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

[ausbacker]

The word almost is in plain sight. I said almost, not as well.

Try harder next time.

No, your point, IMO, was a silly one. Bolden is nowhere near the threat that Ridley is in the rushing game nor is he anywhere near the threat that Vereen is in the passing game. Using almost as the determining factor to justify why you like Bolden is a serious cop out.

I like Bolden but he's a depth option and not much else. Ridley and Vereen could easily be starters on other teams. Hell, I was as big a Law Firm fan going around and the Patriots tossed him aside to replace him with Ridley and Vereen only to regress to Bolden. It's nonsensical.

 

[Ozymandias]

No, your point, IMO, was a silly one.

You tried. Want a gold star?

Bolden is nowhere near the threat that Ridley is in the rushing game nor is he anywhere near the threat that Vereen is in the passing game. Using almost as the determining factor to justify why you like Bolden is a serious cop out

Based on what? Your opinion? Fortunately most for of us we can base things on what happens on the field, and not on idiotic notions. Bolden is more than capable of being a third-down back, unlike Ridley - who has hands of stone.

While Ridley might be the better back as a pure runner, Bolden is not far off, therefore using our brains we can easily determine that Bolden is almost as good toting the rock as Ridley is, because he has actually demonstrated this skill. His career 5.5 YPC more than proves that. You can continue to be ignorant about that, but that's not my prerogative.

He's also shown that his hand are above average thus giving way more value than Ridley in the passing game. The Patriots split him out wide and used him in a lot ways that they did Vereen. Want to know why? Because they trust him as a receiver. Therefore, again, it's not out of the realm of reasoning to say that he's almost as good of a receiver as Vereen if the team itself trusts to fill-in for the role of the main guy.

Some people were claiming the offense would be inept without Vereen, in addition to Rob and Danny. Bolden's presence alleviated some of the issues in week 2. He made plays, and I'm more than comfortable with him in that role for the time being while Vereen is out than of the other RBs.

Come at me with fact-based arguments. Your opinion is not worth my time.

 

[ausbacker]

You tried. Want a gold star?

Based on what? Your opinion? Fortunately most for of us we can base things on what happens on the field, and not on idiotic notions. Bolden is more than capable of being a third-down back, unlike Ridley - who has hands of stone.

While Ridley might be the better back as a pure runner, Bolden is not far off, therefore using our brains we can easily determine that Bolden is almost as good toting the rock as Ridley is, because he has actually demonstrated this skill. His career 5.5 YPC more than proves that. You can continue to be ignorant about that, but that's not my prerogative.

He's also shown that his hand are above average thus giving way more value than Ridley in the passing game. The Patriots split him out wide and used him in a lot ways that they did Vereen. Want to know why? Because they trust him as a receiver. Therefore, again, it's not out of the realm of reasoning to say that he's almost as good of a receiver as Vereen if the team itself trusts to fill-in for the role of the main guy.

Some people were claiming the offense would be inept without Vereen, in addition to Rob and Danny. Bolden's presence alleviated some of the issues in week 2. He made plays, and I'm more than comfortable with him in that role for the time being while Vereen is out than of the other RBs.

Come at me with fact-based arguments. Your opinion is not worth my time.

Outside of the YPC, you haven't offered one piece of fact based argument other than your opinion. You have next to nothing to support your poor starting position.

Ozymandias, all you have offered is opinion. Opinion is not fact. I haven't hid behind opinion masquerading as fact like you. Next time you try to claim the high ground, come armed with something more than almost.

 

[Oswlek]

No, your point, IMO, was a silly one. Bolden is nowhere near the threat that Ridley is in the rushing game nor is he anywhere near the threat that Vereen is in the passing game. Using almost as the determining factor to justify why you like Bolden is a serious cop out.

I like Bolden but he's a depth option and not much else. Ridley and Vereen could easily be starters on other teams. Hell, I was as big a Law Firm fan going around and the Patriots tossed him aside to replace him with Ridley and Vereen only to regress to Bolden. It's nonsensical.

I have to agree with this. Bolden is an excellent depth option with a diverse enough skill set to back up both Rids and Shane, plus being solid enough on his own accord to spell both of them.

