Would You Play Ridley?

[dcmissle]

Thanks for batting that around.  It's fun.
 
Another question for the "yes" voters -- at what point do you say enuf is enuf and pull him, if ever?  Another crucial fumble, a game lost late demonstrably because of a crucial fumble, or do you keep sending him out there no matter what?
 
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

 

[DourDoerr]

I'd continue to play him as long as he's working on fixing the problem in practice.  So far it's a (painful) bump in the road.  Maybe he becomes a football version of Ankiel and is unredeemable, but until then he's a damn good back.  He not only finds the hole, but he's able to knife through it and consistently come out the other side.  It's a rare gift - at least I haven't forgotten the years spent waiting for Maroney to run like that.  
 
Regarding his trade value, he's low salary and way talented.  He's a cheaper version of what the Colts were hoping to get in Richardson - and they spent a 1st.  Not saying he's worth that - not by a long shot with the fumble issue - but I think he's worth more than some of the estimates here.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Here's Kevin Faulk talking about his fumbling problems
 

 
 
“It was just a fact of me understanding who I was as a runner, what I had to change in order to maintain (the ball),” Faulk said. “I can tell you one thing. After a while, I never switched the ball. I always kept the ball in my left hand. That was just one thing, but there are a lot of different things that just take practice and practice. Not just practice on the field, but it takes practice off the field, not thinking about it, not mentally getting yourself disturbed about it.”

 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2013/11/stevan_ridley_turns_to_kevin_faulk_for_fumble
 
What makes Ridley a fearless back also makes him a target for ballhawks.  Eliminating the needless risks by going to the ground faster and not trying to make something happen can really help him.  He also needs to run lower to the ground when he sees someone trying put a hat on the football.
 
Additionally I've noticed in several pictures that he doesn't get his hands around the points of the football.  Below is a good example of his lack of ball security, space between his body and the football, not jamming one end of the football into his elbow, and not fully palming the other end (granted he's in breaking out to the sideline and flat out sprinting here).
 

 
Here's a good example of Green-Elis in space as well but firmly holding the ball against his forearm by jamming it into his elbow
 

 
The coaches are obviously doing everything they can to fix his problems.  But like Faulk said he needs practice and that means game repetitions before the playoffs start.

 

[Stitch01]

I'd continue to play him as long as he's working on fixing the problem in practice.  So far it's a (painful) bump in the road.  Maybe he becomes a football version of Ankiel and is unredeemable, but until then he's a damn good back.  He not only finds the hole, but he's able to knife through it and consistently come out the other side.  It's a rare gift - at least I haven't forgotten the years spent waiting for Maroney to run like that.  
 
Regarding his trade value, he's low salary and way talented.  He's a cheaper version of what the Colts were hoping to get in Richardson - and they spent a 1st.  Not saying he's worth that - not by a long shot with the fumble issue - but I think he's worth more than some of the estimates here.

Hopefully we can get Irsay coked up again and have him ship over a 2nd or 3rd rounder after the season when Richardson goes 21 carries for 45 yards in the Colts playoff exit.
 
I would consider trading him in the offseason if you could get a good return.  Not just because of the fumbling issues but because I pretty much hate giving multi-year non-rookie deals to running backs who dont play in the passing game.  The shelf lives of RB's actually being above average is short and cheaper facsimiles are not that difficult to find.  I just dont think much above a 4th or a 5th is going to be available for Ridley, which means you can keep him for one more season cheap then potentially take the comp pick.

 

[quint]

 
The Pats are not a SB favorite.

They are one of the top teams in their conference. Out of genuine curiosity, how does this make New England not a Super Bowl favorite?

 

[Al Zarilla]

Collinsworth on Inside the NFL this week: "It's going to be hard not to favor the Patriots for the Super Bowl". He's pounding the table on teams, actually one team, and players, actually one player, that really turn it on when the cold weather gets here. He is well aware of the Pats historic record in that area.  

 

[Tony C]

The Pats are 6-1 to win the Super Bowl according to Vegas. The Broncos remain the favorite --  there's a difference between being a contender and a favorite. Obviously I wouldn't be discussing increasing their odds if I didn't think they were a contender. I have no problem with someone arguing that the Pats should be a favorite and I think Collinsworth is smart so glad to hear he thinks so. But it's not just that I personally disagree, as a regular reader of this forum I'm pretty sure I'm not misrepresenting a consensus in that regard here. We've collectively gone from point A -- confident that the defense is quite improved and worthy of a sustained playoff run but pessimistic about the offense -- to point B -- bummed by all the injuries to the defense that have coincided with the offense rounding much closer to playoff form. I've read a lot of "if only" statements about how good the Pats would be w/out those defensive injuries. I haven't read that there is much confidence that the Pats are strong enough on both sides of the ball to be considered a favorite.
 
