I think this is a key point that has been overblown as of late.
Running backs fumble the ball. It happens. The way it happened last year (3 games in a row, all were recovered by the defense, one came in a loss to Carolina, another came in the highest rated game of the season against the Broncos) brought a lot of attention to the issue. It was certainly amplified by his fumble in the previous post season debacle against the Ravens (and no running back would have held onto the football after that hit). Still, nobody was complaining in 2012 when he fumbled 4 times because he rushed for 1200+ yards and only 2 of the 4 were recovered by the defense.
I feel bad for Ridley because he's in a no-win situation this year. Ridley will fumble the football at some point. He's the bell cow running back, he'll receive 200 carries, and the typical running back fumbles roughly once every 90 attempts. There is so much attention on this situation now that, unless he is vastly superior to the average NFL running back, he will fumble at some point in the first 8 games, and people will be calling for his head.
BJGE tainted the way Patriot fans view fumbling the football.
- Curtis Martin, potentially the best RB the Pats ever had, averaged 4 fumbles a season with the Patriots.
- Antowain Smith, the most consistent RB the Pats ever had, averaged 2 fumbles a season.
- Robert Edwards put up a beastly rookie season before getting injured, and he still fumbled 5 times.
- Kevin Faulk averaged 3 fumbles a season through his first 8 years with the team.
- Corey Dillon averaged nearly 3 fumbles a season in his three years with the Patriots.
Hell, LeGarrette Blount fumbled 3 times last year - one less than Ridley with 25 less carries - but he escaped the wrath of Patriots fans (he also fumbled 9 times in his first two seasons with Tampa).
Shane Vereen? 44 rushing attempts last year, 1 fumble. If he were to carry the rock 200 times as a lead back, that puts him on pace for 4 fumbles. Same as Ridley (Vereen had 1 fumble in 62 attempts the year prior, which puts him on place for 3-4 fumbles in 2012 as a fulltime back).
Does Ridley have ball security issues? Yes. Are they worse than your average running back? Just slightly.
In his last full season as a starter (2012), he carried the ball 290 times and fumbled 4 times. That's an average of 72.5 carries per fumble.
Over the last two years, here's a list of solid players with similar or worse fumbling numbers (150+ carries in a season, 4.0 YPC):
Ahmad Bradshaw - 73.6 carries per fumble (2012)
Jamaal Charles - 64.75 carries per fumble (2013), 57 carries per fumble (2012)
Alfred Morris - 55.2 carries per fumble (2013)
C.J. Spiller - 50.5 carries per fumble (2013)
LeSean McCoy - 50 carries per fumble (2012)
Reggie Bush - 44.6 carries per fumble (2013), 56.75 carries per fumble (2012)
Ben Tate - 45.25 carries per fumble (2013)
Willis McGahee - 33.4 carries per fumble (2012)
You get the point.
Nobody is saying that Ridley's ball security is good, but peoples expectations need to be readjusted. If Ridley comes out and carries 200+ times this year and puts the ball on the ground 3 times, that's pretty standard in today's hard hitting NFL.
Hell, in limited action last year, you got
this kind of production out of him. Even with all of his concerns in 2013, FO ranks him as a top 10 running back with a success rate (we all love consistency) at 7th overall. And that includes the fumbles.
How about
in 2012 when he was also a top 10 running back and had the 4th best success rate (way to fall forward, big boy!)?
What I'm really trying to say is: I'm glad BB is stubborn and doesn't let the media or fans spin his perception on players. While his fumbling can be a cause for concern, I don't think the rope is nearly as tight on Stevan Ridley as the media is trying to portray it.
Edit: SSF, feel free to move this to the RB thread if you think its more relevant there.