Looking At The Patriots Running Back Depth Going Into Camp

[Kontradiction]

The advantage of having a feature back is that you do not tip your hand on whether the offense is passing or running the ball. That and of course, the guy is good enough to gain enough yards for the defense to really respect the run, which opens up the passing game.

The bad thing about having a feature back is that they cost so much that those teams can't afford competent quarterbacks that can take advantage of the passing game being opened up.

 

[IllegalContact]

The advantage of having a feature back is that you do not tip your hand on whether the offense is passing or running the ball. That and of course, the guy is good enough to gain enough yards for the defense to really respect the run, which opens up the passing game.

you lose more when said feature back goes down

there's more to balance than whether you can have an RB that does lots of running and pass catching.......arian foster, adrian peterson.....don't have much to show for their work except big contracts

consolidating 350-400 touches to one RB does not work against good teams

 

[everlong]

The advantage of having a feature back is that you do not tip your hand on whether the offense is passing or running the ball. That and of course, the guy is good enough to gain enough yards for the defense to really respect the run, which opens up the passing game.

The Pats ran with Woodhead and passed with Ridley a lot so I doubt that will change with Vereen taking Woodhead's role so teams can't key in on it.

 

[Oswlek]

You could have Googled it.

To answer your question, "Feature back" is a somewhat generic term to describe a running back who gets the vast majority of carries, as opposed to a running-back-by-committee (RBBC) situation. If you want to be technical about it, what most people call a "feature-back" really should be called a "bell-cow RB", but nobody really uses that term anymore.

There are no specific numbers to define it but if you are asking me to guess what everybody else thinks...

In the hierarchy of amount of touches:

1) Bell-cow - gets pretty much all the carries (85% or more)
2) Feature Back - gets most of the carries (75-85%)
3) RBBC - two or more RBs share the carries almost evenly (one RB doesn't get more than 60% of the carries.)

You might want to reconsider your definitions. Here are a few carry percentages from 2012:

Ray Rice - 58%
Foster - 69%
Peterson - 71%
Lynch - 59%
Ridley - 56%

Now, in fairness, Lynch and Peterson's numbers are skewed a little by a considerable number of QB carries, but that is just part of their offense. Clearly, NFL teams have moved on from having one RB take 85% of the carries - for good reason. It is entirely fair to consider Ridley a feature back.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I think Nunchucks might mean "complete" back. Ridley was dead last among starting RBs in receiving yardage and receptions.

While there is no problem with having a 1st/2nd down pounder and a 3rd down receiving back, it kind of gives your hand away when the receiving back is on the field. That happened with Woody alot. You knew we would be in hurry up, passing attack. I'm hoping Vereen can be a better runner than Woody was.

 

[Oswlek]

The advantage of having a feature back is that you do not tip your hand on whether the offense is passing or running the ball. That and of course, the guy is good enough to gain enough yards for the defense to really respect the run, which opens up the passing game.

As long as the receiving back is a capable runner and the running back can catch a pass or two a game, you don't need a feature back to do this. You just can't have a wholly one dimensional guy out there.

 

[situational_awareness]

You might want to reconsider your definitions. Here are a few carry percentages from 2012:

Ray Rice - 58%
Foster - 69%
Peterson - 71%
Lynch - 59%
Ridley - 56%

Now, in fairness, Lynch and Peterson's numbers are skewed a little by a considerable number of QB carries, but that is just part of their offense. Clearly, NFL teams have moved on from having one RB take 85% of the carries - for good reason. It is entirely fair to consider Ridley a feature back.

Good data. Just reduce my percentages and the definitions remain the same. I was throwing out random numbers without having done the research, but I did say that I was just guessing at the numbers. I suppose feature backs get approx 55% or more of the carries, based on your research.

I suppose the real indicator is how much of the offense is run vs pass.

 

[Oswlek]

Good data. Just reduce my percentages and the definitions remain the same. I was throwing out random numbers without having done the research, but I did say that I was just guessing at the numbers. I suppose feature backs get approx 55% or more of the carries, based on your research.

