Ridley

I think that we are giving up on Ridley too quickly. Ridley fits well into our schemes. I would suggest that a good deal for the team and for Ridley would be a 3-5 year deal with a NLTBE incentives in 2015 and significant roster bonus if he is on the roster to start the 2016 season, and perhaps another before the 2018 season if it is a 5 year deal.

This is a strategy that the team and players seem comfortable with. Several players have such bonuses which serve the players well and also provide protection to the team (better than a guarantee on a future year or a larger signing bonus).

The bonus would be $2 over 5 years or $1.5 over 3 years for a 2015 cap cost of $1.5M ($1M salary). This would give Ridley a fine deal. For the patriots, I think that Ridley is worth $1M more than Gray.

I like him but I feel we are in a good position to upgrade, no glaring needs in the roster, just needs that will be filled by signing our own FA or drafting/signing other FA.

There's a good draft coming and BB goes to this draft with much less pressure than in the last years 5 years or so.

mgteich said:

I think that we are giving up on Ridley too quickly. Ridley fits well into our schemes. I would suggest that a good deal for the team and for Ridley would be a 3-5 year deal with a NLTBE incentives in 2015 and significant roster bonus if he is on the roster to start the 2016 season.

This is a strategy that the team and players seem comfortable with. Several players have such bonuses which serve the players well and also provide protection to the team (better than a guarantee on a future year or a larger signing bonus).

Click to expand...

Who is giving up on him? Most people I have seen expect him back on an incentive laden deal.

I don't think a 3-5 year contract will work. First why would the team give him 3-5 years before he is healthy, and from Ridleys perspective why would he lock into damaged goods level money when he can go out and have a big year and get a contract not dampered by injury?

you read my mind, Andy

Hard for me to anticipate how the team views Ridley. I personally think he's the best runner we've had since Dillon. He makes guys miss, and when the OL is struggling to get holes in the run game, he gets positive yardage. The fumbling is obviously a huge detriment as BB values that above all else for RBs.

On the other hand, BJGE had similar production and was not valued by the team when he hit FA. Blount, likewise, the team had no issues moving on from, and only brought back on their terms. I think of all the positions on the team, they view running back as the most easily replaceable, unless the guy is truly a talent, i.e. Dillon or K Faulk. With the way we let Woody go, it also appears to apply to 3rd down RB, and by extension, the potential signing of Vereen.

I think the team rightly views both RB positions as largely a function of overall offense play, specifically, the OL play. But as I said above, I do think Ridley has a high value over replacement and should be treated as such. Incentive laden short money makes sense to me.

mgteich said:

I think that we are giving up on Ridley too quickly.

Click to expand...

Who is this "we", kimo sabe?

He's going into his first season post-ACL. It will probably be a one year deal with incentives and he'll probably take it and gamble on himself for 2016.

What are we talking about for a contract? 1 year with 1 million base plus NLTBE incentives so it only costs us around 500K of cap space? That's fine.

My feeling on the position is that Blount, Gray, Develin, White, and Boldin are already here and signed. What is missing is a 3rd down pass catching back. Though that is what White is supposed to be... he was inactive most of last year. Not sure he can fill that role until I see him do it in the regular season.

I left Tyler Gaffney off the list because he is this years "Jake Ballard". A guy we poached and have high hopes for, but I don't really know how of if he fits or if he can even make the team.

How many RBs are we going to keep on the 53? 5?

If Blount and Gray are on our roster, i can't see Ridley making the team.

It s true Gray is on the roster but IDK if he is seen as valuable here. It seems BB thinks he is clearly behind Blount. I would not be surprised at all if he is cut and they attempt to put him on the PS.

The only guys I feel confident the Pats keep are Develin (currently a FA), Bolden and Blount. White is highly likely as well as I think they give him a chance to prove his pick was right. That leaves 1-2 spots open for either FA, draft pick or Grey/Ridley/Gaffney.

Right now I think neither of those 3 make 53 though 2 could make the PS. Could be wrong. Just my guess.

BradyManny said:

Hard for me to anticipate how the team views Ridley. I personally think he's the best runner we've had since Dillon. He makes guys miss, and when the OL is struggling to get holes in the run game, he gets positive yardage. The fumbling is obviously a huge detriment as BB values that above all else for RBs.

On the other hand, BJGE had similar production and was not valued by the team when he hit FA. Blount, likewise, the team had no issues moving on from, and only brought back on their terms. I think of all the positions on the team, they view running back as the most easily replaceable, unless the guy is truly a talent, i.e. Dillon or K Faulk. With the way we let Woody go, it also appears to apply to 3rd down RB, and by extension, the potential signing of Vereen.

I think the team rightly views both RB positions as largely a function of overall offense play, specifically, the OL play. But as I said above, I do think Ridley has a high value over replacement and should be treated as such. Incentive laden short money makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

i had this thought the other day. of all the runners ridley is the best overall. To me this whole post is dead on, from ridly being the best to how the FO views running backs.

hes a good kid, but as a running back hes average at best.

If he wants to play for vet minimum sure, but that's as high as I'd go for him

AndyJohnson said:

Who is giving up on him? Most people I have seen expect him back on an incentive laden deal.

I don't think a 3-5 year contract will work. First why would the team give him 3-5 years before he is healthy, and from Ridleys perspective why would he lock into damaged goods level money when he can go out and have a big year and get a contract not dampered by injury?

