8/25: Reiss Predicting Ridley Gets Cut

BradyBranch39 · Aug 25, 2014

I can not overstate how much I hope Reiss is wrong here. Cutting Ridley would stun me and immediately become BB's biggest mistake since letting Branch leave. His 'issues' are completely overblown and he's one of the 12 best runners in the league. No other RB on the roster has close to that kind of rushing talent.

It blows my mind that anybody likes Finch as more than a PS body, and Gray is a fringe roster guy at best. Ridley's labeled a fumbler, but Gray has never received enough carries to know that he isn't an even more frequent fumbler.

hwc · Aug 25, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
The roster does not indicate we aren't going to run the football. /QUOTE]

I never said that the Pats weren't going to run the football. I said that they would probably like a base offense that gives them a pass/run option and creates matchup problems for the defense. With his negligible receiving production, Ridley does not provide that.

Ring 6 · Aug 25, 2014

hwc said:
The roster does not indicate we aren't going to run the football. /QUOTE]

I never said that the Pats weren't going to run the football. I said that they would probably like a base offense that gives them a pass/run option and creates matchup problems for the defense. With his negligible receiving production, Ridley does not provide that.

This is something he has never done. There has never been a case where the leading carrier on a BB Patriot team is a top receiving threat.
It seems that he has always run an offense where in his base the RB is not a receiving option (I don't think none of them, including Ridley could, they just were not asked to) and a second scheme that features a receiving back, usually in the spread,where most of his carries are draws.
I don't see any indication of anything that would change this.

goheels22002 · Aug 25, 2014

hwc said:
The roster (only 1 pass catching TE) and the reps Vareen and White have gotten in training camp, even taking reps together in a two-back offense.

In three preseason games, Ridley has 19 rushing attempts (3.9 YPC average) and 0 pass receptions.

Do not forget FB James Develin who has proven to be a solid receiver. There are plenty of non-WR pass catching options on this team.

Ridley's 19 carries for 3.9 yards per carry would be nice day's work on this team to provide some balance and keep the chains moving. I'd be blown away if Ridley were cut.

A trade? If Belichick could get a top 15 safety to pair with McCourty for Mr. Ridley, I'd be thrilled.

Brady6 · Aug 25, 2014

I do not think Belichick would tarnish his perception amongst NFL players by cutting a young and productive player due to one weakness. Belichick has made a career out of fixing players, developing young players, and giving players a second chance. Cutting Ridley would go against all of that and I do not see it happening. If Ridley wasn't conscious of his mistakes and taking ownership of them I could see them moving on but that is not the case, Ridley owns everything and is working to correct the problem.

varjao · Aug 25, 2014

- Fumble issues
- One dimensional player
- Can't hit a home run or a 50 yard run

Nice guy and hard worker, it's a team guy also, anyway he's not irreplaceable but as of now he are not that good in RB to have the luxury of cutting a good one. I wish we were, I still don't buy this story of plug and play any RB there and OK, it's a position that it's losing value on the FA market but a good QB still win games.

Reiss is of the mark and I would like him to stop making his educated guesses, maybe in his chats that it's kind of a bar talk, well anyway, not my problem.

rochrist · Aug 25, 2014

Spiral said:
While we're on the topic of Mike Reiss, I have to call BS on him.

In his 8/24 post on the release of Kelly, Smith and Anderson, he says that "None of the moves come as a major surprise." In a later post, he seems to take credit for "foreshadowing" Kelly's release: "The potential release of Kelly was foreshadowed in mid-July, so the move doesn't come as a major surprise." This is despite the fact that in his roster projection from last week (http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england...66208/new-england-patriots-projected-roster-5), he has both Kelly and Anderson on the final 53.

In fairness to Mike, back in mid-July, he /did/ speculate that Kelly might be released. Then he goes on to explain why his view had changed enough for him to feel he was probably going to make the roster. I actually prefer media people who are willing to revise their thinking in the face of evidence.

Nunchucks · Aug 25, 2014

I would say that just because Belichick has not had a first down RB that was also a capable receiver, does not mean he would not love to have one RB that can do it all.

The fact is that it is rare to find a RB that can both run between the tackles well, receive well, and pass block well.

BritPat · Aug 25, 2014

When Mike Reiss talks, then I'm always interested to read his thoughts. I think any hunch he carries about Ridley is sensible and certainly not misplaced. I wouldn't be THAT surprised at all.

Nunchucks · Aug 25, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
But he would never use one RB in both roles, they simply wear down too easily.
Thats kind of the point why Vereen cannot replace Ridley.

Wear down too easily? What RB has he ever had that could do both roles? It isn't a choice, it is a necessity. The advantages of not having to change personnel on the field based on pass/throw are many.