Aside from semantics, I think it'd be fair to say that the Pats don't have such a margin of advantage over other contenders that they could dispense with Ridley's contributions and ride Blount/Bolden as Vereen's backfield partner. That said, they came back to beat the Broncos without Ridley, so certainly wouldn't be impossible.

 

[nattysez]

Well, he's a healthy scratch today.

 

[axx]

Well, he's a healthy scratch today.

 
Bill doesn't screw around, that's for sure. Still think he will be back at some point, but I suppose this is a good chance to see what Bolden can do.

 

[knucklecup]

I respect Belichick probably more than any other coach in the history of sports, but this is a decision that gives the Patriots a lesser chance of winning today's football game.

If the Texans were the Texans of the last couple seasons, and not the 2-9 bunch we're seeing today, this decision wouldn't have been made.

You just don't do that.

 

[tims4wins]

Knuckle, how does Ridley improve their odds of winning if he is giving away the ball once a game? Against THIS Texans team, the Pats basically just need to play smart and they should win. I could argue that sitting him this week actually helps their chances in a way.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

I respect Belichick probably more than any other coach in the history of sports, but this is a decision that gives the Patriots a lesser chance of winning today's football game.

If the Texans were the Texans of the last couple seasons, and not the 2-9 bunch we're seeing today, this decision wouldn't have been made.

You just don't do that.

 
Really?  You've been watching the games, yes?  He's lost a fumble in each of the past three games.
 
Ridley is easily the best runner on the team, but he's been putting the ball on the ground and is a non-factor in the passing game.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I respect Belichick probably more than any other coach in the history of sports, but this is a decision that gives the Patriots a lesser chance of winning today's football game.

If the Texans were the Texans of the last couple seasons, and not the 2-9 bunch we're seeing today, this decision wouldn't have been made.

You just don't do that.

 
I'm not sure Belichick would disagree with that, and he's also say that it increases their chances of winning the Super Bowl, which (rather than winning today) is the larger goal.  Feels like they are trying to get Ridley to change, and they want to use this decision to push him to do it.  That's the bigger picture, and that's what they are looking at.

I imagine he also would agree that it is a different calculus against last year's Texans team.  But this isn't that team.

 

[Seels]

I respect Belichick probably more than any other coach in the history of sports, but this is a decision that gives the Patriots a lesser chance of winning today's football game.

If the Texans were the Texans of the last couple seasons, and not the 2-9 bunch we're seeing today, this decision wouldn't have been made.

You just don't do that.

He'd do it against anyone. He did it last week. Ridley didn't play a single down after the fumble. If he'll do it while down 24-0 against the best team in football, why wouldn't he do it before a game starts agaisnt the worst?

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

No jumping to conclusions yet. BB has been positive in him I'm interviews and this seems as much mental as physical. I'm guessing thst this is just a mental health break and they start to ease him back in next week. Unless someone else gets the hot hand and is rolling which isn't a bad thing either.

 

[Judge Mental13]

I respect Belichick probably more than any other coach in the history of sports, but this is a decision that gives the Patriots a lesser chance of winning today's football game.

If the Texans were the Texans of the last couple seasons, and not the 2-9 bunch we're seeing today, this decision wouldn't have been made.

You just don't do that.

 
This.....this is silly.
 
Stevan Ridley has made himself into more of a liability than an asset this season.  The perceived 'downgrade' to Vereen/Blount/Bolden isn't all that large even without Ridley's butterfingers, but with his inability to hold onto the ball it's pretty much a no brainer. 

 

[Devizier]

To me this says that Belichick is more concerned with enforcing coaching than he is about the Houston Texans.
 
I hope he's right!

 

[Harry Hooper]

We're not privy to practice sessions, but maybe Ridley is resistant to altering his ball-carrying technique?

 

[JimBoSox9]

We're not privy to practice sessions, but maybe Ridley is resistant to altering his ball-carrying technique?

 
That's a real stretch IMO, especially since you couldn't ask for more contrition or humble pie in his public comments about the matter.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
That's a real stretch IMO, especially since you couldn't ask for more contrition or humble pie in his public comments about the matter.

 
Both could be true, though. We don't know obviously.
 
FWIW, Dierdorf mentioned on the broadcast that BB (in the prep meeting w/ broadcast duo) was apparently at the boiling point regarding turnovers.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Bill doesn't screw around, that's for sure. Still think he will be back at some point, but I suppose this is a good chance to see what Bolden can do.

