Will Ridley be inactive Sunday?

supafly said:

Which is exactly right around Ridley's average coming into this season: 1/73 touches. In comparison, Blount's fumbling rate was 1/43 coming into the season.

Going into the game on Sunday night, Ridley's had dipped down to 1/64 due to the 3 fumbles this season. I haven't re-done the numbers since the 4th fumble occurred on Sunday night, but I'd think it'd be safe to assume that it's likely around 1/60 at the moment, maybe a bit higher at 1/61 or 1/62.

Click to expand...

They didn't have Bolden active against the Panthers so they could use Boyce as the kick returner if they wanted to go with the extra wide out again they would sit a back and given Bolden appears to be the most trusted as a runner currently they could decide to leave Ridley or Bolden off.

As Ian points out, our best bet would be to get him some reps again in a situation where we have a sizable lead, or are in the second half/both.

As far as starting, we may not see that for a couple of games, but that also may depend on the specific gameplan vs the specific opponent, along with how the others do in his absence in that role.

Ridley is still our best overall back though, so I hope that he's not put on ice for too long.

Brady6 said:

They didn't have Bolden active against the Panthers so they could use Boyce as the kick returner if they wanted to go with the extra wide out again they would sit a back and given Bolden appears to be the most trusted as a runner currently they could decide to leave Ridley or Bolden off.

Click to expand...

Sure, anything is always possible. I wouldn't totally discount it 100% by any means.

As you say, every gameplan and situation is going to call for different personnel. In this case though, judging from the comments of Belichick/JMcD, it would seem that they are going to attempt to get his confidence back sooner rather than later.

I think getting him some reps and looks with a lead or in the second half etc may be the way to go for the next game or so. We'll have to see how they handle it.

Brady6 said:

Him not being active won't help in many peoples minds but in my opinion his going out and fumbling again this week could be catastrophic so I'm not sure, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Click to expand...

If Blount and Bolden fumble with Ridley inactive who gets the carries alongside Vereen? It might help Ridley's learning process to be punished... but I don't think inactivating him helps the team beat the Texans in Week 13. Every game in Nov/Dec is critical.

Steven Ridley, age 23, 2012 final stats compared to other RBs
(((his second year in the league, first as a starter))):
- 7th in the league in Yards per game
- 12th in Yards per attempt (when factoring out QBs)
- 6th in Attempts
- 6th in TDs
- Fumbles: 4
- RBs with more than 250 attempts, age: Ridley is second youngest at 23
- Somewhat similar attempt numbers with 3-5 fumbles:
Chris Johnson, Marshawn Lynch, Trent Richardson, Frank Gore, Ben Jarvis Greene Ellis. Other notables: Reggie Bush (227 attempts, 4 fumbles)

I continue to be a fan of Ridley's and think he is a Patriot type player, one of the best pure rushers we have had in several years, very young/still has much potential upside and is a great first-second down compliment to TB's passing game. I am VERY hopeful the fumblitis is a temporary rough patch for him and our offense.

Many here think it is fait accompli that Ridley will not be given an attempt to get out of the doghouse this week. Maybe not the following week too?? Some think it will be inactive while others think just bench him right from the start and largely leave him there. Obviously I do not agree and think his value is too great to let him languish. So it will be interesting to see Sunday's game for this sub plot. And if I am wrong? Bummer for me but more poignantly bummer for Ridley and for an offense that needs the kind of run production that only he can give them on that highest level. Sure, Vereen might be able to also, however, he hasn't done it before as well as he is needed on passing downs (desperately as is now being shown with his return). But I don't want to see him being the main rushing back when in 3 seasons he hasn't been healthy through 16 once.

Brady6 said:

They didn't have Bolden active against the Panthers so they could use Boyce as the kick returner if they wanted to go with the extra wide out again they would sit a back and given Bolden appears to be the most trusted as a runner currently they could decide to leave Ridley or Bolden off.

