Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    Babe says Rildey sucks and Babe is always right since Babe is like 100 years old and has seen everything there is to see.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    IMO...Because the Bengals had a pretty stout line. Bolden and Blount are more power straight ahead runners, good against ATL (maybe would do well vs our vinceless D) but not really optimal vs. the Bengals.

    Ridley with his quicker burst  would stretch the Bengals along the line  a bit more to protect the edge and also would have a better shot at squeezing through holes. 

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    Ridley is a very very good pass blocker, he may have been able to give TB more time 


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

     

    IMO...Because the Bengals had a pretty stout line. Bolden and Blount are more power straight ahead runners, good against ATL (maybe would do well vs our vinceless D) but not really optimal vs. the Bengals.

    Ridley with his quicker burst  would stretch the Bengals along the line  a bit more to protect the edge and also would have a better shot at squeezing through holes. 

     

     



    Blount is absolutely not a power, straight ahead as a runner at all, man. Could not disagree more.

     

     

    Blount runs high and clearly prefers to get off the edge to look for seams in space.  

    The mistake was no using the lower center of gravity, more power runner, Bolden. He uses his weight well, stays low and can fall forward for those extra yards. 

     



    OK my bad, the fact he is a fairly heavy back stuck in my mind I guess,

     

    do you think Ridely would have been better choice than either of these guys? (if he was healthy)

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?


    I guess people are searching for reasons/excuses as to why the Patriots lost. So, it's just speculating when some say that Ridley's absence was the reason for the ineffectiveness of the running game for that day.  It may have been that, just like it could have been the rain, or lousy play calling by McD, poor decisions by BB, or poor play by the OL, WRs, and Brady.  I think most would agree that the defense did a pretty good job of keeping us in the game. In addition, like many of the Patriots losses - fans rarely give the opponent credit for showing up and playing the game.

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

     

    IMO...Because the Bengals had a pretty stout line. Bolden and Blount are more power straight ahead runners, good against ATL (maybe would do well vs our vinceless D) but not really optimal vs. the Bengals.

    Ridley with his quicker burst  would stretch the Bengals along the line  a bit more to protect the edge and also would have a better shot at squeezing through holes. 

     

     



    Blount is absolutely not a power, straight ahead as a runner at all, man. Could not disagree more.

     

     

    Blount runs high and clearly prefers to get off the edge to look for seams in space.  

    The mistake was no using the lower center of gravity, more power runner, Bolden. He uses his weight well, stays low and can fall forward for those extra yards. 

     



    OK my bad, the fact he is a fairly heavy back stuck in my mind I guess,

     

    do you think Ridely would have been better choice than either of these guys? (if he was healthy)

     



    You have the right to feel what you want in your analysis, I just disagree.

     

    He is big and I think that is where people make the mistake.  He should be lowering his torso through the line and initiating contact, driving his legs earlier, but he's not that kind of runner.

    I just think he's sees himself more as a finesse kind of back, which is fine. Once he gets into space, he knows what to do.

    Bolden is my choice for the short yardage and maybe even lead back because he protects the ball easier than Ridley does, and I like Ridley. I think if you want to establish a traditional run game, use Bolden with some Ridley.

    If you want to open it up a bit and pass more, maybe against a weaker D or one that doesn;t match up as well, used Ridley because he can work as Faulk type, a bigger body where he can be lethal on draws.

    I keep seeing Reiss saying Bolden is a Vereen type backing him up, but I just disagree. Vereen is a scatback.   He's a guy you an use in spots where there are blatant match up advantages and if you want do some tosses to get him off the edge.

    I just like the way Bolden hits the hole and slithers through with that low center of gravity.

    I like his vision, too. He uses the zone blocking well with patience. Reminds me of Charlie Garner a little bit.

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree completely. Bolden in terms of size is actually more comparable to Ridley. They each run differently, frankly I really like the way bolden runs and would like to see him used more. Blount is big but runs smaller. He has power, but I think that is more on display once he breaks through the line into the second level. He's hard to take down in open field. 

    The point you keep bringing up, one I agree with is on how the pats sub their backs. Previously it was a tip off as to what they would do, but I think this group is better in that regard. Vereen to me is the best back we have. 

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

     Biggest problem I saw with Bolden and Blount and they are both slow to the hole. Both can break off long runs once they past the L.O.S. but they are slow to pick and hole and go. Bolden on those stretch plays kept getting tackling behind the line as he tiptoed around looking for which hole to go in. Blount gets the ball and almost comes to a stand still and waits for defenders to move and then accelarates. Against good D lines, that aint gonna work well.

    Ridley could have helped because he is quick to the hole. He is sprinting by the time the ball is handed off and he breaks some runs because of that when the D hasnt even disengaged from blockers he is already by them. Ridleys only issues are ball security

     

    "Take care of my B*tch, I may need her back in a couple years"

    Brady to Manning after Wes signed with Denver

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

     Biggest problem I saw with Bolden and Blount and they are both slow to the hole. Both can break off long runs once they past the L.O.S. but they are slow to pick and hole and go. Bolden on those stretch plays kept getting tackling behind the line as he tiptoed around looking for which hole to go in. Blount gets the ball and almost comes to a stand still and waits for defenders to move and then accelarates. Against good D lines, that aint gonna work well.

