A Blount Discussion

[tonyto3690]

The Bucs have a 1 RB show in Tampa, they had no use for Blount. Martin had 1,926 rushing and receiving yards on 368 touches.

To the OP, if 2010 Blount has returned, he could challenge Ridley IMO.

2010 Blount hasn't returned, and even if he has, that isn't as good as Ridley. He made a couple good runs when giving gaping holes including a fluke 50 yard gain. He had one run where a linebacker hit him and he fell backwards.

Sorry, but Blount is not nearly as good as people believe. I think he'll make the roster and be a contributor, but unless Ridley fumbles it five times in the first three games, Blount has zero chance at surpassing Ridley.

 

[IcyPatriot]

2010 Blount hasn't returned, and even if he has, that isn't as good as Ridley. He made a couple good runs when giving gaping holes including a fluke 50 yard gain. He had one run where a linebacker hit him and he fell backwards.

Sorry, but Blount is not nearly as good as people believe. I think he'll make the roster and be a contributor, but unless Ridley fumbles it five times in the first three games, Blount has zero chance at surpassing Ridley.

He wasn't signed to the team to surpass Ridley - push a bit perhaps. He's a big bruising north-south runner with great feet and has very good leaping ability. He's a backup on this team and/or he's a clock eater in the 4th quarter. A runner like him keeps the mileage lower on Ridley.

 

[patsinthesnow]

2010 Blount hasn't returned, and even if he has, that isn't as good as Ridley. He made a couple good runs when giving gaping holes including a fluke 50 yard gain. He had one run where a linebacker hit him and he fell backwards.

Sorry, but Blount is not nearly as good as people believe. I think he'll make the roster and be a contributor, but unless Ridley fumbles it five times in the first three games, Blount has zero chance at surpassing Ridley.

Ridley: 1,314 total yards in 16 games. 4.4ypc

2010 Blount: 1,021 total yards in 13 games. 5.0ypc

I discount TDs because when you play on a team that scores top 5 all time, you'll get your 12 rushing TDs.

Ridley the 2nd half the season had 3.9ypc, and also had a bad game in the AFCCG. I don't understand why people think he's untouchable or could use competition. He's an above average RB at best.

 

[RayClay]

I think Blount can split carries with ridley, who I don't think would be a workhorse anyway. Blount doesn't have the initial burst to be a classic short yardage back, but he still could be effective in those situations. He does have value as a clock killer and defense punisher.

If you remember Antowaine smith, he wasn't the most talented back, but he had size and speed and he punished guys in the second half so much they didn't want to tackle anymore, and he ripped off 30-40 yard carries multiple games. Do you think anyone id going to want to tackle this beast late in the game? This also has the advantage of wearing out pass rushers and defenders.

 

[RayClay]

He wasn't signed to the team to surpass Ridley - push a bit perhaps. He's a big bruising north-south runner with great feet and has very good leaping ability. He's a backup on this team and/or he's a clock eater in the 4th quarter. A runner like him keeps the mileage lower on Ridley.

I'll like yours too since you beat me to the post.

 

[Ring 6]

I think Blount can split carries with ridley, who I don't think would be a workhorse anyway. Blount doesn't have the initial burst to be a classic short yardage back, but he still could be effective in those situations. He does have value as a clock killer and defense punisher.

If you remember Antowaine smith, he wasn't the most talented back, but he had size and speed and he punished guys in the second half so much they didn't want to tackle anymore, and he ripped off 30-40 yard carries multiple games. Do you think anyone id going to want to tackle this beast late in the game? This also has the advantage of wearing out pass rushers and defenders.

Although multiple could mean 2, I don't think thats what you mean, so I think your memory is wrong here.

 

[manxman2601]

RB Snaps:

Bolden - 15
Vereen - 18
Ridley - 15
Washington - 11
Blount - 13
Winn - 1 (WTF!, Boo!)

 

[AzPatsFan]

The first events in a real War have a way of obsoleting all prior planning. This case is moot. :snob: :rocker:

 

[Claremonster]

Alright, after having a night to sleep on the game I watched last night, I really wanted to make a thread to talk about what we saw out of Blount specifically.

