RB position going forward?

[BlueThunder]

Re: Blount/Bolden

If Bolden is healthy, he will be a nice addition to the stable of RB's.

Going to be tough opening up running lanes with Jets DL being solid. Lb's are quick also. Brady is going to have to get the play action working to open up some of the passing routes.

Pats OL is going to get a workout.

No turnovers and the Pats should win this one. I'd take a one point win with all the players the Pats have on the trainers table....

 

[IllegalContact]

Blount/Bolden

Not that I would cut him, but I'd get rid of Ridley just as soon as either of the others.....no use for a guy who lays the ball down with that kind if regularity

 

[IllegalContact]

Not sure you can learn to not fumble.....especially when you're laying it down for no reason

 

[Oswlek]

When the Pats drafted Shane Vereen, I had hopes that they'd found a genuine do-it-all back -- an ideal weapon for a no-huddle offense. Apparently, though the team hasn't felt he could handle the feature back role. Even after Ridley imploded today, they handed the ball to Blount. But once they finally turned to Vereen, he delivered to the tune of:

14 carries for 101 yards
7 catches for 58 yards

Pretty nice for essentially half a day's work.

So, do you think Vereen will finally get a chance to start? How long will it take for Ridley to crawl out of the doghouse? Etc.

So, it was your fault, Patchick!

 

[Brady6]

The biggest flaw with Ridley is ball protections is not second nature to him, he has to focus on his ball handling otherwise he becomes a liability, especially at the beginning and end of runs when he loses focus. I think the benching yesterday will reinforce his focus on protecting the ball until the ref comes and asks him for it back, and he will be just fine going forward.

As far as benching him moving forward that would be downright stupid in my opinion, we’re not an offense that can just sit down key players to send a message for a game over game period, he is a young man, who works hard to be the best player he can be in the season and during the offseason, he took the questions from the media like a man and did not hide from his mistakes, put him back out there he is too important to this teams success.

 

[supafly]

Not sure you can learn to not fumble.....especially when you're laying it down for no reason

Possibly, but Kevin Faulk overcame the issue pretty nicely.

There was a point in 2000 where Faulk fumbled 6x IIRC.

 

[IllegalContact]

Possibly, but Kevin Faulk overcame the issue pretty nicely.

There was a point in 2000 where Faulk fumbled 6x IIRC.

Different back.......Ridley is a 1 trick pony

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

The biggest flaw with Ridley is ball protections is not second nature to him, he has to focus on his ball handling otherwise he becomes a liability, especially at the beginning and end of runs when he loses focus. I think the benching yesterday will reinforce his focus on protecting the ball until the ref comes and asks him for it back, and he will be just fine going forward.

As far as benching him moving forward that would be downright stupid in my opinion, we’re not an offense that can just sit down key players to send a message for a game over game period, he is a young man, who works hard to be the best player he can be in the season and during the offseason, he took the questions from the media like a man and did not hide from his mistakes, put him back out there he is too important to this teams success.

I would not agree with BB if he benches Ridley for the next month (is anyone suggesting he should be benched long term?). Yet if Ridley is going to repeat yesterday's performance and/or show such poor ball security like that, we will be seeing Ridley ride the pine a lot more. TOs just don't cut it on BB's team, period.
Look, I don't think that will be the case (I hope that won't be the case) but the carelessness he demonstrated yesterday is going to lead to more fumbles. So when you say "we’re not an offense that can just sit down key players", you disregard the more important 'we're not an offense that can just turn the ball over'. Maybe one of the most 1:1 NFL stats that exists is TO total:Win/Loss.

As mentioned prior, when they AFCCG and SB rolls around, the Patriots are probably not going to be so potent they can make the same amount of mistakes as their opponent and still win. We will have to be the ones to execute more consistently than our opponents, we will have to play more mistake free than our opponents. IMHO the Patriots cannot make it to and win AFCCG/SB with their lead back executing poor ball security. Ridley is going to start clutching that ball like his very life depends on it, or we will probably need a different lead back.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Possibly, but Kevin Faulk overcame the issue pretty nicely.

There was a point in 2000 where Faulk fumbled 6x IIRC.

I'd be curious if during Faulk's worst season, in terms of fumbling, did he have fumbles/games that looked as bad as Ridley's yesterday?

Hey sometimes a player gets popped just right, where the defender puts his helmet right on the ball. Sometimes a defender gives that absolutely perfect 'judo chop!' that jars the ball loose. It happens to the best of 'em. Ridley deserves some slack when you see a fumble like that occur a few of times over the season. Ultimately that is on the defender for making a solid play. But fumbles like yesterday, our lead back who will carry the ball 250 times, who is already labeled fumble prone? I just don't remember Faulk ever looking that poor in the ball security area.

Yesterday has got to be a freak occurrence that we don't see again this season. If we do I fear for where Ridley's stock is headed (and that would be too bad as he seems like one of the good guys, to say nothing of his very fine ability gain yards)

 

[supafly]

I'd be curious if during Faulk's worst season, in terms of fumbling, did he have fumbles/games that looked as bad as Ridley's yesterday?

Hey sometimes a player gets popped just right, where the defender puts his helmet right on the ball. Sometimes a defender gives that absolutely perfect 'judo chop!' that jars the ball loose. It happens to the best of 'em. Ridley deserves some slack when you see a fumble like that occur a few of times over the season. Ultimately that is on the defender for making a solid play. But fumbles like yesterday, our lead back who will carry the ball 250 times, who is already labeled fumble prone? I just don't remember Faulk ever looking that poor in the ball security area.

