Brandon Bolden

[BlueThunder]

I don't see Woody being cut....and it's too soon to release either Vereen or Ridley ( Ridley has established a bit of what he can do already with a 5.1 ypc and Vereen gets his shot this season). If Josh keeps a FB, I hope they use 5 RB's, even if it means keeping one on inactive on gameday. Insurance/depth is always good.

Injuries usually sort these problems out...IR anyone???

 

[Kontradiction]

Let's pump the brakes here, speed racer. First of all, Bolden (as of right now) has to beat out any one (or comination of) Ridley, Vereen, and Woodhead for playing time. Ridley is the thumper, Vereen is the change of pace, and Woodhead has been our third down running back. If he can do that, then he would see some playing time in a system that has been RBBC since 2006. That's just the very beginning for him. On top of that, he has to show what he has in order to beat out any one of those guys in actual in-game action... not just in practice.

 

[patsfan13]

I think we keep 4 RB's whether we keep a FB or not, so currently I think that baring injury the 4 are Ridley Vareen, Woodhead and Bolden. This is a position where players are getting nicked and injured all the time and depth is required.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I think we keep 4 RB's whether we keep a FB or not, so currently I think that baring injury the 4 are Ridley Vareen, Woodhead and Bolden. This is a position where players are getting nicked and injured all the time and depth is required.

The real question is why would anyone NOT want to have a RBBC where four guys have specific yet overlapping skills?

Why would anyone think a short shelf life "feature back" that cost $7-8 million is preferred.

Besides, the definition of a "feature back" is team has zero at QB.

 

[Off The Grid]

Dude hasn't even played in a preseason game yet slow down.

Undrafted FA love here is kinda ridiculous sometimes.

How about you follow the game the way you follow it, and those of us who actually get excited about Potential and Possibilities follow it our way, without your unsolicited, uninvited, and utterly useless advice??

 

[patchick]

Finding 1, or even a few that worked out is not a strong argument that a particular one will work out.

Of course, but RB may be the position where it's most common to find UDFA success stories (just look at our own Green-Ellis and Woodhead), and where it's most common for rookies to hit the ground running, metaphorically as well as literally.

That said, I'd be shocked to see the rookie become a true "feature back" this year. For one thing, he'd have to show a massive overnight improvement in blitz pickup. In this offense there will be plenty of snaps where versatility will trump pure rushing potential.

 

[Kontradiction]

How about you follow the game the way you follow it, and those of us who actually get excited about Potential and Possibilities follow it our way, without your unsolicited, uninvited, and utterly useless advice??

You have every right to get excited. But labeling the guy a fantasy sleeper without any evidence against actual in-game competition instead of a defense that he knows like the back of his hand by now is jumping the gun a little bit, IMO. I like Bolden. I like what I've heard and I like his potential, being the avid SEC fan that I am. But I want to actually see him beat out any one of the three that I named first before pumping this guy up as the next clock killin' Corey Dillon for our offense.

 

[patchick]

You have every right to get excited. But labeling the guy a fantasy sleeper without any evidence against actual in-game competition instead of a defense that he knows like the back of his hand by now is jumping the gun a little bit, IMO. I like Bolden. I like what I've heard and I like his potential, being the avid SEC fan that I am. But I want to actually see him beat out any one of the three that I named first before pumping this guy up as the next clock killin' Corey Dillon for our offense.

I can very easily envision scenarios where each of Woodhead, Ridley, Vereen and Bolden gets the most reps. I wouldn't make any fantasy bets on any one of them. But as a group...with the increasingly positive camp reports on Vereen, the consistently positive ones on Bolden, and what we've already seen from Woodhead and Ridley...my irrational exuberance about the RB corps is starting to feel a wee bit more rational.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Let's pump the brakes here, speed racer. First of all, Bolden (as of right now) has to beat out any one (or comination of) Ridley, Vereen, and Woodhead for playing time. Ridley is the thumper, Vereen is the change of pace, and Woodhead has been our third down running back. If he can do that, then he would see some playing time in a system that has been RBBC since 2006. That's just the very beginning for him. On top of that, he has to show what he has in order to beat out any one of those guys in actual in-game action... not just in practice.

The thing that's interesting about the competition is the UDFA is on equal or better talent level than the two second year early round drafted players, when the hell does that ever happen?

Brandon Bolden 2010: (SEC)

163 attempts 976 yards 6.0 ypc 14 TDs 32 receptions 344 yards 3 TDs

Stevan Ridley 2010: (SEC)

249 attempts 1,147 yards 4.6 ypc 15 TDs 11 receptions 61 yards 0 TDs

Shane Vereen 2010: (PAC 10)

231 attempts 1,167 yards 5.1 ypc 13 TDs 22 receptions 209 yards 3 TDs

 

[Ring 6]

Of course, but RB may be the position where it's most common to find UDFA success stories (just look at our own Green-Ellis and Woodhead), and where it's most common for rookies to hit the ground running, metaphorically as well as literally.

That said, I'd be shocked to see the rookie become a true "feature back" this year. For one thing, he'd have to show a massive overnight improvement in blitz pickup. In this offense there will be plenty of snaps where versatility will trump pure rushing potential.

