Brandon Bolden, That's What I'm Talking About

[Oswlek]

I'm fairly sure that much of the impetus for drafting two backs was the fact that was the number of games missed by the geriatric backs (Taylor, Morris, and the IRed Faulk).

That was a portion of it, but the bigger issue was that the Jets exposed NE's one dimensional running game in the playoffs. Benny and Danny were too singular in their abilities, so NY could scheme based on who was in the game.

Replenishing the depth was part of it, but NE's real goal was to acquire two players who would add more versatility and explosiveness.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Continue to misrepresent your opinion as fact. That is your issue, not mine.


I would welcome a change in my opinion of Brandon Bolden. That would mean more quality on the Patriots roster.

Perhaps Bolden will be afforded that opportunity. Time will tell.


I was (am) a huge fan of the Law Firm and defended him to the death, most notably against JJDChE. I never thought much of Maroney making it a difficult concept for me to understand.

Ozymandias, in his ultimate wisdom has decided that his opinion is fact. That is simply not the case. I haven't offered my opinion as fact either other than holding the firm belief that Ridley and Vereen are far superior running backs to Brandon Bolden and LeGarrette Blount.

Bill Belichick isn't infallible. Other than preserving Ridley (given Vereen's IR designation) I cannot think of a plausible reason to run a couple of plodders (especially Blount) ahead of the obvious feature back. Imagine Minnesota benching AP for Toby Gerhart because he had a few fumbles.

The gap between Ridley and Bolden and the one between Vereen and Bolden is much smaller then the one that exists between Peterson and Gerhart.

Labeling Bolden as just a plodder is ridiculous, Blount was probably just getting carries against his old team in a game that wasn't really close.

 

[patsinthesnow]

The gap between Ridley and Bolden and the one between Vereen and Bolden is much smaller then the one that exists between Peterson and Gerhart.

Labeling Bolden as just a plodder is ridiculous, Blount was probably just getting carries against his old team in a game that wasn't really close.

If Bolden comes out his junior year and runs the 40 healthy, he's probably drafted before Ridley in the mid-late 2nd round. There is no talent gap between them. BJGE was a low talent, hard working plodder UDFA. Bolden was a good talent, injured, immature UDFA.

Bolden's junior year in the SEC was a damned good one. 1320 rushing/receiving yards, 17 TDs, and 6.0ypc.

 

[Ozymandias]

If Bolden comes out his junior year and runs the 40 healthy, he's probably drafted before Ridley in the mid-late 2nd round. There is no talent gap between them. BJGE was a low talent, hard working plodder UDFA. Bolden was a good talent, injured, immature UDFA.

Bolden's junior year in the SEC was a damned good one. 1320 rushing/receiving yards, 17 TDs, and 6.0ypc.

Yep. That's why it's comical to see people like ausbacker trying to argue otherwise, like he actually knows what he's talking about. People on this board are blind to basic things like that.

Up until the game against the Buccaneers, a lot of misguided folks around here acted like Bolden had no versatility and was just a useless "plodder" and would argue about it when you tried to suggest otherwise. They made it seem like even Ridley had better hands than him. And yet Bolden had half as many catches in one game than Ridley has in his entire 3 year career.

When Vereen went down, which RB was tasked to take on his role in offense? It wasn't Ridley, because he sucks in that department. It was Bolden, who has very underrated hands, especially on this board.

And that's problem with folks around here, it's like until they actually see something, they immediately dismiss it from being plausible and say that because someone has never had the opportunity to showcase a skill, that means that they don't possess that skill. Which is a falsehood. The reason why Bolden didn't have a pass catching/third-down role last season was because the Patriots had 2 backs better than him in that department. That doesn't mean that he sucks however, Vereen and Woodhead are just exceptional at this skill and are among the best in the entire NFL in that area.

Ridley is overrated by a lot people on this board. He gained over 1200 yards with 12 TDs and had a good season if you look at it in isolation, but a no talented plodder like BJGE gained over 1000 with 13 TDs one season. It goes to show that Patriots scheme makes a lot less talented players look better than they really are. Ridley's a good pure runner (when he isn't fumbling), but let's call a spade a spade, he's a two-down back with zero versatility in the passing game.

If given choice, I'd take Bolden over Ridley in a heartbeat, because he can actually be effective in a passing catching role and be an every-down RB. Likewise for Vereen, who I think is the best all around RB on the team, and every time he's gotten the chance to show that, he's excelled.