Click to expand...

I don't outright disagree with that statement but man, Bolden's entire career consists of 18 games with approx. 100 attempts, and about half of his career attempts came in 2 games in 2012 and the 13 attempts in Denver Sunday night. To Bolden's credit, in those approx. 100 attempts he has never fumbled, not once. Yet given that very small sample, if BB trusts him over everyone else then everyone else must be pretty untrustworthy (or BB has trust issues ).

The Fumbles hurt the team. Not using the best running back on your roster hurts the team. The Patriots have lost enough starters. Fixing the fumble problem is a better idea than losing yet another weapon.

andrewgarrr said:

If Blount and Bolden fumble with Ridley inactive who gets the carries alongside Vereen? It might help Ridley's learning process to be punished... but I don't think inactivating him helps the team beat the Texans in Week 13. Every game in Nov/Dec is critical.

Click to expand...

Well said with the key phrase being "helps the team beat[win]". It's this statement that BB has demonstrated a robotic like devotion to. No other active coach, imho, lives by this mantra in such a severe and disciplined way as BB. One example is his approach to fumbles. Of course every coach hates fumbles and know what TOs do to a team's chances at victory. Yet very few take fumble avoidance mentality to the degree of BB. Is there another coach that makes players feel outright frightened of the consequences if they fumble? But this fairly harsh tactic is only because of his unfaltering belief in "helps the team beat[win]".

The more I read this thread (one I am really interested in) and think about the situation with Ridley, the more concerned I am getting in seeing Sunday's game/Ridley's role. Considering BB must know that Ridley already poignantly fears fumbling as well as knowing that Ridley already has been sanctioned to a pretty high degree, if BB chooses to take the sanctioning even further by leaving him inactive or just on the bench with very few opportunities to run? It means his status as lead back is indefinitely dead/his climb out of the doghouse is a going to be a long road (if ever achieved). Fortunately, at least from my POV, I don't think BB is going to take the sanctioning to the next level (or at least not too much).

Ridley already poignantly fears fumbling

poignantly?????????????

poignantly?????

there's no poignancy in football!!!! what the eff is next, long ,passionate stares at the sideline looking for play signals? timeouts for sensitivity training?

KILL KILL KILL!!SMASH DESTROY DESTRUCT!@!@@


this is FOOTBALL, not some damn soap opera...oh wait....:bricks:

TheBostonStraggler said:

The more I read this thread (one I am really interested in) and think about the situation with Ridley, the more concerned I am getting in seeing Sunday's game/Ridley's role. Considering BB must know that Ridley already poignantly fears fumbling as well as knowing that Ridley already has been sanctioned to a pretty high degree, if BB chooses to take the sanctioning even further by leaving him inactive or just on the bench with very few opportunities to run? It means his status as lead back is indefinitely dead/his climb out of the doghouse is a going to be a long road (if ever achieved). Fortunately, at least from my POV, I don't think BB is going to take the sanctioning to the next level (or at least not too much).

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the sanctioning/doghouse may still take place, just on a lesser level than in the past like in the SB run of 2011; after all it was Ridley's rookie year.

Honestly, I don't care that much if his role is much less for the next couple of games, but I would become very concerned if he wasn't going to be our lead back come playoff time again. I don't think that is going to be the case though--unless of course, Ridley coughs it up yet again.

Kevin Faulk says hi, in his first three years he fumbled 11 times and the team hung on to him for the long hall... nuff said.

I do not think he will be inactive, unless he is injured.. BB will not purposely do something that will adversely effect the team...

I don't see why he would be inactive. Starting and/or playing much is a different issue. If he is to be used in the playoffs, now is the time to figure out if his fumbling issue can be fixed or not. Running the fumbling percentages is nice, but with his sloppy technique his numbers could be significantly higher. I don't find much comfort from a statistical rate as his failures are evident to fans so will be a clear target for other teams.

