Running Back position

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

    Running Back position

    I know this is a little preemptive, but I find it funny that a team that doesn't run the ball has 6 runningbacks on their active roster. What do you think they do next year at that position. I like most of them but that's 6 roster spots that could be freed up for some other position, like safety. What do you think they do  next year. 2 rookies in Vereen and Ridley (signed) Woodhead (signed extension) BJGE (i would assume is gone next year) Faulk (is gone next year) Polite (prob. gone next year) 

    I know Woodhead has been fumblehappy as of late but I don't think they use him enough.

    Thoughts on next year's RB roster?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    Faulk, Polite and maybe Woodhead are gone.

    personally I'd like BB to find a RB that can get 1000 yards rushing and 1000 yards recieving

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

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]Faulk, Polite and maybe Woodhead are gone. personally I'd like BB to find a RB that can get 1000 yards rushing and 1000 yards recieving
    Posted by kansaspatriot[/QUOTE]

    Although it's far to early to tell, it's possible that Ridley may be that person.
    They should be a "triple" threat, rush, receive, and block......lol.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]They should be a "triple" threat, rush, receive, and blockPosted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: Running Back position

    I do think we have a pretty good group of running backs heading into next season, as long as they re-sign BJGE.  I think the four are a good combination.  You have Green-Ellis and Woodhead as north-south type of running backs, while Vereen and Ridley are more flashy speed type of backs.  That being said, the Patriots will probably look at the FA market before re-signing Green-Ellis. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    Polite is really a fullback here on a Patriots tryout.  He's a power fullback for first and goal on the 1, for third and 1.  BB regularly puts people on.  Some, like Jabar Gaffney, stick and prosper.  Most are cut in 2 weeks.

    Faulk will probably retire.

    Vereen will probably recover from his injuries, maybe, maybe not. 

    Ridley will learn not to fumble. 

    The other two will get the ball quite a lot.  Woodhead drives defensive players nuts because they can't even see which way he's cutting or whether he has the ball, so they can't react.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mgraham. Show mgraham's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    BJGE has 27 regular season TDs in the last 2 years and  0 fumbles( BB loves that!) in his career . Unless he wants big money he will stay. He is considerably better than a "serviceable" RB. I think he is very underrated.

    with the new players agreement is there still the lower  franchise tag where you have right of matching offers? i do not think he would command a big contract.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]BJGE has 27 regular season TDs in the last 2 years and  0 fumbles( BB loves that!) in his career . Unless he wants big money he will stay. He is considerably better than a "serviceable" RB. I think he is very underrated. with the new players agreement is there still the lower  franchise tag where you have right of matching offers? i do not think he would command a big contract.
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    Agree all around
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    Here's a thought. Do peeps think the Patriots will use Polite vs. Giant to help block for the other backs....?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]Here's a thought. Do peeps think the Patriots will use Polite vs. Giant to help block for the other backs....?
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the Patriots left him off the SB roster.  I have not seen where he has done anything worth keeping him on the roster.  There are others who can fill that spot when needed, imo. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    RB...........Screen
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joel63. Show Joel63's posts

    Re: Running Back position

     Law Firm isn't going anywhere. He never fumbles. Never. He always goes forward. He catches the ball. He is good in blitz pickup. He's as reliable a running back as you'll find and BB trusts him implicitly.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from myaim45. Show myaim45's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    BJGE doesn't fumble. If he would like to stay, I would like to keep him as a running back.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    RE: NE's Runningback corp, as it relates to the upcoming Superbowl...


    First, NE's in an infinitely better position right now (compared to '07) to counter what NY's specific physical look (personell-wise) in their given 4-3 Defense, and second, NE's now in a position TO be able to counter the specific things & ways that The Giants finished off NE's Championship hopes in that 207-2008 SB Game...