 

[ausbacker]

If Bolden comes out his junior year and runs the 40 healthy, he's probably drafted before Ridley in the mid-late 2nd round. There is no talent gap between them. BJGE was a low talent, hard working plodder UDFA. Bolden was a good talent, injured, immature UDFA.

Bolden's junior year in the SEC was a damned good one. 1320 rushing/receiving yards, 17 TDs, and 6.0ypc.

I sincerely doubt it. None of Bolden, Ridley or Blount particularly lit up college football with reliable, consistent and explosive production from day one with their respective programs. Vereen on the other hand, is that guy.

There is a talent gap patsinthesnow, you simply refuse to accept it given some people's want to position Ridley's 2012 NFL season as performance by default. Personally, Vereen cannot come back soon enough to further demonstrate that.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Yep. That's why it's comical to see people like ausbacker trying to argue otherwise, like he actually knows what he's talking about. People on this board are blind to basic things like that.

Up until the game against the Buccaneers, a lot of misguided folks around here acted like Bolden had no versatility and was just a useless "plodder" and would argue about it when you tried to suggest otherwise. They made it seem like even Ridley had better hands than him. And yet Bolden had half as many catches in one game than Ridley has in his entire 3 year career.

When Vereen went down, which RB was tasked to take on his role in offense? It wasn't Ridley, because he sucks in that department. It was Bolden, who has very underrated hands, especially on this board.

And that's problem with folks around here, it's like until they actually see something, they immediately dismiss it from being plausible and say that because someone has never had the opportunity to showcase a skill, that means that they don't possess that skill. Which is a falsehood. The reason why Bolden didn't have a pass catching/third-down role last season was because the Patriots had 2 backs better than him in that department. That doesn't mean that he sucks however, Vereen and Woodhead are just exceptional at this skill and are among the best in the entire NFL in that area.

Ridley is overrated by a lot people on this board. He gained over 1200 yards with 12 TDs and had a good season if you look at it in isolation, but a no talented plodder like BJGE gained over 1000 with 13 TDs one season. It goes to show that Patriots scheme makes a lot less talented players look better than they really are. Ridley's a good pure runner (when he isn't fumbling), but let's call a spade a spade, he's a two-down back with zero versatility in the passing game.

If given choice, I'd take Bolden over Ridley in a heartbeat, because he can actually be effective in a passing catching role and be an every-down RB. Likewise for Vereen, who I think is the best all around RB on the team, and every time he's gotten the chance to show that, he's excelled.

Ausbacker's a great poster. While we disagree, just because he holds Ridley in high regard doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about, alot of pats fans love Ridley and think he could become an elite back.

I'm with you though. Ridley is IMO an above average, 1 dimensional RB, that has a fumbling issue. I think Bolden could offer more for us.

 

[Triumph]

Could be. But probably not.

It doesnt matter how good Ridleys ypc carry is, Belichick wont put up with fumbling the ball away or shoddy pass blocking.

I hope Ridley doesnt land on BBs sh#t list, but defenses know hes had issues with ball security and will only come at him harder.

 

[manxman2601]

Personally I don't think Ridley or Bolden are anything special. They're very good as #2 guys or serving in a committee as we have here but I don't want to give either the ball ahead of someone like Vereen. That's the beast we need to feed.

However, Vereen-Ridley-Bolden is one of the better groups in the NFL.

 

[Oswlek]

It doesnt matter how good Ridleys ypc carry is, Belichick wont put up with fumbling the ball away or shoddy pass blocking.

I hope Ridley doesnt land on BBs sh#t list, but defenses know hes had issues with ball security and will only come at him harder.

I know. My "probably not" comment wasn't that Bill would live with it, it is that Rids probably won't continue to have a problem.

 

[DocHoliday]

And that's problem with folks around here, it's like until they actually see something, they immediately dismiss it from being plausible and say that because someone has never had the opportunity to showcase a skill, that means that they don't possess that skill. Which is a falsehood.

Oh god yes. I've been thinking this for a few years now.

You especially saw it with Edelman. The second you pointed out he had some skill, some blowhard would come by and say "CONSTANTLY INJURED, ONLY X CATCHES HIS WHOLE CAREER", as if people always get to showcase their abilities immediately.

People need to understand that production does not always equal ability, or the lack of it. There are tons of 'productive' players that are simply in a great situation and have mediocre talent. There are also many players that have talent and due to various issues have not produced.

That's the fun of talent evaluation - finding the diamond in the rough and ignoring fool's gold. Shutting these discussions down based on last year's stats is pointless. If that's all that mattered, being a GM would be pretty easy.

