Ridley Fumbles - Let's not let facts get in the way

[MassPats38]

Fans are still defending this guy! Unbelievable.

Ozymandias is the only one bringing this up. Pretend Ridley never fumbles, what is he compared to the rest of the league at RB? An average, overrated RB.

-Above average runner
-No receiving ability
-No breakaway ability

He's an inferior version of Alfred Morris. How many RBs would you take over Ridley? For me:

Adrian Peterson
Jamaal Charles
Marshawn Lynch
Alfred Morris
Matt Forte
Frank Gore
Lesean McCoy
Reggie Bush
DeMarco Murray
Zac Stacy
Giovani Bernard
Fred Jackson
CJ Spiller (healthy)
Doug Martin
Arian Foster (healthy)

All these RBs are either better runners, possess receiving ability or breakaway ability that make them better overall RBs than Ridley.

Conclusion: So we're going to deal with a fumbling problem for an average RB? It's superbowl 48, Russell Wilson is on the other side. We're going to hand this stiff the ball at frozen Metlife and give the Seahawks more opportunities in the biggest game of the year?

Shut. Him. Down.

I'm not defending him, but the question now is which of the RBs on your list are on this team or available this season? Or available ever? The question now is which RB on the Pats gives the best chance for the Pats to win today (not next season or 5 seasons from now), and none of those guys are joining the Pats. While we are wishing, I'd like to see Megatron and Fitgerald catching passes from Brady, and that ain't happening either.

I agree he is one dimensional, but average backs don't rush for almost 1300 yards and 12 TDs. And how do you see no breakaway ability? The guy is not Green-Ellis, both in terms of ball protection and his upside when he hits his second gear. In terms of quickness and agility he is very good, and has shown the ability to turn losses into gains this season. He doesn't keep finding his way to the field after fumbles because he lacks skills. His problem is he turns gains into losses at a catastrophic level with his garbage ball handling skills, and came very close to sinking the Pats in two straight games with his lack of discipline.

I trust the coaching, and I have defended the decision not to play him because I believed the coaches saw these issues in practice (in contrast to the theory BB is petty and vindictive in benching a guy for a simple mistake). Those openly blasting McDaniels for failing to play him likely forgot those coaches see a lot of practice reps, and those reps are better evidence of tendencies. I suspect the loud crowd of "put Ridley in" a few games ago probably lost their voice after the mistakes in the last two games and in recalling the Buffalo fumble. If the coaching believes he can be salvaged, I am fine with that decision as well.

With that said, if he can be fixed before games of consequence this season, then he is valuable. If he can be given reps and prove this is just a bad run, great. I have no issue if he doesn't take the field again if he is simply unteachable, because I have little confidence in his ability to protect the ball when the game is on the line and he can end the season with his mistakes when the games matter. Faulk did have his issues as a rookie, but Faulk was a pass catcher and was shifted to that capacity to limit his carries. In baseball, batters go in slumps but the good batting average evens out over time. If this is a slump, I will take the upside to balance it out. If it is a death spiral, then I would prefer not to ride that to the ground under the "he's 24 and still learning" mantra. A rookie should be holding the ball with two hands after the fatal mistakes this season, so I don't buy that argument at all.

 

[RayClay]

For every RB who fixed their fumbling problems there's probably 20 that didn't.
Will Ridley figure it out? Hopefully. Would I be surprised if he doesn't and is let go at the end of his rookie contract? Nope

I can figure it out. It's a matter of whether, working with the coaches, he'll put in the effort to correct it like Faulk did.

He simply needs to run more compactly and practice with about a bunch of guys trying to strip him every play.

The play he fumbled on was text book bad ball security. you can spin, but you need to tuck that ball into your body. Also, go fo the extra yards, but not by flinging your arms and the ball around.

It's up to him. If he can't improve, they'll get somebody else.

I think he has a good chance to improve, since his technique is causing 90% of these fumbles.

 

[PatsFan2]

I can figure it out. It's a matter of whether, working with the coaches, he'll put in the effort to correct it like Faulk did.

He simply needs to run more compactly and practice with about a bunch of guys trying to strip him every play.

The play he fumbled on was text book bad ball security. you can spin, but you need to tuck that ball into your body. Also, go fo the extra yards, but not by flinging your arms and the ball around.

It's up to him. If he can't improve, they'll get somebody else.

I think he has a good chance to improve, since his technique is causing 90% of these fumbles.

Ridley is saying all the right things but TALK is cheap!:snob:

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Great. Any of those RBs available?

No, they're not.

Ridley is still the best RB they have and it really isn't close. Blount's not the answer, Vereen's not a full time back which leaves Bolden. Who would you rather have Ridley or Bolden? While there is a chance Bolden could be a starting level RB, he has not yet proven so.

That's a trade-off that only Belichick and McDaniels are qualified to make. They alone are in a position to weigh the indisputable, upside benefits that Ridley brings against the clear, downside risks that he also brings and to determine whether the Patriots are better off with or without him on the field at any given time.

I could see that determination going either way at different times in the game; do they want Ridley to have the ball "in" his hands when the game is on the line and the Pats are either driving in the Red Zone or playing from deep in their own territory?

As always, in BB I trust.