I have seen enough of Bolden today. Blount continues to impress, though.

 

[Devizier]

To his credit, LGBT has looked pretty good today.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Blunt (that's the way he should spell it) was great today. Read the holes well and was even good in the passing game. Sure he isn't as explosive as Ridley but he has some big play ability. I could live with Blunt/Vereen until Ridley gets his ball control problem under control.

 

[Tony C]

Blount was surprisingly good -- and not just this game, he's been getting push for the last couple of games.
 
I have to admit I would not have expected that.

 

[Stitch01]

Yeah, would like more Blount as crazy as that sounds.

Noticeably weaker running without Ridley but if he fumbles they probably lose.

I thought he'd be inactive this week, I expect he's active in a limited role next week

 

[Tony C]

The whole make him stand on the sideline holding a ball thing has a real high school feel to it, as when Welker was benched for making snide (and I thought funny) comments about Rexy. I don't particularly know how to fix Ridley nor what has been happening in practice, but the insta-benching/public humiliation thing probably wouldn't be my first choice. And it certainly hasn't worked up until now, so not certain upping the ante will, either. But, then again, I'm not certain what will work...so there's that.

 

[Dogman]

The whole make him stand on the sideline holding a ball thing has a real high school feel to it, as when Welker was benched for making snide (and I thought funny) comments about Rexy. I don't particularly know how to fix Ridley nor what has been happening in practice, but the insta-benching/public humiliation thing probably wouldn't be my first choice. And it certainly hasn't worked up until now, so not certain upping the ante will, either. But, then again, I'm not certain what will work...so there's that.

 
 
I'm sure nobody made him stand in a certain spot or hold anything on the sidelines. The inactive designation is more than enough.

 

[lexrageorge]

I think the message from Belichick to Ridley was quite simple:  if you continue to fumble the ball, you're not one of the 45 most valuable players on the team on game day.  I don't believe there's anything more to it.  I do hope Ridley will get another start and a chance to prove himself again.  But the stakes are pretty high for this team, as always, so I don't understand the criticisms of the benching. 

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Re: Blount -- I haven't seen him get the credit he deserves for being out there at all, much less with really conscientious ball control yesterday.  He was absolutely knocked silly in the Denver game and appeared to be a sure thing for a concussion vacation.
 
Re: Ridley -- 20/20 hindsight and all, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to need to rely on him yesterday.  As noted upthread, I'm rooting hard for Ridley -- but the only time I want to see him on the field for the next few weeks is with the Pats holding a double-digit lead.  [Or, obviously, if the coaching staff determines with high confidence that he's gotten his problems licked on the practice field.]

 

[jk333]

Re: Blount -- I haven't seen him get the credit he deserves for being out there at all, much less with really conscientious ball control yesterday.  He was absolutely knocked silly in the Denver game and appeared to be a sure thing for a concussion vacation.
 
Re: Ridley -- 20/20 hindsight and all, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to need to rely on him yesterday.  As noted upthread, I'm rooting hard for Ridley -- but the only time I want to see him on the field for the next few weeks is with the Pats holding a double-digit lead.  [Or, obviously, if the coaching staff determines with high confidence that he's gotten his problems licked on the practice field.]

 
I wouldn't want to rely on Ridley either but both he and Blount have fumbled at the same rate in their careers. They fumble a lot; before the season, an article said about Blount,
 

Both Peyton Hillis (UFA) and LeGarrette Blount (RFA) are free agents entering the 2013 season. All I have to say is,"BUYER BEWARE."  These two are horrible at protecting the football.  
Blount is similar to Lynch in his aggressive running style, but is even worse at securing the football.  His aggressive style is a key attribute, but a team must decide if the positives outweigh the negatives before giving him valuable touches.

 See the article at: http://nflmanniac.blogspot.com/2013/02/nfl-running-back-ball-security-fumble.html
 

From the Butterfinger thread, since this one has more discussion of this type now:
 
 
Assuming this is true (I haven't checked), could this information be meaningful? I mean, ideally we would just start him on his 6th carry, but barring a a machine built on the Gronk-Zo Theorem, is it possible he's too hyped up or something early on in games?

 
Regarding this, it is a mistake by yahoo on their situational stat page. It's not correct. Ridley's situational stats are at:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/24860/situational/?season=career You'll see where I pulled the data from in that link. 
 
