Under the radar ... Stevan Ridley

[JJDChE]

I don't think you blow a 2nd round and a 3rd round pick because you "don't know how guys are going to turn out." That's too expensive of an experiment. Maybe 5th or 6th round, but not that high.

You don't know how any pick will turn out. That's a fact of life.

I'll repeat myself. In my opinion Vereen and Ridley were drafted to replace Benji and Woody/Faulk. I think that's pretty clear. It doesn't mean there isn't a place for those two, but I think it's a little nuts to suggest that they want to use all four guys relatively equally.

 

[Patspsycho]

You don't know how any pick will turn out. That's a fact of life.

Of course you don't know how any picks will turn out, but that doesn't mean you're careless with a 2nd/3rd round pick. You want to have planned carefully for those.

I think it's a little nuts to suggest that they want to use all four guys relatively equally.

The fact is that injuries can and will happen. In fact if Woodhead misses practice today (his third straight miss), it'll be BJGE and Ridley this Sunday, with Vereen highly likely to be inactive because AH, Wright, and hopefully Hernandez, all stand to return. That's already just 2 RBs.

 

[Patspsycho]

Uh, no. Please read the thread.

Uh, yes. You did.

250-300

 

[JJDChE]

Uh, yes. You did.

IF he proves himself to be what he has shown so far. The 'if' is the important part. I'm not guaranteeing or advocating anything except giving him 8-12 touches a game going forward. I never said we should give him 250+ carries based on 18 carries. He still needs to show he can handle an NFL workload consistently. 18 carries doesn't prove he can handle a 275 carry/yr workload. The only thing 18 carries proves is that he's got a chance to be better than what we currently have at RB1.

IF he proves those things over the course of the next season or two, I'd happily advocate that we give him the ball 250-300 times a year.

IF he does all the things he needs to to prove himself, I'd expect to see a progression like this:

2011: 130 carries
2012: 220 carries
2013+: 275 carries/yr

 

[JJDChE]

Of course you don't know how any picks will turn out, but that doesn't mean you're careless with a 2nd/3rd round pick. You want to have planned carefully for those.

I don't see how anything they've done is careless. If they projected and scouted well, Ridley and Vereen will be upgrades over Benji and Woody.

Still, 2nd and 3rd round picks who look good on paper bust out of the NFL all the time.

The fact is that injuries can and will happen. In fact if Woodhead misses practice today (his third straight miss), it'll be BJGE and Ridley this Sunday, with Vereen highly likely to be inactive because AH, Wright, and hopefully Hernandez, all stand to return. That's already just 2 RBs.

What's your point?

 

[Patspsycho]

IF he proves himself to be what he has shown so far. The 'if' is the important part. I'm not guaranteeing or advocating anything except giving him 8-12 touches a game going forward. I never said we should give him 250+ carries based on 18 carries. He still needs to show he can handle an NFL workload consistently. 18 carries doesn't prove he can handle a 275 carry/yr workload. The only thing 18 carries proves is that he's got a chance to be better than what we currently have at RB1.

IF he proves those things over the course of the next season or two, I'd happily advocate that we give him the ball 250-300 times a year.

IF he does all the things he needs to to prove himself, I'd expect to see a progression like this:

2011: 130 carries
2012: 220 carries
2013+: 275 carries/yr

Huh? Re-read your original post. You said "good chunk." To me that means a lot more than just half. Last year BJGE carried 229 times, so if this year, he carries half that and shares the other half with Ridley (130), that's still not "taking a good chunk away."

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.

 

[Patspsycho]

I don't see how anything they've done is careless. If they projected and scouted well, Ridley and Vereen will be upgrades over Benji and Woody.

Still, 2nd and 3rd round picks who look good on paper bust out of the NFL all the time.

We'll see how that turns out, but I'm not a fan of fixing something that's not broken. I know you don't like "plodding" backs, but as I said, there's no points for ripping off highlight reel runs. After all the issues we've had at RB, I'm a fan of consistency and bottom line results. To me, 1000+ yards and 13 TDs that contributed to a 14-2 season are satisfactory results. I'm happy to take that even if you're not. Again as I've mentioned, I readily acknowledged that BJGE is not the most talented back out there, but he is a grinder, and I think that is a valuable tool to have, especially if you're killing the clock.

Am I saying let's hold Ridley back in favor of the lesser talented BJGE? No, I think both of them are important to the team in their own ways. With BJGE you will have no surprise, but you will always have ball security and dependability.