I suppose the real indicator is how much of the offense is run vs pass.

Sounds reasonable. Bell cows get around 70% and feature 55%-65%.

Some guys, like Ray Rice probably get slotted improperly since they are relied on to be the 3rd down back as well, so the team will limit the rush pounding. But it seems like a fair break-point.

 

[situational_awareness]

Sounds reasonable. Bell cows get around 70% and feature 55%-65%.

Some guys, like Ray Rice probably get slotted improperly since they are relied on to be the 3rd down back as well, so the team will limit the rush pounding. But it seems like a fair break-point.

Yeah, and I'll tell you how I guessed at those apparently way off numbers...

I am a fantasy football junkie, so I want my RBs in there on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down. Most teams have a better receiving RB out there on 3rd and longs (I'm just guessing "most"... don't come back at me with stats. ). So, a feature back like Arian Foster, who is out there on pretty much every play in the series is a good guy to have. Ben Tate spells him for a series here or there, or during blow outs.

The Pats are different though... or at least it seemed like it to me. It was funny watching people try to guess at which Patriot RB was going to be "the one to have" in any given week. You'll see Ridley out there on 1st down, Woodhead or Vereen out there on 2nd down, and Aaron Hernandez in there on 3rd down... or any random mix of those scenarios that can exist. Saints were the same with Ingram, Ivory, and Sproles... but they were more predictable on 3rd down. It was going to be Sproles, and he was definitely going to get the ball by either carry or pass. Panthers with Jonathon Stewart and Deangelo Williams...

Patriots seemed to be so confusing and to the point that when an RB scored a TD, me and my friends watching would constantly say ... "who just scored that TD? Ridley? Vereen? Woodhead?" Damn you BB, I had Ridley this week and you called Woodhead's number!

So yeah, my numbers were off bad. If you asked me what % Ridley ran before you posted the numbers, I would have guessed 30% without looking at any data, just from perception while watching the Pats games.

 

[Joker]

You could have Googled it.

To answer your question, "Feature back" is a somewhat generic term to describe a running back who gets the vast majority of carries, as opposed to a running-back-by-committee (RBBC) situation. If you want to be technical about it, what most people call a "feature-back" really should be called a "bell-cow RB", but nobody really uses that term anymore.

There are no specific numbers to define it but if you are asking me to guess what everybody else thinks...

In the hierarchy of amount of touches:

1) Bell-cow - gets pretty much all the carries (85% or more)
2) Feature Back - gets most of the carries (75-85%)
3) RBBC - two or more RBs share the carries almost evenly (one RB doesn't get more than 60% of the carries.)

I didn't "google" it. We use Pro Football Reference here."In the heirarchy of touches"??? I've been an NFL fan for five decades but I've NEVER heard or seen THIS before.

but nobody will mistake either one for a traditional "feature back", unless BB decides to use them differently this year.

Either you are trying to pigeonhole Ridley for some arcane, indecipherable "fantasy" reason or you do NOT know what you are talking about.Ridley gained 1263 yards last season. That was good enough for SEVENTH in the entire league. He scored 12 TD's, tied with Adrien Petersen for THIRD in the league. He had 290 touches on a team that is a top three pass happy offense in the entire league. When the Patriots FEATURE the run they FEATURE Steven Ridley. This is INARGUABLE. Any statement to the contrary is preposterous.

To print on a team's message board that Steven Ridley is NOT a feature back and suggest that NOBODY would ever mistake him such a runner is OPENLY TROLLING . Ridley quite obviously became the Patriots feature back, the back they wanted when they drafted Maroney, last season. To even suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

[Brady6]

Vereen and Ridley should be a good combo, but nobody will mistake either one for a traditional "feature back", unless BB decides to use them differently this year. The Pats truly used a RBBC last year so week to week I never knew who was going to get the yards from the RB position. Even still, they produced as a committee. Bad for fantasy football, but good for the team.

