Shane Vereen (1 Viewer)

FF Ninja · Apr 4, 2013

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Code:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley   20   2  8Vereen    5  12  3

humpback · Apr 4, 2013

EBF said:
Except I was talking about Ridley, not Bolden. Even if you like Vereen, the biggest short term problem is the presence of Ridley. He is the same age as Vereen. Even though he was the lower draft pick, he has clearly surpassed him. As I mentioned previously, Ridley has received more touches than Vereen in every game that the two have played. Usually by a wide margin.

If you think Vereen is a good hold for the future, that's one thing. If you think he's likely to become a top 20 RB on the Patriots, I think it's highly unlikely barring an injury to Ridley. The best you can really hope for is something like what Woodhead did last season. Fringe RB2 numbers. Barely useful. More of a bye week filler than a guy you'd want to be starting every week. I don't think that kind of low upside warrants the cost of what it would take to acquire Vereen right now.

If you're really itching to buy a player who will be mostly useless next season and who might become startable at some undetermined point in the future, there are cheaper options with just as much talent as Vereen. He's this year's Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart. A guy who won't produce anything of note next season, will eat a spot on your roster, and will likely be worth less on the market a year from now than what you paid for him.

Of course the presence of Ridley is going to limit his value, but IMO it also presents upside- it isn't as if he is an established superstar and there's no way he falls out of favor. That's the difference in this situation and the one earlier when Vereen was lumped in with Gerhart, Pierce, Quizz, Turbin, etc.- those guys have no chance to take away substantial touches from the studs in front of them, Vereen does.

Here's the disconnect I have with your opinion- you keep saying "he's a strong sell" and he "isn't worth his cost"- what do you think his value is right now? You said you would only give up a 3rd round rookie pick for him (still haven't said which rookies you think you can get in the 20's or 30's that you'd rather have). I'd give up any pick in the 20's without hesitation, not because I'm high on him necessarily, but because I think he's clearly worth that price.

Also, I think just about every owner would be happy with fringe RB2 numbers out of him this year, which is more than "barely useful" in most leagues (especially if it comes at the price of a 2nd or 3rd round rookie pick).

squistion · Apr 4, 2013

JamesTheScot said:
EBF is clearly locked into a position and is merely trying to bolster it with specious proof.My concern is that I've actually enjoyed his analysis over the years, even though I didn't always agree. But when he resorts to shaky evidence to support his conclusions, it kinda makes you wonder. It starts to look like his methodology (regarding stats) boils down to "small sample sizes are unreliable if they refute my conclusions, but are reliable when they don't".

This thread is a textbook example of a how EBF views a handful of players that he has a very strong opinion on. From past experience, I can tell you that he won't change his opinion with Vereen, irrespective of what this player does in the future. And the probability is that he is more likely to be right than wrong here - but that isn't relevant to the point I am making.Now before EBF jumps in with his usual Straw Man ("People say that I never change my mind, but I do!") I will stipulate that he has changed his mind on thousands of players over the years.However, there are certain players he draws a line in the sand with and predicts with a tone of absolute certainty that they are destined to either succeed or fail in the NFL. It appears to be some sort of ego thing with him, so maybe he can a bump a thread later and point to it saying "See, I told you he would never be any good!" or put it in his signature line. And I don't know why he keeps doing this because even if he turns out to be right, it really adds nothing to his credibility, but detracts from it significantly if he turns out to be wrong.

Nero · Apr 4, 2013

I am also of the opinion that Ridley is clearly better than Vereen and won't be losing touches to him. However, Vereen has upside as Ridley's backup as maybe a low end RB2 with the departure of Woodhead. It also appears he would be next in line to start if something were to happen to Ridley. That knockout Ridley suffered brings to mind, Austin Collie and Jahvid Best. I'd worry more about that than Vereen taking his job if I were a Ridley owner.

EBF · Apr 4, 2013

JamesTheScot said:
But I'm not so locked into that position to say that Vereen has no chance. Vereen was more highly regarded but lost opprtunity in his rookie year by being dinged up. And on a BB run team, it doesn't surprise me that Ridley got the nod and that Vereen has to perform his way (by good play and being tough) back into BB's good graces.

When teams take two players at the same position in the draft and one of them clearly outshines the other, it's usually a sign of things to come. The fact that one of them was picked higher X years ago becomes less and less relevant. Some examples:

Juaquin Iglesias/Johnny Knox

Arrelious Benn/Mike Williams

Brian Robiskie/Mohamed Massaquoi

Antonio Pittman/Pierre Thomas

Bryant Johnson/Anquan Boldin

In every case, the guy who surpassed the earlier pick ended up being a much better player. There might be examples to the contrary, but the odds probably favor the guy who shines right away.

What's significant to me with Vereen/Ridley is that when the two of them have both been totally healthy, the coaching staff has shown a clear preference for Ridley. In the week after Vereen's big playoff game, he got 4 carries and 2 catches compared to 18 carries for Ridley. If the Patriots coaches still think he's a valuable weapon, his usage hasn't reflected that belief.

As far as me being locked into a position on Vereen, there's nothing in that. Up to now he hasn't done anything to prove that he's anything other than what I said he is all along. 308 rushing yards at 4.0 YPC through two NFL seasons is not a convincing argument to a skeptic. If he comes out and has a great season, I'll give him his due credit.

Kiddnets · Apr 4, 2013

Nero said:
I am also of the opinion that Ridley is clearly better than Vereen and won't be losing touches to him. However, Vereen has upside as Ridley's backup as maybe a low end RB2 with the departure of Woodhead. It also appears he would be next in line to start if something were to happen to Ridley. That knockout Ridley suffered brings to mind, Austin Collie and Jahvid Best. I'd worry more about that than Vereen taking his job if I were a Ridley owner.

Woodhead was 27th ranked RB in my league last season.....so even if Vereen just replaces Woodhead he is a strong #3RB with even a spot start on bye weeks. I will be targeting him as a #3RB.....but as stated he is clearly next in line if Ridley is inured so that gives him nice upside as well for a #3RB.

jonboltz · Apr 4, 2013

Kiddnets said:
Nero said:

I am also of the opinion that Ridley is clearly better than Vereen and won't be losing touches to him. However, Vereen has upside as Ridley's backup as maybe a low end RB2 with the departure of Woodhead. It also appears he would be next in line to start if something were to happen to Ridley. That knockout Ridley suffered brings to mind, Austin Collie and Jahvid Best. I'd worry more about that than Vereen taking his job if I were a Ridley owner.

Click to expand...

Woodhead was 27th ranked RB in my league last season.....so even if Vereen just replaces Woodhead he is a strong #3RB with even a spot start on bye weeks. I will be targeting him as a #3RB.....but as stated he is clearly next in line if Ridley is inured so that gives him nice upside as well for a #3RB.

I don't agree that he is "clearly next in line if Ridley is injured". I would expect Bolden to get most of the 1st/2nd down work, in that scenario. I believe Bolden is just a flat out better at picking up yards on the ground than Vereen.

Quibbler · Apr 4, 2013

Concept Coop said:
'Quibbler said:

So you think the Houston game was a one-off, then?I'm not so sure. I mean they were able to get him matched up against a linebacker repeatedly in that game, even when Houston had to know it was coming. If the Pats are going no-huddle and putting Vereen in motion before the snap, how do you avoid having a mismatch?

