Free Agent Signings around the League

50-yard-line · Apr 2, 2014

Giants signed Robert Ayers - 2-year deal:

NY Giants sign veteran DE Robert Ayers to a two-year contract - NY Daily News

Also, don't know if this was posted earlier, but the Raiders re-signed Pat Sims for one year.

JackBauer · Apr 2, 2014

patfanken said:
Some comments on some of the more recent comments:

1. RB locks for the Pats are as follows: Ridley, Boldin, Vareen, and Devlin (who showed some real potential in the running game as the season wore on)

Bolden is not a lock. He's a JAG, and ideally will be replaced.

JackBauer · Apr 2, 2014

50-yard-line said:
Giants signed Robert Ayers - 2-year deal:

NY Giants sign veteran DE Robert Ayers to a two-year contract* - NY Daily News

Also, don't know if this was posted earlier, but the Raiders re-signed Pat Sims for one year.

So they replaced Tuck with Ayers. Meh.

Rob0729 · Apr 2, 2014

BradyFTW! said:
I didn't sleep through 2012. Ridley was an effective RB in a high-powered pass-first offense. His 4.4 YPC was a full .3 YPC below Blount's career mark, and he got those numbers running behind a good OL against defenses whose primary objective was to stop the pass. Meanwhile, Blount got his numbers in Tampa and on a Pats team where Julian Edelman was the top receiving option. If Ridley was a better RB, then he would be putting up numbers dramatically better (and certainly far more efficient) than Blount's, considering the context.

I like Ridley. As I said, I think that at worse he's an adequate starting RB. But he's never been anywhere close to a top 5 RB. If you think that he was a top 5 RB in 2012, then I'm sorry, but that's pretty much the definition of homerism. Quote his bulk stats all you want, but if you ignore that he compiled those stats as a complementary threat alongside one of the best passing attacks in recent NFL history, then you're coming from an innately biased position. In fact, I would argue that there are at least 10 RBs, probably more, who could have put up superior stats with Ridley's role in that offense.

I'm genuinely curious, though: which two of these guys do you think Ridley was better than in 2012, in order to make him a top 5 RB?: (yards from scrimmage, YPC, rush + rec TDs)

Adrian Peterson: 2314, 6.0, 13
Marshawn Lynch: 1786, 5.0, 12
Arian Foster: 1641, 4.1, 17
Doug Martin: 1926, 4.6, 12
Alfred Morris: 1690, 4.8, 13
CJ Spiller: 1703, 6.0, 8

Ridley: 1314, 4.4, 12

Every one of those guys had at least 300 more yards from scrimmage than Ridley did, all but one had as many or more TDs, and all but one had better YPC. Ridley's yards, YPC, and TDs, without context, ranked him as a fringe top 10 RB. Once you account for context of the offenses that these guys all played in, he's in the mid teens, which would make him an average-ish starter. Hence why I said that he's an adequate starting RB.

And conversely, if you think that Ridley has broken out and is an established, upper-tier NFL RB, then I'd accuse you of sleeping through 2013, and apparently missing the fact that lost four fumbles in 188 touches, got benched multiple times, lost his starting job to Blount, and had 4.3 YPC (decent, but you'd expect better on such a limited workload, and Blount was a full 0.7 YPC better running mostly behind a worse version of the same offense).

First, when did I ever say Ridley was a top 5 RB? I said if Ridley could return to his 2012 form, he would be a TOP 10 RB which he was in 2012. So your argument is that since he cannot compete with the top 5 RBs in the league, he isn't as good as Blount who also cannot compete with a top 5 RBs in the league.

Second this is not a fair comparison. Besides my first point of comparing Ridley's top 10 numbers with the top 5 RBs, Ridley was the Pats' short yardage and goalline RB in 2012 while some of the guys you listed were not short yardage players. Short yardage downs hurt RBs average.

Third, Ridley was a TOP 10 RB in 2012. That is far more than "less than adequate" . It is actually more than adequate.

I am concerned about your genuine curiosity about statements I never said. I pointed out that he was a top 10 RB in 2012 and you attack me for making a statement that I never made that I thought he was a top 5 RB.

As for 2013, I acknowledged it. In fact, my whole premise was IF RIDLEY CAN RETURN TO HIS 2012 FORM. Of course if he doesn't, he won't be a top RB in the league, but he was probably the 6th or 7th best RB in the league in 2012. That is a breakout season. To spin it any other way, is a hater view. He regressed in 2013, but he was a stud in 2012.

