Would You Play Ridley?

[TheoShmeo]

Let's assume that Bolden, Blount and Vereen stay healthy for the rest of the season.
 
In that event, would you play Ridley in 2013 and the playoffs?
 
He's the most explosive back on the Pats but, as discussed in the other Ridley thread and as we all know, he's fumble prone, particularly early in games.
 
At first glace, the notion of benching Ridley for the rest of the season, or at least until another injury, seems rash and like an overreaction.  On the other hand, who doesn't flinch a little each time Ridley gets the rock and hopes that he doesn't drop it?  He just may not be worth the risk.
 
PS: I haven't asked whether you would cut Ridley as I think that would indeed be a massive overreaction and would be foolhardy.  At minimun, the Pats need some depth.  And more to the point, it seems likely that Ridley can eventually overcome this.

 

[TSC]

Unless Bill cuts him completely, I can't see him taking up one of the 53 spots without playing. 
 
There's going to be a blowout or two between now and the end of the season. Ridley will get in and get his reps. 
 
He won't touch the ball in any meaningful situations though.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Hopefully they can have a game where they have a big lead and can get him some run and some confidence in a situation where a fumble isn't going to be a disaster. But (somewhat unbelievably) I am not ready to cut bait on him yet.  The best Patriot team in 2013 features Stevan Ridley running the ball on the assumption that it is possible for him to stop putting it on the ground.  I think they have to try to figure out if that guy still exists.
 
Still even if he goes the rest of the regular season without fumbling I'll be shitting myself every time he carries the ball in the post-season.

 

[dcmissle]

The poll question assumes the other backs remain healthy;  that makes "yes" votes very difficult.
 
If Dez Bryant had this problem, I'd be drumming my fingers on the question.  But backs, save special  one, are almost fungible.  And the running game in today's League is almost an afterthought.
 
So this is not like fixing AP, or 50 years ago fixing Jim Brown (assuming hypothetically he had the problem) when the running game predominated.
 
EDIT --
 
His appearance in a playoff game is almost unimagineable.  He had better hope for plenty of garbage time over the next 5 weeks during which he is letter perfect.

 

[Koufax]

He's too dynamic to bench for the rest of the season.  I wouldn'e be surprised to see him cut after that though.

 

[Stitch01]

Hopefully they can have a game where they have a big lead and can get him some run and some confidence in a situation where a fumble isn't going to be a disaster. But (somewhat unbelievably) I am not ready to cut bait on him yet.  The best Patriot team in 2013 features Stevan Ridley running the ball on the assumption that it is possible for him to stop putting it on the ground.  I think they have to try to figure out if that guy still exists.
 
Still even if he goes the rest of the regular season without fumbling I'll be shitting myself every time he carries the ball in the post-season.

I wouldnt cut him Monday. 
 
I also wouldnt have him active next week. 
 
Its wholly frustrating.  I've been an advocate of getting him back in there after fumbles, but enough is enough.

 

[Leather]

I think, at the very least, they hang onto him as a backup/garbage time guy. 
 
I mean, if Bolden gets hurt, Ridley is an excellent backup to have.  You just have to start thinking of him that way, and not as the presumptive starter.

 

[Otis Foster]

I'm torn on this. I'd give him a week off, concentrate on revising/strengthening his technique, and give him one more shot. The schedule gets a little easier from here in. He's an enormous asset when he's dialed in. I am concerned however that this may be getting into his head. If that's the case, he's not useful to the NEP. It's something only BB and staff can determine by monitoring his mindset as well as his reaction to coaching up. It's only guesswork for outsiders, but guessing on my part, he's toast.

 

[lostjumper]

I would make him the 4th RB behind Blount, Bolden, and Vereen. He should get touches appropriate for the 4th rb and thats it. You can't turn the ball over in football. It's the biggest no-no, and Ridley can't seem to stop. I wouldn't give him meaningful snaps this year unless he shows something different in practice.

 

[Toe Nash]

The poll question assumes the other backs remain healthy;  that makes "yes" votes very difficult.
 
If Dez Bryant had this problem, I'd be drumming my fingers on the question.  But backs, save special  one, are almost fungible.  And the running game in today's League is almost an afterthought.
 

I dunno. A lot is the line, certainly, and in the abstract RBs are fungible but at this point in the season they can't really go out and get anyone. They found BJGE as an undrafted FA, but are there any guys sitting out there on November 25? And when you look at the current roster Ridley is definitely an improvement on everyone but Vereen, who has a different role. Blount has a fumble history. Bolden hasn't fumbled in the regular season but has 3 fumbles in 2 preseasons.
 