The author in the blog gives great information for assessing fumbling. The average rb will fumble on 1.05% of touches. This rate increases to 1.5% in the playoffs. His study also factors out kick/punt returning and compares rbs with similar samples sizes.
Blog article - http://nflmanniac.blogspot.com/2013/02/nfl-running-back-ball-security-fumble.html

 

[wilked]

Great article, too bad he doesn't apply some statistics to it to show which RBs have statistically significant differences.  I would have to do a little browsing through my stats book, but believe it is pretty straightforward with the sample sizes and fumble percentages

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

 
I wouldn't want to rely on Ridley either but both he and Blount have fumbled at the same rate in their careers. They fumble a lot; before the season, an article said about Blount,
 
 See the article at: http://nflmanniac.blogspot.com/2013/02/nfl-running-back-ball-security-fumble.html

 
This has been discussed ad nauseum, but it's been pretty clear that Blount has focused on handling the football. Whether it's seeing Ridley lose carries, or just adjusting as his career has progressed, he's holding the ball with two hands and making sure he controls the football. Ridley still holds it like a loaf of bread.
 
Yes, Blount has fumbled twice. One of those fumbles was due to being knocked unconscious while on his feet. I think comparing career fumble numbers of running backs is a fruitless exercise. It's a fairly fluky stat to start with, and guys generally get better/worse at it as their careers progress.
 
All that being said, I'm not done with Ridley yet. I think by the end of the year, he's playing meaningful snaps again. He's got something to prove.

 

[DJnVa]

The whole make him stand on the sideline holding a ball thing has a real high school feel to it,

 
Where did you see that he was made to do that?

 

[jk333]

 
This has been discussed ad nauseum, but it's been pretty clear that Blount has focused on handling the football. Whether it's seeing Ridley lose carries, or just adjusting as his career has progressed, he's holding the ball with two hands and making sure he controls the football. Ridley still holds it like a loaf of bread.
 
Yes, Blount has fumbled twice. One of those fumbles was due to being knocked unconscious while on his feet. I think comparing career fumble numbers of running backs is a fruitless exercise. It's a fairly fluky stat to start with, and guys generally get better/worse at it as their careers progress.

 
I'm not saying that Ridley should play or not play, I'm just pointing out their statistics to this point. Blount may have focused on ball handling but it hasn't helped thus far. He's fumbled twice in 93 snaps; that's 2.1% or the same as his career rate of 2% - 11 in 541 career touches. Sure he got knocked out but so did Ridley in the playoffs last year. It's still a fumble.

 

[Tony C]

I think that's a point well taken. And it's not just that Ridley was knocked out during last year's playoffs, but if you look at this season he had a fumble in the first game and then went 6 games without a fumble. Everyone seems to agree that the fumble against Pittsburgh was not his fault. So really if we want to talk small sample sizes we're talking 2 fumbles in 2  games. The fumble against the Broncos in a game in which there were 11 fumbles total (but during which he clearly had bad technique on his fumble, so that can't be excused) and the Carolina fumble (of which i have no memory and a quick you tube search didn't net me a clip).
 
There's clearly an issue. But I'm just not sure the reaction isn't a bit over the top, too. Not sure why Ridley was holding the ball on the sideline -- I guess I just assume a coach told him to, but that's just projection (our Pop Warner coach would do that) so perhaps he took it on himself to do that, I dunno. My only point is I'm not sure that turning him into the Steve Sax of NFL running backs is really proportional to his misdeeds. Nor am I sure the benchings and public self-floggings are all that helpful. That said, he could use a safer technique running with the ball, and maybe this will get him there.

 

[8slim]

We also don't know how often Ridley puts the ball on the turf during practice, right? It's possible that the reaction to his fumbles in games seems over-the-top relative to other backs, but if he's consistently fumbling in practice too that reaction may make more sense.

 

[Toe Nash]

I've never been in either but it seems like the differences between practices and games are magnified with regards to fumbles. I doubt they have guys diving at full speed with their helmets towards their teammates in practices like they do in games (especially since they don't seem to be calling the new "crown of the helmet" penalty). So I'm not sure you could get a whole lot of useful info on a guy's tendency to fumble by watching him in practice unless he was being really reckless.

 

[jk333]

I think that's a point well taken. And it's not just that Ridley was knocked out during last year's playoffs, but if you look at this season he had a fumble in the first game and then went 6 games without a fumble. Everyone seems to agree that the fumble against Pittsburgh was not his fault. So really if we want to talk small sample sizes we're talking 2 fumbles in 2  games. The fumble against the Broncos in a game in which there were 11 fumbles total (but during which he clearly had bad technique on his fumble, so that can't be excused) and the Carolina fumble (of which i have no memory and a quick you tube search didn't net me a clip).
 
