Ridley Analysis

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    My thoughts haven not changed. Ridley is a lead back, but unlike the aforementioned Adrian Peterson is not a feature back; meaning I expect Ridley to share carries with Vereen (when healthy), Bolden and Blount. I see Blount as almost a short yardage FB in this case. Vereen can be flexed out and used as WR with Hou or Bolden as blitz pick-up. The key, for me,  has been for the Pats to run the ball effectively and tailor the offense for the players different skill sets. If and when Gronk gets back his presence could open up passing lanes and running lanes. This is what having TE who is a good blocker and receiver does. Ridley has performed up to and come close to surpassing expectations (better than Lacy, Ingram and a slew of RBs taken from a higher draft position than him over the last 3 years). I agree that he CANNOT fumble the ball especially in the post-season. From a positional standpoint I like the Pats backs ( I like them even more with Vereen healthy).

    I also want go on record as saying the Pats need a bye week more than any team in the NFL to heal up some of their players. I know Mayo and 'Fork are gone, but a number of players should be healthy come polayoff time.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    You guys don't get it.  Babe says Ridley blows - end of conversation.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to anonymis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I'll add, that is part of the reason Vereen is a good guy to have in there. He is a lot more than Woodhead, or even Faulk, in the end.

    He is a true 3 down performer in my view. 

    Against defenses that are effective against the pass and the run, a running back who can do both stresses them more than one who can only do one or the other. 

    [/QUOTE]
    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?

    [/QUOTE]

    Shoot. Isn't that week 7? I thought the in season PUP was a six week thing? Then he is granted two weeks time to recover if needed?

    He was palced on ST-IR on Sptember 10th. So he is elligble to return to practice on the 22nd of October. He is eligble to return to the active roster on the the 5th of November.

    In game terms ... that is going into the BYE week. So he'll return to active duty against Carolina. And he'll have a week under him against Denver. 

    I think Ridley, possibly, is a better matchup for the major load against Denver. He can grind better than Vereen. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Not sure about the Playoffs.  My point is that Ridley doesn't fumble as much as some better RBs in the league. 

    [/QUOTE]


    But he fumbles more; in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    With the exception of Peterson this is true for the moment.

    The following is a list of guys who have at least three post season appearances and what the cumulative fumble data is for each players 1st three post season games played in.

     

    • Peterson (2 fumbles)
    • Ridley (2 fumbles)
    • Gore (1 fumble)
    • Bush (1 fumble)
    • Foster (1 fumble)
    • Rice (1 fumble)
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?



    Eligible weeek 11

    oops did not see that Z answered you.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Eligible weeek 11

     

    oops did not see that Z answered you.

    [/QUOTE]

    How did you get week 11? By my math it's week10/game 9.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Eligible weeek 11

     

    oops did not see that Z answered you.

    [/QUOTE]

    How did you get week 11? By my math it's week10/game 9.

    [/QUOTE]


    Per ESPN Boston it is week 11.

    http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9659443/shane-vereen-new-england-patriots-wrist-surgery

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Not sure about the Playoffs.  My point is that Ridley doesn't fumble as much as some better RBs in the league. 

    [/QUOTE]


    But he fumbles more; in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    With the exception of Peterson this is true for the moment.

    The following is a list of guys who have at least three post season appearances and what the cumulative fumble data is for each players 1st three post season games played in.

     

    • Peterson (2 fumbles)
    • Ridley (2 fumbles)
    • Gore (1 fumble)
    • Bush (1 fumble)
    • Foster (1 fumble)
    • Rice (1 fumble)

    [/QUOTE]

    One of those fumbles is on Ridley ... hte knockout fumble is half-and-half. Kind of fluky.

    Though it is hard, because he also fumbled a ball out of bounds that game.

    Ridley puts the ball on the ground and gets away with it sometimes. It happened a lot at LSU, so even though he didn't have a tremendous amount of fumbles coming out, he had that flag. It is one of those things where you need to watch a player through his whole career to appreciate.

     He also dropped a number of easy passes, and never really progressed as a passing option in practice ... and that flag has stuck too.

    Still, he is a really smart runner, a strong runner, a quick runner, and agile for those attributes. He is NE's best option when they want to grind. That is a slam dunk. 

    Neither Bolden or Blount hold a candle to what he does. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Eligible weeek 11

     

    oops did not see that Z answered you.

    [/QUOTE]

    How did you get week 11? By my math it's week10/game 9.

    [/QUOTE]


    Per ESPN Boston it is week 11.

    http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9659443/shane-vereen-new-england-patriots-wrist-surgery

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, math fail. My first post was right. I forgot about the bye.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tanbass. Show tanbass's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You guys don't get it.  Babe says Ridley blows - end of conversation.  

    [/QUOTE]

    LMAO

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?

     

     



    Eligible weeek 11

     

     

    oops did not see that Z answered you.



    How did you get week 11? By my math it's week10/game 9.

