Ridley talks the talk...

[Deus Irae]

I'd argue half those based on career downside vs upside and price tag. When was the last time Murray was healthy all season (Ridley had the concussion but I'm struggling with finding another injury...)? Forte is expensive and closer to pasture than prime, along with lynch and Gore. McCoy is a better (at the moment) version of Vereen. Lynch fumbles far too often to even consider being a part of this team (coaching emphasis). I don't know what Morris has done this year, but he has an offense that will help avert attention. I want inarguably better backs. Of hand, no stats I already cut your list in half.

You didn't cut my list by even one. You spouted a lot of stuff trying to do so (Seriously, trying fumbles as the reason Lynch isn't better than Ridley?). That's not the same thing.

I'm at a dozen, clear, and that's with just an off-the-top-of-the-head trip through the NFC.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'd argue half those based on career downside vs upside and price tag. When was the last time Murray was healthy all season (Ridley had the concussion but I'm struggling with finding another injury...)? Forte is expensive and closer to pasture than prime, along with lynch and Gore. McCoy is a better (at the moment) version of Vereen. Lynch fumbles far too often to even consider being a part of this team (coaching emphasis). I don't know what Morris has done this year, but he has an offense that will help avert attention. I want inarguably better backs. Of hand, no stats I already cut your list in half.

I think you're a bit off here. The only one that really stood out to me on Deus' list was Sproles, who has simply not had a very good season and has been injured on and off for much of it.

You didn't ask for a list of players whose upside/price tag/age all factored in.

I don't think it's arguable at all that Gore, Lynch and Forte are better players right now. Forte may be expensive and may be closer to being past his prime than Ridley, but if you put him on the Pats' offense this season they are definitely a better offense. He is an excellent player. Gore has significantly better pass catching skills than Ridley--who is a non-factor in the passing game---and the same can be said about Lynch, without getting in to their between the tackles skills. Ridley is an excellent between the tackles runner but I fail to see how he is better at this skill than Lynch or Gore, and that is the only pro-Ridley argument that could be made.

I assert this as a Ridley supporter who badly wants to see him correct his problem, as Faulk and Tiki Barber did, and have a productive career.

 

[woolster22]

Re: Re: Ridley talks the talk...

You didn't cut my list by even one. You spouted a lot of stuff trying to do so (Seriously, trying fumbles as the reason Lynch isn't better than Ridley?). That's not the same thing.

I'm at a dozen, clear, and that's with just an off-the-top-of-the-head trip through the NFC.

Guess I didn't make any sense...

As someone has stated above me, cut it in half for comparable players being cut, I named a few "better than," and gave quick reasons for not being a fit for this team.

On this team, Lynch's fumbles would not be stood for. Look at how Ridley has been benched for his mishandles of the ball. There are a decent amount of backs in this league better than Ridley. Take mileage, price, injury history, role into account; the list gets drastically smaller. Sproles is not the same kind of back that Ridley is, never was (aside from rookie) and never will be.

 

[ausbacker]

I think you're a bit off here. The only one that really stood out to me on Deus' list was Sproles, who has simply not had a very good season and has been injured on and off for much of it.

You didn't ask for a list of players whose upside/price tag/age all factored in.

I don't think it's arguable at all that Gore, Lynch and Forte are better players right now. Forte may be expensive and may be closer to being past his prime than Ridley, but if you put him on the Pats' offense this season they are definitely a better offense. He is an excellent player. Gore has significantly better pass catching skills than Ridley--who is a non-factor in the passing game---and the same can be said about Lynch, without getting in to their between the tackles skills. Ridley is an excellent between the tackles runner but I fail to see how he is better at this skill than Lynch or Gore, and that is the only pro-Ridley argument that could be made.

I assert this as a Ridley supporter who badly wants to see him correct his problem, as Faulk and Tiki Barber did, and have a productive career.

The comment was undoubtedly worse than Hercules Rockefeller. That intimates there is a clear difference in ability, skill and production. That's where the distinction needs to be made. From that point, it's a matter of recent versus historical context.

 

[woolster22]

Re: Re: Ridley talks the talk...

I think you're a bit off here. The only one that really stood out to me on Deus' list was Sproles, who has simply not had a very good season and has been injured on and off for much of it.