What's your point?

I think you're intelligent enough to know what I'm getting at.

 

[Bombdog]

Ridley has shown well in four games. BJGE is a known quanity a pounder and a good pass catcher. Plus and a big plus he does not fumble. We are looking really good in running game. Look at last year we had two guys who spent more time on the DL then they did on the field.We now have the type of running game that teams need to plan for and that can only help TFB be even more effective.

 

[JJDChE]

Huh? Re-read your original post. You said "good chunk." To me that means a lot more than just half. Last year BJGE carried 229 times, so if this year, he carries half that and shares the other half with Ridley (130), that's still not "taking a good chunk away."

If Benji only get's 150 carries this year, I think that means Ridley took away a good chunk of his carries. It doesn't mean over half to me.

We'll see how that turns out, but I'm not a fan of fixing something that's not broken. I know you don't like "plodding" backs, but as I said, there's no points for ripping off highlight reel runs. After all the issues we've had at RB, I'm a fan of consistency and bottom line results. To me, 1000+ yards and 13 TDs that contributed to a 14-2 season are satisfactory results. I'm happy to take that even if you're not. Again as I've mentioned, I readily acknowledged that BJGE is not the most talented back out there, but he is a grinder, and I think that is a valuable tool to have, especially if you're killing the clock.

Am I saying let's hold Ridley back in favor of the lesser talented BJGE? No, I think both of them are important to the team in their own ways. With BJGE you will have no surprise, but you will always have ball security and dependability.

1. Who LIKES plodding backs? Sometimes you get stuck with them, which isn't a problem as long as they are serviceable.

2. I never said I wasn't happy with BJGE. Again, how many times do I have to say this? All I'm saying is we should put the better player on the field and it appears Ridley could be that guy. BJGE would still be valuable in short yardage situations and spelling Ridley.

3. Satisfactory is a perfect word to describe BJGEs production. Not great, not terrible. Satisfactory.

I think you're intelligent enough to know what I'm getting at.

Seriously, I don't get where you were going with that. How does our number of active RBs for Sunday relate to this conversation?

 

[Patspsycho]

If Benji only get's 150 carries this year, I think that means Ridley took away a good chunk of his carries. It doesn't mean over half to me.

A reduction from 229 to 150 carries hardly constitutes "taking away a good chunk."

2. I never said I wasn't happy with BJGE. Again, how many times do I have to say this? All I'm saying is we should put the better player on the field and it appears Ridley could be that guy. BJGE would still be valuable in short yardage situations and spelling Ridley.

I think you mean we should put the more talented player on the field. At this point, BJGE is the better player in that he knows all the schemes, formations, and audibles. Very few posters noticed how he came right in the middle of a hurry up offense to take over for Woodhead in the last game, and never missed a beat even though he was playing in a different alignment (HB shotgun), different formation, and having no trouble with the audibles in a hurry up. (at least two audibles where Brady changed the protection). That to me, is the epitome of being a professional football player.

3. Satisfactory is a perfect word to describe BJGEs production. Not great, not terrible. Satisfactory.

You called BJGE a SLOW runner in comparison to Ridley. How is that satisfactory to you?

Seriously, I don't get where you were going with that. How does our number of active RBs for Sunday relate to this conversation?

Once more, your argument is that we drafted both Ridley and Vereen to replace BJGE/Woodhead, and my argument is that we drafted them to keep our depth at RB because injuries are frequent at that position. Not only did Vereen's injury in the preseason cause him to miss a significant portion of an already short off-season to the point where he often has to ride the pine because he has zero experience, but now that Woodhead has been injured, we are now down to 2 RBs again. That will be 2 games in the past 5 games, so yes I think we drafted for depth, in addition to making what we thought were the best value with the picks we had. We assigned Ridley a 3rd round value, and when he was still available, we snapped him up.

 

[JJDChE]

A reduction from 229 to 150 carries hardly constitutes "taking away a good chunk."

30% is a significant reduction in carries.

I think you mean we should put the more talented player on the field. At this point, BJGE is the better player in that he knows all the schemes, formations, and audibles. Very few posters noticed how he came right in the middle of a hurry up offense to take over for Woodhead in the last game, and never missed a beat even though he was playing in a different alignment (HB shotgun), different formation, and having no trouble with the audibles in a hurry up. (at least two audibles where Brady changed the protection). That to me, is the epitome of being a professional football player.