BradyFTW! · Apr 2, 2014

Rob0729 said:
First, when did I ever say Ridley was a top 5 RB? I said if Ridley could return to his 2012 form, he would be a TOP 10 RB which he was in 2012. So your argument is that since he cannot compete with the top 5 RBs in the league, he isn't as good as Blount who also cannot compete with a top 5 RBs in the league.

Your argument was that he was one of the top RBs in the league. #10 is as close to league-average starter as it is to elite, so that's definitely a moving of the goalposts.

Second this is not a fair comparison. Besides my first point of comparing Ridley's top 10 numbers with the top 5 RBs, Ridley was the Pats' short yardage and goalline RB in 2012 while some of the guys you listed were not short yardage players. Short yardage downs hurt RBs average.

Feel free to point out who on that list was not a short yardage back to the exact same extent that Ridley was. The only one who you can maybe make a case for is Spiller, and he actually did a lot of short yardage work for the Bills that year after Jackson got hurt.

Conversely, think about how many of Ridley's carries came on 1st and 10 against a nickel defense that was selling out to stop Gronk and/or Welker, where Ridley was 3-4 yards downfield before anyone even had to make a play on him. Because I can tell you with near certainty that that situation played out for him far more than it did for any of the other guys I listed

Third, Ridley was a TOP 10 RB in 2012. That is far more than "less than adequate" . It is actually more than adequate.

Who said that he was "less than adequate"? You're moving the goalposts yet again, I said that the worst case was that he was an adequate starter. If you keep pushing the goalposts back on both of our arguments, though, eventually you'll manage to claim that I'm wrong by making the same point that I originally made: in the absolute optimal situation, he put up raw stats that put him in the top 10.

I am concerned about your genuine curiosity about statements I never said. I pointed out that he was a top 10 RB in 2012 and you attack me for making a statement that I never made that I thought he was a top 5 RB.

You said that he was among the top running backs in the league. If you take "His gross stats in an absolutely optimal situation still put him well outside the top quartile of starters" to be "among the best", then your definition of that term is very far removed from that of an objective person.

As for 2013, I acknowledged it. In fact, my whole premise was IF RIDLEY CAN RETURN TO HIS 2012 FORM. Of course if he doesn't, he won't be a top RB in the league, but he was probably the 6th or 7th best RB in the league in 2012. That is a breakout season. To spin it any other way, is a hater view. He regressed in 2013, but he was a stud in 2012.

How many stud RBs do you think there are in the NFL? You're one of many posters who is guilty of this. If a player, playing in a very favorable situation, puts up stats that get him to the fringe of the top third of starters in the league, then he is not a stud.

Did you think Knowshon Moreno was a stud this year? Because he had a nearly identical YPC, a couple hundred more yards from scrimmage, and one more TD than Ridley did in 2012. However you feel about Moreno's 2013 season, you'd feel pretty much the same about Ridley's 2012 season if you were capable of being objective about it.

Rob0729 · Apr 2, 2014

BradyFTW! said:
Your argument was that he was one of the top RBs in the league. #10 is as close to league-average starter as it is to elite, so that's definitely a moving of the goalposts.

Feel free to point out who on that list was not a short yardage back to the exact same extent that Ridley was. The only one who you can maybe make a case for is Spiller, and he actually did a lot of short yardage work for the Bills that year after Jackson got hurt.

Conversely, think about how many of Ridley's carries came on 1st and 10 against a nickel defense that was selling out to stop Gronk and/or Welker, where Ridley was 3-4 yards downfield before anyone even had to make a play on him. Because I can tell you with near certainty that that situation played out for him far more than it did for any of the other guys I listed

Foster was taken out a lot of for Tate in short yardage.

Who said that he was "less than adequate"? You're moving the goalposts yet again, I said that the worst case was that he was an adequate starter. If you keep pushing the goalposts back on both of our arguments, though, eventually you'll manage to claim that I'm wrong by making the same point that I originally made: in the absolute optimal situation, he put up raw stats that put him in the top 10.

You said that he was among the top running backs in the league. If you take "His gross stats in an absolutely optimal situation still put him well outside the top quartile of starters" to be "among the best", then your definition of that term is very far removed from that of an objective person.

How many stud RBs do you think there are in the NFL? You're one of many posters who is guilty of this. If a player, playing in a very favorable situation, puts up stats that get him to the fringe of the top third of starters in the league, then he is not a stud.

Did you think Knowshon Moreno was a stud this year? Because he had a nearly identical YPC, a couple hundred more yards from scrimmage, and one more TD than Ridley did in 2012. However you feel about Moreno's 2013 season, you'd feel pretty much the same about Ridley's 2012 season if you were capable of being objective about it.