But once Vereen is healthy and the team trusts Ridley to hold on to the ball, he'll once again be primarily a special teamer.

 

[Ozymandias]

Ozymandias, all you have offered is opinion. Opinion is not fact. I haven't hid behind opinion masquerading as fact like you. Next time you try to claim the high ground, come armed with something more than almost.

Your first point screams of idiocy and contradiction, so I won't waste my time addressing it.

Simply put, you initially tried to cherry-pick a offhand statement to give the illusion that you actually had some semblance of an argument for argument's sake, only to look like a moron in doing so. The longer you go on with this, the more ignorant you look.

Yet, you're still going along with the charade of cherry picking even after you've been shown why your weak and misguided opinion is a falsehood. Not my fault that you still don't comprehend what the word almost means. But, since I'm a nice guy I'll leave it for you one more time again since you're obviously blind to its basic definition:

al·most (ôl m st , ôl-m st ). adv. Slightly short of; not quite; nearly

And, that's the last time I'm going to tell you again, next you want to quote me make sure you actually have a factual argument that's to the point and not your irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Better luck next time. Kthnxbai.

 

[Triumph]

Bolden doesn't run as well as Ridley nor are his hands as good as Vereen's. That's pure conjecture.

If Bolden keeps playing like he did vs Tampa you will soon change your opinion.

Its only Boldens (23 yo) 2nd season and he has had limited opportunities. Hes the same size as Ridley and had the same 40 time from what Ive seen on the web.

 

[Triumph]

I have to agree with this. Bolden is an excellent depth option with a diverse enough skill set to back up both Rids and Shane, plus being solid enough on his own accord to spell both of them.

But once Vereen is healthy and the team trusts Ridley to hold on to the ball, he'll once again be primarily a special teamer.

Many more fumbles and it could be Ridley as a Special Teamer.

 

[Oswlek]

Many more fumbles and it could be Ridley as a Special Teamer.

Could be. But probably not.

 

[Mack Herron]

Bolden has returned form injury and is getting increasing opportunities which he must have earned in practice. The RBs each bring different skills and each is contributing. Roles will likely change over time based on performance, as well as return of the injured (Washington, Vereen). Great to have developed depth at this position.

 

[patsinthesnow]

No, your point, IMO, was a silly one. Bolden is nowhere near the threat that Ridley is in the rushing game nor is he anywhere near the threat that Vereen is in the passing game. Using almost as the determining factor to justify why you like Bolden is a serious cop out.

I like Bolden but he's a depth option and not much else. Ridley and Vereen could easily be starters on other teams. Hell, I was as big a Law Firm fan going around and the Patriots tossed him aside to replace him with Ridley and Vereen only to regress to Bolden. It's nonsensical.

This is the same problem with BJGE in 2009. "He's nowhere near the runner maroney is" people said. He was also labeled a waste of a 5th string RB, when in reality he never got a chance to prove himself until 2010.

It's more of a to be determined thing, don't you think? We need to see more to definitely say who is the better RB.

Why did BB start Bolden his first game back?

I'm glad BB likes Ninkovich, Arrington, and Bolden way more than patriots fans.

 

[Oswlek]

This is the same problem with BJGE in 2009. "He's nowhere near the runner maroney is" people said. He was also labeled a waste of a 5th string RB, when in reality he never got a chance to prove himself until 2010.

It's more of a to be determined thing, don't you think? We need to see more to definitely say who is the better RB.

Why did BB start Bolden his first game back?

I'm glad BB likes Ninkovich, Arrington, and Bolden way more than patriots fans.

Because Vereen is hurt, Blount sucks and Ridley is still earning his way out of the doghouse? That is far more likely than this being a transition to Bolden as the feature RB.

Also, it should be pointed out that NE went out and drafted not one, but two RBs in the immediate aftermath of Benny's 2010 season.

Bolden is a nice player, the kind every team can use. But he isn't going to be a lead back for the Patriots unless Ridley has a complete meltdown.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Because Vereen is hurt, Blount sucks and Ridley is still earning his way out of the doghouse? That is far more likely than this being a transition to Bolden as the feature RB.