Click to expand...

How many times? I only remember the one reception where he lined up outside, and I think he went in motion. When that becomes a regular part of an offense, the defense would simply adjust and treat him as they would a WR. It's very hard to dictate and line your RB up with a LB on the outside. Most often the corner takes the outermost option, whether that's a WR, RB, or even a QB (wildcat). Then, they treat the WR as they do any slot option; nickle corner, or cover up with a LB who passes longer routes off to the safety.I'm not saying it can't happen from time-to-time. But he certainly won't be lining up out there enough for it to matter much fantasy wise.

IRRC, there were maybe 3-4 times vs. Houston when he either lined up/went into motion outside or ran a route out of the backfield that got him targeted outside the numbers. Both his receiving TDs were like that, and I think there were a couple shorter catches as well, but I'm less sure about that. ESPN's play-by-play says he was targeted "left" or "right" 6 times, but I'm not sure what their definition of left/right vs. middle is.

Concept Coop · Apr 4, 2013

Quibbler said:
IRRC, there were maybe 3-4 times vs. Houston when he either lined up/went into motion outside or ran a route out of the backfield that got him targeted outside the numbers. Both his receiving TDs were like that, and I think there were a couple shorter catches as well, but I'm less sure about that. ESPN's play-by-play says he was targeted "left" or "right" 6 times, but I'm not sure what their definition of left/right vs. middle is.

I'll see if I can find the clips to confirm, but ending up outside the numbers is different than lining up outside the numbers. Again, getting a back isolated by a LB is a mismatch for just about everyone in the NFL. NFL defenses aren't going to let you simply line a RB up on the outside and put a LB on him, one on one, with any regularity.

Concept Coop · Apr 4, 2013

Only have what's on Youtube. But there were two plays in which Vereen lined up wide, including one touchdown. As soon as Brady saw it it knew where he was going with it. The angle makes it hard to see where, if any, safety help.

But watching this video, I am really excited about him. He looks really good out of the backfield, and NE is going to find ways to get him the ball.

JamesTheScot · Apr 4, 2013

EBF said:
JamesTheScot said:

But I'm not so locked into that position to say that Vereen has no chance. Vereen was more highly regarded but lost opprtunity in his rookie year by being dinged up. And on a BB run team, it doesn't surprise me that Ridley got the nod and that Vereen has to perform his way (by good play and being tough) back into BB's good graces.

Click to expand...

When teams take two players at the same position in the draft and one of them clearly outshines the other, it's usually a sign of things to come. The fact that one of them was picked higher X years ago becomes less and less relevant. Some examples:

Juaquin Iglesias/Johnny Knox

Arrelious Benn/Mike Williams

Brian Robiskie/Mohamed Massaquoi

Antonio Pittman/Pierre Thomas

Bryant Johnson/Anquan Boldin

In every case, the guy who surpassed the earlier pick ended up being a much better player. There might be examples to the contrary, but the odds probably favor the guy who shines right away.

What's significant to me with Vereen/Ridley is that when the two of them have both been totally healthy, the coaching staff has shown a clear preference for Ridley. In the week after Vereen's big playoff game, he got 4 carries and 2 catches compared to 18 carries for Ridley. If the Patriots coaches still think he's a valuable weapon, his usage hasn't reflected that belief.

As far as me being locked into a position on Vereen, there's nothing in that. Up to now he hasn't done anything to prove that he's anything other than what I said he is all along. 308 rushing yards at 4.0 YPC through two NFL seasons is not a convincing argument to a skeptic. If he comes out and has a great season, I'll give him his due credit.

When both of them have been totaly healthy, Ridley still has a depth of experience and proven performance that Vereen lacks. I think that's where you are putting too much stock. Coaches always favor a proven performer over an unproven performer until the unproven guy gets enough exposure to prove or disprove his merit. I'm not convinced that 2012 settled the issue for the Pats.

These aren't static decisions. They evolve. And BB is rather notorious for pulling a 180 from week to week in terms of gameplan. So a seeming reversal from one game to the next doesn't scare me much from BB if he is using someone as a niche or role player. But the mistake is assuming that one's role can never expand.

And no one is saying that Vereen is some understud. I'm not even saying there is a vast talent difference in the two. What I'm saying is that I don't believe the talent differential between the two favors Ridley but that being healthy has certainly favored him. But if Vereen can stay healthy and show a learning curve, I think he can pull enough touches from Ridley to make it a full blown RBBC.

The way the NFL is developing, I'l take a shot on a young guy who has potential to be a 3 down weapon. If you want to talk about what's been proven, why not talk about Ridley's ceiling due to his lack of involvement in the passing game? I think he's leaving the door open for a more complete back to come in and usurp his role. I think someone like BB will appreciate not tipping his hand in terms of personnel packages. And I don't think the rushing ability of Ridley is superior to Vereen to the same degree that Vereen's recieving ability is superior to Ridley's. There is some adjustment that RB's make to the speed of the game and I'm not convinced we've seen the best that Vereen has to offer either on the ground or in the air.

So, respectfully, I think it all still boils down to the eyeball test and the tempation to then use shaky analysis in an attempt to prove what amounts to an opinion. All the other details are pretty unreliable outside of some general trend that says that by two years in, we usually get a pretty good idea of where a RB is headed. But again, picking the outliers can be profitable. I think Vereen has the potential to be one of those outliers.

Lott's Fingertip · Apr 4, 2013

EBF said:
Lott said:

EBF said:

- He's stuck on the roster with another young back who has clearly surpassed him. Clearly? LOL. That is simply silly. He surpassed Vereen so much that he got zero touches in the two most important games of the year. Again, a player that did next to nothing outside of one game, and you are saying he CLEARLY has surpassed Vereen... but it is a negative that Vereen supporters are using one game (according to your assumption) to buoy his prospects. Come on. I'm not even saying Bolden hasn't or can't surpass Vereen, but you are clearly doing for Bolden that which you accuse others of doing for Vereen.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Except I was talking about Ridley, not Bolden.

Oof. My bad again. You previously made a couple of comments to the effect of Bolden being better than Vereen previously, and my late night brain filled in the blanks. Sorry.

Quibbler · Apr 8, 2013

Mays has a column on the Texans today that briefly touches on Vereen in a fairly expectation-lowering way.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/57532/hey-dont-f-this-up-the-houston-texans-outdated-offense

Mays points out that Vereen did very little all year except for when he played the Texans, who he torched in both the regular season game and the playoff game. He attributes this to an opponent-specific game plan designed to "exploit the coverage deficiencies of Houston’s inside linebackers".

He doesn't go into any more detail about what matchup exactly the Pats were going for; perhaps someone here who knows more about the Houston defense can explain it more. What exactly are the weaknesses of the Texans ILB (speed, size. etc.)? Were the Texans uniquely horrible after losing Cushing, or is this the sort of weakness the Pats might regularly try to exploit in the future?