 

[RayClay]

Ridley is saying all the right things but TALK is cheap!:snob:

Not cheap, worthless. He could be just as elusive without swinging his arms around, but he has to work on it.

 

[SalemPats]

I would start going with Vereen on all 3 downs next year

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Faulk comparisons are overblown. In 1999 and 2000, Faulk fumbled once every 32 touches- awful. He had almost 300 touches.

Once BB made him more of a 3rd down guy in 2001 & 2002 he fumbled once every 53 touches.

In 2003 and 2004, he had around 300 touches again and fumbled on average once every 51 touches- which is his career average.

I do believe that BB became more situational with Faulk. Certainly KF became more secure with the ball as well.

So by just looking at the numbers, in terms of ball security over his career, Faulk is the same as Ridley this year. However, we'd agree that Ridley is having a tough time of it lately.

I can figure it out. It's a matter of whether, working with the coaches, he'll put in the effort to correct it like Faulk did.

He simply needs to run more compactly and practice with about a bunch of guys trying to strip him every play.

The play he fumbled on was text book bad ball security. you can spin, but you need to tuck that ball into your body. Also, go fo the extra yards, but not by flinging your arms and the ball around.

It's up to him. If he can't improve, they'll get somebody else.

I think he has a good chance to improve, since his technique is causing 90% of these fumbles.

 

[Bella*chick]

He is so talented and can be so electric. I am begging him to figure it out. Ask Bolden how to hold it for crying out loud. That guy wraps both arms around it and plows forward as best he can.

 

[RayClay]

The Faulk comparisons are overblown. In 1999 and 2000, Faulk fumbled once every 32 touches- awful. He had almost 300 touches.

Once BB made him more of a 3rd down guy in 2001 & 2002 he fumbled once every 53 touches.

In 2003 and 2004, he had around 300 touches again and fumbled on average once every 51 touches- which is his career average.

I do believe that BB became more situational with Faulk. Certainly KF became more secure with the ball as well.

So by just looking at the numbers, in terms of ball security over his career, Faulk is the same as Ridley this year. However, we'd agree that Ridley is having a tough time of it lately.

The thing with Ridley is, his problem is obviously correctable. It isn't a matter of how much, it's the fact that other teams see you struggling and are going after you. It either gets better, or gets worse.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The thing with Ridley is, his problem is obviously correctable. It isn't a matter of how much, it's the fact that other teams see you struggling and are going after you. It either gets better, or gets worse.

100% agree. By improving technique, concentration, running strength fumbling is absolutely correctable. However, there are some players- for whatever reason fumble more than others which means that they can't improve or are unwilling to improve.

 

[SVN]

Adam Hart ‏@adamhart 6m
Ridley: “I’m gonna have to talk to Faulk and see what he did ... For me, it will be something I have to change." http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/frustrated-ridley-puts-ball-ground-yet-

 

[PatsFan2]

Ridley's fumbles have become two constant almost one a game. Saying he will improve or correct those problems is like. :spygate:

 

[shmessy]

I can figure it out. It's a matter of whether, working with the coaches, he'll put in the effort to correct it like Faulk did.

He simply needs to run more compactly and practice with about a bunch of guys trying to strip him every play.

The play he fumbled on was text book bad ball security. you can spin, but you need to tuck that ball into your body. Also, go fo the extra yards, but not by flinging your arms and the ball around.

It's up to him. If he can't improve, they'll get somebody else.

I think he has a good chance to improve, since his technique is causing 90% of these fumbles.

There were 11 fumbles last night. It was an ice cube.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

It's fumbles, it was always fumbles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW3dg9VURMU

 

[Kontradiction]

There were 11 fumbles last night. It was an ice cube.

...and Ridley's was one that could very easily be prevented. High and tight, not low and away. They teach RB's this in pee wee football. For Ridley, low and away is a very bad habit, and those are the hardest to break.

 

[tombonneau]

...and Ridley's was one that could very easily be prevented. High and tight, not low and away. They teach RB's this in pee wee football. For Ridley, low and away is a very bad habit, and those are the hardest to break.

And of course the reason Ridley's stands out amongst the 11 fumbles is he somehow once again manages to fumble in the most cinematic and fantastic ways possible. OF COURSE his fumble is the one that balleticly soars through the air to be picked up by a Denver All Pro defender and returned for his TD.

And while his ball security is preventable, there is simply no way to blame Ridley for the post-fumble results like that, and unfortunately they just further magnify the error.

I hope he gets it together. He's going to be a very good RB for some team in this league. To those who think fumbles aside he is still an average RB, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

I would start going with Vereen on all 3 downs next year

And then what would you do for the 2nd half and the other 15 games?

 

[RayClay]

There were 11 fumbles last night. It was an ice cube.

Are you saying Ridley hasn't had a problem with fumbling prior to this game?

Stuff happens and some fumbles are more preventable than others. Watch his, and tell me if you think he was doing everything possible to secure the ball under those conditions.

 

[Snake Eyes]

There were 11 fumbles last night. It was an ice cube.

How many times did Moreno fumble? How many carries did he have?

 

[Brady6]

I don't understand why Blount is getting free pass he has two fumbles lost this season one of which could have cost us the Bengals game, all I know is if you're going to petition in here Ridley to be cut or traded you should be writing a duplicate post for Blount who has more career fumbles total and lost then Ridley despite having less career carries.