Under the radar ... Stevan Ridley

[JJDChE]

I think you're slow on the uptake and have shot yourself in the foot by agreeing that you need prolonged exposure to a player before making any claims about their potential or level of talent.

I didn't say that. I tell you to go back and read it again, but I have zero confidence that you can pick up on the subtlety of the language.

It's obvious you've dug yourself a hole and refuse to climb out, despite actually agreeing with what I have contended from the very beginning. Furthermore, you're the one proposing more carries, demoting BJGE to goal line back so on and so forth. I have told you multiple times I am happy with BJGE, Ridley, Woodhead and would like some exposure to Vereen. If Ridley proves capable of taking the starter position in the RB committee then he will. How will we know that? You guessed it, prolonged exposure.

 

[JJDChE]

Talent is only half the equation, especially here in New England. The other half is mastering the offense and being a professional, e.g., being prepared and paying attention to detail, which BJGE clearly demonstrated when he took Woodhead's place. We've passed up so many players that have enormous upside in talent, in the draft. This board goes up into flames every time that happens.

BJGE and Woodhead are entering their prime. That's when you have the perfect confluence of talent, knowledge, and experience. I wouldn't trump that with someone who, at this point, has just talent. But I wouldn't hold that talent back. No reason why the two can't coexist.

You know what, I cant bang my head against the wall on this anymore. I understand where you're coming from. I'm coming from somewhere different. I don't have a problem with BJGE or Woody, they were productive enough to not be a detriment to the offense. If we stuck with them it wouldn't bother me in the least, yet I still see that both would be easy to upgrade. I'd trade BJGE straight up for almost every other starting RB in the NFL and several team's backups. I love that he is consistent and never fumbles, but I'd rather have someone who fumbles a few times a year, but also averages 5.0 ypc and breaks off a big TD run every once in a while. If Ridley can do that, I wouldn't mind kicking BJGE to the curb.

They have a role in winning games. Every offensive player does. I've given my arguments why I think the RBBC works pretty well for us.

RBBC is great when you don't have a star RB on your roster, or alternatively, if you have multiple star RBs. If you have a guy who is head and shoulders above the other guys on the roster, you're just costing yourself by limiting him with RBBC.

RBBC makes sense with Woodhead and Benji. I'm not sure that will be true with Ridley. We'll see.

I disagree. For example, Mallett has a stronger arm than Brady, is more mobile, and a little taller, so strictly in terms of talent, he is better than Brady, but does that mean we replace Brady with him? No. I wouldn't throw out what's working just because we see something more sexy, something with more "upside."

QB productivity is less tied to physical talent than any other position, as opposed to RB, which is probably the position most tightly tied physical talent and natural ability.

 

[Patspsycho]

You know what, I cant bang my head against the wall on this anymore. I understand where you're coming from. I'm coming from somewhere different. I don't have a problem with BJGE or Woody, they were productive enough to not be a detriment to the offense. If we stuck with them it wouldn't bother me in the least, yet I still see that both would be easy to upgrade. I'd trade BJGE straight up for almost every other starting RB in the NFL and several team's backups. I love that he is consistent and never fumbles, but I'd rather have someone who fumbles a few times a year, but also averages 5.0 ypc and breaks off a big TD run every once in a while. If Ridley can do that, I wouldn't mind kicking BJGE to the curb.

But the fact is that Woodhead/BJGE combined for 18 rushing TDs, and almost 1,600 yards. That's the most production out of the RB position since the days of Curtis Martin, so to call them easy to upgrade is inaccurate. In 2009, the four headed monsters of Maroney, Morris, Taylor, and Faulk only came up with 17 TDs, and slightly over 1,600 yards. So you have two players who've produced more than four RBs put together.

A turnover is far more costly than breaking off a big run every now and then.

RBBC is great when you don't have a star RB on your roster, or alternatively, if you have multiple star RBs. If you have a guy who is head and shoulders above the other guys on the roster, you're just costing yourself by limiting him with RBBC.

RBBC makes sense with Woodhead and Benji. I'm not sure that will be true with Ridley. We'll see.

Your argument for an one-man RB corp basically goes against the Patriots philosophy in that they have tried their best not to sink too much capital into one player, preferring to go for a deeply stocked lineup, so that if one player gets injured, another takes his place without missing a beat.

