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

[SeymourTrophies]

It's not unreasonable that a RB fumbles, but there is something inopportune about Ridley's fumbling. Ridley came out of college with fumbling issues; he's had some issues here; he's had time to address the ball, and the situation has actually gotten worse IMO. His fumble in 2011 (the only one I can remember is Denver in the playoffs) was not horrible. He was being held up by one guy and hit or stripped by another. I also don't blame him for fumbling when he was unconscious, but he's had two offseasons to address his main shortcoming, and the fumbles have gotten worse. The Buffalo fumble was horrific, and the Carolina fumble was not much better.

I'm more annoyed with Ridley as the feature back. He's not a big play guy, and that's what he was supposed to be and why we let Green-Ellis go.

 

[dales804]

It certainly did a lot to lessen the chances of a comeback but that game had already turned with the Ravens already having run off 14 points and taking an 8 point lead before that fumble.

The turning point of that game was when the Pats were up 6 and at the Baltimore 35 driving for a 2 score lead with less than 25 minutes to play. After wasting a first half of field position advantage and allowing the Ravens to stay close, the Pats were still about to take command. Then a dropped 3rd down conversion pass by a WR whose name escapes me this week and a terrible punt by Mesko were followed by a quick 80+ yd Ravens TD drive. Makes me ill just thinking about it.

I never got punting from the 34 yard line. Mesko had a 21 yard punt making BAL start from their own 13 yard line, so I thought he did a good enough job. But why not just go for it or send Ghost out? But WW dropping that pass really sucked.

 

[tombonneau]

Considering that the book seems to cover quite a bit of history of punctuation, I'd say you are incorrect.

Perhaps she believes that further change is undesirable. But she cannot seriously be suggesting that there has not been change in the past.

Oh no, of course, language evolves and changes. I was specifically referring to her pet peeve of people commonly using an apostrophe to pluralize an abbreviated noun. e.g. Where did you put those CD's? vs. Where did you put those CDs?

 

[tombonneau]

I think if you look back over the last few years most of our sacks have happened when we are making a nice drive.

Most of Brady's interceptions? Also usually on a nice drive. Drops? Offensive penalties? Same.

This speaks to the fact that the Patriots have consistently had a really good offense that almost always moves the ball.

The Jets or Jags who have weak offenses that struggle to move the ball probably always seem to make bad plays when they don't seem to have a nice drive going.

Interesting point. It's almost that the Pats sustained offensive excellence makes any mistake look worse because it happens when they are doing something positive on offense (which is 75% of drives) vs. bad teams that have fewer positive drives have the luxury of a turnover or mistake just blending in with the rest of their lackluster offense.

 

[tombonneau]

I don't like the sentiment of this thread. Other top RBs fumble so ours should too? This team wins games based on winning the turnover battle, I don't care how other teams do it. A lot of the RBs you cite play on teams that suck, so I'm not sure why we should use them as a model.

It's not the Boston media who makes Ridley's fumbling a big deal. Bill Belichick has been tremendously outspoken about his distaste for putting the ball on the ground. And for good reason. You have to protect the ball.

His problems protecting the ball goes beyond the stats you cite. He's also has fumbled twice in 3 postseason games, once as a receiver.

He's our best pure running back - no one will argue that point. But stop making excuses for him. He has to curb the fumbling. Bill Belichick does not live with RBs who turn it over, you shouldn't either.

I think Ridley's explosiveness in the mid-level overcomes any fumbling issues. Yes BJGE never fumbled, but the amount of runs where he would get 5-6 yds, Ridley has the ability to turn those into 20-25 yd gains and he does that far more more often than he fumbles.

But I get it, it's two different philosophies, you can go safe and plodding with a .5% fumble chance or slightly riskier but explosive with a 1.5% fumble chance. I'll choose the latter all day, every day. And BB made the same choice when he let BJGE walk.

 

[BradyManny]

But I get it, it's two different philosophies, you can go safe and plodding with a .5% fumble chance or slightly riskier but explosive with a 1.5% fumble chance. I'll choose the latter all day, every day. And BB made the same choice when he let BJGE walk.

Again, Ridley is one of the more explosive backs in the league. I'm not arguing that Ridley should be benched, or that Blount should play more. I'm simply arguing that Ridley's fumble rate is unacceptable.

And I don't think moving on from BJGE shows a change in philosophy from Belichick. Belichick didn't know Ridley would have this problem, Ridley never even fumbled in college. And then Belichick shelved Ridley for the playoffs in 2011 when he fumbled in the Denver game. Which was necessary, but sucks, since Ridley might've made the difference in SB46, who knows? But it's Ridley's doing, he hadn't earned BB's trust yet.

Letting BJGE walk was about value over replacement, BJGE in spite of his great ball security gave very little value over a potential replacement. Getting comparable production was not difficult. Ridley, fumbles aside, has huge value over the average RB. But with the fumbles included, he's probably approaching average as well, and unless he gets the fumbles under control, I wouldn't be surprised if we let him walk next year. That would be unfortunate if it comes to that.

