The Devil In Stevan Ridley's Details

[LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks]

Your memory's faulty: They had plenty of Passing Offense in Sanders' day.

Don't you remember the Run & Shoot??

Obviously, I was talking about who I want carrying the ball when we're trying to win a Big Game.

I wasn't talking Trades, now, was I?

If you want to change the subject to Market Value, then just as obviously, I'd trade Ridley ~ it's well documented 1000X over that I prefer Flex Backs ~ for Sanders, straight up, as you just postulated.

But this nonsense about Sanders' horrible Line is pure Urban Legend.

The problem with Sanders wasn't his O Line...

The problem...was Sanders.

He always wanted to hit the Home Run.

He had no respect for Moving The Chains...or Winning.

Have you forgotten??

The last couple of years, the Coach would yoink him in Short Yardage situations ~ "The Greatest Running Back of All Time" ~ because the pansy shirked contact!!

Obviously, the Coach didn't think that the O Line was the problem.

I'll go with his opinion, thank you.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen. Sanders averaged 100 yards rushing per game in his career on 5.0 yards per carry. That's moving the chains. In his 2nd to last year, the "pansy" averaged 6.1 yards per carry and had over 2,000 rush yards. If you think someone scared of contact does that, you are out of your mind.

Also really laughable someone sitting at home on the computer posting on a message board is calling an all-time great RB who would carry the ball over 300 times a year a pansy.

The one thing you had right was the stuff about his OL being overblown. Don't know why people use that as if to justify a lack of production, because Sanders production with that offensive line was absolutely off the charts.

 

[BananaRepublican]

Barry Sanders was delightfull and entertaining... ...But you could never count on'm to Move The Chains when you needed it.

He was a home run hitter. You don't ask home run hitters to bunt or banjo it to right field. In no way would Bill Belichick refuse to have a home run hitter on the team. Can you imagine play action to Barry Sanders? That would not just freeze safeties - that would make them lunge for the box.

I think you are looking for a Jim Brown or Bo Jackson to be your guy. Not bad choices. They could do it all. Maybe Payton and Campbell too. But outside of that very rare elite crowd, who's complaining if your guy is Barry?

 

[BradyMossWelker]

Your memory's faulty: They had plenty of Passing Offense in Sanders' day.

Don't you remember the Run & Shoot??

Obviously, I was talking about who I want carrying the ball when we're trying to win a Big Game.

I wasn't talking Trades, now, was I?

If you want to change the subject to Market Value, then just as obviously, I'd trade Ridley ~ it's well documented 1000X over that I prefer Flex Backs ~ for Sanders, straight up, as you just postulated.

But this nonsense about Sanders' horrible Line is pure Urban Legend.

The problem with Sanders wasn't his O Line...

The problem...was Sanders.

He always wanted to hit the Home Run.

He had no respect for Moving The Chains...or Winning.

Have you forgotten??

The last couple of years, the Coach would yoink him in Short Yardage situations ~ "The Greatest Running Back of All Time" ~ because the pansy shirked contact!!

Obviously, the Coach didn't think that the O Line was the problem.

I'll go with his opinion, thank you.

I don't even...

Really, what is this?

 

[Snake Eyes]

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen. Sanders averaged 100 yards rushing per game in his career on 5.0 yards per carry. That's moving the chains. In his 2nd to last year, the "pansy" averaged 6.1 yards per carry and had over 2,000 rush yards. If you think someone scared of contact does that, you are out of your mind.

Also really laughable someone sitting at home on the computer posting on a message board is calling an all-time great RB who would carry the ball over 300 times a year a pansy.

The one thing you had right was the stuff about his OL being overblown. Don't know why people use that as if to justify a lack of production, because Sanders production with that offensive line was absolutely off the charts.

Was his production because of that line or in spite of it? Emmitt Smith was a very good RB but he wouldnt have had a fraction of the success he did without that O-line, which was arguably the best of all time. Put Sanders behind that O-line and his production would have been ridiculous.