If we kick BJGE and Woodhead to the curb in favor of Ridley being the all-star one man RB corp, then we are in trouble when (and not if) he gets hurt, because he will.

QB productivity is less tied to physical talent than any other position, as opposed to RB, which is probably the position most tightly tied physical talent and natural ability.

It may be, for the most part, but in our system, you also have to be intelligent which is why so many linebackers wash out so easily here, because while they could rush or create havoc, they had great difficulty dropping back into zone or man.

The reason is Brady's "auteur"-like ability to change the call or protection at any time he desires, especially if he succeeds in getting the D to tip its hands and sees where the pressure or blitz is coming from. The RB must not only handle that, but also be able to handle it in hurry up, being cognizant of his new alignment, formation, and route with the stem being dictated by coverage.

 

[Raine247]

Ridley got a few carries this week. I could see him taking a good chunk away from BJGE as the season progresses. He's a more impressive runner from what I've seen. If he can hold on to the ball he'll be a more productive back in this offense.

His burst of speed off the snap is something I've never seen from a patriots back since I became a fan. His touchdown run last Sunday had me giddy! I feel as long as the Patriots don't get too cute with him, he'll do wonders for this organization.

 

[ausbacker]

I didn't say that. I tell you to go back and read it again, but I have zero confidence that you can pick up on the subtlety of the language.

Well I went back and read through your comments JJDChE. Here's a small illustration of your hypocrisy and bias through JJDChE presents his Greatest miss-hits - edition I. Probably best just to let this fade on out into the sunset before you cause yourself further embarrassment.

And for the record, let us hope that Ridley and Vereen do become feature backs. That can only bode well for the Patriots.

It's only a matter of time. All due respect to BJGE, but the only thing he has going for him is that he hasn't fumbled the ball. He's a dime a dozen back, talent-wise. Pretty much any RB can manage 4 ypc in this offense. Ridley has shown he's head and shoulders above BJGE as a runner. If he can show that his pass protection is good and avoid fumbling early on, he'll be eating the majority of Benji's carries by midseason.

In 379 carries as a Pat, BJGE's longest run is 33 yds and best as I can tell he has had 5 runs over 20 yds. Ridley has 18 carries and he already has a 33 yd run and 3 runs over 20 yds.

If he isn't getting the lion's share of the carries soon, I don't know what to say. BJGE will be a nice little backup though.

Seriously, nothing against Green-Ellis, he just isn't all that talented. He was a nice workhorse last year, but he's not a long term NFL starting RB.

In the realm of starting NFL RBs, Green-Ellis definitely falls in the lower half of the talent pool.

Based on what I've seen in an admittedly short period of time with Ridley is that he should be displacing Green-Ellis for the most part.

I'm not even saying Ridley is going to be anything more than an average back, but he's clearly more talented than Green-Ellis. We've seen Green-Ellis' ceiling. It's not a high ceiling. He wouldn't even be getting carries on most teams.

BJGE's body of work tells me he's a consistent, plodding RB who doesn't make mistakes and rarely makes a big play. Thus far Ridley's body of work shows he has some potential to create big plays. You can't teach that. OTOH you can teach ball security and pass protection.

Do you honestly think they even pay attention to Green-Ellis in game planning?

No, none of those numbers would sway me. I see the guy play. He's not an explosive player. Keep him as the goalline RB, that's fine with me. I'd rather have someone who can break off a big play now and then in the other areas of the field.

The presence of Woodhead and/or BJGE isn't dictating crap. Neither one has the ability to dictate how the defense plays. Tom Brady dictates how the defense plays. Ridley could MAYBE be a guy who dictates how the defense plays. That's why I want to see more of him.

Obviously he needs to get 'prolonged exposure' for us to know if he's really a viable replacement. That goes without saying. How could we possibly assess his value WITHOUT putting him on the field?

I think you're severely distorting what the Ridley proponents are making claims to in this thread. All we're saying is that the guy looks to be a talent, give him the ball some more. No one said we should all of sudden give him the ball 20 times a game and bench Benji. No one even said anything remotely close to that.

Someone's confused. Really really really confused himself.