I don't have time to answer most of your points, but I will answer some now and get back to you on the rest:

1.) You are nitpicking here about my point about a top RB. A top 10 RB is a top RB in the league. It isn't elite, but I never said Ridley is elite. With 32 teams and many teams using RB by committee with no true lead RB, a top 10 RB is far closer to elite than average. Not even debatable. And even if I go by your premise of 32 lead RBs in the league, I said he was top 6 or 7 which still closer to elite because average would be 16 and 6 or 7 is closer to 1 than 16. I would say there are about 40-45 RBs who are significant playing time and a top 6-7 RB is definitely a top RB in this league.

2.) The Knowshon Moreno comparisons is laughable. Moreno had 1,038 yards rushing and 224 of them came against the Patriots (and a 6.1 YPC average). So roughly 1/4 of his yards came in one game. You take away that game and he had 814 yards in 15 games. You can't do that with Ridley's 2012 season since he had 1263 yards and his best game he had 151 yards. Moreno's numbers were skewed by one game where the Pats dared them to run the ball and didn't actually care as much about stopping it. And even if you take away that, Ridley rushed for 225 more yards than Moreno. Moreno was a far better weapon in the passing game, but Ridley in 2012 was worlds better runner than Moreno in 2013. And that isn't even debatable.

3.) Yes, the Pats' passing game helped Ridley in 2012, but there were plenty of times the Pats just lined him up and run him and ran him (against Buffalo comes to mind).

4.) I admit I misread your he's an adequate RB and thought you said less than adequate, but you already moved the goal post into the parking lot with you accusing me of saying Ridley was a top 10 RB. So let's not act like I am the only one "moving the goal post". I admit mine was a misreading of your post. What is your excuse?

BradyFTW! · Apr 2, 2014

Rob0729 said:
2.) The Knowshon Moreno comparisons is laughable. Moreno had 1,038 yards rushing and 224 of them came against the Patriots (and a 6.1 YPC average). So roughly 1/4 of his yards came in one game. You take away that game and he had 814 yards in 15 games. You can't do that with Ridley's 2012 season since he had 1263 yards and his best game he had 151 yards. Moreno's numbers were skewed by one game where the Pats dared them to run the ball and didn't actually care as much about stopping it. And even if you take away that, Ridley rushed for 225 more yards than Moreno. Moreno was a far better weapon in the passing game, but Ridley in 2012 was worlds better runner than Moreno in 2013. And that isn't even debatable.

As I said in my previous post, Knowshon Moreno had 1,582 yards from scrimmage in 2013, vs. 1,314 for Ridley in 2012. Sure, 230 of them came in one game, but on the other side of that, Ridley had 4 games in 2012 with <40 yards from scrimmage, vs. 0 for Moreno in 2013. Ridley was actually more of a boom-or-bust guy than Moreno was.

I agree that Ridley is a significantly better runner. Conversely, Moreno is worlds better as a receiver and as a pass blocker. As a result, Moreno gets more of his stats in the passing game, and the end result is that his overall yardage and touchdown stats are very close to Ridley's in 2012. Which skill-set is more valuable? It's entirely situational, but they're both prime examples of pretty good players getting a huge boost because they're playing in a situation where they're not a predominant threat.

Also, I'm not disparaging Ridley with that comparison, because I think that Moreno is a good running back, and I would have been happy if the Pats had signed him. Like Ridley, he's a solid, starter-caliber RB who can excel in an offense like the Pats'. In fact, I actually think that he might be a better fit for the Patriots than Ridley is, and that conversely Ridley is a much better fit on the Dolphins than Moreno is.

3.) Yes, the Pats' passing game helped Ridley in 2012, but there were plenty of times the Pats just lined him up and run him and ran him (against Buffalo comes to mind).

That's true for every starting RB in the NFL.

4.) I admit I misread your he's an adequate RB and thought you said less than adequate, but you already moved the goal post into the parking lot with you accusing me of saying Ridley was a top 10 RB. So let's not act like I am the only one "moving the goal post". I admit mine was a misreading of your post. What is your excuse?

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I did presume that when you called him one of the top RBs in the NFL, you were referring to someone who was in the top 20% of NFL starters, but I still maintain that that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Rob0729 · Apr 2, 2014

BradyFTW! said:
As I said in my previous post, Knowshon Moreno had 1,582 yards from scrimmage in 2013, vs. 1,314 for Ridley in 2012. Sure, 230 of them came in one game, but on the other side of that, Ridley had 4 games in 2012 with <40 yards from scrimmage, vs. 0 for Moreno in 2013. Ridley was actually more of a boom-or-bust guy than Moreno was.