 

[BananaRepublican]

Was his production because of that line or in spite of it? Emmitt Smith was a very good RB but he wouldnt have had a fraction of the success he did without that O-line, which was arguably the best of all time. Put Sanders behind that O-line and his production would have been ridiculous.

How about behind Hog Hannah and Leon Gray? Sanders indeed would have gone wild.

 

[ausbacker]

Could you point to the post where think I made a fool of myself. I barely did more than state the obvious.



Gladly...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...er-radar-stevan-ridley-page4.html#post2724565



(emphasis yours)

Who was it that looks like a fool?

It's clearly you. I'm still waiting for you to quote where I say Green-Ellis is more talented than Ridley.

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's literally impossible for an NFL running back to rush for 2,000 yards in a season while avoiding contact.

Barry Sanders Ultimate Highlight Video HD - YouTube

See 0:42, 0:53, 1:21, 1:40, 1:54, 2:23, 2:53, 3:02, 3:41, and 3:56. If he wasn't getting hit much, it was only because opponents had a hard time catching up to him.

 

[Ring 6]

No you're not. You grouping Green-Ellis with players you believe to be at an equivalent level. It has been correctly pointed out to you that Green-Ellis played at a higher level than those you are attempting to categorize him with.

Did I miss something? Didn't he compare him to Dillon, Smith, and Maroney?
Are you saying BJGE was better in his time as a Patriot than those 3? If I misunderstood, please correct me.

Remove your blinkers, give Green-Ellis the praise that he deserves and enjoy the performances of Ridley (and one can only hoper Vereen) in the near future.

Didn't he call BJGE an average starting RB? Are you saying that is a slight? Again, if I misunderstood, please correct me. Lots of back and forth in this thread to follow.

 

[ausbacker]

Did I miss something? Didn't he compare him to Dillon, Smith, and Maroney?
Are you saying BJGE was better in his time as a Patriot than those 3? If I misunderstood, please correct me.


Didn't he call BJGE an average starting RB? Are you saying that is a slight? Again, if I misunderstood, please correct me. Lots of back and forth in this thread to follow.

Yes, you missed the whole argument Andy. Given our history, I have no interest in a Green-Ellis vs Ridley argument with you. It will only end in one place.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Success rate is a good stat, and one that does a great job of highlighting precisely what BJGE does well: achieving the "success" outcome for a given down and distance. Any binary statistic that doesn't measure degrees of success will do well by BJGE, because it completely ignores the most notable weaknesses in his game. There's a reason why FO informally calls it "Running Back Batting Average", and that's because it's pretty much the same measurement, for better or worse.

It's effective at measuring one specific part of what the player in question does. Just like BA holds a single equal to a home run, success rate sees no difference between a 5 yard carry or a 95 yard carry on 1st and 10.

In a nutshell, success rate is a useful tool, but it does not stand alone in any capacity (and was never meant to). Specifically, success rate must be evaluated in tandem with some kind of statistic that measures degrees of success once the "success" outcome has been achieved.

If you were a baseball GM, who would you rather have: a .280 hitter who hits 40 homers per year, or a .290 hitter who hits 10? BJGE is the .290 hitter - a good player, and someone who will help you win games, but someone who can be upgraded by replacing him with a player with a higher ceiling on his successes.

IMO, the 2010 playoff game against the Jets is a significant part of BJGE's legacy here. The Jets' entire gameplan, which they used to successfully come in to Foxboro and end our season, was to dare us to run. They flooded the field with defensive backs, knowing that BJGE lacked the ability to make them really pay for it. The bottom line is that, if Ridley really is the player that we saw on Sunday (and I think that he is), then that strategy will basically be suicide for opposing defenses. He can punish defenses who sell out against the pass, and BJGE, as much as I like him, did not show the ability to do that.

 

[ausbacker]

Success rate is a good stat, and one that does a great job of highlighting precisely what BJGE does well: achieving the "success" outcome for a given down and distance. Any binary statistic that doesn't measure degrees of success will do well by BJGE, because it completely ignores the most notable weaknesses in his game. There's a reason why FO informally calls it "Running Back Batting Average", and that's because it's pretty much the same measurement, for better or worse.

