Under the radar ... Stevan Ridley

[Patspsycho]

In '07 we were throwing more often near the goal line. I think part of the reason that we were running more near the goal line last year is because of Green-Ellis, so I give him credit for that. Bill trusts him down there. He still got more opportunities than most. So I'm not going crazy over 13 TDs. Maroney scored 9 times in 194 carries in '10 and he's not only a crappy RB, he's terrible in short yardage. So, yeah, the extra 4 TDs for Green-Ellis don't sway me all that much.

So what would sway you? 16 TDs? 18? We're not getting those numbers because we are a RBBC.

The first two sentences of Ridley's NFL.com draft profile:

Ridley is bruising running back that could be effective between the tackles at the next level. He is a no nonsense runner that explodes through the holes and is very difficult to take down in the open field.

That was how he was described in college, not in the NFL.

Ridley doesn't have jets. He's a 4.65 40 guy. I hate to think what BJGE is if Ridley is a 4.65 guy.

I know people were going crazy about how he got to the edge on the TD last week, but to me he didn't look fast there at all. It was more lumbering to my eyes. The difference is that he looked MUCH faster than BJGE, which is why people reacted that way to the run.

BJGE's 40 time is actually 4.60, but he plays low with a priority on ball security, and has had his successes that way. And please spare me that "lumbering" comparison, Ridley was clearly fast, as in outrunning the cornerback. He's no lumbering back.

But 40 time in terms of running backs is pretty much irrevelant. What you want to look at is burst and acceleration, and at this point in his career, Ridley is explosive and the Patriots are most certainly taking advantage of that by blocking outside-in for him.

Who cares how they play them? Woodhead isn't in there to force the defense to play differently, he's in there because he's more effective in certain situations. How the defense reacts to his presence (which is probably more dictated by down and distance, as opposed to Woodhead's presence anyway) is secondary. Regardless, how does this affect who should be getting more PT between Ridley and BJGE?

Oh, I would care, big time. The more attention the opposing D pays to our run game (because it is much more effective now), the less wear and tear Brady receives. This past Sunday he threw for 226 yards which is pretty much half the average he has been generating through the first game. I'm sure Ridley will get his fair share of snaps as he should, but why are we so eager to kick to the curb, a player who finally gives us consistency at a position that has been the source of a lot of frustration on this forum since the days of Dillon?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Oh, I would care, big time. The more attention the opposing D pays to our run game (because it is much more effective now), the less wear and tear Brady receives. This past Sunday he threw for 226 yards which is pretty much half the average he has been generating through the first game. I'm sure Ridley will get his fair share of snaps as he should, but why are we so eager to kick to the curb, a player who finally gives us consistency at a position that has been the source of a lot of frustration on this forum since the days of Dillon?

I think that's where the disconnect is coming from, here. I have yet to see a single person on this board, in the past year, advocate cutting BJGE. A lot of us are very enthusiastic at the possibility that we could have a better RB1, simply because BJGE has a lot of physical limitations in what he can do, but even still, is anyone doubting that he can be a valuable contributor in a less significant role?

I want our RB1 to be someone who the opposing defense is legitimately afraid of, rather than someone who can take what the defense is giving him, pick up some yards, and have the defense be willing to cede that because they know he can't break the game open. I like BJGE, I'm a big fan of the skills that he brings to the table, and I think he'll be an excellent RB2. Definitely don't want to kick him to the curb.

 

[JJDChE]

So what would sway you? 16 TDs? 18? We're not getting those numbers because we are a RBBC.

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.

That was how he was described in college, not in the NFL.

You think he'll change his style of running now?

BJGE's 40 time is actually 4.60, but he plays low with a priority on ball security, and has had his successes that way. And please spare me that "lumbering" comparison, Ridley was clearly fast, as in outrunning the cornerback. He's no lumbering back.

Obviously Ridley's acceleration is better than BJGE, I can't believe he ran a 4.6.

Still, when you're talking about getting to the edge, 4.64 ain't fast. Ridley has about a 50 yd limit. He'll never break off 80-yd runs.

But 40 time in terms of running backs is pretty much irrevelant. What you want to look at is burst and acceleration, and at this point in his career, Ridley is explosive and the Patriots are most certainly taking advantage of that by blocking outside-in for him.

40 times are only relevant once you get about 15 yards downfield.

