Patriots host RB's Grant & Hightower

JDSal45 said:

Maybe its me, but if someone can't even spell Vereen, repeatedly, I'm going to assume their evaluation of his football prowess is, shall we say, less than accurate as well and probably not all that closely studied either.

But that's me.

J D Sal

Click to expand...

i cannt spel fir sheet buut i wahtc e lot off feetball doint falt mi fir speling Vareen rong.

MoLewisrocks said:

He doesn't have a point. You're just being hyper deferential lately.

Lots of folks who post here played since HS and some even through college and they couldn't sniff an NFL field. Ridley played parts of one season and ended up benched because he developed a sudden case of the dropsies. Vereen couldn't even crack the active game day roster by season's end. They remain little more than a couple of intriguing potential prospects for all intents and purposes. There exists therefore a glaring need for both veteran leadership of the unit in the locker room and potentially on the field if one or both of these guys struggle again to get on or stay on the field.

Click to expand...

I don't question the need for bringing in a Vet RB or two even, for camp competition. Its clear the Pats will keep 5 RBs like they did last season. The big question is what they decide to do with their FBs

I also think your appraisal of Ridley is overly harsh. He lost 2 fumbles over 17 games. A concern maybe, something to improve on, definitely; but not enough to bury the kid. Having 5 runs of 20+ yds in just 87 carries is a remarkable stat. Certainly a big surprise from a player we all thought was a SY/GL/between the T's type runner coming out of the draft. You could argue that he had a better rookiie year than Ingram had.

Also, Vareen's injury plagued year masked the fact that the Pats drafted him to by a dynamic 3 down RB, not just a 3rd down back. Lets see how he does being healthy and a full off season in the system.

And people are now writing off Danny Woodhead as a JAG (not that there's anything wrong with that, since 70% of the league is made up of "JAG's). They seem to ignore that over his 2 seasons with the Pats and over 170 carries he's averaged over 5ypc and over 50 catches - That not bad production for someone who is a situational player.

Depending on how many FB's the Pats keep any RB the Pats sign before camp(and I'm sure they will) is NOT a lock to make the team. They will have to earn it. The I think has the most potential is Hightower. The guy with the highest floor is Grant. I don't want Addai.

I don't get why people are complaining. Since when is depth a bad thing?

I'd probably take Grant or Hightower, in that order. Don't want Addai, as he sucks.

Let's face it. As long as Brady is running this offensive unit, they are never going to be a team that relies on the run first to set up the passing game type of team. It is just not going to happen.

They have fared very well, better than most teams could, with have a running game that is passable, not great. They actually run for as many yards, combined by all of the running backs, as some teams do using one running back as the main carrier of the football.

This team, as far as I am concerned is fine at the running back position. If they choose to add a veteran RB, so be it... but far too much emphasis is being paid on them getting better at the running game.

IMO, once they decide to use the running game more often, that will be the time that the offense begins to stumble.

Going away from what your strength is, in this case the passing game, can only be a pathway for defeat.

JackBauer said:

I don't get why people are complaining. Since when is depth a bad thing?

I'd probably take Grant or Hightower, in that order. Don't want Addai, as he sucks.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Depth is essential. What people seem to forget when they are penciling in their 53-man roster is injuries. I don't have stats on this, but I would estimate (OK, wild guess) that teams generally lose, on average two starters to injury before the season even starts. By the third game, maybe one or two more. Where would the Pats be if Ridley went down? Woodhead, Vereen and what, Faulk. I think they need another body at RB, preferably a bigger one. Hightower or Grant would do. I don't want Addai either.

Doesn't make sense for me to let BJGE go and sign one of these.

When Grant finally got healthy he played pretty well for the Packers last year. The fumble he made against the NY Giants in the playoffs that pretty much killed any chance for the Packers was very uncharacteristic of Grant.

Packers don't want to resign him because they want to create some cap space and they have 2 up-and-comers that they want to use more in addition to Starks. Starks will be the Packers' main back. Brandon Saine is a 2nd year who looks good as a utility and pass catching back, and next up is AJ Green who the Packers hope will be the next in line.

So Grant wouldn't be a bad pickup for a year for the Pats IMO

JackBauer said:

I would take either one if it means we don't draft another RB.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'd take either one, but at this stage in their careers I'd much rather have Hightower.

MoLewisrocks said:

He doesn't have a point. You're just being hyper deferential lately.

Click to expand...

I've always been quite respectful in my posts, Mo. That's nothing new at all.

There's nothing wrong with telling someone that their thinking isn't necessarily out of left field when offering a counter viewpoint.

I don't think that the "need" for a vet RB is there, (I suppose it would depend on one's definition of need); however I did list several reasons why a vet RB should be brought in, and why Belichick would probably feel the same.

Maybe my anger management classes are making me too respectful?

patfanken said:

I also think your appraisal of Ridley is overly harsh. He lost 2 fumbles over 17 games. A concern maybe, something to improve on, definitely; but not enough to bury the kid.