Click to expand...

This was basically my thought, why would Ridley accept a long term deal when his value is at its absolute lowest and who has given up on him?

Some comments on the comments -

1. It is true that Ridley has been the best RB the Pats have had since Dillon.

2. Can we please put that 'fumbling issue' behind us. When he had 4 in 2013 it was an over rated media creation. The fact he had zero last season, seems to be ignored by those trying to create something from nothing.

3. Unfortunately for Ridley he is coming off a serious injury and onto a RB corps that includes Blount, Gray, and Gaffney, all who do about the same thing as Steven. While I agree that Ridley is probably better than those 3, the question is, 'how much better'.

4. 3 things hurt Ridley likely coming back. a. IIRC he doesn't play special teams. b. to date, he's not been a reliable pass receiver. c. The offensive system doesn't value RB's enough to even have a need for a #1 RB.

5. All that being said, I'd be fine with having him come back with a highly incentivized one year deal. That would be a good thing for the Pats, more depth and talent. However I'd be surprised if someone doesn't give him a slightly better deal on a team where he'd be more likely to get the snaps he needs to meet those incentives. Still he loves it here, so.....

6. The Pats need some RB help, but not in the area that Ridley plays. We need Vareen or Vareen's replacement. And since I have zero confidence in White, its most likely going to have to come from outside the organization.

Ken, you were at camp a lot. What did the sports writers see enthusing about White early on that you saw differently?

I'm in the camp that coming off injury The Riddler signs a Patriots cheap one year prove it deal. ~$1M.
Probably proves himself and moves on.

patfanken said:

2. Can we please put that 'fumbling issue' behind us. When he had 4 in 2013 it was an over rated media creation. The fact he had zero last season, seems to be ignored by those trying to create something from nothing.

Click to expand...

How many fumbles were you expecting him to have when he was on IR? He only had 94 carries last season. Yes, going without a fumble for that stretch is nice, but it's not exactly overwhelming proof of a solved problem.

Deus Irae said:

How many fumbles were you expecting him to have when he was on IR? He only had 94 carries last season. Yes, going without a fumble for that stretch is nice, but it's not exactly overwhelming proof of a solved problem.

Click to expand...

How many of the 4 fumbles from 2013 were caused by anything technically that he could have done. IIRC, one of the fumbles occurred when he was knocked unconscious. Are you concluding THAT one was his fault????

Back when this was a regular daily discussion point, I think going back to the replays most of us concluded that some where between 1 and 2 of the fumbles could have been avoided by Ridley using better techniques. The other 2 or 3 were unavoidable, either cause by a KO, or a great play by the defensive player.

BTW the discrepancy you see was caused when a lot of people disagreed that one fumble was caused by the ground, even though the refs disagreed. But regardless whether the actual number was one or two, the point is that not all fumbles are caused because the RB isn't using proper ball control. Like a lot of things in the game of football sometimes fumbles just happen.

Quick edit: Just to show how hypocritical the entire issue was, Julian Edelman who was universally hailed as the golden boy in 2013 (and justifiably so), had 5 or 6 fumbles on a lot fewer touches. Where was the outrage?

I am one of those "giving up" on Ridley. They already have Blount and Gray under contract for next year. Do they really need a third guy with a similar skll set (between the tackles runner who isn't much of a receiving threat)? If you're Ridley do really want to sign a one year prove it deal on a team where there's already a proven #1- Blount and a capable #2?

patfanken said:

2. Can we please put that 'fumbling issue' behind us. When he had 4 in 2013 it was an over rated media creation. The fact he had zero last season, seems to be ignored by those trying to create something from nothing.

Click to expand...

Certainly he seemed to improve last year, but it was only 94 carries. And he did fumble in preseason if you just open the sample size up. We need a bigger sample size to really know if the issue is done with completely. I agree with the rest of your post, however.

patfanken said:

How many of the 4 fumbles from 2013 were caused by anything technically that he could have done. IIRC, one of the fumbles occurred when he was knocked unconscious. Are you concluding THAT one was his fault????

Back when this was a regular daily discussion point, I think going back to the replays most of us concluded that some where between 1 and 2 of the fumbles could have been avoided by Ridley using better techniques. The other 2 or 3 were unavoidable, either cause by a KO, or a great play by the defensive player.

BTW the discrepancy you see was caused when a lot of people disagreed that one fumble was caused by the ground, even though the refs disagreed. But regardless whether the actual number was one or two, the point is that not all fumbles are caused because the RB isn't using proper ball control. Like a lot of things in the game of football sometimes fumbles just happen.

Quick edit: Just to show how hypocritical the entire issue was, Julian Edelman who was universally hailed as the golden boy in 2013 (and justifiably so), had 5 or 6 fumbles on a lot fewer touches. Where was the outrage?

Click to expand...

1. Regardless of what you and I may, or may not, agree on as acceptable fumbles, it's clear that BB found them unacceptable.

2. Comparing WRs to RBs? When you resort to that, you know you're on losing ground.


And, before you jump on my post, I'm just pointing out that 94 carries isn't proof that he's solved his 'problem'. I'd be fine with bringing Ridley back on a short/small deal, even if the team were to draft Gurley.

Ridley
Blount
Gurley (PUP can be his friend)
Develin
Bolden
Vereen/Bush/White/other 3dRB TBD