You didn't ask for a list of players whose upside/price tag/age all factored in.

I don't think it's arguable at all that Gore, Lynch and Forte are better players right now. Forte may be expensive and may be closer to being past his prime than Ridley, but if you put him on the Pats' offense this season they are definitely a better offense. He is an excellent player. Gore has significantly better pass catching skills than Ridley--who is a non-factor in the passing game---and the same can be said about Lynch, without getting in to their between the tackles skills. Ridley is an excellent between the tackles runner but I fail to see how he is better at this skill than Lynch or Gore, and that is the only pro-Ridley argument that could be made.

I assert this as a Ridley supporter who badly wants to see him correct his problem, as Faulk and Tiki Barber did, and have a productive career.

You think lynch wouldn't get benched in this team? I'm not arguing he isn't a great back, but his style of play leads to putting the ball on the ground.

You watch last weeks niners game? The mileage is taking it's toll on Gore.

I haven't watched many bears games this year, however, price tag on forte...

Just because I didn't state the factors immediately doesn't mean they don't play a role in a players value.

My indifferent defense of Ridley comes from some fools' impression we are better off trading Ridley.

I put him near the top of young contract backs. I'd also put him in the top half of proven veteran backs, with his current warts.

 

[Kdo5]

Name me ten backs he is undoubtedly worse than.

'Better backs' isn't saying he is top 10 or elite.

 

[woolster22]

Re: Re: Ridley talks the talk...

'Better backs' isn't saying he is top 10 or elite.

I'm not trying to claim he is, though he certainly has that potential.

 

[Deus Irae]

Guess I didn't make any sense...

As someone has stated above me, cut it in half for comparable players being cut, I named a few "better than," and gave quick reasons for not being a fit for this team.

On this team, Lynch's fumbles would not be stood for. Look at how Ridley has been benched for his mishandles of the ball. There are a decent amount of backs in this league better than Ridley. Take mileage, price, injury history, role into account; the list gets drastically smaller. Sproles is not the same kind of back that Ridley is, never was (aside from rookie) and never will be.

You asked for clearly better RBs. I gave you a dozen off the top of my head, just from the NFC. Adding things like "for this team" or "not the same kind" is just moving the goalposts.

Look, you're more than welcome to love Ridley as a RB. As a Patriots fan, it's not surprising that you would. But let's not go crazy here. He's not a top 10 RB in the NFL. He's not close to that.

 

[Kdo5]

I'm not trying to claim he is, though he certainly has that potential.

Sorry I may have mistaken your position. The earlier accusation of drunkeness toward a poster does apply to me. I'll go drink some beer and play some pool and talk about the Riddler later. Outtt

 

[woolster22]

Re: Re: Ridley talks the talk...

I think you're a bit off here. The only one that really stood out to me on Deus' list was Sproles, who has simply not had a very good season and has been injured on and off for much of it.

You didn't ask for a list of players whose upside/price tag/age all factored in.

I don't think it's arguable at all that Gore, Lynch and Forte are better players right now. Forte may be expensive and may be closer to being past his prime than Ridley, but if you put him on the Pats' offense this season they are definitely a better offense. He is an excellent player. Gore has significantly better pass catching skills than Ridley--who is a non-factor in the passing game---and the same can be said about Lynch, without getting in to their between the tackles skills. Ridley is an excellent between the tackles runner but I fail to see how he is better at this skill than Lynch or Gore, and that is the only pro-Ridley argument that could be made.

I assert this as a Ridley supporter who badly wants to see him correct his problem, as Faulk and Tiki Barber did, and have a productive career.

Fair enough. My only argument would be with how you build a team without taking into account all of the aforementioned factors.

That said, of deuce's list, three names have been consistent, Gore, Forte, and Lynch. I'll obviously throw Peterson in. I'll argue Gore simply on mileage. Anyone want to trade for MJD? I'd put Gore's mileage (and Lynch's although he shows no signs of slowing in Peteyville) on about the same level as MJD last year...

 

[woolster22]

Re: Re: Ridley talks the talk...

You asked for clearly better RBs. I gave you a dozen off the top of my head, just from the NFC. Adding things like "for this team" or "not the same kind" is just moving the goalposts.