On the other hand, you're right that the passing game is mostly what matters.
 
As I posted in the other thread Ridley's last 5 fumbles have all been recovered by the opponent, so they seem worse in our memories. Certainly he can't be fumbling every game but if he fumbles at his current career rate and the Pats recover half of them he'd only be expected to lose a fumble every 5 and a half games (if given 20 carries a game). Small consolation, but there it is.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Blount has two fumbles in 82 carries and 8 in 508 carries in his career.  I'm torn on the Ridley thing too but Blount does not exactly inspire confidence in terms of ball security either.

 

[bankshot1]

The guy is too talented to give up on, but sit him, and bring in Tiki Barber and a sports psychologist, to help him with technique and with his hands and head. Right now he is deep depth, and sits.
 
And to be fair, everyone fumbled last night.

 

[Stitch01]

That's one of the rubs.  Probably looking at more Bolden, but he's not great every down between the tackles. 
 
At the very least, Ridley needs a game or two off to clear his head.  They've tried tough love, they've tried being supportive, and the ball keeps ending up on the ground.  Couple weeks off to work on technique seems like a good place to start to go from here.

 

[soxfan121]

And to be fair, everyone fumbled last night.

 
All fumbles are not equal. Ridley having the ball torn out by Polamalu or losing the ball and consciousness to Bernard Pollard is NOT the same as what happened last night.

 

[Shelterdog]

 
All fumbles are not equal. Ridley having the ball torn out by Polamalu or losing the ball and consciousness to Bernard Pollard is NOT the same as what happened last night.

 
Yup.  The most distressing thing about the last two fumbles he's had is that they're on pretty routine plays.
 
If I'm the coach he's the fourth string guy right now and it's going to be hard for him to move out of that spot.

 

[Bellhorn]

I'm probably in the minority, but I think he will be starting next week. His ball-security technique could still use improvement, but I think his general superiority over Bolden is sufficient to outweigh the marginally greater probability of a turnover. And this probability differential is certainly much smaller than the events of the last few weeks would seem to suggest - a corollary of the fact that shit happens is that sometimes shit happens in clusters.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

How much more often does Ridley fumble compared to a typical NFL back?

Has Blount historically been any better? 8 fumbles in 508 attempts sounds Ridleyesque. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bench Ridley for fumbling if Blount is just as bad.

Part of the problem is that Ridley is much better at running the ball than Blount or Bolden. Last night's game went into OT in part because the Pats needed to gain some key running yars late and Bolden got stuffed on almost every carry. If Ridley is taking those handoffs, there is no overtime. (Either the Pats score another TD and kill more clock... or he fumbles it).

This team may not have the talent to bench one of its best offensive players and still win. Ridley has been as good running the ball as he has been as he has been bad holding onto it. As Collinsworth mentioned, last week there were plays where more than one guy came in untouched and Ridley still got a big gain.

I think the Patriots are so weak overall as a team that they need to risk giving Ridley the ball. Better to risk losing on a Ridley fumble than to just lose anyway. Unless he's got the RB version of the yips.

BTW, has BB always benched his RB after every fumble? I don't remember him doing it with anyone until Ridley. Of course BJGE never fumbled as a Pat.

 

[Dogman]

 
Yup.  The most distressing thing about the last two fumbles he's had is that they're on pretty routine plays.
 
If I'm the coach he's the fourth string guy right now and it's going to be hard for him to move out of that spot.

 
This is where I am. He plays if injuries pop up or down the stretch in blowouts for the reps.
 
The additional defensive series take a serious toll in the 4th quarter of close games.
 
He is a huge liability.

 

[Dogman]

 

I think the Patriots are so weak overall as a team that they need to risk giving Ridley the ball. Better to risk losing on a Ridley fumble than to just lose anyway. Unless he's got the RB version of the yips.
 

 

Can you expand on this? Weak offensively?  Weak defensively?
 

 

[bankshot1]

 
All fumbles are not equal. Ridley having the ball torn out by Polamalu or losing the ball and consciousness to Bernard Pollard is NOT the same as what happened last night.

I wasn't giving Ridley a pass, he would have fumbled it.
Ridley clearly has a problem, biting cold or not. But I can't easily recall a game with more ball control problems for all players than last night.   

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

Ridley is the best back, by far...without question, the team suffered in the fourth quarter and OT without Ridley.  It seems that every time he fumbles the next guy up also fumbles, so it may have something to do with game plan, as well as Ridley.  They should work on it this week as they need him.  That being said, I doubt we see him much again, barring catastrophic injuries.

