The Devil In Stevan Ridley's Details

[lamafist]

Any way you look at it, there was a lot to be excited about in Ridley's performance yesterday. He showed power, burst, vision, and was much improved in pass protection.

But let's all remember the sage wisdom of Bill Parcell, and not break out the anointing oils just yet.

In yesterday's game, when he wasn't breaking off runs for 14-17 yard gains, he mixed in 4 runs for negative yardage. For perspective, BJGE had a total of 9 negative plays in all of last season, despite playing through turf toe for much of it. All told, 9 -- nearly half -- of his carries went for 2 yards or less, and that's not counting his goal-line TD.

With all but one of his 1-2 yard gainers coming with 9+ yards to go, 8 of his carries would be said to have knocked the offense "off schedule," i.e. significantly reduced the chance of a 1st down.

Stevan Ridley had some very impressive runs yesterday, and he's certainly demonstrated a heady amount of potential, but he still has room for improvement when it comes to avoiding negative plays.

 

[Raine247]

You're being to cynical. Barry Sanders holds the record for the most carries with negative yards, that still doesn't change the fact that Barry Sanders was phenomenal. His long runs negate his bad ones. Ridley looked awesome; he sees the hole and bursts threw it! He has good balance and mere arm tackles will not bring this guy down. Dude is legit, I thought he was the real deal last year. If they would have used him more in the Superbowl, who knows what could have happened.

 

[The-Hooded-One]

Give him last year's OL and it's safe to say there aren't 4 negative plays.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

Good Points.

On the flip side, we should expect Ridley to improve over the course of the season as most young players do, so hopefully he'll keep his mid/long runs and reduce his negative runs

 

[voluntarysaftey]

If they would have used him more in the Superbowl, who knows what could have happened.

Yesterday's Ridley was not last year's Ridley. Its quite probably he would've done no better than BGJE, or might've even fumbled.

Maybe being left off the playoff roster motivated him to work extra hard during the offseason?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Any way you look at it, there was a lot to be excited about in Ridley's performance yesterday. He showed power, burst, vision, and was much improved in pass protection.

But let's all remember the sage wisdom of Bill Parcell, and not break out the anointing oils just yet.

In yesterday's game, when he wasn't breaking off runs for 14-17 yard gains, he mixed in 4 runs for negative yardage. For perspective, BJGE had a total of 9 negative plays in all of last season, despite playing through turf toe for much of it. All told, 9 -- nearly half -- of his carries went for 2 yards or less, and that's not counting his goal-line TD.

With all but one of his 1-2 yard gainers coming with 9+ yards to go, 8 of his carries would be said to have knocked the offense "off schedule," i.e. significantly reduced the chance of a 1st down.

Stevan Ridley had some very impressive runs yesterday, and he's certainly demonstrated a heady amount of potential, but he still has room for improvement when it comes to avoiding negative plays.

BJGE got to run behind Brian Waters last year, can't overestimate that. None of the negative players were Ridley's fault, IIRC. He's much, much better than BJGE will ever be.

 

[lamafist]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have let BJGE go or anything. I'm just saying that, amidst all the praise, there should be recognition that there's room for improvement. You can bet that Belichick will be pointing out those negative plays to Ridley in their next film session.

BJGE made himself valuable despite limited athleticism by learning to always, always make sure you get what yards are right there before you try to push for more. Ridley can learn that, too. His speed, burst and elusiveness -- that can't be taught.

 

[unoriginal]

There were a lot of missed blocks, all over the line. This criticism would be better served to Chris Johnson than Ridley.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I'd have to hear a breakdown of his negative yards and if he made bad deicisons or if there was nothing there/nothing he could do. I pointed this out in one of his threads, he made 10 first downs. That's pretty good for a single game.

 

[sly24]

125 yards is 125 yards no matter how it is gained. It wasn't in garbage time too. I'll take it in whatever way it comes.

 

[JMC00]

Take away his negative runs and runs for no gain and his line was

16 rushes 132 yards 1 TD.