    TO beat The Ny Giants, Imo- The Offensive Gameplan for NE will HAVE to start with the run, and be determined enough and head-strong to keep at it early on (most specifically), even If it may falter a bit.  2 things now on how to go about beating NY's Defense, and how it relates to the first Giants/NE match-up earlier this season:  
        
         NE started that first regular season match-up with precisely the right game-plan in mind on How a team should go about beating The Giants Defense.  NE did in that game, what imo, They MUST do early on in this SB contest...  You do, long extended drives early on.  EQUAL parts pass and equal parts run...and if ya gotta err slightly in 1 direction offensively, you go towards a slightly larger commitment to the running game (just above 50-50 run/pass, like 55% run/45% pass).  You do this early on, in VERY long, and very extended Time of Possession Drives.  This IS, in fact what NE began doing in the 1st match-up this year...but 2 things threw this gameplan into the trash heap- 
     
      #1. Tom Brady had perhaps one of his worst performances in recent memory (Not only was Brady not accurate 20 for 39 in passing attempts/completions), but Brady also threw 2 Ints as well...NE will not win with that performance. 
      #2. O'Brien and/or BB was extremely fickle and not even modestly patient in how they went about allowing this early gameplan develop in terms of NE's Running Game (I DO believe there was some attempt here, to try to allow for Brady to shake off some of this early-in-that-game, sub-par play...YET regardless, I also believe that NE's Coaching Staff was way to hasty in allowing for their running game to fully develop in that game).  At the same time Brady was having an off-day in that game (and here I'm particularly refering to early on in that game, as it relates to NE's initial gameplan commitment to try to open up the running game, on those equal run/equal pass, extended TOP drives against NY).  Go back and see, not only did NE start quickly favoring (albeit slightly...but erringly) the passing game just a bit more, after the first 2-3 failed drives (due unfortunately, most largely to Brady's inconsistancy here), BUT NE's Coaching Staff ALSO began flip-flopping their runningbacks, In-to the game, then out, then in, then out...To The GREAT detriment of hurting NE's specific runners, and allowing for them to get into any rhythm and/or feel for The Giants D, or just to establish themselves.  Runningback is very instinctual, and IF as soon as you the specific RB, get stopped for zero gain on just 1 play (after several + yardage plays), Your coaching staff immediately pulls you in favor of trying their luck with someone else (and again...and again, until it eventually comes back to you), it sacrifices that runner's deliberacy AND it harms that runner's feel within the game to get established...


    Alright, My take on that 1st match-up  off to the side now...THIS is what NE should do (or what in an ideal circumstance, Offensively I would do).  First 4 possessions, you commit to equal parts running game & passing game on Offense (the confusing looks NE's 2 TE set-up should work wonders right here- i.e. that 7 man power formation with 2 TEs on each side, that can also flip in an instant by sending either/both TEs into varying motions prior to the snap-Run OR Pass).  Now, you're attempting to dishearten NY, in that frustrating slow, prolonged death type of way...  After (and here's your hope, what you want) you ideally get up by 2 scores...most teams would stick with this gameplan...but I wouldn't.  You get up by 2 scores, and NOW (right out of half-time)=You up-tempo your Offense, and go for the jugular.  Spread out, pass first, Run just when you see them backing onto their heels on any given set of downs/specific down.  
         In all, The M.O. is to do this: Frustrate The Giants early on, slow and exacting and tiring and frustrating them...THEN, rather than continuing with this (yes, even IF totally successful), You MUST finish them off by burying them...Do NOT allow them to stay within any reach of you 3rd quarter and onwards=Do Not.  Open it up, and go for the complete and absolute kill, b/c imo it ain't gonna work any other way w/ NY...


    RE: NY's Specific form of 4-3 Defense, personell wise...

    ~I've stated this before...NY's front seven, is long, muscular, and big...but there is a difference in terms of what they are NOT, comparatively to other standard 4-3 D's...they are not stout, they are not heavy.  This goes right down the D-Line and into their LBs...but if ya need specifics, NY is particularly long/tall (but not trully "stout") with their 2 DTs, Then their LBs (and then, their DEs).  But again, NY's D makes up for this overall "weight" factor, by first being tall/big and extremely fast & athletic (ALL-around on their Defensive front 7), and they further counter any shortcomings they have in overall "bulk"/"stoutness", by having those freak DEs, whom are just man-childs + deploying a noticeably larger type of player, throughout their secondary positions.  