Look, you're more than welcome to love Ridley as a RB. As a Patriots fan, it's not surprising that you would. But let's not go crazy here. He's not a top 10 RB in the NFL. He's not close to that.

How else would it make sense? You think AP has nearly the production if he some how was drafted here? We have our version of Sproles already. Are you saying you'd trade Ridley for Sproles tomorrow? For Murray with his history?

 

[ausbacker]

You asked for clearly better RBs. I gave you a dozen off the top of my head, just from the NFC. Adding things like "for this team" or "not the same kind" is just moving the goalposts.

Look, you're more than welcome to love Ridley as a RB. As a Patriots fan, it's not surprising that you would. But let's not go crazy here. He's not a top 10 RB in the NFL. He's not close to that.

How else would it make sense? You think AP has nearly the production if he some how was drafted here? We have our version of Sproles already. Are you saying you'd trade Ridley for Sproles tomorrow? For Murray with his history?

Nevermind Deus woolster22. It's been pointed out to him that he provided a list of backs not a list of backs undoubtedly better than Ridley. He's arguing for arguments sake. Whilst I do agree with him that most of the backs are probably better than Ridley, it's not significantly big enough a gap to make the claim that he's undoubtedly worse than most.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

The comment was undoubtedly worse than Hercules Rockefeller. That intimates there is a clear difference in ability, skill and production. That's where the distinction needs to be made. From that point, it's a matter of recent versus historical context.

Aus I'm sorry but i really don't understand this comment here. Your first sentence is not clear, and so I cannot follow the rest. Not attempting to be a jerk, just trying to clarify. I honestly do not know what you are trying to say here.

 

[ausbacker]

Name me ten backs he is undoubtedly worse than.

Aus I'm sorry but i really don't understand this comment here. Your first sentence is not clear, and so I cannot follow the rest. Not attempting to be a jerk, just trying to clarify. I honestly do not know what you are trying to say here.

The question above is what prompted the back and forth about Ridley and his ability compared to that of other good backs in the NFL Hercules Rockefeller. From that starting point, it should be simple enough to work out.

Undoubtedly worse should leave no question in your mind that an opposing RB is significantly better than Ridley.

 

[Deus Irae]

How else would it make sense? You think AP has nearly the production if he some how was drafted here? We have our version of Sproles already. Are you saying you'd trade Ridley for Sproles tomorrow? For Murray with his history?

What do you mean "How else would it make sense?" You posed a challenge/asked a question. I gave you the response, with a dozen RBs that are clearly better than Ridley, just in the NFC.

"For this team" is nonsense. If Ridley was playing for another team, you'd say he was a terrible fit for the Patriots because of his fumbling. Because he's playing for the team, you list fumbles as a reason for Lynch to be a non-fit. You also now suddenly change the equation so that Sproles doesn't count in your mind because the Patriots have Vereen and you essentially claim that A.P. wouldn't be A.P. if he was in New England, despite the fact that Corey Dillon ran for a career high 1600+ yards as a member of the Patriots. That's asinine.

Your arguments on this have been horrible.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

The question above is what prompted the back and forth about Ridley and his ability compared to that of other good backs in the NFL Hercules Rockefeller. From that starting point, it should be simple enough to work out.

Undoubtedly worse should leave no question in your mind that an opposing RB is significantly better than Ridley.

Ah, got it. It would have helped to have it look like this: [ "undoubtedly worse than", Hercules Rockefeller. ] It looked like undoubtedly worse than me. My mistake.

Do you not agree that Gore, Lynch, AP, Forte are all undoubtedly better players? They have had better careers and are having better seasons. I'm not anti-Ridley, very much the opposite---I'd like to see him lead the team in playoff carries as they hoist the Lombardi. But the fact is that most of the guys on Deus' list---I do not agree with every one of them---is as good, or better, at Ridley's main skill (between the tackles running) and better in the passing game, where Ridley is a non-factor and possible liability. It's not being a Ridley hater to point that out.

If the entire crux of the disagreement is the use of the word "undoubtedly," then perhaps the word used should be one that is a bit more objective, and not merely coming down to preference or opinion.