I have to respectfully disagree; Ridley is absolutely a traditional "features back". He is capable of carrying the ball 20 times a game, running inside or outside the tackles, solid in blitz pickup and adequate in the passing game as a receiver. Outside of Peterson and a handful of other RB's in the NFL I cannot think of someone who possesses the attributes of a primary RB more.

What are you seeing differently?

 

[mgteich]

Making fun of the incorrect and unreasonable analysis of others serves no useful purpose. And, just BTW, someone doesn't have to be a troll to be very wrong.

That being said, I agree with you. Ridley is as much of a feature back as one ever going to have on a passing team. 7th in yards and tied for 3rd in TD's is plenty to be considered a feature back.

So we have a feature back in Ridley, and Washington, who is at least a backup 3rd down or change of pace back (he will always be active because of special teams). I don't think that this should be difficult for all of us to agree upon.

I see these as some of the open questions.
================================
QUESTION ONE - How much will Vereen's role increase?

If he is able, Vereen could be the change of pace back and the 3rd down back. For me, the key here is blocking and picking up the blitz. Washington is the backup and could step up and pass Vereen. Blount has an outside chance to meet one of the these roles.

QUESTION TWO - Who is the backup to Ridley?
Some of us think that Vereen or Blount could be just fine in this role. Others prefer Bolden.

QUESTION THREE - What is Blount's role, especially if Bolden is Ridley's backup?
I think that Blount could still make the team as an all around backup and perhaps as a change of pace or short yardage back. I think this is the case if Bolden makes the team as the inactive backup to Ridley.

I think that we could have a stronger running game this year than last, as I expect improvements from Ridley and Vereen. Also, I think that Washington and Blount were fine pickups; one of them should be able to contribute at running back. I think that we will miss Woodhead (and Faulk). We underestimate how much they contributed. We can HOPE that Vereen steps in and does as well.

I never get excited over the developmental running back, whether he ends up on the Practice Squad or the roster.

THE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION - Bolden or Blount or both?
I guess my hope is that Vereen, Washington and Blount are good enough not to need to keep Bolden. We need the roster spot elsewhere. Quarterback, wide receiver, tight end and offensive are all groups that want that roster spot. And, no, I wouldn't be disappointed carrying five running backs. After all, running backs are especially prone to injuries.

I didn't "google" it. We use Pro Football Reference here."In the heirarchy of touches"??? I've been an NFL fan for five decades but I've NEVER heard or seen THIS before.

but nobody will mistake either one for a traditional "feature back", unless BB decides to use them differently this year.

Either you are trying to pigeonhole Ridley for some arcane, indecipherable "fantasy" reason or you do NOT know what you are talking about.Ridley gained 1263 yards last season. That was good enough for SEVENTH in the entire league. He scored 12 TD's, tied with Adrien Petersen for THIRD in the league. He had 290 touches on a team that is a top three pass happy offense in the entire league. When the Patriots FEATURE the run they FEATURE Steven Ridley. This is INARGUABLE. Any statement to the contrary is preposterous.

To print on a team's message board that Steven Ridley is NOT a feature back and suggest that NOBODY would ever mistake him such a runner is OPENLY TROLLING . Ridley quite obviously became the Patriots feature back, the back they wanted when they drafted Maroney, last season. To even suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

[Brady6]

Vereen and Ridley should be a good combo, but nobody will mistake either one for a traditional "feature back", unless BB decides to use them differently this year. The Pats truly used a RBBC last year so week to week I never knew who was going to get the yards from the RB position. Even still, they produced as a committee. Bad for fantasy football, but good for the team.

Not to beat a dead horse but this post and some others who believe Bolden is a better RB are examples of why I view Ridley as one of the most unappreciated members of this team.

In his second season and first as the lead RB he ran for close to 1300 yards and 12 touchdowns. This is premium production for a NFL RB in any offense, even more so in a pass first offense such as ours.