    Now, I'm giving ya the quick jist here about the minor differences in NY's specific personell that they like using in their 4-3 Defensive look, because this long, tall, and athletic speed, which shortchanges overall bulk, WAS what killed NE in 2007-08.  NY's specific personell is built to be great 1-gap, VERY fast penetrating gap-shooters...They are built to pass-rush first and foremost.  The Giants bank on the fact that the oppossing team's running game can be held largely in check by those freak DEs on the outside, and on in the inside, those longer LBs backed up by significantly bigger secondary guys surrounding them.  
       Gettin' ahead of myself here...THUS, Because that's what you WOULD do, in order to counter what NY did in the NY/NE SB of '07 (discussed this in the past too)...NY's DTs were sent full-bore, 1-gap shooting the seams between those interior O-Linemen, WithOUT care or concern for NE's running game threat in that SB (dancing, hesitating, Laurence Maroney).  Meanwhile, NY's DEs played a sorta cat & mouse, head on a swivel, not fully penetrating containment of that pocket/running game, as they (NY's DEs) would wait for the play direction to fully develop before committing fully themselves to how they would angle their attack to any specific play...  

    IF NY's gameplan is to do what they did in '07...NE is in an infinitely better spot to counter, and then exploit NY's Defensive Gameplan here.  And it'll be through NE's specific deployment of their RBs...  NY sends their DTs all-out spear-heading, while NY's DEs cat & mouse a sorta edge containment before fully committing themselves, and NE has 3 Runningbacks, perfectly situated to exploit this:  If and when NY's Gameplan lies a bit more in spearheading those DTs (all-out)=A RB of Stevan Ridley's pure size and power WILL make those DTs learn to be just a bit hesitant (really quickly), as a brush/arm tackle offered by those DTs (who have narrowed their vision & play-making chance against the interior run, with those DTs mindset/skillset pointed towards a collapse-the-pocket, and pentrate, penetrate, PENETRATE greater focus).  Now...If and when NY decides to focus a bit more of their efforts and aims at using their freak DEs to beat NE's OTs, NE can use Woodhead's quick, small, slippery jitterbug running frame, to make them pay in those DEs quick & speedy commitment to their asngle of attack from the side of the line...  (BJGE I ommit b/c he's an understood, as he occupies a bit of both of these other guy's skill-sets).  Either way, BOTH Ridley and Woodhead are physical mismatches running-wise, against a team that hedges more towards emphasizing a long & fast front 7 personell, while losing ground on the stout/bulk/weight aspect of their front 7...                              
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Running Back position : I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the Patriots left him off the SB roster.  I have not seen where he has done anything worth keeping him on the roster.  There are others who can fill that spot when needed, imo. 
    Posted by TFB12[/QUOTE]
    well, he's done more than faulk. so, if there's a  possibility that there are situations in a big game for him to play....I'd rather have polite.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    Laz, if the pats have long drives early in the game, in order to limit the number of possessions by both teams and resulting in a low scoring affair, doesn't this actually give the Giants and edge?

    I think they do have to mix up the play calls, but go no huddle early and score quickly to get a 14 pt. lead, stay aggressive on both sides of the ball - and try to run away with the game.

    At least that would make be feel better w/ a humungous lead...lolLaughing
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]Here's a thought. Do peeps think the Patriots will use Polite vs. Giant to help block for the other backs....?
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    I haven't seen enough of Polite to know his skills . . . but if he can catch out of the backfield I think he might have a role to play as an outlet receiver or maybe even running (or blocking for) a few screens.  This is even more possible if he's a good pass blocker, which would make him a bit more versatile on passing plays.  I don't see him playing a big role in the running game, but I wonder if he can contribute in the passing game. 



