Under the radar ... Stevan Ridley

[PatsWickedPissah]

No one is saying there's any problem, but the fact that BB would even draft two RBs indicates BB is looking to upgrade the RB position. You can certainly say that was good enough for a starter, but the jury is still out as to whether that continues to be the case. I'm of the belief that the more Ridley sees the field the better, but that's simply my opinion.

He likely wanted an upgrade over 2 injury prone old vet FA RBs. He also probably wanted to groom a successor to Kevin Faulk. His draft move says nothing about young productive reliable BJGE although were he to have found Curtis Martin like lightening in a bottle that'd be great! Too early to tell what we have though #22 looks good out there. Show me more!

 

[Patspsycho]

Yup, they didn't. But it certainly wasn't their talent level that stopped them. They would've have done the same thing if they were given the opportunities that Green-Ellis had.

Because outside of Dillon and Faulk we've had terrible RBs on this team.

Talent is only half the equation, perhaps even less in our system. You've also got to be a smart, professional, and versatile player.

For those who are so keen to discard BJGE, here is a great example:

When Woodhead went out with 1:27 left in the 1st half of the Raiders game, BJGE stepped right into his spot without missing a beat. That is all the more remarkable because Woodhead lines up in a different place (HB shotgun) than the traditional one-back formation, and so the calls and audibles are different than if BJGE was in his traditional one back spot.

For the rest of that drive, BJGE executed flawlessly; dual-reading the blitz, going out on out route in the curl, taking a draw for 6 yards, and taking a dump off for 9 yards. That's knowing two different formations, two different sets of calls and audibles at the line.

 

[JJDChE]

I have no problem with BJGE. If we hadn't drafted Ridley, I wouldn't have been calling for us to upgrade the position elsewhere. I think he's completely serviceable and we could probably get a few years of decent production out of him. Considering Bill drafted someone expressly to fill BJGE's role and he's been productive every time he's hit the field, it on;y makes sense to want to see more of him in place of BJGE. Obviously if he has fumbling problems or pass protection issues it's a different story, but I want him to get his shot to prove himself sooner rather than later.

 

[Patspsycho]

I have no problem with BJGE. If we hadn't drafted Ridley, I wouldn't have been calling for us to upgrade the position elsewhere. I think he's completely serviceable and we could probably get a few years of decent production out of him. Considering Bill drafted someone expressly to fill BJGE's role and he's been productive every time he's hit the field, it on;y makes sense to want to see more of him in place of BJGE. Obviously if he has fumbling problems or pass protection issues it's a different story, but I want him to get his shot to prove himself sooner rather than later.

I'm not saying Ridley shouldn't get his shot. I'm all for it, but the idea that Ridley was drafted to replace BJGE (or that BJGE should be discarded in favor of Ridley or Vereen for that matter) is not sensible or plausible. Since 2008, BB has gone for a RBBC, and I think that is more the case, than drafting someone "expressly to fill BJGE's role."

Ridley has shown some great flashes, great potential in the small sample that I've seen, and I think that barring any obstacles (injury, fumbling, inability to read blitz, problems with schemes, audibles, etc) the sky is the limit for this kid, but there's no logic that dictates that he replaces something that is not broken.

 

[ausbacker]

I have no problem with BJGE. If we hadn't drafted Ridley, I wouldn't have been calling for us to upgrade the position elsewhere. I think he's completely serviceable and we could probably get a few years of decent production out of him. Considering Bill drafted someone expressly to fill BJGE's role and he's been productive every time he's hit the field, it on;y makes sense to want to see more of him in place of BJGE. Obviously if he has fumbling problems or pass protection issues it's a different story, but I want him to get his shot to prove himself sooner rather than later.

Ryan Mallett was drafted to fill Tom Brady's position. Is that what you're proposing when the Patriots draft someone in a position already filled?

 

[JJDChE]

I'm not saying Ridley shouldn't get his shot. I'm all for it, but the idea that Ridley was drafted to replace BJGE (or that BJGE should be discarded in favor of Ridley or Vereen for that matter) is not sensible or plausible. Since 2008, BB has gone for a RBBC, and I think that is more the case, than drafting someone "expressly to fill BJGE's role."

Ridley has shown some great flashes, great potential in the small sample that I've seen, and I think that barring any obstacles (injury, fumbling, inability to read blitz, problems with schemes, audibles, etc) the sky is the limit for this kid, but there's no logic that dictates that he replaces something that is not broken.

Logic dictates that if he's a better player than BJGE he'll be getting more PT than BJGE. Lookin' good so far.

 

[JJDChE]

Ryan Mallett was drafted to fill Tom Brady's position. Is that what you're proposing when the Patriots draft someone in a position already filled?

When there's a lack of talent at the position, yes.

 

[ausbacker]

When there's a lack of talent at the position, yes.

You really do enjoy egg on your face don't you? The further this progresses the greater your bias against the Law Firm becomes.

 

[Patspsycho]

Logic dictates that if he's a better player than BJGE he'll be getting more PT than BJGE. Lookin' good so far.

Like I said, that's just on two games in which definitely no scouting work or preparation was done on him. Now that he is on the radar and now that opponents will key on him, we will see how he performs.

BJGE on the other hand, has a body of proven work. Granted he is not a burner or flasher (neither was Faulk) but he almost never makes mistakes, does not shy away from contact, and is a grinder. He plays solid football. Not sure why you would be so keen to push that aside.

Every player has their upside and downside, and we have yet to see Ridley's downside, so I would withhold judgement for the time being.

 

[JackBauer]

You really do enjoy egg on your face don't you? The further this progresses the greater your bias against the Law Firm becomes.

There is no egg on his face, actually, as he's quite right in his line of argument.