 

[soxfan121]

OK, please stop with the factoid about Blount's career fumble rate, like it is some kind of trump card. It's not, for a variety of reasons, including that % stats in football are almost always SSS and B. 
 
And stop adding that Blount also fumbled. Yes, Blount fumbled. After getting hit in the earhole by a sprinting and launching defender. Like last year's playoff fumble by Ridley, this fumble is explainable by the high-likelihood that the player was concussed or knocked out momentarily and the ball fell out. That kind of fumble is infuriating but understandable. 
 
As is Brady's fumble from last night - a great play made by the opposition that truly "forces" a fumble. Like Polamalu's strip of Ridley two weeks ago that Belichick gave the "sometimes you just tip your cap" response to by running Ridley right back out there. This kind of fumble sucks but it's understandable. 
 
What Ridley did last night, and in Carolina, and in too many other situations (like Buffalo earlier this year, etc.) is drop the football. Not holding on the ball securely enough so that it was away from his body. To not have enough awareness of ball security as a team priority. He has been careless with the ball. 
 
Fumbles happen. Great play by the opponent? Hard hit that stuns you? Understandable. Careless? Cavalier? Turning your back to the defense trying to spin at the LOS and letting the ball HANG away from your body? Having incidental contact knock it loose?
 
I hate Ridley because his fumbling costs points, both for and against.

 

[ALiveH]

I voted that I'm torn.  I think you try to fix him - the upside of adding one more dynamic offensive weapon is too huge, especially if any of our current TE/WR weapons (who haven't exactly been durable) miss any time.  It's gotta be partly mental at this point.  He needs to get lots of practice and/or garbage time reps & basically be perfect before letting him back on in high leverage situations.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Blount's fumble rate isn't being offered as some kind of trump card, it is being offered to show that Blount has also fumbled at a fairly alarmingly high rate during his career.  You are correct that not all fumbles are created equal, but we aren't talking the difference between Ridley (a dynamic, talented back with fumble issues) and BJGE (a solid move the chains guy who never fumbles).  We're talking the difference between a dynamic, talented back with fumble issues and a move-the-chains guy who also fumbles also (maybe) slightly less than Ridley.

 

[8slim]

Thankfully the remainder of the schedule is manageable, to say the least. Because of that, while I understand completely if BB buries him, I'd give him more PT.

If he carelessly fumbles again? Glue factory.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Acoording to my quick and dirty calculation the difference between Ridley (8 fumbles in 423 regular and postseason attempts or ~1.9 per 100 attempts) and a league average RB (~1 fumble per 100 attempts) is [~1.7] lost fumbles over a typical 300 carry season, given that offenses generally recover ~[38]% of RB fumbles.

I'm going to guess that the difference between his production and that of whoever would take his carries is a lot greater than 1.7 fumbles over 300 carries, but that, admittedly, is a just a guess.

Correction: Offenses lose approximately 62% of RB fumbles. http://www.footballperspective.com/the-definitive-analysis-of-offensive-fumbles/

So, the difference between Ridley and the league average back is about 1.7 fumbles per 300 carries, not 1.5 as I posted originally.

I posted the above after the Bills game. Watching Ridley, I share the same concern as most of you that there's a fundamental problem with technique. On the other hand, I bet if you reviewed the tape on most fumbles by non-fumblers, you'd find that a significant portion were also the result of poor technique. So, does Ridley generally have poor technique? Or does his technique "slip" more often than other backs. I'll leave it to smarter people to determine whether Ridley's fumble rate vs. league average is statistically significant in the first place.

All that said, for the sake of full disclosure, I have little desire to see him carry the ball in a close game.

 

[Jnai]

Voted "play him".
 
At the time it seemed like an inexcusable fuck up. And then 12 other people fumbled the ball.
 
It seems like several of the last few fumbles have been just shit luck rather than anything bad on his part.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

My thoughts have to do with the depth on the roster.  The runs Bolden made in the 4th quarter and OT left us in 2nd and 3rd and long over and over.  So he's not getting 4 quarters of work.  Blunt fumbled, so if there are two seats in the doghouse, that leaves you with Bolden and Vereen with a cast.  So as much as I want to think Ridley is going deep in the doghouse, I don't see it. 
 
My opinion, Ridley plays, not as much as before, but he'll be back out there with emphasis on ball security.

 

[rodderick]

I'd play him. Fumbles or not, he's by far the best back on the team and Blount has fumbling issues himself. Unless you want to roll with Brandon Bolden as the primary back, Ridley should be seeing some (although diminished) playing time.