If he can produce similar to that all year on his positive yard runs I have zero problem with him having 5 rushes of no gain or negative yards.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Sure, Ridley got taken down for a few negative running plays...about half as many as BJGE had all of last year. But do you know what else he did? His performance will force defenses to play the Pats honestly, respecting the run. That's worth its weight in gold.

I liked BJGE and I do think the Pats underused him (should have rode him more, like in the AFCCG, when he was tough to stop). But BJGE had a lot of Leroy Hoard moments...

"If you need one yard, I'll get you three. If you need five yards, I'll get you three."

Ridley blows BJGE away on the potential big-play scale.

Regards,
Chris

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Ridley over the course of a season will have a lot more long runs than BJGE, loved Benny but Ridley is more explosive with more speed.

 

[Art Vandelay]

You're being to cynical. Barry Sanders holds the record for the most carries with negative yards, that still doesn't change the fact that Barry Sanders was phenomenal. His long runs negate his bad ones. Ridley looked awesome; he sees the hole and bursts threw it! He has good balance and mere arm tackles will not bring this guy down. Dude is legit, I thought he was the real deal last year. If they would have used him more in the Superbowl, who knows what could have happened.

That explains why Sanders retired so early in his career!

On a serious note, I loved that they kept giving it to Ridley, even after being stuffed a couple of times. He's dynamic and has great balance, and must have racked up some serious yards-after-contact yesterday.

Naturally, the score dictated that we run it more often than usual, but if we keep with the balanced playcalling, I hope (expect?) to see more playaction as the season progresses. And that, perhaps more than anything else, will lead to more open receivers downfield.

 

[Sciz]

On the other hand, Green-Ellis had 4 runs of 15+ yards all of last season. Ridley had 6 yesterday alone. I'll take the guy who's scarier, even if his worst plays are a little worse.

 

[Mack Herron]

Sure Ridley can improve. How many games has he played? BJGE didn't used to be as effective as he is now either. But Ridley has already shown more explosiveness than today's BJGE.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

As I've said, you can't overreact to anything you see on week 1 good or bad. So I definitely agree with the OP, he's shown alot of promise but it's a long season. Still has ways to go to prove not only that he can produce consistently but that the ball security issues (which I too feel were overblown) were indeed overblown and he's a reliable #1.

 

[Pats-Phan]

Any way you look at it, there was a lot to be excited about in Ridley's performance yesterday. He showed power, burst, vision, and was much improved in pass protection.

But let's all remember the sage wisdom of Bill Parcell, and not break out the anointing oils just yet.

In yesterday's game, when he wasn't breaking off runs for 14-17 yard gains, he mixed in 4 runs for negative yardage. For perspective, BJGE had a total of 9 negative plays in all of last season, despite playing through turf toe for much of it. All told, 9 -- nearly half -- of his carries went for 2 yards or less, and that's not counting his goal-line TD.

With all but one of his 1-2 yard gainers coming with 9+ yards to go, 8 of his carries would be said to have knocked the offense "off schedule," i.e. significantly reduced the chance of a 1st down.

Stevan Ridley had some very impressive runs yesterday, and he's certainly demonstrated a heady amount of potential, but he still has room for improvement when it comes to avoiding negative plays.

I can only recall 1 play in my head where Ridley danced a little too much and should have just pushed into the pile for what he could get. I can recall several times where the blocking was putrid and there was nothing Ridley could do.

If somebody who has the all-22 tape subscription (or even a DVR'd copy of the game) could give us a break down it'd be greatly appreciated.

 

[patchick]

Sure, Ridley got taken down for a few negative running plays...about half as many as BJGE had all of last year. But do you know what else he did? His performance will force defenses to play the Pats honestly, respecting the run. That's worth its weight in gold.

I think this is a huge point in the context of the offense as a whole. BenJarvus was a hard-working, reliable back, but I suspect that opponents were delighted to see the Patriots hand him the ball, given the alternatives. Watching Ridley pick up big chunks of yardage should change the defensive equation a smidgen...and given the Pats' passing options, that smidgen could be huge.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Guy runs for 125 yards, and bulled his way in for a score. I am not worried about a few plays that went for negative yards.