It's effective at measuring one specific part of what the player in question does. Just like BA holds a single equal to a home run, success rate sees no difference between a 5 yard carry or a 95 yard carry on 1st and 10.

In a nutshell, success rate is a useful tool, but it does not stand alone in any capacity (and was never meant to). Specifically, success rate must be evaluated in tandem with some kind of statistic that measures degrees of success once the "success" outcome has been achieved.

If you were a baseball GM, who would you rather have: a .280 hitter who hits 40 homers per year, or a .290 hitter who hits 10? BJGE is the .290 hitter - a good player, and someone who will help you win games, but someone who can be upgraded by replacing him with a player with a higher ceiling on his successes.

IMO, the 2010 playoff game against the Jets is a significant part of BJGE's legacy here. The Jets' entire gameplan, which they used to successfully come in to Foxboro and end our season, was to dare us to run. They flooded the field with defensive backs, knowing that BJGE lacked the ability to make them really pay for it. The bottom line is that, if Ridley really is the player that we saw on Sunday (and I think that he is), then that strategy will basically be suicide for opposing defenses. He can punish defenses who sell out against the pass, and BJGE, as much as I like him, never proved that he could do that.

Green-Ellis rushed for 43 yards on 9 carries for 4.8 yards per carry. Woodhead went for 46 yards on 13 carries for 3.6 yards per carry. Someone needs to explain to me how that isn't on the New England coaches given Green-Ellis was rushing effectively.

For some reason some posters think you're not allowed to like Green-Ellis, Ridley, Vereen and Woodhead. That's nonsensical.

 

[unoriginal]

The problem...was Sanders.

He always wanted to hit the Home Run.

He had no respect for Moving The Chains...or Winning.

Have you forgotten??

The last couple of years, the Coach would yoink him in Short Yardage situations ~ "The Greatest Running Back of All Time" ~ because the pansy shirked contact!!

Excepting the second sentence, these statements are mean and so far off-base I am having a hard time reconciling them with the poster, apart from their presentation.

 

[unoriginal]

Someone needs to explain to me how that isn't on the New England coaches given Green-Ellis was rushing effectively.

Woodhead also had 6 receptions for 52 yards to Lawfirm's 2 for 11. Kind of swings the production values, especially considering the long runs on the day were from receivers on end-arounds, not from any of the running backs.

 

[ausbacker]

Woodhead also had 6 receptions for 52 yards to Lawfirm's 2 for 11. Kind of swings the production values, especially considering the long runs on the day were from receivers on end-arounds, not from any of the running backs.

I'm well aware of the limitations of Green-Ellis in the passing game. The point was the Jets dared the Patriots to run, Green-Ellis was rushing well and the Patriots chose not attack the Jets in that fashion. I can't blame Green-Ellis for that, that's on the coaches. Then again, Chung shouldn't have made the bonehead call he did.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Green-Ellis rushed for 43 yards on 9 carries for 4.8 yards per carry. Woodhead went for 46 yards on 13 carries for 3.6 yards per carry. Someone needs to explain to me how that isn't on the New England coaches given Green-Ellis was rushing effectively.

For some reason some posters think you're not allowed to like Green-Ellis, Ridley, Vereen and Woodhead. That's nonsensical.

Sure you are - I Ridley, BJGE, and Woodhead. Undecided on Vereen.

As for BJGE in the 2010 playoffs, hard to say. As I see it, the Jets were daring the Patriots to run. The Patriots chose not to. That means that they either didn't understand that running the ball is a good idea when you're seeing nickel and dime defenses even on good running down/distances, or they still felt that the passing game was a better option, even when the defense was selling out to stop it.

Personally, I think that it was the latter, and that's the extent of where my opinion comes from. If you'd rather blame the coaching for the oversight rather than BJGE for the lack of faith that coaching displayed in him, then I understand that, and we'll probably have to just agree to disagree.