Concept Coop · Apr 8, 2013

Quibbler said:
Mays has a column on the Texans today that briefly touches on Vereen in a fairly expectation-lowering way.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/57532/hey-dont-f-this-up-the-houston-texans-outdated-offense

Mays points out that Vereen did very little all year except for when he played the Texans, who he torched in both the regular season game and the playoff game. He attributes this to an opponent-specific game plan designed to "exploit the coverage deficiencies of Houston’s inside linebackers".

He doesn't go into any more detail about what matchup exactly the Pats were going for; perhaps someone here who knows more about the Houston defense can explain it more. What exactly are the weaknesses of the Texans ILB (speed, size. etc.)? Were the Texans uniquely horrible after losing Cushing, or is this the sort of weakness the Pats might regularly try to exploit in the future?

This doesn't really say anything about Vereen. The Patriots were able to get Vereen isolated on the outside with a LB who couldn't run with him. They also lost Vereen out of the backfield. But I don't think it's relevant to the dynasty value conversation of Vereen..

jonboltz · Apr 8, 2013

Quibbler said:
Mays has a column on the Texans today that briefly touches on Vereen in a fairly expectation-lowering way.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/57532/hey-dont-f-this-up-the-houston-texans-outdated-offense

Mays points out that Vereen did very little all year except for when he played the Texans, who he torched in both the regular season game and the playoff game. He attributes this to an opponent-specific game plan designed to "exploit the coverage deficiencies of Houston’s inside linebackers".

He doesn't go into any more detail about what matchup exactly the Pats were going for; perhaps someone here who knows more about the Houston defense can explain it more. What exactly are the weaknesses of the Texans ILB (speed, size. etc.)? Were the Texans uniquely horrible after losing Cushing, or is this the sort of weakness the Pats might regularly try to exploit in the future?

There are maybe 2 ILBs in the entire NFL that can cover a NFL 3rd down RB.

nightmare · Apr 8, 2013

Any Patriot RB/WR for FF purposes is a crap shoot. Belichick plays matchups, one week its Edelmen next week its Welker. Gronk and Henandez were used depending on zone or man to man coverages. Vereen is a stash if you have Ridley or you play in a best ball league. Ridley may now be the one exception to that first

statement. used to be Welker.

Concept Coop · Apr 8, 2013

nightmare said:
Any Patriot RB/WR for FF purposes is a crap shoot. Belichick plays matchups, one week its Edelmen next week its Welker. Gronk and Henandez were used depending on zone or man to man coverages. Vereen is a stash if you have Ridley or you play in a best ball league. Ridley may now be the one exception to that first

statement. used to be Welker.

I disagree with this. Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, and Ridley were all consistant last season, when healthy.

Quibbler · Apr 8, 2013

Concept Coop said:
Quibbler said:

Mays has a column on the Texans today that briefly touches on Vereen in a fairly expectation-lowering way.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/57532/hey-dont-f-this-up-the-houston-texans-outdated-offense

Mays points out that Vereen did very little all year except for when he played the Texans, who he torched in both the regular season game and the playoff game. He attributes this to an opponent-specific game plan designed to "exploit the coverage deficiencies of Houston’s inside linebackers".

He doesn't go into any more detail about what matchup exactly the Pats were going for; perhaps someone here who knows more about the Houston defense can explain it more. What exactly are the weaknesses of the Texans ILB (speed, size. etc.)? Were the Texans uniquely horrible after losing Cushing, or is this the sort of weakness the Pats might regularly try to exploit in the future?

Click to expand...

This doesn't really say anything about Vereen. The Patriots were able to get Vereen isolated on the outside with a LB who couldn't run with him. They also lost Vereen out of the backfield. But I don't think it's relevant to the dynasty value conversation of Vereen..

Well, it made me wonder why the Pats didn't try using Vereen this way against other teams. BB clearly saw a way to get a mismatch vs the Texans and used Vereen a lot in both games. So why not vs. other teams? Is it because Vereen isn't good enough to create matchup problems against teams with better ILBs? That would be a problem for his dynasty value.

One of the reasons I'm bullish on Vereen, is that he looked very good as a receiver. But this article made me second guess that a bit, given that most of his catches came from a specific game-plan vs. a single team with a weakness at ILB (I didn't follow the Texans all that much last year, but I seem to remember people saying their linebackers were horrible apart from Cushing). Don't want to overrate his performance in a very favorable matchup.

Lott's Fingertip · Apr 8, 2013

Quibbler said:
Concept Coop said:

Quibbler said:

Mays has a column on the Texans today that briefly touches on Vereen in a fairly expectation-lowering way.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/57532/hey-dont-f-this-up-the-houston-texans-outdated-offense

Mays points out that Vereen did very little all year except for when he played the Texans, who he torched in both the regular season game and the playoff game. He attributes this to an opponent-specific game plan designed to "exploit the coverage deficiencies of Houston’s inside linebackers".

He doesn't go into any more detail about what matchup exactly the Pats were going for; perhaps someone here who knows more about the Houston defense can explain it more. What exactly are the weaknesses of the Texans ILB (speed, size. etc.)? Were the Texans uniquely horrible after losing Cushing, or is this the sort of weakness the Pats might regularly try to exploit in the future?

Click to expand...

This doesn't really say anything about Vereen. The Patriots were able to get Vereen isolated on the outside with a LB who couldn't run with him. They also lost Vereen out of the backfield. But I don't think it's relevant to the dynasty value conversation of Vereen..

Click to expand...

Well, it made me wonder why the Pats didn't try using Vereen this way against other teams. BB clearly saw a way to get a mismatch vs the Texans and used Vereen a lot in both games. So why not vs. other teams? Is it because Vereen isn't good enough to create matchup problems against teams with better ILBs? That would be a problem for his dynasty value.

One of the reasons I'm bullish on Vereen, is that he looked very good as a receiver. But this article made me second guess that a bit, given that most of his catches came from a specific game-plan vs. a single team with a weakness at ILB (I didn't follow the Texans all that much last year, but I seem to remember people saying their linebackers were horrible apart from Cushing). Don't want to overrate his performance in a very favorable matchup.

Vereen had zero catches on one target against Houston in the regular season (plus 8-40 rushing).

He did have a big fantasy game against the Jets in week 12.

nightmare · Apr 8, 2013

Concept Coop said:
nightmare said:

Any Patriot RB/WR for FF purposes is a crap shoot. Belichick plays matchups, one week its Edelmen next week its Welker. Gronk and Henandez were used depending on zone or man to man coverages. Vereen is a stash if you have Ridley or you play in a best ball league. Ridley may now be the one exception to that first

statement. used to be Welker.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, and Ridley were all consistant last season, when healthy.

Any Patriot RB/WR- Except Ridley, used to be Welker. Amendola/Jones is not going to be as consistent as Welker.

Bayhawks · Apr 9, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

I don't know if I'd said Ridley was "awful." He had the 3rd most goal-line rushing TDs by RBs in 2012, and his conversion rate was pretty similar to Foster, Peterson, & Doug Martin. Sure, Vereen had a higher conversion percentage, but that was with a very small sample size.

If I was a Ridley owner, I'd be more concerned with his fumbles than his success rate at the goal-line.

FF Ninja · Apr 9, 2013

Bayhawks said:
FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd said Ridley was "awful." He had the 3rd most goal-line rushing TDs by RBs in 2012, and his conversion rate was pretty similar to Foster, Peterson, & Doug Martin. Sure, Vereen had a higher conversion percentage, but that was with a very small sample size.