    [/QUOTE]

    I must have thought i read it somewhere? That was stuck in my mind for some reason. 

    I am not sure and whatever you came up with is most likely correct. Just thought I read it somewhere??

    Oops just saw your post. Ha! I really did not know for certain and it was stuck in my mind.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    speaking of Vereen, when is he due back?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Eligible weeek 11

     

    oops did not see that Z answered you.

    [/QUOTE]

    How did you get week 11? By my math it's week10/game 9.

    [/QUOTE]

    I must have thought i read it somewhere? That was stuck in my mind for some reason. 

    I am not sure and whatever you came up with is most likely correct. Just thought I read it somewhere??

    [/QUOTE]

    You were right. It's actually what I said in my first post. The Panthers game is week 11 not week 10. I just didn't add in the bye when I did the 'week' math. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    any rb fumbles on the pollard hit, when you get a concussion or similar ,none holds onto the ball, any helmet on ball hit is always dicey, no matter who

    He is the best blocking back they have, if you don't want TB lit up on the blitz, you want him

    This also helps him being  receiver out of the backfield, and he is good at it

    He does have a burst, if there is a hole, he hits it, he is certainly not marooney

    The pats this year are playing good front 7s after another, hurts TB and hurts the Rbs

    And finally look how he is securing the ball now, he has been coached up and he has gotten the messagE. btw the law firm didn't fumble here, but he has in cincin. 

    I think there are times for ridley and times for vereen

    Once again this blog eats the patriots young and live in a fantasy world

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Not sure about the Playoffs.  My point is that Ridley doesn't fumble as much as some better RBs in the league. 

    [/QUOTE]


    But he fumbles more; in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    With the exception of Peterson this is true for the moment.

    The following is a list of guys who have at least three post season appearances and what the cumulative fumble data is for each players 1st three post season games played in.

     

    • Peterson (2 fumbles)
    • Ridley (2 fumbles)
    • Gore (1 fumble)
    • Bush (1 fumble)
    • Foster (1 fumble)
    • Rice (1 fumble)

    [/QUOTE]

    One of those fumbles is on Ridley ... hte knockout fumble is half-and-half. Kind of fluky.

    Though it is hard, because he also fumbled a ball out of bounds that game.

    Ridley puts the ball on the ground and gets away with it sometimes. It happened a lot at LSU, so even though he didn't have a tremendous amount of fumbles coming out, he had that flag. It is one of those things where you need to watch a player through his whole career to appreciate.

     He also dropped a number of easy passes, and never really progressed as a passing option in practice ... and that flag has stuck too.

    Still, he is a really smart runner, a strong runner, a quick runner, and agile for those attributes. He is NE's best option when they want to grind. That is a slam dunk. 

    Neither Bolden or Blount hold a candle to what he does. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I like Ridley a lot because he runs the ball where the play is designed to be run. 

    While the occasional big hitter is nice from Blount because he sees a cutback before hitting the line of scrimmage it is just not my style preference.

    You have to be truely great to consistently try and do that as a runner.

    You are designing a play and blocking scheme for a specific purpose and when the back does something completely different it throws everything off. Far less consistency typcially and much more feast or famine imo.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Not sure about the Playoffs.  My point is that Ridley doesn't fumble as much as some better RBs in the league. 

    [/QUOTE]


    But he fumbles more; in the playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    With the exception of Peterson this is true for the moment.

    The following is a list of guys who have at least three post season appearances and what the cumulative fumble data is for each players 1st three post season games played in.

     

    • Peterson (2 fumbles)
    • Ridley (2 fumbles)
    • Gore (1 fumble)
    • Bush (1 fumble)
    • Foster (1 fumble)
    • Rice (1 fumble)

    [/QUOTE]

    One of those fumbles is on Ridley ... hte knockout fumble is half-and-half. Kind of fluky.

    Though it is hard, because he also fumbled a ball out of bounds that game.

    Ridley puts the ball on the ground and gets away with it sometimes. It happened a lot at LSU, so even though he didn't have a tremendous amount of fumbles coming out, he had that flag. It is one of those things where you need to watch a player through his whole career to appreciate.

     He also dropped a number of easy passes, and never really progressed as a passing option in practice ... and that flag has stuck too.

    Still, he is a really smart runner, a strong runner, a quick runner, and agile for those attributes. He is NE's best option when they want to grind. That is a slam dunk. 

    Neither Bolden or Blount hold a candle to what he does. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I like Ridley a lot because he runs the ball where the play is designed to be run. 

    While the occasional big hitter is nice from Blount because he sees a cutback before hitting the line of scrimmage it is just not my style preference.

    You have to be truely great to consistently try and do that as a runner.

    You are designing a play and blocking scheme for a specific purpose and when the back does something completely different it throws everything off. Far less consistency typcially and much more feast or famine imo.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's my feeling too. 

    I think Ridley was pressing early this season though, because he overran/cutback into lost yardage a few times. It lost him some reps. 

    Against the Saints he ran like a man possessed, and hit his hole decisively each time. This is huge, as that kind of discipline limits lost yardage. You may not 'break' the 30 yarder ... but you'll be in position too, and you'll rarely gain less than a yard or two if you just ride the back of your guard. 

    It was great to see him back.

    If Blount could ever figure out how to do that more often and lower his body into small holes, he'd be devastating too. As it stands now, he is a front runner IMO. He's great to slot in there when the offense is steaming along. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    One of those fumbles is on Ridley ... hte knockout fumble is half-and-half. Kind of fluky.

    Though it is hard, because he also fumbled a ball out of bounds that game.

    Ridley puts the ball on the ground and gets away with it sometimes. It happened a lot at LSU, so even though he didn't have a tremendous amount of fumbles coming out, he had that flag. It is one of those things where you need to watch a player through his whole career to appreciate.

     He also dropped a number of easy passes, and never really progressed as a passing option in practice ... and that flag has stuck too.

    Still, he is a really smart runner, a strong runner, a quick runner, and agile for those attributes. He is NE's best option when they want to grind. That is a slam dunk. 

    Neither Bolden or Blount hold a candle to what he does. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a very good point about the being knocked out thing. Although who knows what circumstances are invloved in any of the other fumbles, which is the thing with stats in general.

    My post was not a knock on Ridley. It was more to say ok yes technically it is "more" but it is 1 "more".

    The pool of RB's currently playing that have any significant post season experience and are also considered better backs is very small to begin with.

    Also, out of all those guys, they all, except for Gore, had the fumbles in the 1st few seasons of their career. So experiencing the elevation in play of the post season as a young player probably played into it some. I think 3 of those guys have 4, 5 and 6 post season games but the fumbles percentage or ratio went down for them in later post season games. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    Ridley showed last week he is the lead back with Bolden and Blount filling in.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    One of those fumbles is on Ridley ... hte knockout fumble is half-and-half. Kind of fluky.

    Though it is hard, because he also fumbled a ball out of bounds that game.

    Ridley puts the ball on the ground and gets away with it sometimes. It happened a lot at LSU, so even though he didn't have a tremendous amount of fumbles coming out, he had that flag. It is one of those things where you need to watch a player through his whole career to appreciate.

     He also dropped a number of easy passes, and never really progressed as a passing option in practice ... and that flag has stuck too.

    Still, he is a really smart runner, a strong runner, a quick runner, and agile for those attributes. He is NE's best option when they want to grind. That is a slam dunk. 

    Neither Bolden or Blount hold a candle to what he does. 

    [/QUOTE]

    That is a very good point about the being knocked out thing. Although who knows what circumstances are invloved in any of the other fumbles, which is the thing with stats in general.

    My post was not a knock on Ridley. It was more to say ok yes technically it is "more" but it is 1 "more".

    The pool of RB's currently playing that have any significant post season experience and are also considered better backs is very small to begin with.

    Also, out of all those guys, they all, except for Gore, had the fumbles in the 1st few seasons of their career. So experiencing the elevation in play of the post season as a young player probably played into it some. I think 3 of those guys have 4, 5 and 6 post season games but the fumbles percentage or ratio went down for them in later post season games. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, plus a lot of the time, players build better ball security over time. Not always, but sometimes. We all know (if we were of age in the 1990s) how Faulk came along. He was a big time butterfingers ... his first three seasons he had 11 fumbles, and the rest of his career he only fumbled 14 times. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You guys don't get it.  Babe says Ridley blows - end of conversation.  

    [/QUOTE]

    LMAO

    [/QUOTE]

    He's a senile bitter man.. huh?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis


    Regardless of the fumbles. Ridley should have always been the lad back. last week was the best example: Ridley ran same run plays as blount and had a 3 ypc avg better.

    He runs faster, harder and is more physical. He is the best red zone option and can actually move the chains too.

    Ridley better remain starter

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    When a guy puts in the hard work you must respect that. Ridley has put on at least 20 pounds of muscle and looks ripped. He's just as quick as before but you can see his added strength.

    Let him work through the fumbles, we need him. Vereen brings a different set and is not a feature back.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    And, if Ridley plays against the Bengals we win that game.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    When a guy puts in the hard work you must respect that. Ridley has put on at least 20 pounds of muscle and looks ripped. He's just as quick as before but you can see his added strength.

    Let him work through the fumbles, we need him. Vereen brings a different set and is not a feature back.

    [/QUOTE]

    yes. exactly. he's a beast!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    Decent back, I think he's more of a talent than BJGE, but obviously no Correy Dillon. I hate it when he attempts that little spin move he does...he opens his body to devastating hits and he's not low and quick enough to avoid them. I think he's at his best when he's running low and getting some touches - there's been games when I've seen him sort of knife low at the last second and pick up an additional 2 yards and there's been games where I've seen him run high and lose yards he shouldn't. I like him.

     

Share