Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

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

    Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    I'd love a poll, simply because it's an interesting question from a post-SEC and current AFC perspective. 

    Between Trent Richardson and Stevan Ridley, who will have the better career?

    You can use any statistical barometer you like (total yards, rushing yards, yards+ypc). 

    Also, for sh's&gig's, which RB will have a superior 2013 season?

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    I'd love a poll, simply because it's an interesting question from a post-SEC and current AFC perspective. 

    Between Trent Richardson and Stevan Ridley, who will have the better career?

    You can use any statistical barometer you like (total yards, rushing yards, yards+ypc). 

    Also, for sh's&gig's, which RB will have a superior 2013 season?



    Ridley will have the better career. Trent is old school and if used right will be effective. However, total yards and touchdowns, ridley will produce more. Trent will benefit from Luck at QB. 

    Ridley needs to hold on to the ball and fend off the other rb's now and in future years that BB will bring in. Trent is the man after giving up a number 1.  

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    I posted Ridley's stats from 2012 on another thread. Statistically, he has better numbers than Richardson. Career 4.5 yards/carry Ridley; 3.4 YPC for Richardson.

    However, if I was looking for a back that could get me 1-2 yards when I really needed it, Richardson might be a better choice. If I was looking for a better balance overall between passing and rushing, I would pick Ridley.

    On fumbles, he has had 6 over ~400 carries, Richardson has had 3 over ~300 carries.

    Ridley does not get as much credit as he deserves. He is also a humble guy who accepts responsibility for his weaknesses and tries to fix them.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    I posted Ridley's stats from 2012 on another thread. Statistically, he has better numbers than Richardson. Career 4.5 yards/carry Ridley; 3.4 YPC for Richardson.

    However, if I was looking for a back that could get me 1-2 yards when I really needed it, Richardson might be a better choice. If I was looking for a better balance overall between passing and rushing, I would pick Ridley.

    On fumbles, he has had 6 over ~400 carries, Richardson has had 3 over ~300 carries.

    Ridley does not get as much credit as he deserves. He is also a humble guy who accepts responsibility for his weaknesses and tries to fix them.



    I agree with a lot of what you have written here. 

    In Trent's favor, Ridley is a fumbler. That could hurt him. The six fumbles don't count the ones he didn't lose. It was a problem at LSU that wasn't reflected on the stat sheet. He fubmled the ball out of bounds quite a few times. His good fortune, but it demonstrates an inability to secure the ball. 

    In Ridley's favor, I'll disagree with the 1-2 yards comment. I won't trust either of them with my life ... but if I were to knock TR, it would be because he doesn't churn and fight for the extra yardage. If I had a gun to my head, I think Stevan's more of a fighter, even if Richardson is lower and heavier. 

    Good post though.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Oh, and my guess is Ridley. Richardson was also worn out at Bama. 

    Though I think in total yards, they might be very close. Richardson is a way better receiver out of the backfield than Ridley, who is at best, awkward, at that. 

     

     
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Trent gives great pass protection, runs like a man possessed, reads his key very well and does not fumble the ball. He's a very good receiver out of the back field and makes people miss. Decent speed to booth. Barring any unforseen injury, I'm going with Trent.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    I'd say Ridley. I agree with zbellino's point that T-Rich was worn out at Bama which he was. Even then just one year into his career Rich had a lot of touches and a low YPC avg, meaning he was getting beat up pretty bad at times. Ridley to me is a more fluent runner who has a good combo of decent size, speed and vision. Trent to me is a jerome bettis type runner but isnt the same size as Bettis. Obviously the fumbles have been an issue and i think they have factored into his head so far this year, hopefully he can pull himself out of the slump this week against a good Bucs front 7.

    Drew Brees is good, Aaron Rodgers is better, Peyton Manning is even better, but Tom Brady is the best.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Ridley has been and continues to run behind the better line. Surely Trent will benefit from playing on an offense like the Colts, and splitting 60-20-20 with Brown and Bradshaw.

    The rumors are starting to fly now on Trent out of Cleve....bad team mate, didn't rehab diligently, attitude, etc, etc. 

    Certainly Trent is the better pass catcher and blocker. His style of running most likely does not allow him to play the entire season, but Ridleys fumbles may cast the same fate on him....

    If either could play for the Pats, I think I take Trent

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    Ridley has been and continues to run behind the better line. Surely Trent will benefit from playing on an offense like the Colts, and splitting 60-20-20 with Brown and Bradshaw.

     



    The Pats' reputation for having the better line is more because the linement protect their QB better. They are not really that good at run blocking especially on critical run plays when they absolutely need a couple of yards to keep the ball for another set of downs.

    They can run block well when they want to. You see flashes of it every now and then. But when the situation calls for it, it's not unusual to see the RB get tackled in the backfield. 

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Richardson, no doubt about it.  I wish I could say Ridley, hate picking against my Patriot players, but Richardson is the real deal.  Far superior blocking and catching out of the back field.  He grew up playing with the big boys, he was at the pro level in college, Ridley still hasn't got here yet.  Sure, he had the 1300 yard season but he isn't a pro yet.  A pro would have been working on his ball security all off season.  It doesn't look like Ridley paid it much attention.