Oh, I would care, big time. The more attention the opposing D pays to our run game (because it is much more effective now), the less wear and tear Brady receives. This past Sunday he threw for 226 yards which is pretty much half the average he has been generating through the first game. I'm sure Ridley will get his fair share of snaps as he should, but why are we so eager to kick to the curb, a player who finally gives us consistency at a position that has been the source of a lot of frustration on this forum since the days of Dillon?

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.

 

[JJDChE]

I think that's where the disconnect is coming from, here. I have yet to see a single person on this board, in the past year, advocate cutting BJGE. A lot of us are very enthusiastic at the possibility that we could have a better RB1, simply because BJGE has a lot of physical limitations in what he can do, but even still, is anyone doubting that he can be a valuable contributor in a less significant role?

I want our RB1 to be someone who the opposing defense is legitimately afraid of, rather than someone who can take what the defense is giving him, pick up some yards, and have the defense be willing to cede that because they know he can't break the game open. I like BJGE, I'm a big fan of the skills that he brings to the table, and I think he'll be an excellent RB2. Definitely don't want to kick him to the curb.

Exactly...

 

[ausbacker]

Ridley is more talented than BJGE. That's just a fact. He may or may not yet be a better football player; obviously, at this point we don't know that. There's a role for both of them on this team either way, so nobody's throwing BJGE under the bus, or dismissing him, or any other melodramatic characterization that you want to make.

The running game in 2010 depended on Brady to be effective. On the rare occasions that opponents were able to stop the pass, there wasn't enough talent in the running game to beat them on the ground.

No, he is NOT.

If you're willing to project a career on 4 quarters worth of exposure save me the bickering stupidity and I'll just put you on ignore now.

 

[JJDChE]

No, he is NOT.

If you're willing to project a career on 4 quarters worth of exposure save me the bickering stupidity and I'll just put you on ignore now.

I guess you're going to have to explain to us why you think that Ridley isn't more talented than BJGE, because it's not apparent to me or several others here.

Save the longevity argument. We all realize that this is a week-to-week situation. Ridley could all of sudden fumble the ball 3 of his next 10 carries or get Brady blown up and find his ass benched. We're simply looking at what Ridley is bringing to the field right now and comparing it to BJGE. Ridley looks like he can bring more productivity and some big play threat. It makes sense to give him a chance to prove he can.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, he is NOT.

If you're willing to project a career on 4 quarters worth of exposure save me the bickering stupidity and I'll just put you on ignore now.

Size 7 font doesn't make your point anymore valid, although that does sum up your posting style pretty well. Go ahead and put me on ignore then, because it should be self-evident to anyone with two eyes and even a cursory understanding of football that Ridley far surpasses BJGE in talent. Whether or not that makes him a better football player, once again, nobody knows yet. Nobody's projecting a whole career on four quarters, because saying that Ridley is more talented doesn't require you to.

Clearly, you're too bizarrely sensitive/defensive to do anything but lash out and call anyone who disagrees with you stupid. It speaks to your inability to discuss this point as a rational/civilized human being. As is typically the case with you, you fail on actual analysis and instead respond with personal attacks.

Our ground game last year just wasn't good enough. The Jets ended our season by daring us to run and knowing that we couldn't. Their personnel and playcalling was entirely predicated on stopping the pass, because they knew that we couldn't beat them with a run-first attack. BJGE is a hell of a player for getting every ounce of production that he can out of fundamentally limited talent. Everyone loves a guy like that, but if you can get a guy who has more talent to work with, and who has a much higher ceiling as a result, then why the hell wouldn't you want that guy to displace him?

 

[ausbacker]

I guess you're going to have to explain to us why you think that Ridley isn't more talented than BJGE, because it's not apparent to me or several others here.

You've had it explained to you several times. That makes me an idiot for repeating myself.

Save the longevity argument. We all realize that this is a week-to-week situation. Ridley could all of sudden fumble the ball 3 of his next 10 carries or get Brady blown up and find his ass benched. We're simply looking at what Ridley is bringing to the field right now and comparing it to BJGE. Ridley looks like he can bring more productivity and some big play threat. It makes sense to give him a chance to prove he can.

Thank you for supporting my assertion from the beginning with this paragraph.