    Ridley could have helped because he is quick to the hole. He is sprinting by the time the ball is handed off and he breaks some runs because of that when the D hasnt even disengaged from blockers he is already by them. Ridleys only issues are ball security

     

    "Take care of my B*tch, I may need her back in a couple years"

    Brady to Manning after Wes signed with Denver

     



    My girlfriends always said I was quick to the hole.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     


    I guess people are searching for reasons/excuses as to why the Patriots lost. So, it's just speculating when some say that Ridley's absence was the reason for the ineffectiveness of the running game for that day.  It may have been that, just like it could have been the rain, or lousy play calling by McD, poor decisions by BB, or poor play by the OL, WRs, and Brady.  I think most would agree that the defense did a pretty good job of keeping us in the game. In addition, like many of the Patriots losses - fans rarely give the opponent credit for showing up and playing the game.

     



    I heard from a very informed source it was becasue the Bengals made more plays.

     

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     Biggest problem I saw with Bolden and Blount and they are both slow to the hole. Both can break off long runs once they past the L.O.S. but they are slow to pick and hole and go. Bolden on those stretch plays kept getting tackling behind the line as he tiptoed around looking for which hole to go in. Blount gets the ball and almost comes to a stand still and waits for defenders to move and then accelarates. Against good D lines, that aint gonna work well.

    Ridley could have helped because he is quick to the hole. He is sprinting by the time the ball is handed off and he breaks some runs because of that when the D hasnt even disengaged from blockers he is already by them. Ridleys only issues are ball security

     

    "Take care of my B*tch, I may need her back in a couple years"

    Brady to Manning after Wes signed with Denver




    I think it was PatsEng who said that the delay is a good and bad thing.  The good thing is that it gives the runner time to see the hole open up.  The bad thing is that the hole may close up by the time they get there.  In some ways, it's like Spikes shooting thru the gap to make a stop. Sometimes it's the right gap, sometimes it's not.

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

     

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:

     

     

     

    IMO...Because the Bengals had a pretty stout line. Bolden and Blount are more power straight ahead runners, good against ATL (maybe would do well vs our vinceless D) but not really optimal vs. the Bengals.

    Ridley with his quicker burst  would stretch the Bengals along the line  a bit more to protect the edge and also would have a better shot at squeezing through holes. 

     

     



    Blount is absolutely not a power, straight ahead as a runner at all, man. Could not disagree more.

     

     

    Blount runs high and clearly prefers to get off the edge to look for seams in space.  

    The mistake was no using the lower center of gravity, more power runner, Bolden. He uses his weight well, stays low and can fall forward for those extra yards. 

     



    OK my bad, the fact he is a fairly heavy back stuck in my mind I guess,

     

    do you think Ridely would have been better choice than either of these guys? (if he was healthy)

     

     



    You have the right to feel what you want in your analysis, I just disagree.

     

     

    He is big and I think that is where people make the mistake.  He should be lowering his torso through the line and initiating contact, driving his legs earlier, but he's not that kind of runner.

    I just think he's sees himself more as a finesse kind of back, which is fine. Once he gets into space, he knows what to do.

    Bolden is my choice for the short yardage and maybe even lead back because he protects the ball easier than Ridley does, and I like Ridley. I think if you want to establish a traditional run game, use Bolden with some Ridley.

    If you want to open it up a bit and pass more, maybe against a weaker D or one that doesn;t match up as well, used Ridley because he can work as Faulk type, a bigger body where he can be lethal on draws.

    I keep seeing Reiss saying Bolden is a Vereen type backing him up, but I just disagree. Vereen is a scatback.   He's a guy you an use in spots where there are blatant match up advantages and if you want do some tosses to get him off the edge.

    I just like the way Bolden hits the hole and slithers through with that low center of gravity.

    I like his vision, too. He uses the zone blocking well with patience. Reminds me of Charlie Garner a little bit.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree completely. Bolden in terms of size is actually more comparable to Ridley. They each run differently, frankly I really like the way bolden runs and would like to see him used more. Blount is big but runs smaller. He has power, but I think that is more on display once he breaks through the line into the second level. He's hard to take down in open field. 

     

    The point you keep bringing up, one I agree with is on how the pats sub their backs. Previously it was a tip off as to what they would do, but I think this group is better in that regard. Vereen to me is the best back we have. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think Bolden is anything special .... but more a poor man's Ridley. 

    Blount has tremendous power, but he has no clue how to run in tight areas and tries to cut around the pile. 

    It's been his biggest knock since college ... he leaves short yardage on the field. 

    I consider him a front runner who is great when you have a working passing game.

    Either Bolden OR Ridley are better choices if you need someone to grind out yards. 

     

    Truth told .... the whole team would be better off if Vereen could return. He opens things up all over the field when he is in there. 

    But yes, NE missed Ridley, and they missed Gronk ... and the rookies had rookie moments. Just totally out of synch. NE has exactly 5 catches from their TEs so far this season ... that is coming into a season where the offseason game plan was designed around ~125 catches. 

    Whatever this offense is going to be, it is a work in progress now. Whatever this offense is going to be, it needs to be healthy first. 

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    Ridley..... blows.

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

    Re: Why do people keep saying we miss Stevan Ridley against Cincy?

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:



    I heard from a very informed source it was becasue the Bengals made more plays.

     



    lol. that's all it takes :)

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share