Personally I think Bolden is more talented than Ridley. Maybe slight worse as a runner, but a much more complete player.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Personally I don't think Ridley or Bolden are anything special. They're very good as #2 guys or serving in a committee as we have here but I don't want to give either the ball ahead of someone like Vereen. That's the beast we need to feed.

However, Vereen-Ridley-Bolden is one of the better groups in the NFL.

And you were also one of Tebow's biggest backers so I just might have to question your eye for talent.

I don't know how you can call a player who will have been inactive for 22 of his first 41 games and amassed a grand total of 409 yards rushing during that time a "Beast", or say he deserves the ball ahead of Ridley.

IMO, as a runner it is Ridley, Bolden, Vereen, as a pass catcher it is Vereen, Bolden, Ridley. There needs to be a bigger sample size before anyone makes any definitive statements on how good Bolden or Vereen are, the Ridley of last year was pretty good.

 

[DarrylStingley]

I'm with the Vereen-Bolden is the best one-two punch the Pats have crowd.

As I've written, I just don't trust Ridley not to fumble, and I think the versatility of both Vereen and Bolden makes them more valuable than Ridley, even without the fumbling issue.

People cautioned me not to make too much of the Buffalo game last year. It was just one game, they rightly said. They said I must be a casual fan if I was hung up on Bolden.

But indulge this please for a moment: Bolden ran like a freaking stud in that Buffalo game. He ran over people. He ran around them. He showed what he has in him. Now I get it. You have to repeat that. The NFL is full of one hit wonders. But very few guys have it in them to dominate to that extent in ANY NFL game and my take away was not that Bolden is a sure thing. It was that the Buffalo experience showed that his ceiling is extremely high. That he did what he did in college is an indication of that too.

Last: Does anyone who was writing in the summer that they should cut Bolden because of the redundancy he offered and the greater needs on defense vis-a-vis the 53 man roster still think that they should have cut him? Or are those folks now of the mind that it's a damn good thing Bill kept him? Please answer because I know that more than a few people here had Bolden as someone the Pats should cut, and I was baffled by that then and will be even more baffled if anyone still thinks that.

 

[Nunchucks]

Bolden has more versatility than Ridley, but as a pure running back, Ridley is by far the best back in terms of punishing style, speed, and quickness.

Vereen has outstanding balance, patience, quickness and is the fastest RB. I like Vereen the best overall, but there is no doubt that Ridley brings more violence the position.

Bolden is the least talented runner (not including Blunt), but Bolden can catch the ball out of the backfield with some consistency, so is a decent backup to Vereen.

 

[Oswlek]

Bolden has more versatility than Ridley, but as a pure running back, Ridley is by far the best back in terms of punishing style, speed, and quickness.

Vereen has outstanding balance, patience, quickness and is the fastest RB. I like Vereen the best overall, but there is no doubt that Ridley brings more violence the position.

Bolden is the least talented runner (not including Blunt), but Bolden can catch the ball out of the backfield with some consistency, so is a decent backup to Vereen.

Yup, he is a core special teamer who is a viable backup to both RB spots, a good guy to keep around.

 

[DarrylStingley]

I'm not sure how or why guys are writing that Bolden is not as talented a runner as Ridley.

Until we see more of Bolden, and he gets more carries, how do you know that?

I'm not saying that Bolden is a better runner. I just don't know how anyone can say that he's inferior to Ridley without more facts. He looked pretty damned good running against the Bucs, albeit in very limited carries.

And how do you just discount the Ridley fumbles? If the Pats are driving for a tying score in a playoff game, are you really totally OK with them handing off to Ridley at that moment? Or is a part of you going to be saying "hold onto the rock, damn it?" Now it doesn't matter what fans are thinking during a game, but there's a good reason to worry and maybe that niggling concern will make Ridley less effective and maybe he'll freaking cough it up, as he seems to do more than the other runners on the roster.

 

[Nunchucks]

I'm not sure how or why guys are writing that Bolden is not as talented a runner as Ridley.

Until we see more of Bolden, and he gets more carries, how do you know that?

I'm not saying that Bolden is a better runner. I just don't know how anyone can say that he's inferior to Ridley without more facts. He looked pretty damned good running against the Bucs, albeit in very limited carries.