Also, it should be pointed out that NE went out and drafted not one, but two RBs in the immediate aftermath of Benny's 2010 season.

Bolden is a nice player, the kind every team can use. But he isn't going to be a lead back for the Patriots unless Ridley has a complete meltdown.

I just disagree. Ridley got 16 carries in week 2, he wasn't in the doghouse.

Bolden's first game back he starts over Ridley and gets the same amount of snaps as him.

We'll see, but I think it's an open competition between the both of them. Ridley's not been getting it done since 2012 midseason.

When Bolden has been 100% healthy and not suspended, he split with Ridley. (2012 Bills, Broncos, Seahawks games, 2013 Bucs game)

 

[JackBauer]

When Bolden has been 100% healthy and not suspended, he split with Ridley. (2012 Bills, Broncos, Seahawks games, 2013 Bucs game)

As much as you obviously hope this is an indictment against Ridley, that's just how RBBC works.

And it's all a technicality but I believe Ridley was named the starter against the Bucs, though Bolden took the first snap at RB.

 

[Oswlek]

As much as you obviously hope this is an indictment against Ridley, that's just how RBBC works.

And it's all a technicality but I believe Ridley was named the starter against the Bucs, though Bolden took the first snap at RB.

Yup. Ridley is definitely still earning his coaches' trust back, the (relatively) high rush total against NY had more to do with Vereen and Bolden not being active and Blount being useless.

This past week, it should also be mentioned that NE came out trying to pass the ball, which also explains why Bolden started, since he was the primary receiving back. The fact that he only rushed 3 times to Ridley's 12 also doesn't seem to indicate that he's taking anyone's job.

 

[ausbacker]

Your first point screams of idiocy and contradiction, so I won't waste my time addressing it.

Simply put, you initially tried to cherry-pick a offhand statement to give the illusion that you actually had some semblance of an argument for argument's sake, only to look like a moron in doing so. The longer you go on with this, the more ignorant you look.

Yet, you're still going along with the charade of cherry picking even after you've been shown why your weak and misguided opinion is a falsehood. Not my fault that you still don't comprehend what the word almost means. But, since I'm a nice guy I'll leave it for you one more time again since you're obviously blind to its basic definition:


And, that's the last time I'm going to tell you again, next you want to quote me make sure you actually have a factual argument that's to the point and not your irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

Better luck next time. Kthnxbai.

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

If Bolden keeps playing like he did vs Tampa you will soon change your opinion.

Its only Boldens (23 yo) 2nd season and he has had limited opportunities. Hes the same size as Ridley and had the same 40 time from what Ive seen on the web.

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.

This is the same problem with BJGE in 2009. "He's nowhere near the runner maroney is" people said. He was also labeled a waste of a 5th string RB, when in reality he never got a chance to prove himself until 2010.

It's more of a to be determined thing, don't you think? We need to see more to definitely say who is the better RB.

Why did BB start Bolden his first game back?

I'm glad BB likes Ninkovich, Arrington, and Bolden way more than patriots fans.

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.

 

[captain stone]

I'd rather have Danny Woodhead & one of Bolden/Blount than both Bolden & Blount.
Ridley & Bolden & Blount = too much redundancy, not enough versatility.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Also, it should be pointed out that NE went out and drafted not one, but two RBs in the immediate aftermath of Benny's 2010 season.

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).

 

[manxman2601]

**Patchick alert**

Colts waived rookies WR Da'Rick Rodgers and RB Kerwynn Williams.

https://twitter.com/caplannfl/status/382574064289583104

 

[BradyBranch39]

During training camp there was much roster bubble discussion about Brandon Bolden.

I believed then, as now, that he has the potential to be a big contributor to this team. He's big, fast and tough, and he can both run and catch passes.

Now yesterday was nice, and an affirmation of my beliefs on him, and showed just how foolish it would have been to cut him, but let's not get crazy...Canton is still a long ways away.

Yep, 100% this.

 

[BradyBranch39]

I'd rather have Danny Woodhead & one of Bolden/Blount than both Bolden & Blount.
Ridley & Bolden & Blount = too much redundancy, not enough versatility.

yeah, I would rather have Woodhead than Blount, too.