Size 7 font doesn't make your point anymore valid, although that does sum up your posting style pretty well. Go ahead and put me on ignore then, because it should be self-evident to anyone with two eyes and even a cursory understanding of football that Ridley far surpasses BJGE in talent. Whether or not that makes him a better football player, once again, nobody knows yet. Nobody's projecting a whole career on four quarters, because saying that Ridley is more talented doesn't require you to.

Anybody with half a brain realizes you don't project or make comments about a player on short exposure. I'm sure Chad Jackson was on the upswing to greatness thanks to the talent argument at some point in his career.

It seems to have gone lost on the two of you, despite being told several times that I like the look of Ridley but am waiting for prolonged exposure before I start anointing him. This has been repeated several times.

Clearly, you're too bizarrely sensitive/defensive to do anything but lash out and call anyone who disagrees with you stupid. It speaks to your inability to discuss this point as a rational/civilized human being. As is typically the case with you, you fail on actual analysis and instead respond with personal attacks.

Save me the faux outrage I'm better than you because I wear checkered vests argument.

Our ground game last year just wasn't good enough. The Jets ended our season by daring us to run and knowing that we couldn't. Their personnel and playcalling was entirely predicated on stopping the pass, because they knew that we couldn't beat them with a run-first attack. BJGE is a hell of a player for getting every ounce of production that he can out of fundamentally limited talent. Everyone loves a guy like that, but if you can get a guy who has more talent to work with, and who has a much higher ceiling as a result, then why the hell wouldn't you want that guy to displace him?

Our ground game was good enough last year. The offensive play calling was the problem, not the ground game. There was no balance to the offense in 2010. With a three or four headed monster in 2011, there is no reason why the Patriots can't move to a better pass-run split thanks to the RB committee.

 

[Nunchucks]

I guess you are gonna have to lump me in with the group that thinks Ridley has more talent than the Law Firm. Don't get me wrong, I love BJGE, but he isn't explosive, he is going to get what he can get and then a yard or two, but he isn't somebody defenses have to worry about in terms of taking the ball to the house from anywhere on the field.

What I have seen from Ridley in limited action is a guy that runs with power, is explosive, breaks tackles, can catch the ball and can pick up the blitz. He is a guy that has proven he can turn a 4 yard run into a 30 yard run. Once he is in the secondary, he is scary for the DBs to tackle. Against he Chargers, he picked up some steam quick and looked like a feature back.

I think Ridley has a lot to proove, but he is obviously more talented and unlike other talented players, he has really made the most of his opportunities.

 

[ausbacker]

I guess you are gonna have to lump me in with the group that thinks Ridley has more talent than the Law Firm. Don't get me wrong, I love BJGE, but he isn't explosive, he is going to get what he can get and then a yard or two, but he isn't somebody defenses have to worry about in terms of taking the ball to the house from anywhere on the field.

What I have seen from Ridley in limited action is a guy that runs with power, is explosive, breaks tackles, can catch the ball and can pick up the blitz. He is a guy that has proven he can turn a 4 yard run into a 30 yard run. Once he is in the secondary, he is scary for the DBs to tackle. Against he Chargers, he picked up some steam quick and looked like a feature back.

I think Ridley has a lot to proove, but he is obviously more talented and unlike other talented players, he has really made the most of his opportunities.

In regards to the bold Nunchucks I have zero issue with that precis. I have no issue with the slanting of carries to garner greater exposure to Ridley. All I have contended is that I'd like to see how he performs over time and would like to revisit this after week 12 (to see the development of the situation).

People continue to forget that I believe Ridley is a talent (who very well could end up a feature back - furthermore I'm excited to see what Vereen brings to the table) overlooking that because I'm reasonably pleased with what BJGE brings to the table.

 

[Patspsycho]

I guess you're going to have to explain to us why you think that Ridley isn't more talented than BJGE, because it's not apparent to me or several others here.

Save the longevity argument. We all realize that this is a week-to-week situation. Ridley could all of sudden fumble the ball 3 of his next 10 carries or get Brady blown up and find his ass benched. We're simply looking at what Ridley is bringing to the field right now and comparing it to BJGE. Ridley looks like he can bring more productivity and some big play threat. It makes sense to give him a chance to prove he can.

Making any kind of comparison based on one and half games isn't sensible. Am I saying Ridley has no future? No, I'm all for giving him every chance. However this is a RBBC and is going to stay that way. I just don't think we're going back to the days of Dillon and Maroney being the one back workhorse.