I agree that Ridley is a significantly better runner. Conversely, Moreno is worlds better as a receiver and as a pass blocker. As a result, Moreno gets more of his stats in the passing game, and the end result is that his overall yardage and touchdown stats are very close to Ridley's in 2012. Which skill-set is more valuable? It's entirely situational, but they're both prime examples of pretty good players getting a huge boost because they're playing in a situation where they're not a predominant threat.

Also, I'm not disparaging Ridley with that comparison, because I think that Moreno is a good running back, and I would have been happy if the Pats had signed him. Like Ridley, he's a solid, starter-caliber RB who can excel in an offense like the Pats'. In fact, I actually think that he might be a better fit for the Patriots than Ridley is, and that conversely Ridley is a much better fit on the Dolphins than Moreno is.

That's true for every starting RB in the NFL.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. I did presume that when you called him one of the top RBs in the NFL, you were referring to someone who was in the top 20% of NFL starters, but I still maintain that that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Here are my responses:

1.) You wrote:

I did presume that when you called him one of the top RBs in the NFL, you were referring to someone who was in the top 20% of NFL starters, but I still maintain that that's a pretty reasonable assumption.

Ummm..... What is 20% of 32? If there are 32 starters, the top 6.4 RBs are considered top RBs by YOUR definition. So you are moving the goal posts if you are going to come back at me and say Ridley wasn't in the top RBs because he wasn't in the top 5. Which is it? Is a top RB in the top 20% or the top 5? If it is in the top 20%, then you haven't refuted me at all because I said he was in the top 6 or 7 RB in 2012 which clearly either puts him in the 20% or just outside of it. And let's face it, 7 is closer to 6.4 than 16.

So yes, your assumption was reasonable. Your math just stinks.

2.) Moreno was more of a receiver than a RB for most of the year. Yes, he had more games where he had more all purpose yards than 40, but he had four games where he didn't even rush 40 yards and five games under 3.0 YPC. Let's not talk about him being more consistent. He was just on the field more and used as a receiver more (Ridley had to contend with Woodhead and Vereen on passing downs). Moreno was an awful running RB and a very good receiving RB. Ridley was a very good running RB and an awful receiving RB.

3.) Speaking of that. Moreno had more opportunities because he was the only RB they trusted. He was on the field most of the game because Ball was benched a lot and Hillman sucks. The Pats even with Ridley running really well in 2012 would sit him for entire series just to change things up and took him off the field on third downs because Woodhead and Vereen were better change of pace RBs and receivers.

Again, by your definition and if you do not argue that Ridley was either the 6th or 7th best RB in the league in 2012, then I was right.

Froob · Apr 2, 2014

JackBauer said:
Bolden is not a lock. He's a JAG, and ideally will be replaced.

Bolden might be the most overrated player after Mallett on this forums. He's a decent all-around guy. But, nothing special. He's had like two good games ever.

old 55 · Apr 2, 2014

This thread has joined Benghazi and breaking news about the Malaysian flight on the list of "For God's sake, just stop..."

patfanken · Apr 2, 2014

Oh God, has the Ridley Bashing started already. You'd think we could wait until training camp before the haters come out of the woodwork

Only self loathing Patriots fans would would continually bash the best RB they've had since Cory Dillon's 2004 season. Unbelievable.

BTW- for all of you who think that Blount was better than Ridley, BB certainly didn't. If he had he would have coughed up the less than $2MM the Steelers paid for him. But he didn't, and why? Because Blount wasn't as good as Ridley, and decent RB's will be available in July and in the draft in the 6th round

BTW-2- how come no one every mentions that the guy who fumbled most on the Pats was the guy that everyone demanded come back. Julian Edelman had 6 last season, vs Ridley's 4.

TB=TD · Apr 2, 2014

patfanken said:
Oh God, has the Ridley Bashing started already. You'd think we could wait until training camp before the haters come out of the woodwork

Only self loathing Patriots fans would would continually bash the best RB they've had since Cory Dillon's 2004 season. Unbelievable.

BTW- for all of you who think that Blount was better than Ridley, BB certainly didn't. If he had he would have coughed up the less than $2MM the Steelers paid for him. But he didn't, and why? Because Blount wasn't as good as Ridley, and decent RB's will be available in July and in the draft in the 6th round

BTW-2- how come no one every mentions that the guy who fumbled most on the Pats was the guy that everyone demanded come back. Julian Edelman had 6 last season, vs Ridley's 4.

Riddle me this....

Who has hands of stone while wearing spikes on his feet?