BJGE is the more complete player right now. I don't really know where Ridley is in his development of the peripheral skills required for the position. Until he get's proficient in pass protection, the offensive, scheme, blocking assignments, etc. I think it's fine to just put him in there in low risk situations.

Although, you have to keep in mind that the RB position has by far the easiest transition from college to pro. We see rookie RBs on almost a yearly basis come in and rack up pro bowl numbers. It's much more rare at virtually every other position.

You called BJGE a SLOW runner in comparison to Ridley. How is that satisfactory to you?

You don't have to be fast to be effective. He makes up for his lack of speed by minimizing negative plays and turnovers.

Once more, your argument is that we drafted both Ridley and Vereen to replace BJGE/Woodhead, and my argument is that we drafted them to keep our depth at RB because injuries are frequent at that position. Not only did Vereen's injury in the preseason cause him to miss a significant portion of an already short off-season to the point where he often has to ride the pine because he has zero experience, but now that Woodhead has been injured, we are now down to 2 RBs again. That will be 2 games in the past 5 games, so yes I think we drafted for depth, in addition to making what we thought were the best value with the picks we had. We assigned Ridley a 3rd round value, and when he was still available, we snapped him up.

The ideal case is obviously that Ridley and Vereen prove themselves as the most capable backs and send BJGE and Woodhead into reduced roles. That's generally the hope when you draft a player at any position, particularly in the first few rounds, right?

 

[Patspsycho]

30% is a significant reduction in carries.

The term you used was "taking a big chunk away." A big chunk to me is half or more, not 30%

BJGE is the more complete player right now. I don't really know where Ridley is in his development of the peripheral skills required for the position. Until he get's proficient in pass protection, the offensive, scheme, blocking assignments, etc. I think it's fine to just put him in there in low risk situations.

These are hardly peripheral skills- they're essential, not only in keeping Brady upright, but in earning and keeping Brady's trust. Because once you lose his trust, you are gone.

The ideal case is obviously that Ridley and Vereen prove themselves as the most capable backs and send BJGE and Woodhead into reduced roles. That's generally the hope when you draft a player at any position, particularly in the first few rounds, right?

Why would that be ideal? What is not ideal about BJGE/Woodhead contributing in a solid capacity towards a 14-2 season last year? Why are we wanting to fix that or improve on that, right now? There's only a difference of two games to improve upon, because that is the bottom line- the number of wins we can get in a season. If you are talking about 3 or 4 years later, then yes, but RB's are not groomed. They play right away.

Just because we continually draft quarterbacks, linebackers, receivers, and linemen doesn't mean we're going to throw out what's already working. In some cases, players we draft do not end up usurping the position they are drafted for and eventually get traded or cut.

Personally I am rooting for Ridley- I think his addition would be a great asset to the run game, but I also think BJGE, and Woodhead are great assets, even if they don't look it. I don't care about their styles or how they do their jobs, but about the bottom line. Do they deliver consistently? The answer for BJGE is a resounding yes.

 

[JJDChE]

The term you used was "taking a big chunk away." A big chunk to me is half or more, not 30%

It doesn't matter that you think. I made the comment. I say 30% is a big chunk.

These are hardly peripheral skills- they're essential, not only in keeping Brady upright, but in earning and keeping Brady's trust. Because once you lose his trust, you are gone.

The most important skill for a running back is to be able to run the ball effectively. The other stuff is peripheral, though general also REQUIRED to succeed (just like I said in my last post).

Why would that be ideal?

Because Ridley and Vereen are presumebaly more talented than the other two, giving us a better running attack overall if they live up to their draft position. i don't know about Vereen, but Ridley is at least hinting at the fact that he could live up to it.

What is not ideal about BJGE/Woodhead contributing in a solid capacity towards a 14-2 season last year? Why are we wanting to fix that or improve on that, right now?

RBs don't win games. RBs run, catch and block. I don't care if we were 19-0 last year, if there's someone on the roster who can run, block and catch better than the last guy, put him in there!

There's only a difference of two games to improve upon

Ahem...3 games.

Just because we continually draft quarterbacks, linebackers, receivers, and linemen doesn't mean we're going to throw out what's already working. In some cases, players we draft do not end up usurping the position they are drafted for and eventually get traded or cut.

If we draft a better player than we have on the roster, we would, should and do 'throw out what's working'.

