RB position going forward?

[varjao]

Vereen had a great game but I don't think the Bills are a good run defense

I disagree on this. They were blocking like hell today, look at the number of Brady pass atempts. At the 4th quarter the playcalling was just pass, we couldn't get a 4 yards rush.

 

[mgteich]

This seems right.

Does anybody think Vereen could handle a "feature back" workload without breaking down?

If something season-long happens to Ridley -- injury or benching as the case may be -- Vereen won't get that many of Ridley's carries. We're really considering Ridley vs. Bolden vs. Blount.

Playing Blount over Ridley is painful. And Bolden doesn't seem to be healthy.

I guess another option is to give Leon Washington some reps, freeing up Vereen for other work, but that idea seems like it has more complexity than it has actual merit.

 

[ATippett56]

I've spent all summer asking for Tim Tebow and George Winn to be RBs. Which is my way of saying: "don't ask me"

Enough with your Tim Tebow crap:

Tim Tebow refused to change positions - report - ESPN

 

[mgteich]

The conclusion seems to be that we should give Vereen as many touches as he can reasonably handle.

21 touches a game is a lot. It is reasonable for him to have a bit more. However, there is no reason that those would be the 1st down reps.

When the Pats drafted Shane Vereen, I had hopes that they'd found a genuine do-it-all back -- an ideal weapon for a no-huddle offense. Apparently, though the team hasn't felt he could handle the feature back role. Even after Ridley imploded today, they handed the ball to Blount. But once they finally turned to Vereen, he delivered to the tune of:

14 carries for 101 yards
7 catches for 58 yards

Pretty nice for essentially half a day's work.

So, do you think Vereen will finally get a chance to start? How long will it take for Ridley to crawl out of the doghouse? Etc.

 

[ALP]

I think the more significant thing to discuss is how bad blount looked out there...nothing like his playmaking or shiftiness or speed that we saw in the preseason

looking at this sole game he does not deserve to be in the NFL, i would give him one more game, but if he continues to run like he ran today, we have no need for him

also give ridley another chance, today was only one fumble, and it was weird

 

[ATippett56]

I think the more significant thing to discuss is how bad blount looked out there...nothing like his playmaking or shiftiness or speed that we saw in the preseason

looking at this sole game he does not deserve to be in the NFL, i would give him one more game, but if he continues to run like he ran today, we have no need for him

also give ridley another chance, today was only one fumble, and it was weird

Blount sucks.

If four running backs are active on game day, I would prefer the following:

Ridley
Vereen
Bolden (if knee is healthy)
Washington

 

[Sparetire]

Too bad for ridley though...he is a really good RB but those fumbles are killers.

 

[ausbacker]

If Belichick thinks Blount and Bolden are comparative talents to Ridley, then that's his folly. His benching of players simply isn't needed in my opinion. There's nothing "teaching" about that but a rule by fear of mistake.

Personally, I don't agree with coaches doing it but it's their team.

 

[hwc]

I don't think that plus or minus a little production from the running back position is as important to Belichick as making it crystal clear to the entire team that, if you don't take care of the football, you won't play for the New England Patriots.

 

[supafly]

I don't think that plus or minus a little production from the running back position is as important to Belichick as making it crystal clear to the entire team that, if you don't take care of the football, you won't play for the New England Patriots.

I agree, and that would go for anyone who fails to hold onto the ball and/or makes poor mistakes or unnecessary penalties.

There's no excuse or room on the team to make poor decisions like that, and at this point Ridley has had his warnings already.

The only time I didn't agree with benching him was during the 2011 postseason run when we definitely could've used him for the BAL and NYG games (the SB for sure). In that case, there wasn't enough of a sample size and the pluses that he brought could have potentially outweighed the negatives. Belichick disagreed, and that's what really matters though.

 

[patsfan-1982]

If Belichick thinks Blount and Bolden are comparative talents to Ridley, then that's his folly. His benching of players simply isn't needed in my opinion. There's nothing "teaching" about that but a rule by fear of mistake.

Personally, I don't agree with coaches doing it but it's their team.

I agree he benched Ridley he's rookie season for the SB and BJGE did not hurt the team but he did not help the team and they could have used a RB that averaged 5.1 yards per att in the season,

im hoping he dose not bench him for any more games or stops using him cause Julian Edelman and Shane Vereen are not going to have career games every week they need Ridley to help them win

 

[supafly]

I think the more significant thing to discuss is how bad blount looked out there...nothing like his playmaking or shiftiness or speed that we saw in the preseason

I didn't see the same shiftiness and speed that you saw based off of one run where the opposing 3rd string defense broke down and allowed him to make a crazy play.