 

[Brady6]

That being said, I agree with you. Ridley is as much of a feature back as one ever going to have on a passing team. 7th in yards and tied for 3rd in TD's is plenty to be considered a feature back.

Agreed; I'd even go as far as to say Ridley is a feature back in any offense.

 

[Joker]

Making fun of the incorrect and unreasonable analysis of others serves no useful purpose. And, just BTW, someone doesn't have to be a troll to be very wrong.

That being said, I agree with you. Ridley is as much of a feature back as one ever going to have on a passing team. 7th in yards and tied for 3rd in TD's is plenty to be considered a feature back.

So we have a feature back in Ridley, and Washington, who is at least a backup 3rd down or change of pace back (he will always be active because of special teams). I don't think that this should be difficult for all of us to agree upon.

I see these as some of the open questions.
================================
QUESTION ONE - How much will Vereen's role increase?

If he is able, Vereen could be the change of pace back and the 3rd down back. For me, the key here is blocking and picking up the blitz. Washington is the backup and could step up and pass Vereen. Blount has an outside chance to meet one of the these roles.

QUESTION TWO - Who is the backup to Ridley?
Some of us think that Vereen or Blount could be just fine in this role. Others prefer Bolden.

QUESTION THREE - What is Blount's role, especially if Bolden is Ridley's backup?
I think that Blount could still make the team as an all around backup and perhaps as a change of pace or short yardage back. I think this is the case if Bolden makes the team as the inactive backup to Ridley.

I think that we could have a stronger running game this year than last, as I expect improvements from Ridley and Vereen. Also, I think that Washington and Blount were fine pickups; one of them should be able to contribute at running back. I think that we will miss Woodhead (and Faulk). We underestimate how much they contributed. We can HOPE that Vereen steps in and does as well.

I never get excited over the developmental running back, whether he ends up on the Practice Squad or the roster.

THE BOTTOM LINE QUESTION - Bolden or Blount or both?
I guess my hope is that Vereen, Washington and Blount are good enough not to need to keep Bolden. We need the roster spot elsewhere. Quarterback, wide receiver, tight end and offensive are all groups that want that roster spot. And, no, I wouldn't be disappointed carrying five running backs. After all, running backs are especially prone to injuries.

I'm NOT making fun of that poster's statement. There is NOTHING funny about making such a ludicrous statement of fact, which is exactly as he wrote it...as a fact. If he had inserted "IMO" then I have absolutely zero problem with him. The FACT is he did not. That post is exactly what we've come to expect of any generic Jet fan that logs on here to troll. Given the fact that THIS particular poster is an open, avowed Tebow fan with no real Patriot fan background to speak of , posting such an inflammatory, 100% false statement IS the very definition of trolling.

It's not funny, MG and as far as being wrong, I have been wrong so many times on this board, YOU have lost count, but I always try to admit it. This person admits nothing, he just twists his words and shifts his goalposts so that there is never any chance that HE would admit he is wrong. THAT is trolling also.

 

[situational_awareness]

I'm NOT making fun of that poster's statement. There is NOTHING funny about making such a ludicrous statement of fact, which is exactly as he wrote it...as a fact. If he had inserted "IMO" then I have absolutely zero problem with him. The FACT is he did not. That post is exactly what we've come to expect of any generic Jet fan that logs on here to troll. Given the fact that THIS particular poster is an open, avowed Tebow fan with no real Patriot fan background to speak of , posting such an inflammatory, 100% false statement IS the very definition of trolling.

It's not funny, MG and as far as being wrong, I have been wrong so many times on this board, YOU have lost count, but I always try to admit it. This person admits nothing, he just twists his words and shifts his goalposts so that there is never any chance that HE would admit he is wrong. THAT is trolling also.

You are reading way too much into this. Here you go... everything I said in this thread is IMO.

