being very good but just not worth a large contract given all the other needs and the reality of the salary cap.
What I don't understand is the notion that I've read here and elsewhere that Vereen will be easily replaced. Why do people think that? Is it partly because the Pats found Woodhead from seemingly nowhere and he functioned in a manner that is similar to Vereen this year? Or that they have always seemed to have someone who fulfilled that role during the Brady years (i.e., Redmond, Faulk and Woodhead, in addition to Vereen)?
My two concerns are that (a) Brady seems to like having a reliable guy out of the backfield as a safety valve and (b) I think people are overstating how easy it will be to find the next such guy if Vereen leaves.
Bottom line, our sample size is small and that the Pats have been able to find a third down/pass catching back thus far doesn't mean they will be able to do it again without some real growing pains. But who knows, maybe James White is that guy or maybe there's a free agent who will come in and fulfill that role for much less coin than Vereen will get elsewhere. I'm just not sold that it's going to be as easy as some are suggesting.
What I don't understand is the notion that I've read here and elsewhere that Vereen will be easily replaced. Why do people think that? Is it partly because the Pats found Woodhead from seemingly nowhere and he functioned in a manner that is similar to Vereen this year? Or that they have always seemed to have someone who fulfilled that role during the Brady years (i.e., Redmond, Faulk and Woodhead, in addition to Vereen)?
My two concerns are that (a) Brady seems to like having a reliable guy out of the backfield as a safety valve and (b) I think people are overstating how easy it will be to find the next such guy if Vereen leaves.
Bottom line, our sample size is small and that the Pats have been able to find a third down/pass catching back thus far doesn't mean they will be able to do it again without some real growing pains. But who knows, maybe James White is that guy or maybe there's a free agent who will come in and fulfill that role for much less coin than Vereen will get elsewhere. I'm just not sold that it's going to be as easy as some are suggesting.
If we can't get Shane back, I love to see Roy Helu signed. Excellent receiver, very good in pass pro and an extremely underrated runner IMO. Could likely be signed for a fraction of what Shane is rumored to be looking for.
Part of the easily replaceable thing for me is that Shame has been injury prone during his time here, and we haven't relied him as heavily as we did this year and as heavily as we did in the Super Bowl. And I realize that invites the argument, not fully fair in my book, that, "Well, we didn't win the Super Bowl in THOSE years, so..." But this offense has been pretty potent during Vereen's time in the NFL and it has rarely been because of him. I would love to have the guy back for 2.5 mill per season, but I'm guessing he will sign for double that (or one and a half times that) elsewhere, and good for him. I hope he cashes in. But, given the far more important places we want the cap space to go, letting him walk is a no-brainer, IMO. And maybe it is BECAUSE of the financial constraints of the cap, and the immediate need/desire to sign Revis for "whatever it takes,'" that I feel less worried about him leaving. Maybe that's my own bias, but if it is, I think it's a legitimate one. We've got way bigger fish to fry than bringing back a guy who is sometimes dynamic and hardly ever THE reason why we win.
Faulk got on average about $2.5M per year from the Pats (based on my reading of Miguel's numbers).
Woodhead got slightly less from SD, meaning the Pats offered no more than that. From Yates at ESPN:
I'll be surprised if the Pats go higher than about $3M AAV.
Woodhead got slightly less from SD, meaning the Pats offered no more than that. From Yates at ESPN:
So if he is released after 2 years, that's an AAV of $2.63M, and if he plays the full 3 years, the AAV is $2.4M. Presumably the Pats offered him less than that.
I'll be surprised if the Pats go higher than about $3M AAV.
Who gives a shit how his SB was rated? It's not going to affect his FA price. A NFL franchise isn't going to fall in love with his SB performance when Jimmy from Dorchester can look at it rationally.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
Did you watch Super Bowl 49? Read anything about the Patriots' offensive strategy and why they were successful against the Seattle defense?
The short passes to the edges and seams were to evade SEA's fast front line and faster secondary. "Yards After Catch" was merely an ancillary benefit of the Patriots strategy.
In other words, Vereen did his job and made no mistakes.
To get back on track: Vereen's going to ask for and receive too much money for the Pats' budget when there are cheaper replacements, and I'd rather his overpay goes into the Rainy Day Revis Fund jar.