Prior to the game my thoughts were:
-I'd heard he's not a great team player
-I'd heard his energy level/commitment was questionable
-I first heard he'd be a good 3rd down back, then later heard he might only be good on 1st/2nd down (which means, I suppose, nobody knows what he's good for)

What I saw on the field:
-Powerful as advertised
-WAY faster than I thought he'd be
-WAY more energy than I expected given some of the knocks on him
-Seemed to be loving it/enjoying the game a lot

So my question is- we're all talking about him possibly beating out Bolden. But everything I personally saw last night made me wonder if his ceiling isn't a bit higher than that? I know we have 2 excellent draft picks higher up on the roster, but this dude isn't old and should still have plenty in the tank.

Is 3rd the best he can do? My gut is telling me not necessarily. Is this overreaction to one game?

Haven't you ever seen him play before? The guy is a beast...

 

[Claremonster]

2010 Blount hasn't returned, and even if he has, that isn't as good as Ridley. He made a couple good runs when giving gaping holes including a fluke 50 yard gain. He had one run where a linebacker hit him and he fell backwards.

Sorry, but Blount is not nearly as good as people believe. I think he'll make the roster and be a contributor, but unless Ridley fumbles it five times in the first three games, Blount has zero chance at surpassing Ridley.

Don't let your lying eyes deceive you.

 

[RayClay]

Although multiple could mean 2, I don't think thats what you mean, so I think your memory is wrong here.

Smith ripped off more than a few long runs late in games. If my memory was wrong, it might be exaggerating 20yd runs into 30. He hardly ever went for long runs early. My point stands that big runners who stay strong can wear out defenses like body punchline wears out fighters.

 

[Ring 6]

Smith ripped off more than a few long runs late in games. If my memory was wrong, it might be exaggerating 20yd runs into 30. He hardly ever went for long runs early. My point stands that big runners who stay strong can wear out defenses like body punchline wears out fighters.

I dont necessarily agree with the overall point. Any runner is more apt to break a long run late in the game, especially if the defense has been on the field a lot of snaps. The implication that tackling a big back is what causes a defense to wear down, is something I just don't buy.
If the point was running the ball a ton of times throughout the game will eventually lead to a better chance of popping a big run, sure, because that most likely means the defense played more snaps.

As far as Antowain Smith, breaking long runs was not exactly his forte. I would guess that no more than half a dozen runs in his 3 years with the Pats meet your 30-40 criteria and maybe a couple more fit the lower standard.
If I have the time I'll look it up.
Your argument would be better with a RB that wasn't the slowest in the NFL though.

 

[SB39]

So my question is- we're all talking about him possibly beating out Bolden. But everything I personally saw last night made me wonder if his ceiling isn't a bit higher than that? I know we have 2 excellent draft picks higher up on the roster, but this dude isn't old and should still have plenty in the tank.

Is 3rd the best he can do? My gut is telling me not necessarily. Is this overreaction to one game?

He is another one of these questionable character guys that this team loves to take chances with. He is as talented as any RB in the league not named Peterson or Foster, but he just doesn't have his head screwed on straight.

 

[tonyto3690]

He wasn't signed to the team to surpass Ridley - push a bit perhaps. He's a big bruising north-south runner with great feet and has very good leaping ability. He's a backup on this team and/or he's a clock eater in the 4th quarter. A runner like him keeps the mileage lower on Ridley.

I never believed he was brought in to surpass Ridley. That poster was the one overreacting after one preseason game against the worst run defense in the NFL that he was suddenly going to surpass Ridley in the depth chart, which is ridiculous.

I think Blount will be a good role player and will be crucial in keeping Ridley fresh for the playoffs and not burning him out. But surpassing Ridley and being our workhorse back? Not a freaking chance.

Ridley: 1,314 total yards in 16 games. 4.4ypc

2010 Blount: 1,021 total yards in 13 games. 5.0ypc

I discount TDs because when you play on a team that scores top 5 all time, you'll get your 12 rushing TDs.

Ridley the 2nd half the season had 3.9ypc, and also had a bad game in the AFCCG. I don't understand why people think he's untouchable or could use competition. He's an above average RB at best.

He wore down in the second half of the season and played some tough run defenses. Texans, Niners and Dolphins (2x) are nothing to sneeze at as run stoppers, and In the AFCCG the Ravens sold out against the run and left their corners in man coverage the whole game - and Lloyd/Welker couldn't get open.

Ridley is a borderline top 10 back and has tons of upside. Blount is not nearly as talented as Ridley is. That's like comparing Fells to Kyle Rudolph.

 

[tonyto3690]

He is another one of these questionable character guys that this team loves to take chances with. He is as talented as any RB in the league not named Peterson or Foster, but he just doesn't have his head screwed on straight.

Oh come on. That is not even remotely true.