If I was a Ridley owner, I'd be more concerned with his fumbles than his success rate at the goal-line.

That's why I included yards, too. Sure, Ridley scored 8 TDs, but he also failed to avoid defenders in the backfield quite often if he only netted 2 yards out of 20 attempts. I agree with you that Vereen scoring 3 times on 5 tries is definitely not statistically significant. However, Ridley getting stuffed for a loss so often does seem relevant.

Concept Coop · Apr 9, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Bayhawks said:

FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd said Ridley was "awful." He had the 3rd most goal-line rushing TDs by RBs in 2012, and his conversion rate was pretty similar to Foster, Peterson, & Doug Martin. Sure, Vereen had a higher conversion percentage, but that was with a very small sample size.

If I was a Ridley owner, I'd be more concerned with his fumbles than his success rate at the goal-line.

Click to expand...

That's why I included yards, too. Sure, Ridley scored 8 TDs, but he also failed to avoid defenders in the backfield quite often if he only netted 2 yards out of 20 attempts. I agree with you that Vereen scoring 3 times on 5 tries is definitely not statistically significant. However, Ridley getting stuffed for a loss so often does seem relevant.

Ridley is a good goal line back. It's simply a combination of random variance and situational context. On goal line carries with only 1 yard to go, Ridley got 10 carries and Vereen got 2. Obviously then, Vereen had more yards to gain per carry. Also, the further out from the goal line you are, the more the opposing team has to worry about the pass/play action, thus, the less likely they are to sell out to stop the run. And really, with 1 yard to go so, it's more the offensive line vs the defensive line than it is the RB.

FF Ninja · Apr 9, 2013

I'm not opposed to that possibility, but if you look at the data dominator for running backs from OPP 5 to OPP G, Ridley's stats are disturbingly poor. He did get 8 TDs, but I think any RB on that roster could've gotten 8 TDs in the same situation (like you said, 10 of his 20 carries were from the 1). But in the end, 2 yards on 20 carries is a red flag. And given that Vereen got some goal line work towards the end of the year means that those of us with data dominator are not the only ones noticing Ridley's performance at the goal line.

eefflrat · Apr 9, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Bayhawks said:

FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line. ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data Inside the 5 yard line:

Code:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd said Ridley was "awful." He had the 3rd most goal-line rushing TDs by RBs in 2012, and his conversion rate was pretty similar to Foster, Peterson, & Doug Martin. Sure, Vereen had a higher conversion percentage, but that was with a very small sample size. If I was a Ridley owner, I'd be more concerned with his fumbles than his success rate at the goal-line.

Click to expand...

That's why I included yards, too. Sure, Ridley scored 8 TDs, but he also failed to avoid defenders in the backfield quite often if he only netted 2 yards out of 20 attempts. I agree with you that Vereen scoring 3 times on 5 tries is definitely not statistically significant. However, Ridley getting stuffed for a loss so often does seem relevant.

The way I see this is that he converted tds on 40% of his carries inside the 5. Obviously he gained positive yardage on 8 of the 20 carries he got there, so he probably got stuffed at the line or tackled for 1 yard losses in the backfield on his other 12 runs. That's not hard to see happening when a team is lined up to stop the run at the goal line.froma fantasy perspective and a coaches perspective I don't care if it takes 3 tries to score from the one yard line, the point is he got in, and the coach kept feeding it to him.

FF Ninja · Apr 9, 2013

Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

jonboltz · Apr 9, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

I'm liking that I went WR/TE heavy in three startups this offseason, and got Miller and Ingram in all of them!

CalBear · Apr 9, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

I don't see how those are bad numbers for Ridley. He had the highest TD/carry of any of those backs (40% success). The fact that he had just 2 yards gained suggests either that New England didn't run from the 2-5 yard line (only the goal line), or that Ridley was credited with a big loss on a snap over Brady's head or something.

DropKick · Apr 9, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

"Greene" actually had the "e" added just because he wanted the carries.

FF Ninja · Apr 10, 2013

CalBear said:
FF Ninja said:

Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

Click to expand...

I don't see how those are bad numbers for Ridley. He had the highest TD/carry of any of those backs (40% success). The fact that he had just 2 yards gained suggests either that New England didn't run from the 2-5 yard line (only the goal line), or that Ridley was credited with a big loss on a snap over Brady's head or something.

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for 0 yards

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for -2 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 2rushed for -2 yards

opp 3rushed for -1 yards

opp 3rushed for 1 yards

opp 3rushed for 3 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 5rushed for 3 yards

opp 4rushed for -3 yards

opp 1rushed for 0 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

Looks like I missed one of them, but no, I don't see a huge loss accredited to him. He just isn't that effective. His 40% success is less impressive when you look at BJGE in NE:

2011 - 22 rushes, 24 yards, 10 TD

2010 - 15 rushes, 21 yards, 8 TD

2009 - 0 rushes

2008 - 6 rushes, 11 yards, 4 TD

New England is one of the easiest places to run the ball in due to their threat to pass at the goal line. If the very pedestrian BJGE can convert over 50% of the time, then 40% for Ridley isn't exactly worth pointing out. In Houston, everybody knew Foster was going to be running the ball at the goal line so I don't think you can compare conversion % with those guys. The BJGE comparison is much better. But not only did BJGE convert more, he also gained way more positive yardage.

Quibbler · Apr 10, 2013

FF Ninja said:
CalBear said:

FF Ninja said:

Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

Click to expand...

I don't see how those are bad numbers for Ridley. He had the highest TD/carry of any of those backs (40% success). The fact that he had just 2 yards gained suggests either that New England didn't run from the 2-5 yard line (only the goal line), or that Ridley was credited with a big loss on a snap over Brady's head or something.

Click to expand...

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for 0 yards

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for -2 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 2rushed for -2 yards

opp 3rushed for -1 yards

opp 3rushed for 1 yards

opp 3rushed for 3 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 5rushed for 3 yards

opp 4rushed for -3 yards

opp 1rushed for 0 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

Looks like I missed one of them, but no, I don't see a huge loss accredited to him. He just isn't that effective. His 40% success is less impressive when you look at BJGE in NE:

2011 - 22 rushes, 24 yards, 10 TD

2010 - 15 rushes, 21 yards, 8 TD

2009 - 0 rushes

2008 - 6 rushes, 11 yards, 4 TD

New England is one of the easiest places to run the ball in due to their threat to pass at the goal line. If the very pedestrian BJGE can convert over 50% of the time, then 40% for Ridley isn't exactly worth pointing out. In Houston, everybody knew Foster was going to be running the ball at the goal line so I don't think you can compare conversion % with those guys. The BJGE comparison is much better. But not only did BJGE convert more, he also gained way more positive yardage.

I agree Ridley with the general point that didn't look great at the goalline. But I'd be a bit cautious about comparing his numbers with BJGE's. IIRC, a lot of Ridley's goalline rushes came in the hurry-up offense, which they didn't run as much before last year.