The PFW guys have been talking about Roy Helu a lot this week, and the WEEI blog posted a summary of him this week as well: http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2015/02/20/free-agent-snapshot-roy-helu/
I think I agree with their ultimate take: if Vereen leaves, Helu probably offers the most similar set of skills at lower cost (122 catches in his 3 healthy seasons), and would be a very attractive replacement.
I think I agree with their ultimate take: if Vereen leaves, Helu probably offers the most similar set of skills at lower cost (122 catches in his 3 healthy seasons), and would be a very attractive replacement.
In an odd bit of timing, my breakdown of New England's second TD drive in Super Bowl XLIX is up.
Vereen played a huge role on that drive, which led to Seattle adjusting, which led to Gronk being isolated outside against a LB, which led to a TD.
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/02/26/super-bowl-xlix-recap-the-patriots-second-td-drive
Vereen played a huge role on that drive, which led to Seattle adjusting, which led to Gronk being isolated outside against a LB, which led to a TD.
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/02/26/super-bowl-xlix-recap-the-patriots-second-td-drive
Yep. I watched. A bunch of times and it never gets old. Appreciate your thoughts re the Seattle D and the patriots' scheme. I also appreciate you not being a complete Internet Tough Guy when weighing in with a point of disagreement.Trlicek's Whip said:
In the spirit of back on track and rainy day Revis Fund, I wholeheartedly agree. I like Shane, think he will get more than we should pay - 3+ mill per is as high as I would want them to go - and will wish him well in Houston or wherever. James White or Helu or fill in name of FA/draft pick - I'm semi comfortable with any of the above.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
Is that better or worse than the passive-aggressive internet routine?
Pretty silent on this front, aside from the Manish Mehta tweet that the Jets may look at Vereen if Powell bolts for the Bills. I think his market is collapsing.
https://twitter.com/MMehtaNYDN/status/574633641428525057
https://twitter.com/MMehtaNYDN/status/574633641428525057
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 15s16 seconds ago
Former #Patriots RB Shane Vereen is expected to sign with the #Giants, I’m told. They needed a versatile back, will likely get it.
Former #Patriots RB Shane Vereen is expected to sign with the #Giants, I’m told. They needed a versatile back, will likely get it.
Rand Getlin @Rand_Getlin 1m1 minute ago
Source: RB Shane Vereen likely headed to the #Giants, but the #Patriots have the right to match their offer.
Edit: Getlin clarified that "right" should be read as "opportunity".
Source: RB Shane Vereen likely headed to the #Giants, but the #Patriots have the right to match their offer.
Edit: Getlin clarified that "right" should be read as "opportunity".
Ralph Vacchiano @RVacchianoNYDN 41s41 seconds ago
There are several reports saying RB Shane Vereen is expected to sign w/the Giants. I'm told he probably will, but it's not a done deal yet.
There are several reports saying RB Shane Vereen is expected to sign w/the Giants. I'm told he probably will, but it's not a done deal yet.
DanGrazianoESPN Dan Graziano
Vereen makes sense in Giants' offense, where Manning/McAdoo talk about "hunting for completions." Adds to options in backfield.
***
Eli just might be more awkward than Peyton
Vereen makes sense in Giants' offense, where Manning/McAdoo talk about "hunting for completions." Adds to options in backfield.
***
Eli just might be more awkward than Peyton
Ralph Vacchiano @RVacchianoNYDN 13m13 minutes ago
Shane Vereen has agreed to terms what I've heard will be a four-year deal with the Giants. Could be worth more than $16 million total.
Shane Vereen has agreed to terms what I've heard will be a four-year deal with the Giants. Could be worth more than $16 million total.
My guess is that the Pats drafted James White last year with the expectation that Vereen would be leaving via FA and White would be his (cheaper) replacement. Much like Vereen in his first year, White spent his rookie season stapled to the bench learning the system. They may bring a low cost FA, but absent any other evidence to the contrary, I think giving White Vereen's role is the primary plan.
One of my favorite Patriots, although some of that is because he played at Cal. Sad but was expected.
Ferm Sheller said:
There is a bit of a difference in that Vereen had some injury trouble his rookie year, whereas (from what I know) White has been healthy all year.
The Pats have been pretty successful in finding guys for the change of pace role, but as even BB himself pointed out, Vereen and Faulk were a lot different than Woodhead in terms of pass catching ability.