 

[Patspsycho]

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.

Then how come our play actions have a high degree of success?

 

[Patspsycho]

Size 7 font doesn't make your point anymore valid, although that does sum up your posting style pretty well. Go ahead and put me on ignore then, because it should be self-evident to anyone with two eyes and even a cursory understanding of football that Ridley far surpasses BJGE in talent. Whether or not that makes him a better football player, once again, nobody knows yet. Nobody's projecting a whole career on four quarters, because saying that Ridley is more talented doesn't require you to.

Extremely fast cutback runner in the mold of a Clinton Portis. Bigger than what you think with a good solid frame, can return kicks and can break some tackles. Decent hands, even though he didn't catch the ball much. Has the ability to make you miss and that explosive gear that will allow him to take it the distance at any time.

This is the scouting report for one Laurence Maroney.

Our ground game last year just wasn't good enough. The Jets ended our season by daring us to run and knowing that we couldn't. Their personnel and playcalling was entirely predicated on stopping the pass, because they knew that we couldn't beat them with a run-first attack. BJGE is a hell of a player for getting every ounce of production that he can out of fundamentally limited talent. Everyone loves a guy like that, but if you can get a guy who has more talent to work with, and who has a much higher ceiling as a result, then why the hell wouldn't you want that guy to displace him?

Everyone knows the playcalling in the playoff game was very unbalanced. Even Woodhead didn't get a significant amount of snaps out of the draw.

Why are you insisting on displacing something that is not broken? We've had great success with RBBC, why try to fix it?

 

[JJDChE]

You've had it explained to you several times. That makes me an idiot for repeating myself.

You have yet to make an argument for BJGE being more talented than Ridley, so let's hear it.

I made my argument early on. In 379 career carries BJGE has 5 runs over 20 yards, the longest being 33. In his last 10 carries Ridley has 3 runs of over 20 yards and a long of 33. Ridley's made almost as many big plays in 18 carries as GreenEllis has in a 3-1/4 year career.

That's my argument. You're up.

Thank you for supporting my assertion from the beginning with this paragraph.

Longevity is unrelated to talent.

Anybody with half a brain realizes you don't project or make comments about a player on short exposure. I'm sure Chad Jackson was on the upswing to greatness thanks to the talent argument at some point in his career.

At no point did Chad Jackson ever look good in an NFL uniform.

It seems to have gone lost on the two of you, despite being told several times that I like the look of Ridley but am waiting for prolonged exposure before I start anointing him. This has been repeated several times.

It's not about anointing anyone, it's about the fact that it's only taken Ridley 18 carries to reel off a couple of runs that Benji could never dream of and that gets people excited.

Our ground game was good enough last year. The offensive play calling was the problem, not the ground game. There was no balance to the offense in 2010. With a three or four headed monster in 2011, there is no reason why the Patriots can't move to a better pass-run split thanks to the RB committee.

If anyone even put the least bit of effort into trying to stop our run game, it'd be toast.

Making any kind of comparison based on one and half games isn't sensible. Am I saying Ridley has no future? No, I'm all for giving him every chance. However this is a RBBC and is going to stay that way. I just don't think we're going back to the days of Dillon and Maroney being the one back workhorse.

If Ridley turns out to be a stud, it won't be RBBC, I can guarantee you that.

 

[JJDChE]

Then how come our play actions have a high degree of success?

Because Brady is outstanding at selling his play fakes and makes lightning quick decisions off the play action. Our play action has always been good, regardless of how crappy our run game has been.

 

[Patspsycho]

You have yet to make an argument for BJGE being more talented than Ridley, so let's hear it.

I made my argument early on. In 379 career carries BJGE has 5 runs over 20 yards, the longest being 33. In his last 10 carries Ridley has 3 runs of over 20 yards and a long of 33. Ridley's made almost as many big plays in 18 carries as GreenEllis has in a 3-1/4 year career.

As BB says, stats are for losers.

You can take all the sexy highlights you want. There's no points for that.

I will take dependability, consistency, and most of all, points. Points win games, and BJGE has scored the most points in a season since Dillon.

If Ridley turns out to be a stud, it won't be RBBC, I can guarantee you that.

If Ridley turns out to be a stud, and takes the majority of snaps, I can guarantee you that he will have a short career.

The purpose of a RBBC is to add longetivity to each RB's career, including Ridley's. I'm all for that.