Click to expand...

Ridley lost one fumble in his rookie year.

The other one was fumbled out of bounds and we retained possession.

I agree with what you're saying. If we were to worry about everytime a player fumbled or misplaced the ball, we'd see a lot of good players on the chopping block.

Edelman fumbled 3 times this yr (he also caused 3), and Welker also fumbled 2 times last year (and 9 times since he's been here).

This idea that Ridley is fumble prone is blown way out of proportion. He really hasn't had more problems than any one else would and his fumbles haven't even cost a game.

Woodhead lost a fumble in 2010, so did Gronkowski that year and Hernandez this year. We didn't put them in the dog house. Could you imagine if Gronkowski wasn't trusted because of one lost fumble in 2010?

Personally I'd like to take the chance on a game changer who may cough the ball up once in a while than an average back who never fumbles ever. BJGE really romanticized the idea of a fumble-free player but that's such a rarity.

Good players tend to turn the ball over. Look at AD in Minnesota. Would you guys pass on him because he has a rep for putting the ball on the ground? Even look at Brady, who has had some really bad INTs and fumbles over the course of his career, including quite a few this past season.

I'm not saying that Ridley is on par with those players mentioned but this idea that he's prone to fumbling is a joke.

I was just mentioning Grant as a good vet option for RB depth in the Forte thread. This is great news IMO both would be underrated signings. Not sure if Grant will ever be the same as pre-injury but he did run pretty well as the season went on. At worst they provide depth.

supafly said:

Ridley lost one fumble in his rookie year.

The other one was fumbled out of bounds and we retained possession.

I agree with what you're saying. If we were to worry about everytime a player fumbled or misplaced the ball, we'd see a lot of good players on the chopping block.

Edelman fumbled 3 times this yr (he also caused 3), and Welker also fumbled 2 times last year (and 9 times since he's been here).

Click to expand...

Ridley also lost a fumble in the last exhibition game he played (he only played in 2). That means he fumbled 3 times in 19 NFL contests he played in, losing 2.

Hardly Dykes said:

Tom Brady is by far the most important player on the roster and Hightower would be by far the best pass protector in one of the leagues most pass happy offenses. If they sign Hightower, I think he gets a lot of PT on passing downs at the very least. Don't forget, Hightower was the Redskins starting RB until he tore his ACL. He's a good veteran player.

Click to expand...

He was playing very well too.

Faulk will be on his way out so they will need to add a RB to fill his void, preferably a veteran. I like Grant and I think it would be a good signing that would mean an experienced player to take reps when needed.

supafly said:

Ridley lost one fumble in his rookie year.

The other one was fumbled out of bounds and we retained possession.

I agree with what you're saying. If we were to worry about everytime a player fumbled or misplaced the ball, we'd see a lot of good players on the chopping block.

Edelman fumbled 3 times this yr (he also caused 3), and Welker also fumbled 2 times last year (and 9 times since he's been here).

Click to expand...

I assume rational people like coach weigh all the factors when they assess potential ball control issues, like the actual situation and volume of touches and production and other skills a player brings to the field when he isn't touching the ball. He didn't sit Ridley for chucks... And Vereen wasn't lame all season... Even Edleman's snaps not to mention touches on offense were reduced. As were Ocho's for that matter. Rookies (here or in the league) and bit or role players are kept on short leashes here.

MoLewisrocks said:

I assume rational people like coach weigh all the factors when they assess potential ball control issues, like the actual situation and volume of touches and production and other skills a player brings to the field when he isn't touching the ball. He didn't sit Ridley for chucks... And Vereen wasn't lame all season... Even Edleman's snaps not to mention touches on offense were reduced. As were Ocho's for that matter. Rookies (here or in the league) and bit or role players are kept on short leashes here.

Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of players are kept on short leashes, and I am sure that he was benched for his fumbling.

The question or debate is to 'how much' we worry about Ridley's tendancy to fumble moving forward? I tend to think that the problem was very overrated, although I would've made the same choice to go with the vet who never fumbled in the bigger game setting. That's a no-brainer. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that Ridley is more prone to fumbling moving forward.

Vereen may have not been 'lame' all season, but by the time he was really able to go he was way behind in his knowledge of the system, playcalls/audibles, and overall rustiness...he was not a candidate for touches in a big game setting. That left it between Ridley and BJGE, and the decision was pretty simple.

I think it's pretty easy to take the ball out of Ridley's hands when he's a rookie who fumbled a couple times late in the season when you have a seasoned vet like BJGE who has never once fumbled in his career. Since we do not have that option anymore, I would expect Ridley to gain additional touches moving forward.

Here is a chart that I found on kickoff/punt return touches, to go along with RB touches, if you feel like taking a look it (since you referred to this kind of analysis in your opening sentence). It doesn't show anything towards or away from Ridley personally, but offers insight as to what the 'usual' percentages are for some positions:

http://maddenmanniac.blogspot.com/2012/02/attribute-spotlight-running-back-carry.html