Under the radar ... Stevan Ridley

[JJDChE]

The defense can still ignore the fake handoff and just drop back as soon as Brady takes the snap. Why would the backers or secondary even freeze if we have a crappy run game as you insinuate? They'd just let the linemen take care of business.

So you're suggesting teams play pass on every down, essentially giving us a free 5 yards every time we run the ball? How does that make sense?

 

[JJDChE]

About time you conned on. I haven't made the comment that BJGE is more talented anywhere have I?

Yeah, when you responded in enormous font that Ridley wasn't more talented than GreenEllis.

Which is an indicator that Ridley is more explosive, not necessarily a better RB would you agree? Ridley very well may end up a better RB and I have no issue with giving him more carries. Right now, he's a talented rookie who I would be happy to split carries with the other 3 RB's in the system.

If your argument is predicated on the big play, then it's a poor grounding. It's why I like the RB by committee approach. Different dynamics.

The runs he's made are indicative of a player who sees the field better than BJGE and has the physical ability to exploit what he sees better than BJGE.

I file field vision and explosiveness under 'RB talent'.

Performance is related to longevity.

Yeah. What's your point?

As I have made mention, I am very happy with what I've seen of Ridley. Unlike you, it appears that I keep my optimism in check for a little longer.

I have no expectations for the guy. I just know the little I've seen looks way better than what we have.

Chicken and egg. If people put more effort into the run game Brady goes nuts. That's why a balanced game plan should be the goal of the offense. It also takes the stress off Brady having to be that guy every week.

Exactly, Brady is too good to allow teams to put more focus on the run game, which is why it is successful even with a couple of castoffs back there. I agree completely.

The Patriots generally employ a RB by committee approach. I cannot see that changing.

The only time we've had a back with top tier talent on the roster was when we caught the tail end of Dillon's productive years in 2004. We gave him the ball 345 times.

Antowain Smith was a 2nd tier guy and we still gave it to him 287 and 252 times in '01 and '02.

If Ridley has what it looks like he has he'll be getting it 250+ times a year. I don't know if you consider that RBBC, I don't. That'll still leave 50-75 carries a piece for BJGE and Woodhead/Vereen or whoever else.

 

[ausbacker]

Yeah, when you responded in enormous font that Ridley wasn't more talented than GreenEllis.

I responded to a peculiar line of thought. I don't have an opinion on Ridley being more talented than Green-Ellis because he's contributed for a total of 4 quarters. Shoot your load by all means, I'm staying with a grounded approach until I've seen it on a weekly basis through week 8 and week 12.

The runs he's made are indicative of a player who sees the field better than BJGE and has the physical ability to exploit what he sees better than BJGE.

Or you can take what Ridley said himself about the size of the holes the OL opened for him.

I file field vision and explosiveness under 'RB talent'.

I'd agree it's a component to being a running back.

Yeah. What's your point?

229 carries 1,008 yards 4.4YPC 13TD

I have no expectations for the guy. I just know the little I've seen looks way better than what we have.

I disagree. The little I've seen looks more explosive than what we have. This is why I would like MORE exposure, as I've pointed out to you time and time again. 4 quarters of effort is not a substantial enough sample size to make a definitive conclusion.

Exactly, Brady is too good to allow teams to put more focus on the run game, which is why it is successful even with a couple of castoffs back there. I agree completely.

I really don't want to know what your opinion of Danny Woodhead is then do I?

The only time we've had a back with top tier talent on the roster was when we caught the tail end of Dillon's productive years in 2004. We gave him the ball 345 times.

Antowain Smith was a 2nd tier guy and we still gave it to him 287 and 252 times in '01 and '02.

No issues with either of these comments.

If Ridley has what it looks like he has he'll be getting it 250+ times a year. I don't know if you consider that RBBC, I don't. That'll still leave 50-75 carries a piece for BJGE and Woodhead/Vereen or whoever else.

I doubt it. I'd think the Patriots will place more emphasis on the run and split the carries according to form and match ups.

I don't buy nor endorse your comment earlier about the RB committee approach.

 

[Patspsycho]

RBBC is a cute name for what teams do when tey don't have a top tier RB. Name me a team with a stud RB who isn't getting 75% of the carries. Teams are definitely using their 2nd RBs more to keep their Stud RBs from getting over worked, but the guys with top level talent are still carrying the ball 300 times a year. If Ridley has that talent, he'll get it 300 times a year too. He'll last plenty long at that rate, barring major injury.

There is a hole in your stud back theory and his name is Shane Vereen. Why did we draft two RBs if we weren't going to go the RBBC route? If Ridley has the rock 300 times a year, and BJGE is the 2nd RB, Woodhead the "change of back" according to your proclamations, then that leaves a 2nd round pick on the bench all year long.