    Good move for the Browns to get rid of him, word was he was a problem child there, probably wasn't happy being on such a bad team.  Defenses stacked the box against him now he is playing with a good team, a really good QB so watch for him to really shine!  Great move by the Colts. 

    Patriots brass should take notice and do something like this right now and bring in a real wide receiver for this team.

    **

    Back in '82, I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?


    I think Trent has more talent and therefore should turn out to have the better career..also Ridley has been trending downward of late. I haven't seen much of Trent since he has been a pro, but he used to be a very talented back (although plenty of them have failed in the NFL). Still I'm going with him.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Career, Ridley because he'll last longer. TR will be the bell cow back and get a ton of carries and play three downs. Ridley will never be that guy because he can't catch and because of the way NE rotates backs. 

    Short term (3 or 4 years), TR will have better numbers, more carries, catches, yards. Then he'll be done or ineffective. Ridley will still be playing somewhere.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    Career, Ridley because he'll last longer. TR will be the bell cow back and get a ton of carries and play three downs. Ridley will never be that guy because he can't catch and because of the way NE rotates backs. 

    Short term (3 or 4 years), TR will have better numbers, more carries, catches, yards. Then he'll be done or ineffective. Ridley will still be playing somewhere.



    That is a pretty good take. 

    Ridley has to come off the field, Trent doesn't.

    And I agree, I see Richardson breaking down by 27-8 because of his style and miles. 

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    Career, Ridley because he'll last longer. TR will be the bell cow back and get a ton of carries and play three downs. Ridley will never be that guy because he can't catch and because of the way NE rotates backs. 

    Short term (3 or 4 years), TR will have better numbers, more carries, catches, yards. Then he'll be done or ineffective. Ridley will still be playing somewhere.

     



    That is a pretty good take. 

     

    Ridley has to come off the field, Trent doesn't.

    And I agree, I see Richardson breaking down by 27-8 because of his style and miles. 



    Well how about this? Ridley runs upright and takes on some severe hits (the type that will put you into Aruba for a week without you even knowing it), and Richardson runs low and compact...with a bit more power, speed and quickness. I mean if you're a runner your career can end at any given second, but some styles seem to last longer (and be more effective).

    I just think it comes down to talent - one guy was drafted third overall - and the other went in the third round...that's not an accident. Sure there are draft busts and misjudgement of talent (and I wouldn't draft a runner in the top five), but I think this is a pretty clear case of one being a better player than the other. Do you think anyone would call up Belichick and offer a first round pick for Ridley? How about a second? I highly doubt any of the 32 GMs in the league would do that - if they did I bet Belichick would pounce on that. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHUBBIE99. Show CHUBBIE99's posts

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    I'd love a poll, simply because it's an interesting question from a post-SEC and current AFC perspective. 

    Between Trent Richardson and Stevan Ridley, who will have the better career?

    You can use any statistical barometer you like (total yards, rushing yards, yards+ypc). 

    Also, f

     

    Richardson know one is about to gave a #1 pick for Ridley.


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    I posted Ridley's stats from 2012 on another thread. Statistically, he has better numbers than Richardson. Career 4.5 yards/carry Ridley; 3.4 YPC for Richardson.

    However, if I was looking for a back that could get me 1-2 yards when I really needed it, Richardson might be a better choice. If I was looking for a better balance overall between passing and rushing, I would pick Ridley.

    On fumbles, he has had 6 over ~400 carries, Richardson has had 3 over ~300 carries.

    Ridley does not get as much credit as he deserves. He is also a humble guy who accepts responsibility for his weaknesses and tries to fix them.



    What? You would pick Ridley catching over Richardson? You do know that Richardson is a very good pass catcher out of the backfield. Ridley had 3 catches all of last season and was taken off on 3rd down cause Woodhead is a better pass blocker.

     

     

    Trent had 200 more carries over Ridley in college, which isnt that much more significant. Shane Vereen had more college carries than Richardson.

     

    Trent is way better than Ridley. Swap the teams, and I would guess Ridley couldn't do what Trent did when he was on the Browns...Put Trent on last years Pats team, and he has a decent chance to get 2000 total yards

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    Career, Ridley because he'll last longer. TR will be the bell cow back and get a ton of carries and play three downs. Ridley will never be that guy because he can't catch and because of the way NE rotates backs. 

    Short term (3 or 4 years), TR will have better numbers, more carries, catches, yards. Then he'll be done or ineffective. Ridley will still be playing somewhere.

     



    That is a pretty good take. 

     

    Ridley has to come off the field, Trent doesn't.

    And I agree, I see Richardson breaking down by 27-8 because of his style and miles. 

     



    Well how about this? Ridley runs upright and takes on some severe hits (the type that will put you into Aruba for a week without you even knowing it), and Richardson runs low and compact...with a bit more power, speed and quickness. I mean if you're a runner your career can end at any given second, but some styles seem to last longer (and be more effective).