Concept Coop · Apr 10, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Looks like I missed one of them, but no, I don't see a huge loss accredited to him. He just isn't that effective. His 40% success is less impressive when you look at BJGE in NE:

2011 - 22 rushes, 24 yards, 10 TD

2010 - 15 rushes, 21 yards, 8 TD

2009 - 0 rushes

2008 - 6 rushes, 11 yards, 4 TD

New England is one of the easiest places to run the ball in due to their threat to pass at the goal line. If the very pedestrian BJGE can convert over 50% of the time, then 40% for Ridley isn't exactly worth pointing out. In Houston, everybody knew Foster was going to be running the ball at the goal line so I don't think you can compare conversion % with those guys. The BJGE comparison is much better. But not only did BJGE convert more, he also gained way more positive yardage.

We're talking about 1 yard out here. What makes a good back in that situation? If the push is there the RB scores. If it's not, they don't. If you trying to argue that BJGE is better than Ridley at anything that has to do with running the football, I have to question your motives.

He averages 4.5 YPC for his career. Yet, at the one YL he is all of the sudden a poor RB? No. The Patriot's offensive line didn't get enough push for him to score. It's really nothing more than that.

CalBear · Apr 10, 2013

FF Ninja said:
CalBear said:

FF Ninja said:

Yeah, well, this is the Patriots so the other team ISN'T lined up to stop the run. And no, the coach didn't keep feeding him. He started giving Vereen goal line carries. So... good points.

Look, I don't own either guy. Some of you obviously own one or the other. I'm just here to give an objective opinion on the situation. I only looked at goal line rushes because I noticed Vereen getting some goal line looks towards the end of the year. Once I did look, the numbers were disturbing for Ridley. He got the third most carries inside the 5 of any RB in the NFL last year. Here are how the others stacked up:

Player Rush Yds TDFoster 29 49 11Turner 22 14 7Ridley 20 2 8Greene 19 23 7Martin 18 17 5Having 6 letters in your last name is a strong indicator that you will get goal line carries.

Click to expand...

I don't see how those are bad numbers for Ridley. He had the highest TD/carry of any of those backs (40% success). The fact that he had just 2 yards gained suggests either that New England didn't run from the 2-5 yard line (only the goal line), or that Ridley was credited with a big loss on a snap over Brady's head or something.

Click to expand...

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for 0 yards

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for -2 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 1rushed for -1 yards

opp 2rushed for -2 yards

opp 3rushed for -1 yards

opp 3rushed for 1 yards

opp 3rushed for 3 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 5rushed for 3 yards

opp 4rushed for -3 yards

opp 1rushed for 0 yards

opp 1rushed for 1 yards TOUCHDOWN

opp 2rushed for 2 yards TOUCHDOWN

Looks like I missed one of them, but no, I don't see a huge loss accredited to him. He just isn't that effective. His 40% success is less impressive when you look at BJGE in NE:

2011 - 22 rushes, 24 yards, 10 TD

2010 - 15 rushes, 21 yards, 8 TD

2009 - 0 rushes

2008 - 6 rushes, 11 yards, 4 TD

New England is one of the easiest places to run the ball in due to their threat to pass at the goal line. If the very pedestrian BJGE can convert over 50% of the time, then 40% for Ridley isn't exactly worth pointing out. In Houston, everybody knew Foster was going to be running the ball at the goal line so I don't think you can compare conversion % with those guys. The BJGE comparison is much better. But not only did BJGE convert more, he also gained way more positive yardage.

So they gave him the ball somewhere other than the 1-yard-line nine times, and he scored on four of those. He scored on four of 11 chances from the 1. I still don't see how you think these are bad numbers; we're looking at tiny sample sizes, and they're pretty close to even, and at least as good as the other backs you're pointing out.

That's not to say Ridley's a stud, but the numbers don't suggest that he's bad at the goal line.

FF Ninja · Apr 10, 2013

CalBear said:
So they gave him the ball somewhere other than the 1-yard-line nine times, and he scored on four of those. He scored on four of 11 chances from the 1. I still don't see how you think these are bad numbers; we're looking at tiny sample sizes, and they're pretty close to even, and at least as good as the other backs you're pointing out.

That's not to say Ridley's a stud, but the numbers don't suggest that he's bad at the goal line.

The bottom line is that Ridley doesn't have to be bad at the goal line - so you can argue that 20 rushes for 2 yards is good all day - but if Vereen is better than Ridley then he could take over that role, as it appears he was starting to do at the end of the season. Historical data suggest that Ridley is worse than BJGE at the goal line so Vereen doesn't have to be a world beater to wrestle the job away from Ridley.

CalBear · Apr 10, 2013

FF Ninja said:
CalBear said:

So they gave him the ball somewhere other than the 1-yard-line nine times, and he scored on four of those. He scored on four of 11 chances from the 1. I still don't see how you think these are bad numbers; we're looking at tiny sample sizes, and they're pretty close to even, and at least as good as the other backs you're pointing out.

That's not to say Ridley's a stud, but the numbers don't suggest that he's bad at the goal line.

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that Ridley doesn't have to be bad at the goal line - so you can argue that 20 rushes for 2 yards is good all day - but if Vereen is better than Ridley then he could take over that role, as it appears he was starting to do at the end of the season. Historical data suggest that Ridley is worse than BJGE at the goal line so Vereen doesn't have to be a world beater to wrestle the job away from Ridley.

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Frank Black · Apr 11, 2013

WIth all the talk about Ridley holding Vereen back, I'm actually concerned a lot with Bolden also holding Vereen back. Barring injury, I just don't see how Vereen gets a chance to shine with consistency this year.

FF Ninja · Apr 11, 2013

CalBear said:
20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe in 2013.

CalBear · Apr 11, 2013

FF Ninja said:
CalBear said:

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Click to expand...

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

It's not 20 rushes for 2 yards. It's 20 rushes for 8 TDs. Once you're in the end zone you can't get credited for any more yards, so the number of yards gained is really not relevant.

FF Ninja said:
Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe in 2013.

I'm defending the fact that he scored TDs at a higher rate than any other back you listed as comparables, so by your own stats, he's done well, and there's no reason to believe his goal-line job is in jeapordy.

Also, I don't think Vereen is a great goal-line back. He was maybe better than Forsett, not as good as Best, definitely not anywhere near Lynch, and probably not as good as Adimchinobe Echemandu. He can probably do OK if he gets the ball at the goal line but I wouldn't see more than 8 TDs on 20 attempts coming from him.

Sake-Bombers · Apr 11, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

So isn't this showing that Vereen has a 60% conversion rate? Or are we dismissing that? I get so confused as to what stats are okay to look at and which ones are not.

I don't think Vereen's value is as a New England TD machine, although if you remember back to his first TD of the year, he got the goal line carry out of nowhere, and it left the Bolden owners especially scratching their heads. So it's certainly possible he's continue to be used in that role at least for a few carries this year.

For me, Vereen's value lies in the fact that he seems almost certain to take Woodhead's place in the offense, meaning he will get carries and receptions not only on third down, but also for a few series a game. And he's a big play threat. I don't think anyone is saying that he is going to be an RB1, but he's got RB2 upside for less than RB2 prices. Ridley has low RB1 upside (I think) for low RB1 prices. So Vereen offers a value proposition.

FF Ninja · Apr 11, 2013

CalBear said:
FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Click to expand...

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

Click to expand...