 

[Patspsycho]

So you're suggesting teams play pass on every down, essentially giving us a free 5 yards every time we run the ball? How does that make sense?

I am making no suggestions. You are the one that is saying our run game is not a threat. If that were the fact, our play actions would not be very successful.

 

[Patspsycho]

If Ridley has what it looks like he has he'll be getting it 250+ times a year. I don't know if you consider that RBBC, I don't. That'll still leave 50-75 carries a piece for BJGE and Woodhead/Vereen or whoever else.

I thought it was 300? Now it's 250?

 

[Sciz]

Name me a team with a stud RB who isn't getting 75% of the carries.

Okay. How about 6 of last year's top 10? Two are basically there, two almost there, but also two pretty darn far off. And this is percentage of RB carries, with WR and QB (and DL, and P, etc) carries taken out.
2. Jamaal Charles - 44.4%
3. Michael Turner - 74.7%
5. Maurice Jones-Drew - 71.2%
6. Adrian Peterson - 74.7%
9. Ahmad Bradshaw - 62.3%
10. Ray Rice - 70.6%

 

[Don Kipines]

Okay. How about 6 of last year's top 10? Two are basically there, two almost there, but also two pretty darn far off. And this is percentage of RB carries, with WR and QB (and DL, and P, etc) carries taken out.
2. Jamaal Charles - 44.4%
3. Michael Turner - 74.7%
5. Maurice Jones-Drew - 71.2%
6. Adrian Peterson - 74.7%
9. Ahmad Bradshaw - 62.3%
10. Ray Rice - 70.6%

I'm not sure if those numbers back you up that much. Charles is a terrific back, but he's a smaller guy who can't really run 20 times a game. And I'm not sure how much better Bradshaw is than Jacobs; he certainly fumbles more. If you had those two backs, you'd definitely want Jacobs to get as close to half the carries as possible, because he wears down defenses.

A true stud runner is a guy you can keep on the field at all times, who catches passes and pass-blocks and is good in short yardage and on the goal line, and doesn't need to be protected too much from wear and tear. Your ideal guy is a bigger back who can take the pounding. Guys like MJD and Rice and Charles are definitely lead backs, but they're all a little undersized and need to have their carries managed.

The exciting thing about Ridley is that he's a big back who's got explosion, catches the ball well and pass-blocks. He's got the size to carry the ball 20 times a game and he seems to have a lot more skill in the passing game than BJGE. Obviously we haven't seen that much of him, but he looks terrific.

 

[Nunchucks]

There is a hole in your stud back theory and his name is Shane Vereen. Why did we draft two RBs if we weren't going to go the RBBC route? If Ridley has the rock 300 times a year, and BJGE is the 2nd RB, Woodhead the "change of back" according to your proclamations, then that leaves a 2nd round pick on the bench all year long.

I think that Vereen was drafted because Ridley's pass catching skills and 3rd down blitz pickup skills were an unknown. Also, Ridley was probably rated very high on their board when their time to draft came up.

I think it is always better to have a 3 down back than a guy that just does 3rd downs or a guy that just does first downs. It makes it more difficult for defenses to figure out what you are going to do.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Well I hope you're right jjdiche. If Ridley is BJGE between the tackles plus the explosiveness we saw last Sunday, he is capable of putting up Corey Dillon #'s for the next 7-10 seasons. If his frame can handle that many carries.

 

[ay-yo]

Fun fact:

All SEC 1st team rb: Ridley
All SEC 2nd team rb: Ingram

 

[patsinthesnow]

Okay. How about 6 of last year's top 10? Two are basically there, two almost there, but also two pretty darn far off. And this is percentage of RB carries, with WR and QB (and DL, and P, etc) carries taken out.
2. Jamaal Charles - 44.4%
3. Michael Turner - 74.7%
5. Maurice Jones-Drew - 71.2%
6. Adrian Peterson - 74.7%
9. Ahmad Bradshaw - 62.3%
10. Ray Rice - 70.6%

I think how the Giants use Bradshaw/Jacobs as well as the carry distribution should be what the pats do with Ridley/BJGE.

 

[JJDChE]

There is a hole in your stud back theory and his name is Shane Vereen. Why did we draft two RBs if we weren't going to go the RBBC route? If Ridley has the rock 300 times a year, and BJGE is the 2nd RB, Woodhead the "change of back" according to your proclamations, then that leaves a 2nd round pick on the bench all year long.

How is that a hole in my 'theory'? I think you could just as easily say that Vereen is here to replace Woodhead. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to seen Ridley and Vereen getting 90% of the carries next year and Woodhead out of a job.

Besides, how are the personnel people to know how guys are going to turn out? Ridley could have (and still could) turn out to be a bust, why would they pass up a guy they valued for someone who is far from a sure thing. It's not like they were drafting two inside runners. Ridley and Vereen are clearly different types of players. My take on the situation is that the team isn't satisfied with BJGE/Woody and are looking to upgrade both of them.