And how do you just discount the Ridley fumbles? If the Pats are driving for a tying score in a playoff game, are you really totally OK with them handing off to Ridley at that moment? Or is a part of you going to be saying "hold onto the rock, damn it?" Now it doesn't matter what fans are thinking during a game, but there's a good reason to worry and maybe that niggling concern will make Ridley less effective and maybe he'll freaking cough it up, as he seems to do more than the other runners on the roster.

I am taking fumbles out of the equation, for now. As for evaluating the RBs, I use my eyes and I see that Ridley is far more explosive and violent, with the ability to juke and stiff arm defenders. Ridley has that hop-step that you cannot really teach, and he is good at finding a crease and pushing forward.

Boldin looks like more of a traditional guy who can accelerate towards the hole and break it outside for good yards, he doesn't wow me with any of his play, but he is solid and dependable. I consider him a more talented and versatile BJGE.

An example is on that fake bad snap play, he should have just busted it upfield as soon as he saw a crease and gotten the first down, instead he tried to continue to break it outside and got stopped for little gain.

 

[Oswlek]

I'm not sure how or why guys are writing that Bolden is not as talented a runner as Ridley.

Until we see more of Bolden, and he gets more carries, how do you know that?

I'm not saying that Bolden is a better runner. I just don't know how anyone can say that he's inferior to Ridley without more facts. He looked pretty damned good running against the Bucs, albeit in very limited carries.

And how do you just discount the Ridley fumbles? If the Pats are driving for a tying score in a playoff game, are you really totally OK with them handing off to Ridley at that moment? Or is a part of you going to be saying "hold onto the rock, damn it?" Now it doesn't matter what fans are thinking during a game, but there's a good reason to worry and maybe that niggling concern will make Ridley less effective and maybe he'll freaking cough it up, as he seems to do more than the other runners on the roster.

He had three carries, one of which was brutal where he failed to get a key third down conversion that was there for the taking. Even on the screens he pretty much got what was there, one time appearing to misread the blocking.

He's a good player, but not a better runner than Ridley.

 

[DarrylStingley]

He had three carries, one of which was brutal where he failed to get a key third down conversion that was there for the taking. Even on the screens he pretty much got what was there, one time appearing to misread the blocking.

He's a good player, but not a better runner than Ridley.

I think you're wrong and that we don't have enough inputs to really say that. But time will tell and I've been wrong before!

Since the fumble/benching, Ridley has approx 25 carries for 75 yards, I think. Quite shabby.

And to the prior post, how do you discount the fumbling? I mean I get it, if you're isolating only on running ability, you can ignore it for argument's sake. But in the real world, runners who fumble kill drives and end seasons.

Neither of you replied to my hypo about whether you'll be OK with Ridley getting the ball in a drive when the Pats need to score to tie the game in January. It's a tough question, I think.

 

[Nunchucks]

I think you're wrong and that we don't have enough inputs to really say that. But time will tell and I've been wrong before!

Since the fumble/benching, Ridley has approx 25 carries for 75 yards, I think. Quite shabby.

And to the prior post, how do you discount the fumbling? I mean I get it, if you're isolating only on running ability, you can ignore it for argument's sake. But in the real world, runners who fumble kill drives and end seasons.

Neither of you replied to my hypo about whether you'll be OK with Ridley getting the ball in a drive when the Pats need to score to tie the game in January. It's a tough question, I think.

Well, we do not know if he has the fumbling under control or not, so maybe it is fixed, luckily we do not have to make those decisions or see that decision made until we watch 3 more months of football. Enjoy it!

As for his low ypc, I do not put much stock in that, he looks to get more than there is almost all the time.

 

[Oswlek]

I think you're wrong and that we don't have enough inputs to really say that. But time will tell and I've been wrong before!

Since the fumble/benching, Ridley has approx 25 carries for 75 yards, I think. Quite shabby.

And to the prior post, how do you discount the fumbling? I mean I get it, if you're isolating only on running ability, you can ignore it for argument's sake. But in the real world, runners who fumble kill drives and end seasons.

Neither of you replied to my hypo about whether you'll be OK with Ridley getting the ball in a drive when the Pats need to score to tie the game in January. It's a tough question, I think.

I didn't discount the fumbling at all. Not sure where you see that.

Your numbers on the "since" are wholly unconvincing to me since it includes the game against the Jets when the run blocking was atrocious and this past game when Rids was by far the best runner in the first half (when the Tampa D actually gave a damn).

As long as Ridley's fumble issues don't reappear this year, I'd be fine with him having the ball in a close playoff game, though if it were a late drive it would probably be Vereen.