It's not 20 rushes for 2 yards. It's 20 rushes for 8 TDs. Once you're in the end zone you can't get credited for any more yards, so the number of yards gained is really not relevant.

FF Ninja said:

>Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe in 2013.

Click to expand...

I'm defending the fact that he scored TDs at a higher rate than any other back you listed as comparables, so by your own stats, he's done well, and there's no reason to believe his goal-line job is in jeapordy.

Also, I don't think Vereen is a great goal-line back. He was maybe better than Forsett, not as good as Best, definitely not anywhere near Lynch, and probably not as good as Adimchinobe Echemandu. He can probably do OK if he gets the ball at the goal line but I wouldn't see more than 8 TDs on 20 attempts coming from him.

Dude, we get it that you went to Cal but no one gives a s*** about these comparisons to Forsett and Best. This is the NFL. We don't need to stick to guys who went to Cal as frames of reference.

And no, he didn't score TDs at a higher rate than the other backs I listed. The most important one I listed was BJGE, who outperformed him in every respect despite being in the same situation. As for the other RBs, I'm sure Foster would perform better at the goal line if he were in a less predictable situation than Houston. That's why it is better to compare Ridley's conversion rate with other RBs on the same team.

FF Ninja · Apr 11, 2013

Sake-Bombers said:
FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

So isn't this showing that Vereen has a 60% conversion rate? Or are we dismissing that? I get so confused as to what stats are okay to look at and which ones are not.

I don't think Vereen's value is as a New England TD machine, although if you remember back to his first TD of the year, he got the goal line carry out of nowhere, and it left the Bolden owners especially scratching their heads. So it's certainly possible he's continue to be used in that role at least for a few carries this year.

For me, Vereen's value lies in the fact that he seems almost certain to take Woodhead's place in the offense, meaning he will get carries and receptions not only on third down, but also for a few series a game. And he's a big play threat. I don't think anyone is saying that he is going to be an RB1, but he's got RB2 upside for less than RB2 prices. Ridley has low RB1 upside (I think) for low RB1 prices. So Vereen offers a value proposition.

I agree. I'm not saying that Vereen will necessarily be the guy at the goal line. Just that Ridley is looking quite lackluster there. I wouldn't be surprised if Bolden took that job. I don't own Ridley or Vereen in long term leagues, but I would be selling high on Ridley if I could. When you're not as good as the guy you replaced, you probably won't hold the job very long. (I do think Ridley is a better runner overall than BJGE, but his goal line work isn't as good - guy without receptions and without touchdowns isn't very useful in fantasy)

jonboltz · Apr 11, 2013

Sake-Bombers said:
FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

So isn't this showing that Vereen has a 60% conversion rate? Or are we dismissing that? I get so confused as to what stats are okay to look at and which ones are not.

I don't think Vereen's value is as a New England TD machine, although if you remember back to his first TD of the year, he got the goal line carry out of nowhere, and it left the Bolden owners especially scratching their heads. So it's certainly possible he's continue to be used in that role at least for a few carries this year.

For me, Vereen's value lies in the fact that he seems almost certain to take Woodhead's place in the offense, meaning he will get carries and receptions not only on third down, but also for a few series a game. And he's a big play threat. I don't think anyone is saying that he is going to be an RB1, but he's got RB2 upside for less than RB2 prices. Ridley has low RB1 upside (I think) for low RB1 prices. So Vereen offers a value proposition.

It is completely wise to base his abilities as a goal-line RB off a 5 carry sample size.

Whatever we do, lets not just flat out watch them run and decide who is better between the tackles (Hint: he's the third best RB on his team at that)

CalBear · Apr 11, 2013

FF Ninja said:
CalBear said:

FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Click to expand...

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

Click to expand...

It's not 20 rushes for 2 yards. It's 20 rushes for 8 TDs. Once you're in the end zone you can't get credited for any more yards, so the number of yards gained is really not relevant.

FF Ninja said:

>Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe in

2013.

Click to expand...

I'm defending the fact that he scored TDs at a higher rate than any other back you listed as comparables, so by your own stats, he's done well, and there's no reason to believe his goal-line job is in jeapordy.

Also, I don't think Vereen is a great goal-line back. He was maybe better than Forsett, not as good as Best, definitely not anywhere near Lynch, and probably not as good as Adimchinobe Echemandu. He can probably do OK if he gets the ball at the goal line but I wouldn't see more than 8 TDs on 20 attempts coming from him.

Click to expand...

Dude, we get it that you went to Cal but no one gives a s*** about these comparisons to Forsett and Best. This is the NFL. We don't need to stick to guys who went to Cal as frames of reference.

Vereen had 556 carries at Cal. He's had 77 in the pros. If you want to know more about him, you should consider the larger data set.

FF Ninja said:
And no, he didn't score TDs at a higher rate than the other backs I listed. The most important one I listed was BJGE, who outperformed him in every respect despite being in the same situation. As for the other RBs, I'm sure Foster would perform better at the goal line if he were in a less predictable situation than Houston. That's why it is better to compare Ridley's conversion rate with other RBs on the same team.

OK, so your argument is that BGJE scored 10 TDs on 20 carries in 2011, and Ridley scored 8 TDs on 20 carries in 2012, therefore Vereen will get the goal-line carries?

jonboltz · Apr 11, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Sake-Bombers said:

FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

So isn't this showing that Vereen has a 60% conversion rate? Or are we dismissing that? I get so confused as to what stats are okay to look at and which ones are not.

I don't think Vereen's value is as a New England TD machine, although if you remember back to his first TD of the year, he got the goal line carry out of nowhere, and it left the Bolden owners especially scratching their heads. So it's certainly possible he's continue to be used in that role at least for a few carries this year.

For me, Vereen's value lies in the fact that he seems almost certain to take Woodhead's place in the offense, meaning he will get carries and receptions not only on third down, but also for a few series a game. And he's a big play threat. I don't think anyone is saying that he is going to be an RB1, but he's got RB2 upside for less than RB2 prices. Ridley has low RB1 upside (I think) for low RB1 prices. So Vereen offers a value proposition.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not saying that Vereen will necessarily be the guy at the goal line. Just that Ridley is looking quite lackluster there. I wouldn't be surprised if Bolden took that job. I don't own Ridley or Vereen in long term leagues, but I would be selling high on Ridley if I could. When you're not as good as the guy you replaced, you probably won't hold the job very long. (I do think Ridley is a better runner overall than BJGE, but his goal line work isn't as good - guy without receptions and without touchdowns isn't very useful in fantasy)

40% isn't a bad success rate on goal line carries. See earlier in thread how its a higher percentage than Martin, Foster, etc.

Sake-Bombers · Apr 11, 2013

jonboltz said:
Sake-Bombers said:

FF Ninja said:

Ah, gotcha. I haven't kept up with this thread that well. I do like Vereen this year and I'd be very wary if I was a Ridley owner. Vereen got some goal line work late last year and did pretty well. Ridley was awful at the goal line.

ETA: might help if I backed that up with some data

Inside the 5 yard line:

Player Rush Yds TDRidley 20 2 8Vereen 5 12 3

Click to expand...

So isn't this showing that Vereen has a 60% conversion rate? Or are we dismissing that? I get so confused as to what stats are okay to look at and which ones are not.