That said, there are now so many decent pass catching RBs in the NFL that I am sure the Pats will find someone to fill the role - whether it is Helu, Reggie Bush, Pierre Thomas, etc. I wouldn't put my money on White right now if I was a betting man though - I would put it on someone who currently isn't on the team.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Ralph Vacchiano @RVacchianoNYDN 3m3 minutes ago
Sounds like Shane Vereen's deal w/Giants will be in the 3-year, $12M range. Not 4 years. Guaranteed money will be about $5M, sources say.
Sounds like Shane Vereen's deal w/Giants will be in the 3-year, $12M range. Not 4 years. Guaranteed money will be about $5M, sources say.
I hope the sentiment that Vereen is easily replaceable proves correct. But I find it to be somewhat ironic that on a board that routinely dismisses conclusions based on small sample sizes that one of the bases for the conclusion in this case is that the Pats have been able to replace Redmond, Faulk and Woodhead, which is not exactly a large sample.
But here's to Helu signing with the Pats, succeeding and adding to the impression that Vereen's position is easily filled.
But here's to Helu signing with the Pats, succeeding and adding to the impression that Vereen's position is easily filled.
I think Helu could replicate Vereen quite well at a more palatable non-Super Bowl standout pricetag. Only question there for me is pass pro. Certainly a big question in the Pats offense but worth the shot I think. Price seems like it would be right, age is right, and not much tread on his tires. He's faster and I think has more upside as a runner than the departed, who generally drew groans from the game thread masses whenever he carried it.
As for the Giants, Vereen is a good pick-up. Jennings is a good, if not dynamic pass-catcher, but is old and can't be counted on to stay healthy and effective through a whole season of work. I was surprised to see that Williams even ended up at 18 catches but he's not a guy you can trust out there on 3rd down. Good fit for a team that has had OL trouble.
As for the Giants, Vereen is a good pick-up. Jennings is a good, if not dynamic pass-catcher, but is old and can't be counted on to stay healthy and effective through a whole season of work. I was surprised to see that Williams even ended up at 18 catches but he's not a guy you can trust out there on 3rd down. Good fit for a team that has had OL trouble.
TheoShmeo said:
It's not a large sample, but it does speak to their ability to find someone at that particular spot since they've been able to do it for the last 14 or so seasons. There may or may not be a reason for that, but it at least it appears that they know what they're doing there.
This would make sense if finding these replacements was some kind of probability-based exercise and not the product of scouting and talent evaluation. I am pretty confident that the Pats have alternatives in mind that allowed them to not really consider chasing Vereen. Even if that alternative is "downplay the pass-catching back role in the offense."TheoShmeo said:
It's not just three chances, either. They had many decision points considering they extended Faulk multiple times.
The points made by DrewDog and Toe Nash are of course fair and well understood. You're right in that they've done this for a while and they have shown a good ability to find the right personnel. The fact remains that not many moving parts have been involved, but that cuts both ways,
In response to one of TN's points, I would hate to see them downplay the role of the pass catching back in the offense. Brady seems to thrive when he has a good check down/pass catching option out of the backfield, and one of the things I loved about the game plan in the Super Bowl was the short passing offense that he seems so well suited for. This is not my way of overly emphasizing what Vereen did in that particular game. I just think that Brady likes to have someone in that position who can block, run and catch passes. I base this on how he has played when Faulk was at his best and Brady's comments from time to time about Faulk, Woodhead and Vereen.
In response to one of TN's points, I would hate to see them downplay the role of the pass catching back in the offense. Brady seems to thrive when he has a good check down/pass catching option out of the backfield, and one of the things I loved about the game plan in the Super Bowl was the short passing offense that he seems so well suited for. This is not my way of overly emphasizing what Vereen did in that particular game. I just think that Brady likes to have someone in that position who can block, run and catch passes. I base this on how he has played when Faulk was at his best and Brady's comments from time to time about Faulk, Woodhead and Vereen.
For most of those 14 seasons, the solution was "re-sign Kevin Faulk." And Faulk wasn't even a BB draftee.DrewDawg said:
tims4wins said:
That's a fair point about Vereen's health in his first year, but I'd point out that in the 5 games that Vereen was active (and presumably healthy), he didn't touch the ball, either via run or pass, in three of them, and in the other two he only ran the ball: 7 carries in one game and 8 in the other. But I admit that it's hard to determine how much effect the injury had on playing time and that it could have been substantial.