Again, naming a few that have made it doesn't mean much.
Are all 6th rounders now potential HOFer because of Brady? If Brady were drafted in the 7th do those players get better?
There are thousands of UDFAs who do not make it, so naming the few that do doesn't prove much. I would also suggest that it SEEMS that way with RBs because they are more noticable. I bet there are a similar # of DTs, OGs, CBs, etc, but its just not as noticable.
Finally, I think the track record you are speaking of is much thinner for UDFAs in their rookie year, which is what this discussion was about.

 

[Ring 6]

The thing that's interesting about the competition is the UDFA is on equal or better talent level than the two second year early round drafted players, when the hell does that ever happen?

Brandon Bolden 2010: (SEC)

163 attempts 976 yards 6.0 ypc 14 TDs 32 receptions 344 yards 3 TDs

Stevan Ridley 2010: (SEC)

249 attempts 1,147 yards 4.6 ypc 15 TDs 11 receptions 61 yards 0 TDs

Shane Vereen 2010: (PAC 10)

231 attempts 1,167 yards 5.1 ypc 13 TDs 22 receptions 209 yards 3 TDs

It happens when you think NFL talent level can be discerned from one season of college stats.

 

[BlueThunder]

A patchwork OL can make a good college RB look average or worse.


Just Sayin

 

[Kontradiction]

I can very easily envision scenarios where each of Woodhead, Ridley, Vereen and Bolden gets the most reps. I wouldn't make any fantasy bets on any one of them. But as a group...with the increasingly positive camp reports on Vereen, the consistently positive ones on Bolden, and what we've already seen from Woodhead and Ridley...my irrational exuberance about the RB corps is starting to feel a wee bit more rational.

I think we'll carry 4 RB's, but the thread premise is based around Bolden getting the bulk of the carries and being a potential fantasy sleeper. In response to that, I laid out what needs to happen first.

 

[patchick]

Again, naming a few that have made it doesn't mean much.
Are all 6th rounders now potential HOFer because of Brady? If Brady were drafted in the 7th do those players get better?
There are thousands of UDFAs who do not make it, so naming the few that do doesn't prove much.

Andy, we're not talking about the universe of all UDFAs invited to an NFL training camp. Most are obviously nothing but practice bodies. At this point, we're talking about the universe of all UDFAs who, two weeks into training camp, have been consistently getting rave reviews from every observer. That's a different equation.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, we're not talking about the universe of all UDFAs invited to an NFL training camp. Most are obviously nothing but practice bodies. At this point, we're talking about the universe of all UDFAs who, two weeks into training camp, have been consistently getting rave reviews from every observer. That's a different equation.

Thats fine but there are guys every year that get 'rave reviews' that end up unemployed.
My experience is that you have to temper the raving because it is often related as much to low expectations as excellent play.

 

[patchick]

Thats fine but there are guys every year that get 'rave reviews' that end up unemployed.
My experience is that you have to temper the raving because it is often related as much to low expectations as excellent play.

Understood. But the discussion was about the ability of unheralded camp phenoms to make good at RB vs. other positions, and I think there's decent evidence that RB is one of the best positions for UDFA breakouts.

Presumably that's just because RB is one of the easiest positions for rookies to contribute, period. Although that's less true with the Patriots because of the emphasis on pass protection, so who knows, really? :confused2:

 

[Ring 6]

Understood. But the discussion was about the ability of unheralded camp phenoms to make good at RB vs. other positions, and I think there's decent evidence that RB is one of the best positions for UDFA breakouts.

Presumably that's just because RB is one of the easiest positions for rookies to contribute, period. Although that's less true with the Patriots because of the emphasis on pass protection, so who knows, really? :confused2:

Not to belabor the point, but I think the majority of UDFA RBs who became good players didn't necessarily do much as a rookie. And my other point was that as a RB they stand out more, which may make the perception not the reality.

 

[signbabybrady]

At this point I find it hard to believe that Bolden wont be on this roster but I would have to agree with several who have stated that the hype machine might be a little out of control. IMO what we saw was a UDFA dominate the 3rd team defense enough so over the first few days of camp that he has now elevated himself to in the competition for reps and barring set backs he likely earned a roster spot but to assume he has passed any of the 3 ahead of him IMO would be just that an assumption. Lets see what he does in preseason now.

as to how many backs to carry including FB I think a safe bet is 5. the 4 RBs plus one FB. Others have pointed out that Josh likes to have a FB and someone else noted we carried 4 in 07 but one of them was Evans who we could rely on to be the RB. this says to me that if we are to only carry 3 RBs and that the FB would likely wind up being Kettani as he has more experience carrying the football then Larsen. But I think we go with 5 as I cant see cutting one of the 4 backs and I think the FB will be Larsen as he is good on STs can be an LB in a pinch and has played FB in the NFL before.

 

[BlueThunder]

Kettani can slide to the PS without much difficulty.

 

[signbabybrady]

Kettani can slide to the PS without much difficulty.

I dont know Sabban might claim him