I have never really cared for Blount or his skillset, but I may be in the minority.

also give ridley another chance, today was only one fumble, and it was weird

Ridley fumbled twice within the first 25 minutes of the season today.

Belichick gave him the benefit of the doubt after the first one, but that quickly changed when we were going to go up 13-0 or 17-0 close to the half and he actually put points up for the other team, cutting the deficit to 10-7 and giving them all of the momentum.

 

[ATippett56]

I don't think that plus or minus a little production from the running back position is as important to Belichick as making it crystal clear to the entire team that, if you don't take care of the football, you won't play for the New England Patriots.

Kevin Faulk NFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[manxman2601]

Enough with your Tim Tebow crap:

Tim Tebow refused to change positions - report - ESPN

Get a sense of humour. I'll decide when enough is enough thankyou.

 

[supafly]

Kevin Faulk NFL Football Statistics - Pro-Football-Reference.com

In the high majority of the Belichick years, I see a lot of zeros, ones, and twos in there also though.

Aside from one bad year very early on, Faulk seemed to have fixed his fumbling problems for the most part.

It also should be known that he added a lot in other areas such as pass protection and ST's, so he definitely earned his keep. I think it's safe to say that if Faulk hadn't improved upon his fumbling issues in 2000 he may very well have been released.

 

[Gumby]

when we first picked up vereen and ridley; I thought vereen was the better back. Definitely more versatile in passing game and I thought the build*-ability within the tackles was a bit of a wash.

BB has consistently used Ridley more in the 1-2 down and vereen in more the 3rd down role. (when vereen was healthy). So, it seems in addition to BB's general concerns about burning out one back/team being over-reliant on a single pt of failure at RB position (if injured come playoffs); BB also seems to feel Vereen is not durable enough* for that role.

* From roster (Vereen 5-10, 205 // Ridley 5-11, 220).

Personally I would like to see him get the start and Ridley spell him on early downs occasionally. But I can see where giving him 30-40 touches a game could wear him out pretty quick

(this game a little unusual with 89 O plays though - so hard to fully extrapolate his half-day work into a full day).


Also, a pass-versatile back only coming in on 3rd downs seems to me to tend to give too much away to the D. rather keep them guessing on earlier downs too.

 

[ATippett56]

In the high majority of the Belichick years, I see a lot of zeros, ones, and twos in there also though.

Aside from one bad year very early on, Faulk seemed to have fixed his fumbling problems for the most part.

It also should be known that he added a lot in other areas such as pass protection and ST's, so he definitely earned his keep. I think it's safe to say that if Faulk hadn't improved upon his fumbling issues in 2000 he may very well have been released.

I would hate the idea of the New England Patriots expending a high draft pick on a running back when other areas of the team require additional depth and/or talent upgrade:

OC
DT
CB
SS
TE

 

[supafly]

I would hate the idea of the New England Patriots expending a high draft pick on a running back when other areas of the team require additional depth and/or talent upgrade:

OC
DT
CB
SS
TE

I agree 100%. I'm certainly not suggesting that Ridley would be cut prior to his pact expiring or anything like that. I'm just saying that anytime a player is going to get warned and then repeat the same mistakes, there's a pretty good chance that he's going to spend some time in the doghouse or riding the bench.

Even in a worst case scenario where he just outright proved himself a waste of time (which I think is very, very low), they'd likely just pickup another RB in a lower/moderate costing move via FA etc. I highly doubt they'd be drafting another RB in the next year or so, unless he may be a late round flier or the draft was just a complete crapshoot pick.

 

[supafly]

You're a draftnik of sorts. What do you think of that TE from Notre Dame, Nicholas? I don't even know what year he's currently in, but he's a bigger 6'5" or 6'6" 270 lbs. Looks like he can both block and catch very nicely.

 

[ATippett56]

You're a draftnik of sorts. What do you think of that TE from Notre Dame, Nicholas? I don't even know what year he's currently in, but he's a bigger 6'5" or 6'6" 270 lbs. Looks like he can both block and catch very nicely.

I watched the Georgia - South Carolina football game but only parts of the Notre Dame - Michigan game. I can't comment on Niklas at this time.

NFL Draft - 2014 NFL Draft Prospects - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com

NFL Draft - 2015 NFL Draft Prospects - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com

I'm more interested in the New England Patriots upgrading the "move" tight end position than a backup for Gronkowski. Not sold on DUDfeld whatsoever.

As for late round running backs:

Glasco Martin | Baylor, RB : 2014 NFL Draft Scout Player Profile