Personally I am rooting for Ridley- I think his addition would be a great asset to the run game, but I also think BJGE, and Woodhead are great assets, even if they don't look it. I don't care about their styles or how they do their jobs, but about the bottom line. Do they deliver consistently? The answer for BJGE is a resounding yes.

I just want the most productive players getting the ball.

 

[Patspsycho]

Because Ridley and Vereen are presumebaly more talented than the other two, giving us a better running attack overall if they live up to their draft position. i don't know about Vereen, but Ridley is at least hinting at the fact that he could live up to it.

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.

RBs don't win games. RBs run, catch and block. I don't care if we were 19-0 last year, if there's someone on the roster who can run, block and catch better than the last guy, put him in there!

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.

Ahem...3 games.

That wasn't meant to be taken literally.

If we draft a better player than we have on the roster, we would, should and do 'throw out what's working'. I just want the most productive players getting the ball.

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."

 

[ausbacker]

What does that have to do with Ridley appearing (much) more talented the BJGE?

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.

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.

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, you've not been consistent in your presentation in this thread. It smacks of a split personality argument.

 

[VJCPatriot]

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."

I cant believe you just compared Mallet to Brady. Brady's the best QB in the game today and part of that package is awesome field vision, ability to quickly and accurately read the defense, pocket presence, and laser accurate throws. Not to mention he's won 3 superbowls, won an MVP and is performing at MVP levels this season.

The gulf between BJGE and Ridley is not nearly so wide. BJGE only acquired his starter role last year after BB said enough is enough and we cut Maroney. Law Firm has some good attributes but he'll never have great speed, either in a straight line or laterally. Lawfirm is very solid in all phases of the game though, except maybe catching.

Ridley's talent is clearly apparent now. I can't believe how many people were outraged over this pick in the 3rd round of the draft. And now hes proving people his VALUE may well EXCEED his draft position by a great deal.

Does Ridley still have some more to 'prove'? Absolutely. But he has also shown that he has explosive, big play ability that Ben lacks. This situation will sort itself out as BB and BOB dole out the carries. I say, just go with the hot hand and the RB situation will take care of itself. No amount of arguing on these boards will affect their actual carries. But Ridley has definitely EARNED a shot at proving that he can be the Pats #1 feature back.

 

[Patspsycho]

I cant believe you just compared Mallet to Brady. Brady's the best QB in the game today and part of that package is awesome field vision, ability to quickly and accurately read the defense, pocket presence, and laser accurate throws. Not to mention he's won 3 superbowls, won an MVP and is performing at MVP levels this season.

Where exactly did I compare both of them? I only said that strictly speaking, in terms of talent, Mallett does trump Brady with his raw talent, other than that there is absolutely no comparison.

The gulf between BJGE and Ridley is not nearly so wide. BJGE only acquired his starter role last year after BB said enough is enough and we cut Maroney. Law Firm has some good attributes but he'll never have great speed, either in a straight line or laterally. Lawfirm is very solid in all phases of the game though, except maybe catching.

His catching has improved tremendously.

Ridley's talent is clearly apparent now. I can't believe how many people were outraged over this pick in the 3rd round of the draft. And now hes proving people his VALUE may well EXCEED his draft position by a great deal.

Does Ridley still have some more to 'prove'? Absolutely. But he has also shown that he has explosive, big play ability that Ben lacks. This situation will sort itself out as BB and BOB dole out the carries. I say, just go with the hot hand and the RB situation will take care of itself.

Why does there have to be a #1 back? I'm fine with the RBBC with each back bringing what they are good at, to the table. Ridley doesn't have Woodhead's ability to disappear behind the line, Woodhead doesn't have BJGE's power, and BJGE doesn't have Ridley's speed, but that doesn't mean any one of them has to be better or worse than the other. They all bring different things to the table.

No amount of arguing on these boards will affect their actual carries.

I'm well aware of the fallacy that we're debating things that are absolutely out of our control, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying a good civil debate, because I learn new things all the time, and they help to pass the week away.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

I "can't wait" to see him play this weekend. I hope we trash the Jests

 

[ausbacker]

I "can't wait" to see him play this weekend. I hope we trash the Jests

I would love for a repeat of the Patriots running performance against the Raiders.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

I would love for a repeat of the Patriots running performance against the Raiders.

That. Would. Be. Awesome! With Woodhead out we will need the extra RB. I'm so excited for this game!