If Ridley continues to improve and Vereen shows growth.....

[English Patriot]

What happens when we get to our very own Darren McFadden/Michael Bush situation?

Do we try keep both wanting good money or let one go?

 

[Bhelmet]

I guess we will find out in about 2 years.

 

[mayoclinic]

10 days off between games is a long time.

Why worry about that now? The FO will deal with that situation, if it comes, like they've dealt with others. They've shown a willingness to work with valued players who are willing to work with them, and a willingness to move on from those whose perception of their value exceeds the team's.

 

[Gronkandez]

Let's see if Vereen can stay out of the tub. I like the guy but he's only had one dynamic play in his career.

 

[Sciz]

Lots of variables. For example, both Bolden and Demps are under the Pats' control for three more seasons, so if either of them turns into a big-time player, then it would probably make the Pats more willing to let Ridley or Vereen go, respectively.

Alternately, if they get the indication that Brady is close to retiring, then they're probably more likely to keep Ridley and less likely to keep Vereen, since a new QB probably won't spend nearly as much time passing from the shotgun.

 

[TyronePoole]

"sounds like one of them good problems"

 

[ausbacker]

"sounds like one of them good problems"

I have my cake and I want to eat it.

 

[Fencer]

Lots of variables. For example, both Bolden and Demps are under the Pats' control for three more seasons, so if either of them turns into a big-time player, then it would probably make the Pats more willing to let Ridley or Vereen go, respectively.

You're right. If 3 of our 4 young RBs -- two of whom were UDFAs, a third of whom has had early-career injury issues, and the last of whom was benched in the previous post-season -- turn into major stars, all 3 probably won't remain on the Pats' roster long-term.

 

[Avenger]

Ridley, Vereen, Bolden, Woodhead, Demps I wouldn't trade those for any team's RB corps

 

[manxman2601]

Ridley, Vereen, Bolden, Woodhead, Demps I wouldn't trade those for any team's RB corps

I'd trade them all for Doug Martin.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

I'd trade them all for Doug Martin.

OMG! Did it leave a scar?

 

[manxman2601]

OMG! Did it leave a scar?

Hey, don't get me wrong, Ridley's good but the rest are replaceable. Doug Martin on the other hand is having a rookie season only surpassed by Edgerrin James and Eric ****erson.

He's the real deal.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

Hey, don't get me wrong, Ridley's good but the rest are replaceable. Doug Martin on the other hand is having a rookie season only surpassed by Edgerrin James and Eric ****erson.

He's the real deal.

You didn't answer my question. Did it leave a scar? Because obviously you were kicked in the head by a mule. No sane person would ever spout such gibberish.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is the type of situation that tends to resolve itself over time. Best case scenario, the Pats have the luxury of letting a good RB walk because they don't really need him.

 

[manxman2601]

You didn't answer my question. Did it leave a scar? Because obviously you were kicked in the head by a mule. No sane person would ever spout such gibberish.

So if Greg Schiano called tomorrow you don't think BB should accept the trade. That's fair enough I suppose, a little moronic but hey ho!

You see if it was me, I'd take the trade, draft Tavon Austin in the first next April (who can replace all Demps', Vereen's and even Woodhead's snaps and still add a couple of UDFA's.

You think our offense is good now.


BTW, thinking that trade is bad is like a Bengals fan saying they wouldn't trade Dalton for Luck. But if that's your approach then perhaps you need a mule to kick some sense in to you.

 

[jsull87]

I'd trade them all for Doug Martin.

I'd trade them for Adrian Peterson and a can of Coke

 

[JackBauer]

I certainly wouldn't trade all our backs for Martin.

 

[NSPF]

So if Greg Schiano called tomorrow you don't think BB should accept the trade. That's fair enough I suppose, a little moronic but hey ho!

You see if it was me, I'd take the trade, draft Tavon Austin in the first next April (who can replace all Demps', Vereen's and even Woodhead's snaps and still add a couple of UDFA's.

You think our offense is good now.


BTW, thinking that trade is bad is like a Bengals fan saying they wouldn't trade Dalton for Luck. But if that's your approach then perhaps you need a mule to kick some sense in to you.

If this is how you think then you are rooting for the wrong team, because this team happens to believe that depth is extremely important. Doug Martin has 4.8 ypc, Ridley has 4.6. Do you really think that extra .2 ypc is worth trading all of the depth that Bolden, Vereen, Woodhead, and Demps provide? What if he gets hurt? Heck, what if he needs a breather?

Also, yeah Martin has more big play ability than Ridley, but we don't need tons of big plays out of the running game. We need consistency, we need to keep the defense honest, and we need to keep the offense on schedule with regards to down and distance. If the running game does those things, Brady is more than capable of points on the board. So no, I honestly don't think that Martin would help the offense all that much anyway.

 

[manxman2601]

If this is how you think then you are rooting for the wrong team, because this team happens to believe that depth is extremely important. Doug Martin has 4.8 ypc, Ridley has 4.6. Do you really think that extra .2 ypc is worth trading all of the depth that Bolden, Vereen, Woodhead, and Demps provide? What if he gets hurt? Heck, what if he needs a breather?

Also, yeah Martin has more big play ability than Ridley, but we don't need tons of big plays out of the running game. We need consistency, we need to keep the defense honest, and we need to keep the offense on schedule with regards to down and distance. If the running game does those things, Brady is more than capable of points on the board. So no, I honestly don't think that Martin would help the offense all that much anyway.

Fair enough.

 

[hwc]

I'm guessing that Belichick and the Pats have made the calculation that running backs are too short-lived and too easily replaceable to pay top-dollar cap money. I infer that mostly from the fact that Belichick appears to be 100% committed to running back by committee so that he's always got a couple ready to go when one gets dinged. And, his willingness to let a proven back like Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis walk rather than get into a bidding war.