Yesterday has got to be a freak occurrence that we don't see again this season. If we do I fear for where Ridley's stock is headed (and that would be too bad as he seems like one of the good guys, to say nothing of his very fine ability gain yards)

I agree with your thoughts here, and I too would be very curious to know how many of Faulk's 6 fumbles in 2000 were of the "careless" variety.

Prior to yesterday's game Ridley was putting the ball on the ground an average of every 76 carries. Blount--in comparison, has averaged a fumble every 43 carries over the course of his career prior to the game yesterday.

Hopefully they both can hold onto the ball a little better this season, although in defense of Blount the only reason I threw him in there is due to what I perceive as a pretty high rate of fumbling. To date he hasn't shown any tendency to do so here as a NEP.

(stats courtesy of profootballreference.com)

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I agree with your thoughts here, and I too would be very curious to know how many of Faulk's 6 fumbles in 2000 were of the "careless" variety.

Prior to yesterday's game Ridley was putting the ball on the ground an average of every 76 carries. Blount--in comparison, has averaged a fumble every 43 carries over the course of his career prior to the game yesterday.

Hopefully they both can hold onto the ball a little better this season, although in defense of Blount the only reason I threw him in there is due to what I perceive as a pretty high rate of fumbling. To date he hasn't shown any tendency to do so here as a NEP.

(stats courtesy of profootballreference.com)

Thanks for that useful stat Sup. I tried to be careful in my posts by using words like "labeled" and "characterized" when speaking of Ridley's fumble issue. I did that because I have never been sold on him being an actual problem chronic fumbler. So it's interesting to see that Blount, and I'd assume others out there, is considerably worse.
With that said my faith is a bit shaken. I hope that fades quickly as I remain a Ridley fan and think he is the big gun in a potent Patriot backfield. And there would be no better elixir than having him light up those mopes of the meadowlands.

 

[Fencer]

As one of the ones who posted concerns about Vereen's durability as a feature back, I am sad to have been proven right so quickly.

 

[Joker]

He broke a small bone in his wrist on the first play, Fencer...and played the rest of the game running for 101 yards and making 7 receptions.Does toughness factor into your definition of durability?

 

[AzorianPats]

I'd be curious if during Faulk's worst season, in terms of fumbling, did he have fumbles/games that looked as bad as Ridley's yesterday?

Hey sometimes a player gets popped just right, where the defender puts his helmet right on the ball. Sometimes a defender gives that absolutely perfect 'judo chop!' that jars the ball loose. It happens to the best of 'em. Ridley deserves some slack when you see a fumble like that occur a few of times over the season. Ultimately that is on the defender for making a solid play. But fumbles like yesterday, our lead back who will carry the ball 250 times, who is already labeled fumble prone? I just don't remember Faulk ever looking that poor in the ball security area.

Yesterday has got to be a freak occurrence that we don't see again this season. If we do I fear for where Ridley's stock is headed (and that would be too bad as he seems like one of the good guys, to say nothing of his very fine ability gain yards)

I remember during the 02 season in a game against Green Bay at Gillette, Faulk had an ugly one where he completely gave up on the play, GB recovered. Going back over 10 years so I don't remember it play for play, I just remember cussing Faulk off. That was also the end of his fumbling problems, and that season turned out to be his best statistical one for us. He was probably our best offensive player that year.

 

[ausbacker]

Different back.......Ridley is a 1 trick pony

Is one trick code for picks up yards and scores touchdowns? If so, then yes, he is.

 

[JMC00]

This paranoia over Ridley fumbling the ball is bordering on lunacy. Running backs fumble.

Peterson, Charles, McCoy, Lynch, Bush, Foster all fumbled as much as Ridley last year.

Not saying Ridley is as good but it's just the reality that running backs that carry the ball 250+ times are more likely to fumble the football a few times.

BJGE goes to Cincinnati last year and it's his first year rushing 230+ times and he fumbled 3 times. It's not because the Pats blocked better than the Bengals or there was a lower risk with what type of run plays were called in NE. It's that the 2 years he was the #1 back for NE he carried the ball 229 & 181 times. Last year he carried it 278 times.

It's something i'm fine living with if it means having the threat Ridley is to make big runs and put up 1200+ yards and 12 TD a year.

Had Vereen gone into that game and done nothing or if Searcy was tackled right where he recovered the ball and the Pats defense forced a punt I think some people would have a different opinion.

Dillion fumbled 8 times in 3 years, 5 times the first year. I don't think anyone was in favor of benching him.

And BTW FYI officially he only fumbled once Sunday. Until the NFL changes it to a fumble that was recovered by the Pats. I'm going with he fumbled once.

 

[detpatsfan]

Re: Stevan Ridley might've just lost his job

ive seen enough from ridley to know the guy cant take care of the ball. if he isn't benched for good he should be. hes a time bomb ready to go off and ruin games at any second for his team.

He had one bad game you guys are way too carried away with this nonsense.

 

[Whitt25]

Re: Stevan Ridley might've just lost his job

Still say Ridley was down and the ball was dead, much like how the ball was supposed to be dead when he got that concussion against the Ravens in the playoffs.

 

[Mack Herron]

Re: Stevan Ridley might've just lost his job

He had one bad game you guys are way too carried away with this nonsense.

Belichick benched him for fumbling. In fact, he has done so twice that I can recall. Do you think Belichick is getting carried away with this nonsense too?

 

[JMC00]

Re: Stevan Ridley might've just lost his job

He had one bad game you guys are way too carried away with this nonsense.

Funny thing he was on his way to a decent game. Already had 9 carries for 46 yards 5.1 ypc and a 20 yard run.