FWIW, in his limited carries, BJGE had a 50% success rate if you count the 7 yard carry where he was facemasked as a success (seems like semantics not to count that). Also, considering where the thread started, I'd be remiss if I didn't remind everyone of the third and 1 where he was stopped for a one yard loss. Granted, it's hardly his fault- even as he was receiving the hand-off, there were two defenders in the backfield:

A more athletic running back might have been able to pick up the first down by getting to the edge on the strong side (where the blocking was holding up solidly), but BJGE has never been a particularly athletic RB. Can't really fault him for that play, by any stretch, but it does at least warrant a bit of consideration. Especially since I'd be willing to bet that the Jets chose to logjam the middle like that partly because they knew that changing direction and beating defenders to the edge isn't really a skill that BJGE possesses. He's a fundamentally limited player who is good at what he does best, and I guess I just don't see how that can be considered an insult to him.

 

[PP2]

Also, considering where the thread started, I'd be remiss if I didn't remind everyone of the third and 1 where he was stopped for a one yard loss. Granted, it's hardly his fault- even as he was receiving the hand-off, there were two defenders in the backfield:

A more athletic running back might have been able to pick up the first down by getting to the edge on the strong side (where the blocking was holding up solidly), but BJGE has never been a particularly athletic RB. Can't really fault him for that play, by any stretch, but it does at least warrant a bit of consideration. Especially since I'd be willing to bet that the Jets chose to logjam the middle like that partly because they knew that changing direction and beating defenders to the edge isn't really a skill that BJGE possesses. He's a fundamentally limited player who is good at what he does best, and I guess I just don't see how that can be considered an insult to him.

Your analysis of this 3rd and 1 play is deeply flawed. As you have mentioned, BJGE has barely received the handoff from Brady before two Jets linemen are in his face.

The play has already broken down at that point. The protection failed. At this point, I don't care how good of a RB you have back there, there's just no time to get up to a good enough speed to cut back, or otherwise maneuver.

 

[JJDChE]

It's clearly you. I'm still waiting for you to quote where I say Green-Ellis is more talented than Ridley.

LOL, you're a trip. You just quoted a post where you said Ridley wasn't more talented than BJGE in massive font.

You remind me of a guy a grew up with whose father taught him to never admit he was wrong under any circumstance. The dude was totally messed up. Refused to admit guilt even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. It was crazy to witness.

 

[PP2]

Woodhead also had 6 receptions for 52 yards to Lawfirm's 2 for 11. Kind of swings the production values, especially considering the long runs on the day were from receivers on end-arounds, not from any of the running backs.

I think the argument here isn't who was the better back that day, but the logic of blaming BJGE for the loss of that game, which doesn't seem to be credible.

 

[doesntmatter1]

I just randomly scrolled over to this thread and see pictures of that playoff game and i am pissed. I remember it like it was yesterday. 2nd and 1 and koppen fails. next play 3rd and 1 and mankins fails. I have never been a fan of BJGE but you can't blame him on that drive in particular. At that moment in time i wanted to instantly cut koppen. I have been against koppen for years and that play is where I had had it.

I just have to say that BB has shown he will stick with the run if he has faith in you. We've seen it with dillon, the entire 2008 season, and various times with sammy morris. And as long as BJGE was our starting back we were never going to see the nonstop runs the way we did with Ridley. I think ridley is good but he isnt one of the elite backs in the league, not yet anyway. Its a fact that our line is above average with the way brady stands like a statue and I have felt that any running back with some speed and average power would do great.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, you missed the whole argument Andy. Given our history, I have no interest in a Green-Ellis vs Ridley argument with you. It will only end in one place.

Well there really is only one place for that comparison to end, but I was asking of you really were saying what it appeared to me you were.
I didn't 'miss the whole argument' because I don't have to write in it to be able to read it, but I was giving you a chance to clarify if what you were coming off as saying was really what you meant. You seem to not want to use that opportunity.