As for Faulk, I believe BB realized he was used improperly at a time when the Pats had few RB options (the expiring Terry Allen was option 1 his rookie year and he was largely doing kickoff returns, then Faulk was the primary back when he had career highs in carries and fumbles, then Antowain Smith took over as lead RB (as Smith lagged in 2003, Faulk's carries went up but Dillon was brought in)). In his retirement news conference, BB stated "I’d say in my coaching career, nobody has ever worked harder to do the things that he was asked to do, from that season on – in terms of ball security, blitz pickup, having different roles in the game and that changes from week to week." Faulk sat down with BB in early 2000, the beginning of his second year, and discussed what he needed to do to stay as a Patriot.

Faulk stuck around because he was diverse (KR, RB, receiving, blocking) and a hard worker. He worked hard to fix his weaknesses and develop a broad skill set. Ridley is a one-trick pony, so it would appear wise to focus on weakness in that one area. I didn't find it comforting that Ridley in year 3 after 4 fumbles by game 11 declared he wanted to discuss fumbling problems with Faulk. That feels a little late to the party if he has a work ethic and not just talent. I hope he fixes the issue, because he can be huge for the team if he does. He won't do that from the sidelines.

Hell play but you won't see him start IMO...3 fumbles I'm3 games is disconcerting.....I think you see bolden get the start with a lot of vereen thrown in there then ridley used to close out if the pats gain a lead

I don't think he should be and I'm also doubtful that it will actually happen. I personally thin benching Ridley lost us the last Super Bowl.

This team is miles better with him than without.

Troy Brown thinks this should be his last season...and I think he's deluded.

I was listening to the Opening Drive on Sirius this morning. A Pats caller from Vermont called in asking Tomlinson about Ridley. It was a two part question. He wanted to know Tomlinson's thoughts on Ridley in spite of the fumbling issues and whether Tomlinson thought they could be corrected. Paraphrasing (you'll thank me for that if you've ever heard Tomlinson attempt to speak the English language on the radio), Tomlinson said that, as analysts, they have a natural tendancy to compare current players with players in the past. Tomlinson said Ridley reminds him of Tiki Barber. He's a threat between the tackles or on the outside, can catch the ball, and can do all of the things he's asked as a RB. He also said Tiki had a fumbling problem earlier in his career that he had to correct.

With regard to the fumbling issue, Tomlinson said that Ridley's problem is that he's being careless with the ball at the point of contact. He said the issues are correctable, but Ridley has to put some serious time in the film room. He has to watch the plays that he fumbled the football and watch the plays where he didn't and make the appropriate changes. Tomlinson said Ridley has to hold the ball tight against his chest with two arms when he approaches the pile or is going to the ground, then hold it high and tight when he's in the open. When you look at the fumble against the Broncos the other night, he committed the cardinal sin of RB's: he held the ball low and away when he hit the pile. That's how the ball squirted out so easily.

As for whether or not he'll be inactive this week? I hope not. He's the best pure runner we have in the stable. Give him a chance to correct these issues in live, in-game action or else you won't know whether or not you can trust him in the playoffs. Ridley is simply too good of an option to not be able to trust in the postseason.

The issues are correctable....but it will take him an offseason to fix them. Mid season is going to be very tough

I hope the best RB on the roster is active.

I think it's rather simple. After the fumble Belichick made up his mind that he was not going to use him the rest of the game.

If he plans on using him this game, he'll be active otherwise he will and should be on the inactive list. We're beyond the point of hurt feelings. We know Belichick is all about results. If he thinks he can use you, he'll consider you for the active roster, but if not, what's the point of activating him just to sit on the bench?

I'm expecting a big game from Ridley.


Edit: Thanks to BlueThunder for humorously pointing out my previous typo!

Punishing Ridley doesn't help the team. I know the fumbles are bad but he is the best option at RB and until they have a better one they need to go with him.

Blount fumbled last game. He fumbles more per carries then ridley does