-CJ2K
-Charles
-Morris
-Lynch
-Martin
-McCoy
-McFadden
-Matthews
-Gore
-Ingram
-Spiller
-Forte
-Rice
-Jackson
-Bush
-Pierce
-Richardson
-Murray
-Jackson
-Ridley
-Vereen

 

[patsinthesnow]

I never believed he was brought in to surpass Ridley. That poster was the one overreacting after one preseason game against the worst run defense in the NFL that he was suddenly going to surpass Ridley in the depth chart, which is ridiculous.

I think Blount will be a good role player and will be crucial in keeping Ridley fresh for the playoffs and not burning him out. But surpassing Ridley and being our workhorse back? Not a freaking chance.



He wore down in the second half of the season and played some tough run defenses. Texans, Niners and Dolphins (2x) are nothing to sneeze at as run stoppers, and In the AFCCG the Ravens sold out against the run and left their corners in man coverage the whole game - and Lloyd/Welker couldn't get open.

Ridley is a borderline top 10 back and has tons of upside. Blount is not nearly as talented as Ridley is. That's like comparing Fells to Kyle Rudolph.

Explain to me, how does Ridley have tons of upside?

1. He was a bad pass catcher in college, he still is in the pros. (32nd among starting RBs in pass receptions)

2. Have you watched Ridley with gaping holes vs. the Rams last season and the Eagles this preseason? He has no 2nd gear. A 4.65 forty will do that to you.

IMO, Ridley's maxed out as a top 12-14 good, system RB. The talent gap between the top guys (Peterson, Foster, Charles, Lynch, MJD, McCoy, Martin, Spiller) and him is pretty wide.

 

[tonyto3690]

Explain to me, how does Ridley have tons of upside?

1. He was a bad pass catcher in college, he still is in the pros. (32nd among starting RBs in pass receptions)

2. Have you watched Ridley with gaping holes vs. the Rams last season and the Eagles this preseason? He has no 2nd gear. A 4.65 forty will do that to you.

IMO, Ridley's maxed out as a top 12-14 good, system RB. The talent gap between the top guys (Peterson, Foster, Charles, Lynch, MJD, McCoy, Martin, Spiller) and him is pretty wide.

He has good size, good lateral ability and wiggle, great vision, finishes runs strong, and contrary to what you believe, is a solid pass catching option. It merely happens that the Patriots had two RBs specifically on the roster to catch passes that got targets ahead of him. Just because he didn't get all the pass catching duties doesn't mean he was terrible at it.

He was never a burner. That isn't his game. That doesn't mean he's not a good running back. Lynch doesn't have a second gear and almost everyone has him in their top 5.

Sorry, but even if we accept your conditions that Ridley is a marginal talent and system RB, that does not automatically catapult Blount 30 spots up and make him comparable. Blount is a short yardage back that is unable to get short yardage. He's inferior to Ridley in almost every single way.

EDIT:
And for the Smith chatter... there is only one RB in the NFL that wears down defenses and plays big in the 4th quarter and that's AP. No one else in the NFL does that. There's just too much depth and too many big hits over the course of a season for any RB to be able to do that. With Blount, if he continues to play well, it gives us another RB to keep Ridley fresh so he can close games at a high level and not be worn down during games and during the course of the season.

 

[Bruins29]

You keep saying that Ridley and Blount are not comparable yet Blounts 2010 season and Ridleys season last year were almost identical. Blount had a better YPC. Blount had a ****ty QB and a worse O line. Teams were not scared of Josh Freeman in 2010. "Hey everyone its Josh Freeman, here comes the running game"

Ridley has the benefit of playing with the most Lethal feared QB who has ever played the game. That is a big factor.

So , while Ridley has the potential to say a top 10 RB in the league Blount, in a better system with his head in the game could easily flourish. I am not saying he will but there are a lot of intangibles.

 

[RayClay]

I dont necessarily agree with the overall point. Any runner is more apt to break a long run late in the game, especially if the defense has been on the field a lot of snaps. The implication that tackling a big back is what causes a defense to wear down, is something I just don't buy.

Well, if i can't convince you of a law of physics, I'll retire from this argument.

Watch some of Blounts runs and count how many men it takes to bring him down.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

What has Bolden done since being suspended for PED use?

Seems without the PED's he's not the same guy he was previously.

I'd rather see Belichick go with 4 RB's and add depth elsewhere with someone who also is a decent ST player.

I agree.

He looked good in a couple games last year, then got suspended for PED's and hasn't impressed me since.