It would be nice if Ridley could excel at ball security, as Belichick expects his running backs to do - just as he expects of his QB to have a very low INT %, which he does.

This team, with its bend/don't break D, cannot afford to give the ball over. The Pats play shortened games, with few possessions, and cannot afford to lose turnover battles. Ridley needs to not just be average (or below) with ball security, he has to be a plus in that category.

 

[tombonneau]

Again, Ridley is one of the more explosive backs in the league. I'm not arguing that Ridley should be benched, or that Blount should play more. I'm simply arguing that Ridley's fumble rate is unacceptable.

And I don't think moving on from BJGE shows a change in philosophy from Belichick. Belichick didn't know Ridley would have this problem, Ridley never even fumbled in college. And then Belichick shelved Ridley for the playoffs in 2011 when he fumbled in the Denver game. Which was necessary, but sucks, since Ridley might've made the difference in SB46, who knows? But it's Ridley's doing, he hadn't earned BB's trust yet.

Letting BJGE walk was about value over replacement, BJGE in spite of his great ball security gave very little value over a potential replacement. Getting comparable production was not difficult. Ridley, fumbles aside, has huge value over the average RB. But with the fumbles included, he's probably approaching average as well, and unless he gets the fumbles under control, I wouldn't be surprised if we let him walk next year. That would be unfortunate if it comes to that.

It would be nice if Ridley could excel at ball security, as Belichick expects his running backs to do - just as he expects of his QB to have a very low INT %, which he does.

This team, with its bend/don't break D, cannot afford to give the ball over. The Pats play shortened games, with few possessions, and cannot afford to lose turnover battles. Ridley needs to not just be average (or below) with ball security, he has to be a plus in that category.

I cannot disagree with anything you said. Very balanced and well-put.

 

[SeymourTrophies]

I don't think Ridley is anything special on the second level. I think his acceleration is brilliant, and he picks a lane and hits it, but his top end speed is lacking. I actually think he's lost a step or two since 2011 when he could just blast down the sideline and out leg defenders.

Kind of a misleading stat, because anyone can get lucky and have the defense totally break down on them, but Ridley's season long (23) is shorter than both Bolden (46) and Blount (47).

 

[supafly]

I never got punting from the 34 yard line. Mesko had a 21 yard punt making BAL start from their own 13 yard line, so I thought he did a good enough job. But why not just go for it or send Ghost out? But WW dropping that pass really sucked.

It was the wind that screwed everything up.

Had the wind not been a factor, we'd have had more scoring opportunities.

They had the ball SEVEN times inside what normally would have been FG range (opposition's 35 yd line) and only came away with 13 total points. The wind added to those decisions greatly.

 

[Brady6]

Again, Ridley is one of the more explosive backs in the league. I'm not arguing that Ridley should be benched, or that Blount should play more. I'm simply arguing that Ridley's fumble rate is unacceptable.

And I don't think moving on from BJGE shows a change in philosophy from Belichick. Belichick didn't know Ridley would have this problem, Ridley never even fumbled in college. And then Belichick shelved Ridley for the playoffs in 2011 when he fumbled in the Denver game. Which was necessary, but sucks, since Ridley might've made the difference in SB46, who knows? But it's Ridley's doing, he hadn't earned BB's trust yet.

Letting BJGE walk was about value over replacement, BJGE in spite of his great ball security gave very little value over a potential replacement. Getting comparable production was not difficult. Ridley, fumbles aside, has huge value over the average RB. But with the fumbles included, he's probably approaching average as well, and unless he gets the fumbles under control, I wouldn't be surprised if we let him walk next year. That would be unfortunate if it comes to that.

It would be nice if Ridley could excel at ball security, as Belichick expects his running backs to do - just as he expects of his QB to have a very low INT %, which he does.

This team, with its bend/don't break D, cannot afford to give the ball over. The Pats play shortened games, with few possessions, and cannot afford to lose turnover battles. Ridley needs to not just be average (or below) with ball security, he has to be a plus in that category.

I don’t understand why people think Blount provides better ball protection, he has more regular season fumbles total and lost than Ridley despite having less career touches.

Blount
506 carries
21 receptions
10 fumbles
7 fumbles lost

Ridley
508 carries
20 receptions
8 fumbles
5 fumbles lost

 

[Brady6]

I personally think Ridley’s future is bright, but this is an article that came out today.

What is Stevan Ridley’s future with the Patriots? - Adam Kaufman - Boston.com Sports

 

[supafly]

I personally think Ridley’s future is bright, but this is an article that came out today.

What is Stevan Ridley’s future with the Patriots? - Adam Kaufman - Boston.com Sports

Out of the 4 RB's (Ridley, Vereen, Bolden, Blount) who are all up for free agency in the next 15-16 or so months, I'm not sure that we could say that any of them are safe. It's certainly a fate yet to be determined, and will be re-examined when the time comes.