Nunchucks · Aug 25, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
So now a reporter asking a question about an almost fumble is your 'proof'?
Again, answer the question.
If it were really called a fumble by the ref would it have stood up in replay. Yes or no?

Nobody knows if it would have stood or not because they did not replay it. I have seen replays where I thought it was obvious go the other way.

You are basing your argument on an assumption.

Ring 6 · Aug 25, 2014

Nunchucks said:
Wear down too easily? What RB has he ever had that could do both roles? It isn't a choice, it is a necessity. The advantages of not having to change personnel on the field based on pass/throw are many.

No, its a choice. He has always had a receiving specialist RB. Always.

Nunchucks · Aug 25, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
No, its a choice. He has always had a receiving specialist RB. Always.

I am pretty sure that I have actually heard Belichick say he would prefer to have one guy do it all, but he cannot find a guy who can because in college the bigger RBs are never asked to pass protect and catch the ball, while the smaller backs who are asked to do those things are not big enough to take the workload in the NFL.

But, I bet he would have started Ray Rice on all three downs, L. McCoy on all 3 downs and Tomilson on all 3 downs.

It is because he does not have the talent to do it, it is not because he wants to tip his hand to the defense that they are more likely to throw the ball and they better make sure they keep a guy on the RB.

How silly is it to not force the defense to account for a pass catching RB on every play instead of just on plays with specific personnel?

Ring 6 · Aug 25, 2014

Nunchucks said:
I am pretty sure that I have actually heard Belichick say he would prefer to have one guy do it all, but he cannot find a guy who can because in college the bigger RBs are never asked to pass protect and catch the ball, while the smaller backs who are asked to do those things are not big enough to take the workload in the NFL.

But, I bet he would have started Ray Rice on all three downs, L. McCoy on all 3 downs and Tomilson on all 3 downs.

It is because he does not have the talent to do it, it is not because he wants to tip his hand to the defense that they are more likely to throw the ball and they better make sure they keep a guy on the RB.

How silly is it to not force the defense to account for a pass catching RB on every play instead of just on plays with specific personnel?

Its his scheme, not mine, perhaps you should ask him why he never uses his #1 RB in the passing game despite having some that proved effective at it.
Whatever the reason, are you seriously trying to tell me that he will cut Ridley and play Vereen 60 snaps a game?

rochrist · Aug 25, 2014

Triumph said:
Ridley does not have to sign with the new team making the trade null and void.

He's under contract.

rochrist · Aug 25, 2014

primetime said:
He was down and someone ripped the balls out of his hands. It wasn't ruled a fumble (pretty obviously) and him losing the ball there had nothing to do with his old issues of running with the ball swinging around.

It was ruled a fumble but it was either recovered by the Pats or overruled by a penalty (I forget which) thus making challenging it moot.

joepatsfan · Aug 25, 2014

This would be F'N STUPID. STUPID.

Nunchucks · Aug 25, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
Its his scheme, not mine, perhaps you should ask him why he never uses his #1 RB in the passing game despite having some that proved effective at it.
Whatever the reason, are you seriously trying to tell me that he will cut Ridley and play Vereen 60 snaps a game?

First, I have already stated that I would not be shocked if Ridley is cut, but do not think he will be cut.

Second, I do not think he would up Vereen's snaps by that much, instead they would rely on another RB.

Third, which Patriots 1st down RB has proven effective as a pass catcher and pass protector?

The Patriots have never had a RB that can do both, so the point is moot.

Ring 6 · Aug 25, 2014

Nunchucks said:
First, I have already stated that I would not be shocked if Ridley is cut, but do not think he will be cut.

Second, I do not think he would up Vereen's snaps by that much, instead they would rely on another RB.

Third, which Patriots 1st down RB has proven effective as a pass catcher and pass protector?

The Patriots have never had a RB that can do both, so the point is moot.

No I think the point is that they never tried.
They wouldn't have been on the field if they couldn't pass protect. Fred Taylor was a good receiver in Jville, Sammy Morris caught passes in the 3rd down back role, but not many when he was the 1/1A RB. Maroney had the ability to catch passes and was never asked to and the same goes for Ridley. When has Ridley proved ineffective when they tried to use him as a receiver? They just don't.
You can argue all you want about whether it makes sense or not, but it is what they do.

BradyFTW! · Aug 25, 2014

When it comes to dutifully reporting what he sees, without slant or bias, Reiss is awesome. When it comes to prognosticating and making predictions off of what he sees... not so much.

8/25: Reiss Predicting Ridley Gets Cut

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

On the Game Day Roster

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Goodell sucks