There's clearly an issue. But I'm just not sure the reaction isn't a bit over the top, too. Not sure why Ridley was holding the ball on the sideline -- I guess I just assume a coach told him to, but that's just projection (our Pop Warner coach would do that) so perhaps he took it on himself to do that, I dunno. My only point is I'm not sure that turning him into the Steve Sax of NFL running backs is really proportional to his misdeeds. Nor am I sure the benchings and public self-floggings are all that helpful. That said, he could use a safer technique running with the ball, and maybe this will get him there.

 
I agree with all of this... but my largest point is that Ridley and Blount are both fumblers. It doesn't mean either should be benched or that Ridley should have played vs. the Texans, 3 fumbles in 3 games? something needed to be done. I'm mostly pointing out the inconsistency in ridiculing Ridley and praising Blount.  
 
They're both at or just below 2% in a league where 1% is average. That's not good enough, I agree with you - hopefully this gets Ridley where he needs to be. In any event, he and Blount need to improve and fumbling rate is something a coach may want to consider in the future. Especially for a marginal back like Blount.

 

[ifmanis5]

I was fine with benching him, let the guy clear his head a bit. And I'd be fine with slowly mixing him back into the offense. He's too good to ignore but he can't be in high leverage situations right now. Treat him like a reliever who's been lit up in the late innings. I don't want to see him in close games for a while and probably never in late and close games for the foreseeable future.

 

[Stitch01]

I was fine with benching him, let the guy clear his head a bit. And I'd be fine with slowly mixing him back into the offense. He's too good to ignore but he can't be in high leverage situations right now. Treat him like a reliever who's been lit up in the late innings. I don't want to see him in close games for a while and probably never in late and close games for the foreseeable future.

I would not be shocked to see him carrying the ball in close/high leverage situations as soon as this weekend.  I think he needed the week off, and Blount will get the carries if the Pats are running a four minute drill to close out a close game, but I dont think he's buried or going to be consigned to a mop up role for that long.

 

[Byrdbrain]

We also don't know how often Ridley puts the ball on the turf during practice, right? It's possible that the reaction to his fumbles in games seems over-the-top relative to other backs, but if he's consistently fumbling in practice too that reaction may make more sense.

The amount of full contact practices a team has during a season is very limited so unfortunately I think there is very little to be learned there. I'm sure the d guys are told to swat at the ball as much as possible but they really can't do much more than that.

 

[crystalline]

Q: How do you determine when a player sits after fumbling and when he doesn't? As an example,
Julian Edelman has fumbled five times this year and I don't think we've seen him take a seat on the bench but Stevan Ridley has taken a seat on the bench.

BB: Well, that's easy. We always do what we feel is best for the team in every situation. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be as long as I'm here. I have to do what I feel like is best with any decision, in any situation, with what I feel is the overall best decision for the football team. That's what drives every decision I make, on everything: plays, players, you name it. I have to do what I feel like is best for the team.

Q: So it's never about sending a message?

BB: If I have a message to send to somebody, I'll just sit down and talk to them and tell them what it is. I can have a conversation and do have a conversation with anybody on the team that I need to have a conversation with. That's not a problem. There's no sending a message. You sit down and talk to somebody man-to-man and talk about the situation so that we're all on the same page as to whatever it happens to be and what the direction is going forward. That's easy. There's not sending a message. You just have a conversation with somebody. This isn't cryptic. We're just trying to win a football game, that's all.

 

[8slim]

I've never been in either but it seems like the differences between practices and games are magnified with regards to fumbles. I doubt they have guys diving at full speed with their helmets towards their teammates in practices like they do in games (especially since they don't seem to be calling the new "crown of the helmet" penalty). So I'm not sure you could get a whole lot of useful info on a guy's tendency to fumble by watching him in practice unless he was being really reckless.


This is kind of my point. Obviously I have no idea, but if Ridley isn't being careful enough holding the ball in practice it may be that BB and McDaniels have been "reminding" him of it. Then he fumbles in a game, repeatedly, and they say enough is enough.

Or not, it's just a thought.

 

[ragnarok725]

Ridley made it back in today, but I think it's clear that Vereen should be the feature back. He just offers so much more in the other facets of the game. Blount running well has also made Ridley's doghouse relegation a lot more palatable.
 
As long as there's no more Bolden.

 

[knucklecup]

For the record, Vereen fumbled on that play late. When we're talking such small sample sizes, it's odd to me that that play went completely overlooked.