I don't think Vereen's value is as a New England TD machine, although if you remember back to his first TD of the year, he got the goal line carry out of nowhere, and it left the Bolden owners especially scratching their heads. So it's certainly possible he's continue to be used in that role at least for a few carries this year.

For me, Vereen's value lies in the fact that he seems almost certain to take Woodhead's place in the offense, meaning he will get carries and receptions not only on third down, but also for a few series a game. And he's a big play threat. I don't think anyone is saying that he is going to be an RB1, but he's got RB2 upside for less than RB2 prices. Ridley has low RB1 upside (I think) for low RB1 prices. So Vereen offers a value proposition.

Click to expand...

It is completely wise to base his abilities as a goal-line RB off a 5 carry sample size.

Whatever we do, lets not just flat out watch them run and decide who is better between the tackles (Hint: he's the third best RB on his team at that)

Ah, here's the disconnect! I don't like Vereen because of his between the tackles ability. I like him for what he can do outside of it, and I think that makes him more valuable than other RBs who may be better than him between-the-tackles.

And to me, the 5 rushes inside the 5 is at the very least anecdotal evidence that he'll get some goal line carries this year. Maybe not even half as many as Ridley, but he'll get some. Feel free to dismiss that if you want, but it certainly plays into my assessment of him as a value play with more upside relative to his ADP than Ridley.

Bayhawks · Apr 11, 2013

FF Ninja said:
CalBear said:

FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Click to expand...

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

Click to expand...

It's not 20 rushes for 2 yards. It's 20 rushes for 8 TDs. Once you're in the end zone you can't get credited for any more yards, so the number of yards gained is really not relevant.

FF Ninja said:

>Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe in

2013.

Click to expand...

I'm defending the fact that he scored TDs at a higher rate than any other back you listed as comparables, so by your own stats, he's done well, and there's no reason to believe his goal-line job is in jeapordy.

Also, I don't think Vereen is a great goal-line back. He was maybe better than Forsett, not as good as Best, definitely not anywhere near Lynch, and probably not as good as Adimchinobe Echemandu. He can probably do OK if he gets the ball at the goal line but I wouldn't see more than 8 TDs on 20 attempts coming from him.

Click to expand...

Dude, we get it that you went to Cal but no one gives a s*** about these comparisons to Forsett and Best. This is the NFL. We don't need to stick to guys who went to Cal as frames of reference.

And no, he didn't score TDs at a higher rate than the other backs I listed. The most important one I listed was BJGE, who outperformed him in every respect despite being in the same situation. As for the other RBs, I'm sure Foster would perform better at the goal line if he were in a less predictable situation than Houston. That's why it is better to compare Ridley's conversion rate with other RBs on the same team.

But while Vereen is on the same team, he was NEVER in the same situation. As you yourself pointed out, NE could just as easily pass as run when inside the 5, so teams couldn't just "stack the line." When a DC sees Ridley leave the game, and Vereen enter, don't you think they would be more likely to suspect a pass play & set their defense along those lines, thereby leaving Vereen with an easier situation to rush in (than Ridley might have faced)?

That being said, I don't think Ridley owners need to worry about him being replaced as the GL back (unless he continues to fumble, especially at the stripe), but I do think his TD totals have a cap, for these reasons:

1-BB seems to like to "out-smart" other coaches, which could be why Vereen started to get some GL carries last year. IIRC, he would occasionaly used Woodhead similarly.

2-Brady will throw a quick slant/out for a TD just as easily as hand the ball off.

3-Brady seems to like the QB sneak, and the O-line seems to be pretty good at it.

4-Brady is (IMO) one of the best QBs at recognizing defenses and audibling (sp?) to a play that gives the offense the advantage.

All these factors could prevent Ridley from scoring 15+ TDs, but I would be surprised if he gets less than 8.

Quibbler · Apr 11, 2013

Bayhawks said:
But while Vereen is on the same team, he was NEVER in the same situation. As you yourself pointed out, NE could just as easily pass as run when inside the 5, so teams couldn't just "stack the line." When a DC sees Ridley leave the game, and Vereen enter, don't you think they would be more likely to suspect a pass play & set their defense along those lines, thereby leaving Vereen with an easier situation to rush in (than Ridley might have faced)?

That being said, I don't think Ridley owners need to worry about him being replaced as the GL back (unless he continues to fumble, especially at the stripe), but I do think his TD totals have a cap, for these reasons:

1-BB seems to like to "out-smart" other coaches, which could be why Vereen started to get some GL carries last year. IIRC, he would occasionaly used Woodhead similarly.

2-Brady will throw a quick slant/out for a TD just as easily as hand the ball off.

3-Brady seems to like the QB sneak, and the O-line seems to be pretty good at it.

4-Brady is (IMO) one of the best QBs at recognizing defenses and audibling (sp?) to a play that gives the offense the advantage.

All these factors could prevent Ridley from scoring 15+ TDs, but I would be surprised if he gets less than 8.

Anyone know how often this actually happened near the goalline (Ridley pulled, Vereen put in)? From what I remember, when the Pats got to the goalline, they generally stuck with whichever back they were already using, as part of their hurry up/keep the defense from substituting strategy. When they did make substitutions, I mainly remember them sending in an extra lineman, not a new RB.

FF Ninja · Apr 12, 2013

CalBear said:
FF Ninja said:

Dude, we get it that you went to Cal but no one gives a s*** about these comparisons to Forsett and Best. This is the NFL. We don't need to stick to guys who went to Cal as frames of reference.

Click to expand...

Vereen had 556 carries at Cal. He's had 77 in the pros. If you want to know more about him, you should consider the larger data set.

FF Ninja said:

>And no, he didn't score TDs at a higher rate than the other backs I listed. The most important one I listed was BJGE, who outperformed him in every respect despite being in the same situation. As for the other RBs, I'm sure Foster would perform better at the goal line if he were in a less predictable situation than Houston. That's why it is better to compare Ridley's conversion rate with other RBs on the same team.

Click to expand...

OK, so your argument is that BGJE scored 10 TDs on 20 carries in 2011, and Ridley scored 8 TDs on 20 carries in 2012, therefore Vereen will get the goal-line carries?

Agreed that his NFL sample size is too small, but your Cal comparisons are still completely worthless.

And no, my argument is that BJGE scored over 50% of the time over the span of 3 seasons and 43 attempts (not 20) while Ridley only scored 40% despite being located on the 1 yard line for many of his goal line opportunities. See? It works both ways. He should either score a higher % of times if he is rushing from closer, or if he's rushing from farther away he should rack up more yards. He scored less often and ran for less yards.

jonboltz said:
40% isn't a bad success rate on goal line carries. See earlier in thread how its a higher percentage than Martin, Foster, etc.

See above. It isn't impressive in New England.

FF Ninja · Apr 12, 2013

Bayhawks said:
FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Click to expand...

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

Click to expand...

It's not 20 rushes for 2 yards. It's 20 rushes for 8 TDs. Once you're in the end zone you can't get credited for any more yards, so the number of yards gained is really not relevant.

FF Ninja said:

>Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe i

n2013.

Click to expand...

I'm defending the fact that he scored TDs at a higher rate than any other back you listed as comparables, so by your own stats, he's done well, and there's no reason to believe his goal-line job is in jeapordy.