 

[ausbacker]

You have yet to make an argument for BJGE being more talented than Ridley, so let's hear it.

About time you conned on. I haven't made the comment that BJGE is more talented anywhere have I? What I have said is I'd like to see Ridley perform more before making broad judgements about their respective ability to perform as a running back in the Patriots system.

I made my argument early on. In 379 career carries BJGE has 5 runs over 20 yards, the longest being 33. In his last 10 carries Ridley has 3 runs of over 20 yards and a long of 33. Ridley's made almost as many big plays in 18 carries as GreenEllis has in a 3-1/4 year career.

That's my argument. You're up.

Which is an indicator that Ridley is more explosive, not necessarily a better RB would you agree? Ridley very well may end up a better RB and I have no issue with giving him more carries. Right now, he's a talented rookie who I would be happy to split carries with the other 3 RB's in the system.

If your argument is predicated on the big play, then it's a poor grounding. It's why I like the RB by committee approach. Different dynamics.

Longevity is unrelated to talent.

Performance is related to longevity.

At no point did Chad Jackson ever look good in an NFL uniform.

At some point, he had "talent".

It's not about anointing anyone, it's about the fact that it's only taken Ridley 18 carries to reel off a couple of runs that Benji could never dream of and that gets people excited.

As I have made mention, I am very happy with what I've seen of Ridley. Unlike you, it appears that I keep my optimism in check for a little longer.

If anyone even put the least bit of effort into trying to stop our run game, it'd be toast.

Chicken and egg. If people put more effort into the run game Brady goes nuts. That's why a balanced game plan should be the goal of the offense. It also takes the stress off Brady having to be that guy every week.

If you don't agree with that then it's pointless continuing further.

If Ridley turns out to be a stud, it won't be RBBC, I can guarantee you that.

The Patriots generally employ a RB by committee approach. I cannot see that changing.

 

[Patspsycho]

Because Brady is outstanding at selling his play fakes and makes lightning quick decisions off the play action. Our play action has always been good, regardless of how crappy our run game has been.

The defense can still ignore the fake handoff and just drop back as soon as Brady takes the snap. Why would the backers or secondary even freeze if we have a crappy run game as you insinuate? They'd just let the linemen take care of business.

 

[Patspsycho]

I guess you are gonna have to lump me in with the group that thinks Ridley has more talent than the Law Firm. Don't get me wrong, I love BJGE, but he isn't explosive, he is going to get what he can get and then a yard or two, but he isn't somebody defenses have to worry about in terms of taking the ball to the house from anywhere on the field.

What I have seen from Ridley in limited action is a guy that runs with power, is explosive, breaks tackles, can catch the ball and can pick up the blitz. He is a guy that has proven he can turn a 4 yard run into a 30 yard run. Once he is in the secondary, he is scary for the DBs to tackle. Against he Chargers, he picked up some steam quick and looked like a feature back.

I think Ridley has a lot to proove, but he is obviously more talented and unlike other talented players, he has really made the most of his opportunities.

More talent is fine by me, but talent is not equal to productivity. I realize that not many people are enamored with BJGE because he will not give you highlight reels, but he will consistently produce results if given enough chances. He has consistently produced results, e.g., 16 TDs in the last 20 games.

 

[JJDChE]

As BB says, stats are for losers.

You can take all the sexy highlights you want. There's no points for that.

I will take dependability, consistency, and most of all, points. Points win games, and BJGE has scored the most points in a season since Dillon.

I'll take MORE dependability, consistency and points if I can get it.

If Ridley turns out to be a stud, and takes the majority of snaps, I can guarantee you that he will have a short career.

No you can't. Plenty of guys have had long careers carrying the ball 300 time a season, year after year. 275 carries is a good target for a top tier RB, keep it under 325. Historically, the guys who have broke down were the ones routinely getting 350-400 carries. You should get 8-10 good years out of player at 275 att/yr. Regardless of carries, you shouldn't expect a top tier RB to give you anything past 30.

RBBC is a cute name for what teams do when tey don't have a top tier RB. Name me a team with a stud RB who isn't getting 75% of the carries. Teams are definitely using their 2nd RBs more to keep their Stud RBs from getting over worked, but the guys with top level talent are still carrying the ball 300 times a year. If Ridley has that talent, he'll get it 300 times a year too. He'll last plenty long at that rate, barring major injury.