     

    I just think it comes down to talent - one guy was drafted third overall - and the other went in the third round...that's not an accident. Sure there are draft busts and misjudgement of talent (and I wouldn't draft a runner in the top five), but I think this is a pretty clear case of one being a better player than the other. Do you think anyone would call up Belichick and offer a first round pick for Ridley? How about a second? I highly doubt any of the 32 GMs in the league would do that - if they did I bet Belichick would pounce on that. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Ridley does run really upright. It's an issue. IT's funny because if he lowered his body and tucked the ball away more, he'd be even better. 

    It could lead to a big hit... it might not as well. 

    The upright running issue has to do with making yourself easier to tackle around the midsection, not more vulnerable at the top. 

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to dapats1281's comment:

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I posted Ridley's stats from 2012 on another thread. Statistically, he has better numbers than Richardson. Career 4.5 yards/carry Ridley; 3.4 YPC for Richardson.

    However, if I was looking for a back that could get me 1-2 yards when I really needed it, Richardson might be a better choice. If I was looking for a better balance overall between passing and rushing, I would pick Ridley.

    On fumbles, he has had 6 over ~400 carries, Richardson has had 3 over ~300 carries.

    Ridley does not get as much credit as he deserves. He is also a humble guy who accepts responsibility for his weaknesses and tries to fix them.

     



    What? You would pick Ridley catching over Richardson? You do know that Richardson is a very good pass catcher out of the backfield. Ridley had 3 catches all of last season and was taken off on 3rd down cause Woodhead is a better pass blocker.

     

     

     

    Trent had 200 more carries over Ridley in college, which isnt that much more significant. Shane Vereen had more college carries than Richardson.

     

    Trent is way better than Ridley. Swap the teams, and I would guess Ridley couldn't do what Trent did when he was on the Browns...Put Trent on last years Pats team, and he has a decent chance to get 2000 total yards

    [/QUOTE]

    Richardson has closer to 250 more carries, about 30 more KRs, and about 50 more catches. In college terms, of touches, that is about 1.5 seasons of work. 

    It's significant at a formative age for a lot of atheletes. You aren't even done growing at 20, and Richardson was a heavy lead back at that point. 

    Vereen does have miles as well. That is a fact. But they aren't the same kind of miles. He also isn't getting 300+ touches per season in the pros. 

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    Oh, and my guess is Ridley. Richardson was also worn out at Bama. 

    Though I think in total yards, they might be very close. Richardson is a way better receiver out of the backfield than Ridley, who is at best, awkward, at that. 

     

     




    Agreed...Richardson was extensively used at Alabama...plus, what you got out of Richardson was at a certain level of ability that was extremely high compared to other college players because of the high level of coaching he received at Alabama...this is typical of a hyper-program like Alabama that has huge sums to spend on coaching assitants and graduate assistants and other specialists that far outstrip even other SEC schools....what you see from Alabama grads is what you'll get on a pro level...their performance usually doesn't exceed what they've done in college....there are exceptions like wr Julius Jones but not many...so Ridley has room to improve where Richardson has tired legs, knee and leg injuries he's played through, and a beaten body in comparison...ANY running back only has so many carries in one set of legs, unless you're a superman like Peterson...the more I think of AP and his comeback and last year's performance the more I am impressed...

     

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Richardson is the better back. He will have the better indivisual career.

    The question I would ask is in the next 3 years which one of these guys will play and contribute in more big games? Which one of these backs will have a bigger role in contributing to winning playoff games and possibly a SB.

     

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    Ridley.  He's on a Bill Belichick team with Tom Brady tossing the oinker. 

    Being on a BB team means that you're usually running behind an ace offensive line that opens big holes for you, and that includes a blocking tight end or two.  Being on a BB team means that you line up fast and run the rock against oxygen-deprived, confused defensive linemen all day, and you get more touches.  Being on a BB team means that you're running the whole fourth quarter because your team is up 21 points. 

    Being on a Tom Brady team means that they're not lining up 8 in the box against you.  Rather, they're in nickel or even dime formation and you're running over a lot of lightweight, inexperienced guys instead of colliding violently with linebackers.  Being on a Tom Brady team means that Tom isn't zeroing in on any one wide receiver.  If you're in the flats and you're open, get ready for a well-placed 6 yard pass that won't lead you into a pounding, and that will give you yards after the catch.

    Who is better right now?  Richardson.  Who will have the longer career?  Ridley.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Ridley does run really upright. It's an issue. IT's funny because if he lowered his body and tucked the ball away more, he'd be even better. 

     

    It could lead to a big hit... it might not as well. 

    The upright running issue has to do with making yourself easier to tackle around the midsection, not more vulnerable at the top. 



    The last time I saw Ridley lower his head he was knocked out of the game.

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

    Re: Trent v Ridley: Who will have the better career?

     

    Imagine what some fans here would say if the Pats had drafted Richardson and he ran for 3.4 ypc last year. The horror, the horror.      






    "Defense Wins Championships"
     

Share