Even still, many of the players on the list are absolutely undoubtedly better players. You can argue physical gifts, but the results on the field show this. For example, Matt Forte may not be the better athlete, but he is absolutely the better football player at this point in time.

 

[varjao]

I apologize for my previous post. It was not my intention to be rude, with words there are some lack of humor or context.

Getting back to the "back" subject, I'm not going to list, Ridley at this moment is no better than Legarrete Blount and it's not only because he's on the dog house, it's because he's not getting the yards, when he does protect the ball the way he should do always he lose a step.

I like Ridley and I wanted him to have a better season than last year's not only because that's good for the Patriots, I wanted to see him excel, but these fumble issues was a hot topic even before the season and right at the first game he fumbled twice, it's not only a technical issue, it caught him in the mind and now every time he runs I feel my heart pumping in my throat and I'm sure I'm not the only one with this feeling. I don't wanna see him getting one snap on the playoffs unless we have 2 possessions ahead on the score.

 

[woolster22]

Re: Re: Ridley talks the talk...

What do you mean "How else would it make sense?" You posed a challenge/asked a question. I gave you the response, with a dozen RBs that are clearly better than Ridley, just in the NFC.

"For this team" is nonsense. If Ridley was playing for another team, you'd say he was a terrible fit for the Patriots because of his fumbling. Because he's playing for the team, you list fumbles as a reason for Lynch to be a non-fit. You also now suddenly change the equation so that Sproles doesn't count in your mind because the Patriots have Vereen and you essentially claim that A.P. wouldn't be A.P. if he was in New England, despite the fact that Corey Dillon ran for a career high 1600+ yards as a member of the Patriots. That's asinine.

Your arguments on this have been horrible.

Is this not a patriots board? Discussion of patriots players being the highlight? Redundancy of vereen (I'll grant you his injury history against sproles), v Sproles is legitimate. As is team impact. This has been a pass first team until this year.

Ridley is not much of a pass blocker, and doesn't pose much threat receiving. That is not his role. Would forte be better? Most likely. What is the cost? Would Gore be better next year? Arguable. Would AP be better? Yep. Sproles, or Murray in Ridley's place, I'm more than willing to argue against.

As Ausbacker mentioned, your schtick is well known. I might as well be conversing with Mazz/Felger.

 

[chasa]

i would take almost anyone from dues's list over riddley right now.

 

[Deus Irae]

Is this not a patriots board? Discussion of patriots players being the highlight?

Yes, but that's completely irrelevant to who's a better RB.

Redundancy of vereen (I'll grant you his injury history against sproles), v Sproles is legitimate.

No, it's not. Here, let me show you:

"Ridley is just redundant because the Patriots have Blount. Therefore, Ridley's not a top running back."

My statement has more validity to it than yours does, because we have actually been able to watch both RBs (Blount, Ridley) playing with the same team. Furthermore, redundancy is irrelevant to the question of who the better RB is.

As is team impact. This has been a pass first team until this year.

The Patriots have been a pass first team every year since Dillon left, with the arguable exception of a decent chunk of 2008. They've also passed more than they've run every year since 2004. The 2013 season has been no exception to this.

Ridley is not much of a pass blocker, and doesn't pose much threat receiving. That is not his role. Would forte be better? Most likely. What is the cost?

Cost is irrelevant to the question of who the better RB is.

Would Gore be better next year? Arguable.

Your projection of who'll be a better RB next year is irrelevant to the question of who the better RB is.

Would AP be better? Yep. Sproles, or Murray in Ridley's place, I'm more than willing to argue against.

Argue all you want. You're wrong on both counts. Furthermore, your initial call was for 10 better RBs in the entire NFL. I quickly pulled a dozen, just from the NFC. I didn't even add in the AFC RBs like the duos in Buffalo and Houston, Charles in K.C., etc...

As Ausbacker mentioned, your schtick is well known. I might as well be conversing with Mazz/Felger.

I'm here giving you a bunch of examples of running backs who are clearly better than Ridley. You're responding by moving the goalposts with all sorts of ridiculous arguments ("For the team", "Better next year", "Cost", "Redundant", "Different"). I don't know what schtick I'm supposedly using here because I've got Ausbacker on ignore and can't read his trolling attempts, but take a look in the mirror, because it's you, not me, who's playing games with this discussion.