 

[JJDChE]

But the fact is that Woodhead/BJGE combined for 18 rushing TDs, and almost 1,600 yards. That's the most production out of the RB position since the days of Curtis Martin, so to call them easy to upgrade is inaccurate. In 2009, the four headed monsters of Maroney, Morris, Taylor, and Faulk only came up with 17 TDs, and slightly over 1,600 yards. So you have two players who've produced more than four RBs put together.

I'm saying any two RBs with average or better ability would have matched those numbers.

A turnover is far more costly than breaking off a big run every now and then.

That depends on # of turnovers compared to # of impact plays.

Your argument for an one-man RB corp

60% of the carries is a one man RB corps?

basically goes against the Patriots philosophy in that they have tried their best not to sink too much capital into one player preferring to go for a deeply stocked lineup, so that if one player gets injured, another takes his place without missing a beat.

They already have Ridley and Vereen.

If we kick BJGE and Woodhead to the curb in favor of Ridley being the all-star one man RB corp, then we are in trouble when (and not if) he gets hurt, because he will.

Where did I say we should only carry one RB on the roster?

The reason is Brady's "auteur"-like ability to change the call or protection at any time he desires, especially if he succeeds in getting the D to tip its hands and sees where the pressure or blitz is coming from. The RB must not only handle that, but also be able to handle it in hurry up, being cognizant of his new alignment, formation, and route with the stem being dictated by coverage.

I think you are severely romanticizing the level of intelligence it takes to handle being a RB in our offense.

 

[Patspsycho]

I'm saying any two RBs with average or better ability would have matched those numbers.

Please go ahead and find them.

They already have Ridley and Vereen.

And that would be all they have if you had your way. Vereen is already nursing a hamstring which is tricky to recover from, so if he goes down again, that would leave just Ridley because you want to kick BJGE/Woodhead to the curb.

Where did I say we should only carry one RB on the roster?

You were in favor of a stud RB over RBBC.

I think you are severely romanticizing the level of intelligence it takes to handle being a RB in our offense.

The 2004 playbook says otherwise. Of course that's a difference of 7 years and they may have reduced the RB options a lot more, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[JJDChE]

I didn't say that. I tell you to go back and read it again, but I have zero confidence that you can pick up on the subtlety of the language.

Well I went back and read through your comments JJDChE. Here's a small illustration of your hypocrisy and bias through JJDChE presents his Greatest miss-hits - edition I. Probably best just to let this fade on out into the sunset before you cause yourself further embarrassment.

And for the record, let us hope that Ridley and Vereen do become feature backs. That can only bode well for the Patriots.

Someone's confused. Really really really confused himself.

Thanks for proving me right. You didn't need to go through the trouble.


EDIT: I just re-read your post. It's really hilarious that you can't reconcile the comments I've made. None of those comments contradict each other whatsoever, unless you make you own assumptions about what I was saying.

 

[JJDChE]

Please go ahead and find them.

I'm not the GM. Belichick and team are making their attempt with Ridley and Vereen. We'll see how it works out for them.

And that would be all they have if you had your way. Vereen is already nursing a hamstring which is tricky to recover from, so if he goes down again, that would leave just Ridley because you want to kick BJGE/Woodhead to the curb.

I didn't say we should kick them to the curb, I just wouldn't be upset if they did. I think they'd be fine backups. We should keep them if they are cap friendly. I like the 4 RB lineup we have right now, I just want Ridley and Vereen to show they deserve to send Benji and Woody to the backup duty. I think it's a little optimistic that both guys will turn out, but at least Ridley is showing flashes.

I definitely didn't say we should only keep 2 RBs on our roster. That's just stupid.

You were in favor of a stud RB over RBBC.

You and ausbacker are unbelievable. Talk about distorting my words.

First, I never said which one I favor over the other. I said IF YOU HAVE a stud RB it's stupid to use RBBC. Giving one guy the bulk of the carries vs. RBBC should be decided based on who is on the roster. If you have a guy who is a pro bowl type back, he should be getting the majority of the carries, unless he has some physical limitation.

The 2004 playbook says otherwise. Of course that's a difference of 7 years and they may have reduced the RB options a lot more, but somehow I doubt it.

You mean the year we signed Corey Dillon and he carried the ball 345 times? He sure needed a long time to get it.




Look, I've made may point here. We'll see what happens. I'm tired of continuously repeating myself and clarifying statements that shouldn't need clarifying, so I'm done until there's something new on this situation.

 

[ausbacker]

Thanks for proving me right. You didn't need to go through the trouble.


EDIT: I just re-read your post. It's really hilarious that you can't reconcile the comments I've made. None of those comments contradict each other whatsoever, unless you make you own assumptions about what I was saying.

Defiant even in the face of your own words betraying you. It is there in black print JJDChE. Your own words contradicting your own words further down the thread responses.

I was far too kind by giving you courtesy you clearly don't deserve.

 

[Patspsycho]

I'm not the GM. Belichick and team are making their attempt with Ridley and Vereen. We'll see how it works out for them.

Still not answering my question.

I didn't say we should kick them to the curb

Yes you did:

I wouldn't mind kicking BJGE to the curb.

You mean the year we signed Corey Dillon and he carried the ball 345 times? He sure needed a long time to get it.

Still doesn't change the content of the playbook. As Dillon was more brawn than brains I'm sure we pared it down for him in favor of his raw power, but Faulk as the specialist was probably proficient with the complexity of the schemes.

As with most playbooks, only a handful of designs are used each week, but that doesn't change the overall complexity of what is ideally expected of a RB in our system.

Look, I've made may point here. We'll see what happens. I'm tired of continuously repeating myself and clarifying statements that shouldn't need clarifying, so I'm done until there's something new on this situation.

I enjoy debating as much as the next person does and perhaps I am defending a losing position, and BJGE is elsewhere after his tender is up, who knows? You don't know what will happen, I don't know what will happen, but that doesn't prevent people from coming to this board to discuss all aspects of the game. For me, it helps pass the week.

 

[Reckedtrek]

It's only a matter of time. All due respect to BJGE, but the only thing he has going for him is that he hasn't fumbled the ball. He's a dime a dozen back, talent-wise. Pretty much any RB can manage 4 ypc in this offense. Ridley has shown he's head and shoulders above BJGE as a runner. If he can show that his pass protection is good and avoid fumbling early on, he'll be eating the majority of Benji's carries by midseason.

In 379 carries as a Pat, BJGE's longest run is 33 yds and best as I can tell he has had 5 runs over 20 yds. Ridley has 18 carries and he already has a 33 yd run and 3 runs over 20 yds.

If he isn't getting the lion's share of the carries soon, I don't know what to say. BJGE will be a nice little backup though.

This is great! Any other brilliant insight you want to share with us?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'm at the game watching BJGE grind out 1st downs series after series, even catching a pass for another first down and this stupid thread came to mind.

PS I'm excited about Ridley's prospects too

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

That's why you don't jump the gun after 1 good game. BJGE is still our main back

 

[patsfaninpa]

I see Ridley as a complement to BJGE. A quicker version. But, one who is not as strong/tough yet. In another year or two he will probably be there. Not yet though. I think we missed Woodhead yesterday. The other 3 backs aren't really good receivers. I think not having Woodhead was one of the reasons for the sacks. No dump off available.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

i think they were ready for ridley. i still believe the sky's the limit for this kid, but there is something to be said for the lawfirm and his toughness and consistency. i must admit , i may have jumped the gun on ridley.

 

[ausbacker]

There's no real reason to bump this to belittle JJDChE. Sure we share a disagreement but there's room for Ridley with Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Vereen in our back field. That's my preferred option.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

There's no real reason to bump this to belittle JJDChE. Sure we share a disagreement but there's room for Ridley with Green-Ellis, Woodhead and Vereen in our back field. That's my preferred option.

That's most fan's preferred option, once those milk cartons find Vereen for us. The OP deserves every bit of well earned ridicule for minimizing and denigrating BJGE, whose performance against the Jets was crucial and for premature ejaculation of Vereen's superiority.

 

[JackBauer]

That's most fan's preferred option, once those milk cartons find Vereen for us. The OP deserves every bit of well earned ridicule for minimizing and denigrating BJGE, whose performance against the Jets was crucial and for premature ejaculation of Vereen's superiority.

I didn't really see much in the way of denigration from JJdche (not sure why his defenders need to couch every argument they make in these terms), and I think you mean Ridley.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I didn't really see much in the way of denigration from JJdche (not sure why his defenders need to couch every argument they make in these terms), and I think you mean Ridley.

Vereen in 1st comment and Ridley in 2nd