Also, I don't think Vereen is a great goal-line back. He was maybe better than Forsett, not as good as Best, definitely not anywhere near Lynch, and probably not as good as Adimchinobe Echemandu. He can probably do OK if he gets the ball at the goal line but I wouldn't see more than 8 TDs on 20 attempts coming from him.

Click to expand...

Dude, we get it that you went to Cal but no one gives a s*** about these comparisons to Forsett and Best. This is the NFL. We don't need to stick to guys who went to Cal as frames of reference.

And no, he didn't score TDs at a higher rate than the other backs I listed. The most important one I listed was BJGE, who outperformed him in every respect despite being in the same situation. As for the other RBs, I'm sure Foster would perform better at the goal line if he were in a less predictable situation than Houston. That's why it is better to compare Ridley's conversion rate with other RBs on the same team.

Click to expand...

But while Vereen is on the same team, he was NEVER in the same situation. As you yourself pointed out, NE could just as easily pass as run when inside the 5, so teams couldn't just "stack the line." When a DC sees Ridley leave the game, and Vereen enter, don't you think they would be more likely to suspect a pass play & set their defense along those lines, thereby leaving Vereen with an easier situation to rush in (than Ridley might have faced)?

That being said, I don't think Ridley owners need to worry about him being replaced as the GL back (unless he continues to fumble, especially at the stripe), but I do think his TD totals have a cap, for these reasons:

1-BB seems to like to "out-smart" other coaches, which could be why Vereen started to get some GL carries last year. IIRC, he would occasionaly used Woodhead similarly.

2-Brady will throw a quick slant/out for a TD just as easily as hand the ball off.

3-Brady seems to like the QB sneak, and the O-line seems to be pretty good at it.

4-Brady is (IMO) one of the best QBs at recognizing defenses and audibling (sp?) to a play that gives the offense the advantage.

All these factors could prevent Ridley from scoring 15+ TDs, but I would be surprised if he gets less than 8.

I guess the confusion comes as I pointed out Ridley's short comings on the goal line last year in a Vereen thread. My statement wasn't so much about Vereen as his 5 carries are just not enough to get a good feel for his ability. I just feel like Ridley underperformed in goal line situations relative to his predecessor, so BB may outsource that job next year. That is all. I just thought the stats were worth pointing out and people have flipped out.

I don't even care. I don't own any NE players. Just thought the stat was interesting and could be an omen for change (all I said was that I'd be wary of Ridley losing GL carries, FFS). However, I've wasted a handful of posts debating with people who are set in their thinking and refuse to consider another perspective. It's quite annoying - the lengths people will go to in order to see what they want to see and ignore stats.

jonboltz · Apr 12, 2013

FF Ninja said:
Bayhawks said:

FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

FF Ninja said:

CalBear said:

20 carries vs. 43 carries isn't "historical data"; it's a collection of anecdotes. Ridley hasn't been a goal-line monster, but neither has Vereen, and Vereen really isn't likely to become one. I personally like the guy, I think he's a better runner than Forsett, but he never struck me as having star quality. As for "the end of last year", Vereen didn't have any rushing TDs after week 12. Barring a Ridley injury the best case for Vereen this year is serious RBBC, probably as #2.

Click to expand...

A collection of anecdotes? It may be a small sample size, but it's not a collection of anecdotes. If you still think 20 rushes for 2 yards isn't bad, maybe it is worth noting that since 2002, it is by far the lowest rushing total for any RB with 20 rushes or more. The next lowest was Steve Slaton with 10 yards on 20 carries in 2008.

Click to expand...

It's not 20 rushes for 2 yards. It's 20 rushes for 8 TDs. Once you're in the end zone you can't get credited for any more yards, so the number of yards gained is really not relevant.

FF Ninja said:

>Given that NE has a good o-line and is a high threat to throw at the goal line, and that BJGE was more effective, I don't see how you keep defending his performance. I don't think he's a bad runner - I drafted him in several redrafts last year and was quite happy with the results, but I don't think his goal line job is safe i<

/p>n 2013.

Click to expand...

I'm defending the fact that he scored TDs at a higher rate than any other back you listed as comparables, so by your own stats, he's done well, and there's no reason to believe his goal-line job is in jeapordy.

Also, I don't think Vereen is a great goal-line back. He was maybe better than Forsett, not as good as Best, definitely not anywhere near Lynch, and probably not as good as Adimchinobe Echemandu. He can probably do OK if he gets the ball at the goal line but I wouldn't see more than 8 TDs on 20 attempts coming from him.

Click to expand...

Dude, we get it that you went to Cal but no one gives a s*** about these comparisons to Forsett and Best. This is the NFL. We don't need to stick to guys who went to Cal as frames of reference.

And no, he didn't score TDs at a higher rate than the other backs I listed. The most important one I listed was BJGE, who outperformed him in every respect despite being in the same situation. As for the other RBs, I'm sure Foster would perform better at the goal line if he were in a less predictable situation than Houston. That's why it is better to compare Ridley's conversion rate with other RBs on the same team.

Click to expand...

But while Vereen is on the same team, he was NEVER in the same situation. As you yourself pointed out, NE could just as easily pass as run when inside the 5, so teams couldn't just "stack the line." When a DC sees Ridley leave the game, and Vereen enter, don't you think they would be more likely to suspect a pass play & set their defense along those lines, thereby leaving Vereen with an easier situation to rush in (than Ridley might have faced)?

That being said, I don't think Ridley owners need to worry about him being replaced as the GL back (unless he continues to fumble, especially at the stripe), but I do think his TD totals have a cap, for these reasons:

1-BB seems to like to "out-smart" other coaches, which could be why Vereen started to get some GL carries last year. IIRC, he would occasionaly used Woodhead similarly.

2-Brady will throw a quick slant/out for a TD just as easily as hand the ball off.

3-Brady seems to like the QB sneak, and the O-line seems to be pretty good at it.

4-Brady is (IMO) one of the best QBs at recognizing defenses and audibling (sp?) to a play that gives the offense the advantage.

All these factors could prevent Ridley from scoring 15+ TDs, but I would be surprised if he gets less than 8.

Click to expand...

I guess the confusion comes as I pointed out Ridley's short comings on the goal line last year in a Vereen thread. My statement wasn't so much about Vereen as his 5 carries are just not enough to get a good feel for his ability. I just feel like Ridley underperformed in goal line situations relative to his predecessor, so BB may outsource that job next year. That is all. I just thought the stats were worth pointing out and people have flipped out.

I don't even care. I don't own any NE players. Just thought the stat was interesting and could be an omen for change (all I said was that I'd be wary of Ridley losing GL carries, FFS). However, I've wasted a handful of posts debating with people who are set in their thinking and refuse to consider another perspective. It's quite annoying - the lengths people will go to in order to see what they want to see and ignore stats.

Just because others don't draw the same conclusions that you do, doesn't mean that they are "seeing what they want to see and ignoring stats". I personally don't think the success rate of BGJE in 2010-11 really matters that much as a comparison to Ridley in 2012. I think the success rate over the entire NFL is more valid comparison; as is his coaches faith to give him the ball 20 times inside the 5.

Shane Vereen (1 Viewer)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread