Ridley Analysis

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NCPatsFan1971. Show NCPatsFan1971's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to Brady2Moss07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Do you think he's better then Trent Richardson? I sure do and the colts gave up a # 1 pick for him

    [/QUOTE]


    Great Point!

     

    For the record 2012 Stats without disclaimers and ya buts:

     

    Trent Richardson 15 Games 267 Carries for 930 Yards and 11 TDs

    Steven Ridley     16 Games 290 Carries for 1263 Yards and 12 TDs

    Ridley is a very good running back.  And didn't the Pats get 2 for the price of 1 with Vareen that year so that the Saints could draft another Alabama Star in Mark Ingram?  Too bad that BB is such a bad GM.  LMAO

     

    http://www.nfl.com/player/trentrichardson/2533032/careerstats

    http://www.nfl.com/player/stevanridley/2495470/careerstats

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I

    [/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've felt Ridley's poor pass catching ability was a bit of a liability on a team that relies so heavily on the passing game, but I have to say I've been pleased with Ridley's receptions this season.  The big difference I'm seeing is that he's catching the easy passes.  (In prior seasons he often dropped passes he really should have caught.)  I'm seeing some progress here and it makes me optimistic about his role expanding.  If he can catch, he'll be on the field more, and I think he's the best runner of all of them.

    I agree that Vereen, though, is another nice back who can run pretty well too and is a real threat in the passing game.  I see Ridley and Vereen as a very solid set of complementary backs. 

    Bolden and Blount make nice back ups--but they are back ups, not guys you want to start every game.

     

    One other comment.  People think that running is a way to avoid turnovers (everytime Brady throws an interception you get the demands for more running, less throwing).  But running produces turnovers too.  Nothing is absolutely safe (except maybe taking a knee).

     

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

    Re: Ridley Analysis


    Getting Vereen back will be helpful.  Some question whether he can be a 3 down RB because of his size.

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

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to anonymis's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Getting Vereen back will be helpful.  Some question whether he can be a 3 down RB because of his size.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think Vareen is a 3 down back. What i think he should be is a player that gets 8-12 carries a game and gets targeted with at least 5  passes a game. If he touches the ball 15-20 times a game he will be very effective.

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

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to anonymis's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Getting Vereen back will be helpful.  Some question whether he can be a 3 down RB because of his size.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think Vareen is a 3 down back. What i think he should be is a player that gets 8-12 carries a game and gets targeted with at least 5  passes a game. If he touches the ball 15-20 times a game he will be very effective.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm inclined to agree that Vereen with 15-20 touches/game would be the ideal. I do, however, think that there's no reason the guy can't be an every down back for a couple of games a year (more if necessary), should the need arise.  He's 5-10, 205 - not a big back but not one I would call undersized either.  

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

    Re: Ridley Analysis

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to anonymis's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Getting Vereen back will be helpful.  Some question whether he can be a 3 down RB because of his size.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think Vareen is a 3 down back. What i think he should be is a player that gets 8-12 carries a game and gets targeted with at least 5  passes a game. If he touches the ball 15-20 times a game he will be very effective.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm inclined to agree that Vereen with 15-20 touches/game would be the ideal. I do, however, think that there's no reason the guy can't be an every down back for a couple of games a year (more if necessary), should the need arise.  He's 5-10, 205 - not a big back but not one I would call undersized either.  

    [/QUOTE]

    For a couple of games I would agree. He doesn't have the frame to run in between the tackles 20 + times a game over the course of a season.

     

     

Share