 

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

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/25/ridley-understands-benching-after-sickening-fumble/

He makes it hard to dislike him. Seems like a team guy who gets it. I want to crap on him but at least he is owning it.

 

[wutang112878]

Bill went back to him after the Polamalu fumble, so he obviously is giving him a pass there.  The only last night was a helmet right to the ball that happened quickly between the tackle box, I dont think those are caused from bad technique they are just very unlucky. 
 
To answer the question, I am torn.  We can explain a lot of his fumbles as bad luck and reverting to the mean, so maybe he is just unlucky but unlucky can cost you games. 
 
Is the problem running between the tackles?  Looking at the game logs the Buffalo fumble was a run up the middle, the Panthers fumble was a run behind Mankins, and last night was up the middle too.  Perhaps we just run him outside the tackle box and let Blount run for his typical 2 yards up the middle?

 

[Shelterdog]

My thoughts have to do with the depth on the roster.  The runs Bolden made in the 4th quarter and OT left us in 2nd and 3rd and long over and over.  So he's not getting 4 quarters of work.  Blunt fumbled, so if there are two seats in the doghouse, that leaves you with Bolden and Vereen with a cast.  So as much as I want to think Ridley is going deep in the doghouse, I don't see it. 
 
My opinion, Ridley plays, not as much as before, but he'll be back out there with emphasis on ball security.

 
I'm not sure Ridley does much more with those 4th quarter/OT chances: it looked like we weren't getting much movement on the Denver line.
 
Also, I don't think Blount is in the doghouse because he has reasonable defense that he was knocked the f*** out when he fumbled.

 

[neil]

I think you have to play him. He's a great RB when not fumbling, he's averaging 4.3 y/a this year. He's clearly the most dynamic RB on the roster. The fumbles are a real concern though. I do think he's been unlucky with them this year, I'd like to review them but footage is hard to find. I don't feel like recent ones were egregious drops, and as someone else mentioned, they've all been recovered which is also unlucky.
 
I think you continue to play him, with an obvious "You're benched each and every time this happens", and hope that it resolves itself. Vereen serves a huge purpose as a 3rd down/receiving RB, but not as a 1st down RB which McD seems to love to call each and every time. Ridley makes the 1st down run a threat, Vereen/Boldon/Blount not so much.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
I'm not sure Ridley does much more with those 4th quarter/OT chances: it looked like we weren't getting much movement on the Denver line.
 
Also, I don't think Blount is in the doghouse because he has reasonable defense that he was knocked the f*** out when he fumbled.

I like Bolden when he has a hole,  he explodes well into the second level. But IMO Ridley is better at the initial burst and making the first level guys miss.  I don't think much was there, but I think Ridley turns those short 1-2 yarders into 3-5.  Not a huge difference, but 2nd and 5 is a significant advantage.

 

[Stitch01]

Last night was pretty egregious.
 
Im not writing the guy off as an asset this year, but I dont see how you run him out as the starting back next week.

 

[Jettisoned]

The only defense I can think of for him is that he wasn't the only guy who had trouble holding on to the ball last night.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Also, I don't think Blount is in the doghouse because he has reasonable defense that he was knocked the f*** out when he fumbled.


If I understand the new crown of the helmet rule, it should have been a penalty, as well. Blount was well beyond the 3-yard mark and Nacho, I believe it was, went right at his head. Nacho is a tough player, but does seem to lead with that helmet quite a bit. He's like a talented BMW.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I really enjoy watching Ridley play.  He makes guys miss like no other Pats RB of any kind of recent vintage, has the speed to get to the edge, and isn't afraid to take on contact.  He also seems like a pretty good dude.
 
But I'd bench him and make him deep depth so long as Bolden and Vereen are healthy.  [I'm torn once you get to Blount... yeah I'd probably put Blount ahead of him too.]  As noted upthread by Soxfan, there are fumbles and then there are fumbles -- but Ridley's had more than a couple that seem to the result of [pick one or more] careless/lazy/undisciplined/poorly-coached/untalented execution.
 
Kills me, but I can't let him play so long as there are other options.

 

[wutang112878]

If I understand the new crown of the helmet rule, it should have been a penalty, as well. Blount was well beyond the 3-yard mark and Nacho, I believe it was, went right at his head. Nacho is a tough player, but does seem to lead with that helmet quite a bit. He's like a talented BMW.

 
By the letter of the rule, I think so, but I dont think this has been called more than a handful of times all season and it seems like the officials intentionally decided to let them play last night.  It took a pretty egregious pass interference infraction to actually get a call unless your name was Jammer.