Rob0729 · Apr 3, 2014

patfanken said:
Oh God, has the Ridley Bashing started already. You'd think we could wait until training camp before the haters come out of the woodwork

Only self loathing Patriots fans would would continually bash the best RB they've had since Cory Dillon's 2004 season. Unbelievable.

BTW- for all of you who think that Blount was better than Ridley, BB certainly didn't. If he had he would have coughed up the less than $2MM the Steelers paid for him. But he didn't, and why? Because Blount wasn't as good as Ridley, and decent RB's will be available in July and in the draft in the 6th round

BTW-2- how come no one every mentions that the guy who fumbled most on the Pats was the guy that everyone demanded come back. Julian Edelman had 6 last season, vs Ridley's 4.

I don't get the Ridley hate and revisionist history. Even in a bad year where he was in the dog house a bit for fumbling at inopportune times (which is why his fumbles became an issue), he did have 773 yards and 7 TDs.

People also forget that Blount fumbled three times last year which is one less than Ridley.

Yeah, Belichick would have had Blount back at his price (which was reportedly only an one year deal and not as much as Pittsburgh was offering which was not much). But even then, he was also going after MJD at the same time (who isn't a starter anymore). With both Ridley and Vereen being free agents next season, Belichick could have locked up Blount for peanuts for next season and chose not to match the Steelers offer even though Blount really wanted to come back to New England. That tells you something about how much Belichick values Blount over Ridley.

cstjohn17 · Apr 3, 2014

Deus Irae said:
The only real reason not to bring Johnson in is the price tag.

What would CJ's price tag be? Running back is devalued, maybe the price could be right.

Avenger · Apr 3, 2014

Rob0729 said:
I don't get the Ridley hate and revisionist history. Even in a bad year where he was in the dog house a bit for fumbling at inopportune times (which is why his fumbles became an issue), he did have 773 yards and 7 TDs.

People also forget that Blount fumbled three times last year which is one less than Ridley.

Yeah, Belichick would have had Blount back at his price (which was reportedly only an one year deal and not as much as Pittsburgh was offering which was not much). But even then, he was also going after MJD at the same time (who isn't a starter anymore). With both Ridley and Vereen being free agents next season, Belichick could have locked up Blount for peanuts for next season and chose not to match the Steelers offer even though Blount really wanted to come back to New England. That tells you something about how much Belichick values Blount over Ridley.

Ridley is still on his rookie deal

JMC00 · Apr 3, 2014

cstjohn17 said:
What would CJ's price tag be? Running back is devalued, maybe the price could be right.

I'm sure the Jets will give him what he is looking for.

Big-T · Apr 3, 2014

patfanken said:
BTW-2- how come no one every mentions that the guy who fumbled most on the Pats was the guy that everyone demanded come back. Julian Edelman had 6 last season, vs Ridley's 4.

Were those 6 fumbles (zero lost, that's the key part you conveniently missed out) on punts? ESPN have him down for 0 fumbles in his career in the receiving stats part of his page.

Ridley is good - when he can keep hold of the ball but the fact he still holds the ball too far away from his body at the LOS making it easy to knock the ball out is inexcusable, he didn't fumble on his final 43 rushing attempts of the season though which came after being deactivated in the Texans game.

cstjohn17 · Apr 3, 2014

JMC00 said:
I'm sure the Jets will give him what he is looking for.

What does that even mean?

Rob0729 · Apr 3, 2014

Avenger said:
Ridley is still on his rookie deal

I understand that, but the Pats could have had Blount back for peanuts and they have reportedly flirted with MJD. If the Pats thought Blount was better than Ridley, they would have matched or beat the Steelers' offer who are using Blount as a change of pace back since they already have their starter.

BradyManny · Apr 3, 2014

This is too much hand-wringing over RB.

There's really not a position on the roster that I am less concerned with, or more convinced is so strongly a function of the performance of the other players on the field.

Unless you are a truly great RB (Dillon in 2004), the differences in production from one back to the other vary so ridiculously slightly. Over the course of a year, it's truly nominal. I think this is why Belichick has not invested in the position recently, and has let guys like BJGE or Blount walk over peanuts. Because it just doesn't matter. We have other guys who can do the same thing.

Ultimately, all he wants from his RBs is to hold onto the ball. Since Ridley couldn't do it last year, he had to fight through the doghouse despite being our best back otherwise.

My only concern is getting an RB who can contribute in the passing game, where we actually do see a huge dropoff in production from Vereen to anybody else.

Free Agent Signings around the League

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Goodell sucks

PatsFans.com Supporter

Goodell sucks

PatsFans.com Supporter

Independent Investigator & pliable af

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Similar threads