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

    Re: Running Back position

    Pats have more rushes than the average team in the league this year They have more rushes than the Giants They have about 350 more rushing yards than the Giants. The Giants are dead last in the NFL in rushing yards and YPA Pats are tied for 3rd in the NFL for most rushing TDs
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]Pats have more rushes than the average team in the league this year They have more rushes than the Giants They have about 350 more rushing yards than the Giants. The Giants are dead last in the NFL in rushing yards and YPA Pats are tied for 3rd in the NFL for most rushing TDs
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    I'm thinking if Gronk plays, he may not be used for blocking for the RBs, so, either they use Solder.....or Polite
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]Pats have more rushes than the average team in the league this year They have more rushes than the Giants They have about 350 more rushing yards than the Giants. The Giants are dead last in the NFL in rushing yards and YPA Pats are tied for 3rd in the NFL for most rushing TDs
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]


    Good point shenanigan. This is something a lot of posters seem not to recognize--the Pats were 17th in rushing attempts per game during the regular season, which puts them in the middle of the pack.  That statistic is just a tad misleading, because the Pats offense also had more plays from scrimmage than most other offenses (we were second or third in scrimmage plays, I think), so there were more chances for us to run than other teams had.  I think about 42% of our (non-kick) scrimmage plays were runs.  So they weren't a heavy running team, but more than 4 in 10 plays were runs. 

    One of the reasons we have six backs is because no back on this team is complete enough to do all of the things we want from our backs. Two of the guys are rookies who are still learning; BJGE is a workmanlike runner, but not particularly explosive and not a great passing-game back; Woodhead is the passing-game back, but he's not what Faulk used to be; Faulk is around just in case he can return to his former self and maybe also to help tutor the other backs; and Polite is a late season acquisition, probably brought in to give us another bigger body on offense with Vollmer hurt and therefore Solder having to be used as a tackle and not a third TE.

    Next year, ideally, they carry five backs, with Ridley and BJGE being the prime tailbacks, Vereen maybe turning into the third-down back, and two other guys (one more fullback-like, one more versatile) as depth.  I think Faulk will retire.  Woodhead may be back as one of the back-ups.  And then we just need to pick up one more in free agency or the draft. 


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    Vereen and Ridley are, I expect, both going to be big players next year. I expect BJGE to be here next year and to contribute in the ways he is obviously suited for.  Beyond those three I dont know. I expect this is it for Faulk. I like Woody but dont know the contractual issues if any. He could be back. I expect they will end up with five.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mbeaulieu07. Show mbeaulieu07's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]I know this is a little preemptive, but I find it funny that a team that doesn't run the ball has 6 runningbacks on their active roster. What do you think they do next year at that position. I like most of them but that's 6 roster spots that could be freed up for some other position, like safety. What do you think they do  next year. 2 rookies in Vereen and Ridley (signed) Woodhead (signed extension) BJGE (i would assume is gone next year) Faulk (is gone next year) Polite (prob. gone next year)  I know Woodhead has been fumblehappy as of late but I don't think they use him enough. Thoughts on next year's RB roster?
    Posted by Caliberink[/QUOTE]

    I think you'll see a lot of the same faces back next year.

    I think they extend Benny, Vereen and Ridley will have a year under their belt and will likely be able to contribute more, Woody has his role as a change of pace back, has ability in pass pro and contributes on ST, so I think he's back and I think Faulk is back, if he has something in the tank.

    If they're looking into FA, players like LaRod Stephens-Howling (who has kick return value) and Jason Snelling (a big back that can catch the football) may be of interest. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Running Back position

    I don't claim to know who will or won't be on the roster for the SB,but I'ld be surprised if they didn't carry Carson Butler as an emergancy replacement for Gronk,I know they brought him back to the PS last week. I was surprised they didn't call Alge Crumpler... So it'll be a pick your poison type of move whether it's Faulk or Polite who sits,my guess is someone with a limited role like Tiquan Underwood sits...
     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Running Back position

    In Response to Re: Running Back position:
    [QUOTE]BJGE has 27 regular season TDs in the last 2 years and  0 fumbles( BB loves that!) in his career . Unless he wants big money he will stay. He is considerably better than a "serviceable" RB. I think he is very underrated. with the new players agreement is there still the lower  franchise tag where you have right of matching offers? i do not think he would command a big contract.
    Posted by mgraham[/QUOTE]

    I dunno, something tells me that Benny is a company guy and a system guy.  Just a feeling.
     

Share