There is no bias against BJGE; if you're going to play that card, one could simply point out your affinity for the Lawfirm is clouding your judgment in your persistent defense of the guy.

 

[Froob]

Isn't woody faulk's replacement? Is he not in the longterm plans?

 

[JackBauer]

He likely wanted an upgrade over 2 injury prone old vet FA RBs. He also probably wanted to groom a successor to Kevin Faulk. His draft move says nothing about young productive reliable BJGE although were he to have found Curtis Martin like lightening in a bottle that'd be great! Too early to tell what we have though #22 looks good out there. Show me more!

That would explain Vereen, but I don't think it explains Ridley. I simply think he wanted more talent at the position, as I said earlier, in a type of RB that opposing teams need to gameplan for. BJGE is a nice RB and all, but I think when you're talking playoff football against the better defenses in the league, he's not the type of guy who's going to put you over the top.

 

[ausbacker]

There is no egg on his face, actually, as he's quite right in his line of argument.

There is no bias against BJGE; if you're going to play that card, one could simply point out your affinity for the Lawfirm is clouding your judgment in your persistent defense of the guy.

I'm not surprised given your lack of objectivity and contribution to this thread other than the Ridley for President mentality you and one other poster possess.

I don't have any inclination toward either running back. I'm all for upgrading players once production dictates. What I will NOT do is throw a proven commodity under the bus in favor of flavor of the month with 4 quarters of exposure. Am I happy with Ridley? You bet I am. Could he take over the starter position? Most certainly. Will he? Performance will dictate that.

Hell, I was lambasted for saying Leigh Bodden was the best corner on our team going into this season on the basis that McCourty had to back up his stellar 2010.

 

[JackBauer]

I'm not surprised given your lack of objectivity and contribution to this thread other than the Ridley for President mentality you and one other poster possess.

I don't have any inclination toward either running back. I'm all for upgrading players once production dictates. What I will NOT do is throw a proven commodity under the bus in favor of flavor of the month with 4 quarters of exposure. Am I happy with Ridley? You bet I am. Could he take over the starter position? Most certainly. Will he? Performance will dictate that.

Hell, I was lambasted for saying Leigh Bodden was the best corner on our team going into this season on the basis that McCourty had to back up his stellar 2010.

As opposed to yourself, who hasn't said much of anything other than to scoff at those who would deign to question BJGE's ironclad grip on the RB1 position. I really don't understand your melodramatic characterization of my argument. All I've argued is what I believe will happen: Ridley will end up supplanting BJGE (assuming he stays healthy and doesn't regress) because, I believe, he's a more talented player. That's it. It has nothing to do with throwing him under the bus, minimizing his contributions, etc. He's a good player, but he's limited physically in what he can do. No shame in recognizing that fact.

 

[ausbacker]

As opposed to yourself, who hasn't said much of anything other than to scoff at those who would deign to question BJGE's ironclad grip on the RB1 position. I really don't understand your melodramatic characterization of my argument. All I've argued is what I believe will happen: Ridley will end up supplanting BJGE because, I believe, he's a more talented player. That's it. It has nothing to do with throwing him under the bus, minimizing his contributions, etc. He's a good player, but he's limited physically in what he can do. No shame in recognizing that fact.

Because it's nonsensical to claim that a player who rushed for over 1000 yards, was the 16th ranked rusher in the NFL for yards and 2nd ranked rusher for TD's in the NFL lacks talent, as another has suggested in favor of a rookie with 4 quarters of total exposure. There's no balance to that argument. None whatsoever.

For the record, I really don't care who is the #1 because the Pats are a committee RB scheme and will use the skills of all 4 of our RB's to compliment Brady and the passing game.

My only contention is that BJGE needs recognition as the talented footballer that he is for the Patriots. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[JJDChE]

You really do enjoy egg on your face don't you? The further this progresses the greater your bias against the Law Firm becomes.

I have no bias whatsoever. I'm just a realist. We've likely seen Benji's ceiling, it's not a bad ceiling, just lots of room for improvement.

 

[ausbacker]

I have no bias whatsoever. I'm just a realist. We've likely seen Benji's ceiling, it's not a bad ceiling, just lots of room for improvement.

I'm a realist too, that's why I happen to think the RB by committee approach to situational football can only be good for the Patriots. I'm really looking forward to seeing Ridley (& Vereen's) emergence to compliment Woodhead and Green-Ellis.

 

[JJDChE]

Because it's nonsensical to claim that a player who rushed for over 1000 yards, was the 16th ranked rusher in the NFL for yards and 2nd ranked rusher for TD's in the NFL lacks talent, as another has suggested in favor of a rookie with 4 quarters of total exposure. There's no balance to that argument. None whatsoever.

For the record, I really don't care who is the #1 because the Pats are a committee RB scheme and will use the skills of all 4 of our RB's to compliment Brady and the passing game.

My only contention is that BJGE needs recognition as the talented footballer that he is for the Patriots. Nothing more, nothing less.

He has limited talent, that should be apparent to anyone who has watched him play a few games. Kinda like the Reche Caldwell of RBs.

 

[JJDChE]

I'm a realist too, that's why I happen to think the RB by committee approach to situational football can only be good for the Patriots. I'm really looking forward to seeing Ridley (& Vereen's) emergence to compliment Woodhead and Green-Ellis.

If we had Adrian Peterson, would you be in favor of splitting carries 50/50 with BJGE?

 

[ausbacker]

He has limited talent, that should be apparent to anyone who has watched him play a few games. Kinda like the Reche Caldwell of RBs.

If we had Adrian Peterson, would you be in favor of splitting carries 50/50 with BJGE?

I think it best that you simply shut up and remove yourself from this conversation now.