I am making no suggestions. You are the one that is saying our run game is not a threat. If that were the fact, our play actions would not be very successful.

When have our play actions not been successful? Our running game has certainly been bad at times. Our play actions never have under Brady.

Our running game is productive, but it's not a threat to take over a game. The most valuable player in our running game is Tom Brady. If you dropped Benji in for ADP he'd be lucky to break 3.0 ypc.

I thought it was 300? Now it's 250?

250-300

Okay. How about 6 of last year's top 10? Two are basically there, two almost there, but also two pretty darn far off. And this is percentage of RB carries, with WR and QB (and DL, and P, etc) carries taken out.
2. Jamaal Charles - 44.4%
3. Michael Turner - 74.7%
5. Maurice Jones-Drew - 71.2%
6. Adrian Peterson - 74.7%
9. Ahmad Bradshaw - 62.3%
10. Ray Rice - 70.6%

OK, 70%. Is that better? Every one of those guys, besides Charles, had at least 275 carries.

Charles and Bradshaw both have another RB with top level talent on the roster and they are both smaller guys.

 

[ausbacker]

How is that a hole in my 'theory'? I think you could just as easily say that Vereen is here to replace Woodhead. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to seen Ridley and Vereen getting 90% of the carries next year and Woodhead out of a job.

Besides, how are the personnel people to know how guys are going to turn out? Ridley could have (and still could) turn out to be a bust, why would they pass up a guy they valued for someone who is far from a sure thing. It's not like they were drafting two inside runners. Ridley and Vereen are clearly different types of players. My take on the situation is that the team isn't satisfied with BJGE/Woody and are looking to upgrade both of them.

When have our play actions not been successful? Our running game has certainly been bad at times. Our play actions never have under Brady.

Our running game is productive, but it's not a threat to take over a game. The most valuable player in our running game is Tom Brady. If you dropped Benji in for ADP he'd be lucky to break 3.0 ypc.

250-300

OK, 70%. Is that better? Every one of those guys, besides Charles, had at least 275 carries.

Charles and Bradshaw both have another RB with top level talent on the roster and they are both smaller guys.

So it's only taken you how many posts and how many comments to mention the bolded comment given my assertion from the beginning has been waiting to see prolonged exposure for that very reason. Unbelievable

 

[Patspsycho]

Well I hope you're right jjdiche. If Ridley is BJGE between the tackles plus the explosiveness we saw last Sunday, he is capable of putting up Corey Dillon #'s for the next 7-10 seasons. If his frame can handle that many carries.

It seems to be that Ridley is better as an off-tackle runner based on the small samples I've seen, while BJGE is best at between-tackles.

 

[JJDChE]

So it's only taken you how many posts and how many comments to mention the bolded comment given my assertion from the beginning has been waiting to see prolonged exposure for that very reason. Unbelievable

What does that have to do with Ridley appearing (much) more talented the BJGE?

Obviously he needs to get 'prolonged exposure' for us to know if he's really a viable replacement. That goes without saying. How could we possibly assess his value WITHOUT putting him on the field?

I think you're severely distorting what the Ridley proponents are making claims to in this thread. All we're saying is that the guy looks to be a talent, give him the ball some more. No one said we should all of sudden give him the ball 20 times a game and bench Benji. No one even said anything remotely close to that.

 

[JJDChE]

It seems to be that Ridley is better as an off-tackle run based on the small samples I've seen, while BJGE is best at between-tackles.

Possibly. He's only had 18 carries, so it's a bit tough to say.

 

[Patspsycho]

How is that a hole in my 'theory'? I think you could just as easily say that Vereen is here to replace Woodhead. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to seen Ridley and Vereen getting 90% of the carries next year and Woodhead out of a job.

Besides, how are the personnel people to know how guys are going to turn out? Ridley could have (and still could) turn out to be a bust, why would they pass up a guy they valued for someone who is far from a sure thing. It's not like they were drafting two inside runners. Ridley and Vereen are clearly different types of players. My take on the situation is that the team isn't satisfied with BJGE/Woody and are looking to upgrade both of them.

I don't think you blow a 2nd round and a 3rd round pick because you "don't know how guys are going to turn out." That's too expensive of an experiment. Maybe 5th or 6th round, but not that high.

When have our play actions not been successful? Our running game has certainly been bad at times. Our play actions never have under Brady.

You still need a legitimate threat at RB to sell a play-action.

 

[Patspsycho]

Possibly. He's only had 18 carries, so it's a bit tough to say.

Yet you're projecting him to carry the rock 250 or 300 times a year.

 

[JJDChE]

Yet you're projecting him to carry the rock 250 or 300 times a year.

Uh, no. Please read the thread.