 

[RSN Diaspora]

Kills me, but I can't let him play so long as there are other options.

 
But are there, really? If Bolden/Blount/Vereen all had Ridley's talent, this isn't a debate--of course you bench Ridley outside of garbage time at least in the near term. But those three just aren't every-down backs. 

 

[ShaneTrot]

I am very torn, but you could make an argument that he cost the Pats the Carolina game. He fumbled on the Carolina 13 yard line on second down. Three straight games with a fumble, two of his fumbles returned for TDs this year. Yikes! He is a free agent after 2014, if he was getting the ball more he probably have 2 straight back to back 1000 yard seasons going into his contract year. The LawFirm parlayed his time in NE into a $9 million 3-year contract with $4 million guaranteed.

 

[dcdrew10]

 
Also, I don't think Blount is in the doghouse because he has reasonable defense that he was knocked the f*** out when he fumbled.

 
If Blount has a concussion, which there is a good chance, Ridley is the #3 back behind Bolden and Vereen and he plays. Who are they going to use when Bolden needs a breather and the situation doesn't call for a 3rd down back type? Develin? There isn't much on the scrap heap this time of year. I think he plays next week. Hopefully he gets his shit together and fast, because he is the most talented rusher on the roster and they need someone to do something in the running game.

 

[Ed Hillel]

By the letter of the rule, I think so, but I dont think this has been called more than a handful of times all season and it seems like the officials intentionally decided to let them play last night. It took a pretty egregious pass interference infraction to actually get a call unless your name was Jammer.


I think Amendola, Talib, and Nink would disagree. I thought the officiating was bad again. Maybe the game is just too fast now.

 

[Super Nomario]

There's a problem here. Ridley's skill set demands that he not have these kind of fumbling problems. He's not a factor in the passing game and he's not an explosive big play threat. He's a really good at hitting the hole hard and getting consistent, chain-moving gains. But you can't trust him to do that when he's a constant threat to put the ball on the ground. He already has no role when you're behind, because he's not a receiver. He can't play in close games or when you're trying to seal a win because of his fumbleitis. So when exactly can he play?

 

[Shelterdog]

There's a problem here. Ridley's skill set demands that he not have these kind of fumbling problems. He's not a factor in the passing game and he's not an explosive big play threat. He's a really good at hitting the hole hard and getting consistent, chain-moving gains. But you can't trust him to do that when he's a constant threat to put the ball on the ground. He already has no role when you're behind, because he's not a receiver. He can't play in close games or when you're trying to seal a win because of his fumbleitis. So when exactly can he play?

 
His recent fumbling issues wouldn't be ok even if he were a home run hitter or a threat in the passing game: coughing it up once a game like he has been lately outstrips the value of any running back currently playing football.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
His recent fumbling issues wouldn't be ok even if he were a home run hitter or a threat in the passing game: coughing it up once a game like he has been lately outstrips the value of any running back currently playing football.

Not once a game, no. But with a worst-than-average fumble rate and some passing / big play ability, at least he would have some utility if you were down big and needed to catch up and you could live with the variance. Right now he's a high-risk / mediocre-reward player, and that's not a good a formula.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Put every one of Knowshon Moreno's runs last night into a loop and make Ridley watch that for half a day. Knowshon had the ball secured like he was carrying, well, the game in his hands. I know RBs are all different, like snowflakes, but this guy Ridley has to change to carrying the ball like fumbling is a drive crippling thing, which it is. I hope BB doesn't give up on him.

 

[SpacemanzGerbil]

If you gave this guy the cooler containing a donor kidney for his mother's transplant, he'd drop it in the dirt.

 

[SMU_Sox]

If it's me? I'd bench him next week. If we are in a blowout I'd let him carry. After next week I will slowly work him back in. But for every bad fumble he's benched the next game whether we recover it or not. Enough is enough. You want to minimize the variance in the NFL - ball control does that. 

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
I'm not sure Ridley does much more with those 4th quarter/OT chances: it looked like we weren't getting much movement on the Denver line.
 
Also, I don't think Blount is in the doghouse because he has reasonable defense that he was knocked the f*** out when he fumbled.

Missed that. And to make matters worse, I knew that last night, but overlooked it when I was typing this morning.
 
So yea, changing my tune. Can't imagine he gets out of the doghouse if Blunt isn't in it.  The Carolina game was all I needed to see regarding Blunt.  No problems from me if he gets the majority of the RB carries going forward.