First of all, I hate the Jets. I loathe the Jets, mainly due to Rex Ryan. I don't know where you got that I am a Jet fan from. In fact, I can't stand them and I've said this many times, to include my introduction thread on this forum. Quite frankly, I find it offensive that you say I like the Jets. That's how much I don't like them. I don't dislike any team in the NFL other than the Jets, so to say I am a fan of them is quite incorrect.

I like the Pats and watch every game they play. I watch about 7-8 games per week, but the Pats are a team I always watch. I respect the hell out of BB and Brady, as well as "the Patriot Way". Are they my favorite team? No, because I don't have a "favorite" team, but they are one of the few teams I like to watch. My only favorite team is the Florida Gators.

Second, I never said Ridley wasn't good, and did not intend to imply that.

Third, I already admitted that I was mistaken about the percentages of carries.

Lastly, and thanks to the posters here, I admit I was mistaken about Ridley's overall production. I watch so many games every week that I suppose I didn't follow his overall ranking in regards to production closely enough. I very clearly laid out where my thinking came from.

Yeah, I am a fan of Tebow... so what? What I said here is not disrespectful to the Pats in any way, nor is it talking about Tebow in any way.

You're throwing that "troll" designation out there way too much.

 

[situational_awareness]

Making fun of the incorrect and unreasonable analysis of others serves no useful purpose. And, just BTW, someone doesn't have to be a troll to be very wrong.

Thanks. I didn't see Ridley as an "elite" back, but it seems I underrated his performance last year due to ignorance on my part. He definitely had top 10 production last year. Thanks to you guys for the correction.

 

[Joker]

Thanks. I didn't see Ridley as an "elite" back, but it seems I underrated his performance last year due to ignorance on my part. He definitely had top 10 production last year. Thanks to you guys for the correction.

uh..that would be top SEVEN production ...top THREE in TD's. You never said Ridley wasn't an elite back..you said as a declaration of FACT that Ridley ,by inclusion, is "but nobody will mistake either one for a traditional "feature back", unless BB decides to use them differently this year."

Ridley IS a feature back using ANY type of fan's parameters. Still you twist and wriggle and squirm and finally give a tepid "sort of" acknowledgement that ,in your unmistakably backhanded way, he's a "top ten" back...why not go all in and say he's one of the "top 32 backs"? It doesn't "seem" you underrated Ridley, you DID underrate him....prodigiously...why is it so hard for you to just post."...ooops, I stuck my foot in my mouth..my mistake"? If you hate the Jets , like you say you do, then stop deflecting and using rationalizations like a typical Jet fan does.

 

[Joker]

By the way, is that my inner Andy Johnson that just made the previous post?..:flame:

 

[situational_awareness]

uh..that would be top SEVEN production ...top THREE in TD's. You never said Ridley wasn't an elite back..you said as a declaration of FACT that Ridley ,by inclusion, is "but nobody will mistake either one for a traditional "feature back", unless BB decides to use them differently this year."

Ridley IS a feature back using ANY type of fan's parameters. Still you twist and wriggle and squirm and finally give a tepid "sort of" acknowledgement that ,in your unmistakably backhanded way, he's a "top ten" back...why not go all in and say he's one of the "top 32 backs"? It doesn't "seem" you underrated Ridley, you DID underrate him....prodigiously...why is it so hard for you to just post."...ooops, I stuck my foot in my mouth..my mistake"? If you hate the Jets , like you say you do, then stop deflecting and using rationalizations like a typical Jet fan does.

LOL.

I don't think it's disrespectful to say Ridley is a top-ten back. By the numbers last year, he rushed for more yards than Ray Rice, Matt Forte, and LeSean McCoy. I'm not quite ready to put him above those guys based on one season. Take it as a slight if you want.

I already posted "oops, my mistake" in this thread three times. You issued a "false declaration of fact" that I am a Jets fan, and I don't see you correcting yourself after being told you were wrong.

Nothing about my admission of being incorrect on Ridley's production was "tepid". It was clearly stated. Nothing was deflected. I rationalized my thought process and what led to the error, but not the end result.