Fans/posters like to stay with the same players, but there are always new college players, free agents who become available, and new UDFA's who can come in and compete for better value.

Considering the pluses and minuses of Ridley is not only fair, it's proper. Personally, I'm hoping that we'd be able to retain him from what I've seen to this point. Obviously that could change between now and the offseason of 2015 if he continues to show fumbling issues. It's also worth pondering that other teams may not see his fumbling issues as quite as a major problem as Belichick and NE does, and although he may put the ball on the ground 3-4 times per year, he may also run for another 1250 yard season somewhere else.

 

[supafly]

I don’t understand why people think Blount provides better ball protection, he has more regular season fumbles total and lost than Ridley despite having less career touches.

Blount
506 carries
21 receptions
10 fumbles
7 fumbles lost

Ridley
508 carries
20 receptions
8 fumbles
5 fumbles lost

Blount has most definitely had worse fumbling issues coming into this season than Ridley has had, and still has a higher rate. Prior to the start of the season, I had Ridley at a 1/73 touches fumbling rate, while Blount's was somewhere around 1/43. The gap has obviously narrowed as Ridley has fumbled 2 more times than Blount this year.

The current numbers are Blount = 1/51 touches fumbling rate, and Ridley =1/64 fumbling rate.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Ridley lowered his helmet and got KO'ed in the process.

I'm sick of the excuses for this fumble. The fact was we were down 21-13 and driviing, Ridley lowers his head, and gets clocked. That was a massive momentum shift that pretty much shut the game down for us.

I never thought that was a fumble. The ball came out when his ass hit the ground. How is that not down by contact?

 

[hwc]

With Vereen and Blount healthy, I don't expect to see Ridley in the game Sunday. In my opinion, the Pats win the game last Sunday without his red zone fumble. That was exactly the kind of unforced error that the Pats offense couldn't afford as they tried to mask the deficiencies of a decimated defense.

 

[supafly]

With Vereen and Blount healthy, I don't expect to see Ridley in the game Sunday. In my opinion, the Pats win the game last Sunday without his red zone fumble. That was exactly the kind of unforced error that the Pats offense couldn't afford as they tried to mask the deficiencies of a decimated defense.

Obviously that play was important looking back, but the failed 3rd and 1 attempt when we ended up kicking the FG to go up 20-17 may have been even bigger.

We had the momentum right in our hands, and had the chance to score a TD to go up 24-17 where we'd have had the luxury of getting the ball back even after they scored the TD to tie it. As we know, we were well within FG range when the game ended.

Choosing to target Dobson in the end zone on that particular pass route on 3rd and 1 was ugly, and I immediately felt a knot in my stomach that we had just blown our opportunity to win the game. There were only about 4-5 min left, and we had been doing great the entire second half. It was quite unfortunate.

It has been a damn shame that 2 of Ridley's fumbles this year were in or near the red zone though. That is what really magnifies the fumbles. Both games took points away from us and gave them to the other team. That's a huge swing right there.

 

[stcjones]

Could not agree more...if he had one fumble at the opponents 45 yard line in the first quarter and the Pats end up winning the game...people will forget about it. When you fumble at the GOAL LINE or in the RZ and it is at a CRUCIAL moment or affects the outcome of the game. ...then it is significant/serious. Riddler always fumbles in a critical moment and it often affects the outcome of the game. ..I think they should put him on the bench and bring him in if someone else gets injured or we get way ahead! Everytime he touches the ball I cringe!

QUOTE=Elijah;3650356]Agreed with both above posts. He fumbles at the worst possible times and the Patriots never recover it.[/QUOTE]

 

[stcjones]

With Vereen and Blount healthy, I don't expect to see Ridley in the game Sunday. In my opinion, the Pats win the game last Sunday without his red zone fumble. That was exactly the kind of unforced error that the Pats offense couldn't afford as they tried to mask the deficiencies of a decimated defense.

Bingo great post..agree completely

 

[stcjones]

I never thought that was a fumble. The ball came out when his ass hit the ground. How is that not down by contact?

Take another look....they reviewed it a fair amount from different angles....and BB never challenged.

 

[stcjones]

Firstly Blount has been in the league longer and basically WAS Tampa Bays offense for 1.5 years. Secondly seems to me Blount has corrected how he holds the ball as that is a huge part of the issue. Ridley has been worked with on this for what?...almost 3 years....enough is enough. Guy is extremely talented...but if everytime he takes a handoff the collective fans , coaches and players hold their breath. ....its not worth it. Especially the history of fumbling in the RZ or on goal line. I would never use him in RZ situations again...would u?


UOTE=supafly;3651863]Blount has most definitely had worse fumbling issues coming into this season than Ridley has had, and still has a higher rate. Prior to the start of the season, I had Ridley at a 1/73 touches fumbling rate, while Blount's was somewhere around 1/43. The gap has obviously narrowed as Ridley has fumbled 2 more times than Blount this year.

The current numbers are Blount = 1/51 touches fumbling rate, and Ridley =1/64 fumbling rate.[/QUOTE]