This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
injured.
For not liking a power run game Ridley did well last year as did their run game. Guess I don't see how you can say they don't like it.
Last I heard Bolden was limping, listed as questionable with a knee issue, and limited in practice. Unless questionable becomes doubtful or inactive, you certainly can't count him out. Maybe he's been limited simply because Belichick plans on using him a lot on Sunday. The limp is obviously a concern, but this may be one of those times where a coach makes it clear to a player that the team needs them on the field and the player is just going to have to suck it up and play. Put yourself in Bolden's shoes. You were an undrafted RB. The coach has made it clear that he, and the team, needs you on the field. If you play and play well you may take over as the #1 RB for the Patriots. If you don't play, you may never have this chance again, on any team, ever again. If I'm Bolden, I tell the coach I'm good to go, I tell the team doctor to give me as much pain killer as possible, and I play through any remaining pain as long as I can possibly tolerate it.
I didn't say the Pats didn't like a power run game. They utilize it when appropriate but they don't revolve around it, which is why Blount will continue to have a role but may not have a "breakout game" and that's what this thread is about. I guess it depends what you consider a breakout game. I take it to mean that based on one game's performance, the player's value then shoots up due to a dramatic increase in expected production going forward. I don't see that happening with Blount even if he plays well. On the other hand, I can see that happening with Bolden if he plays well, and that's based on the Pats offense in general.I also question whether or not Blount really wants his role to increase dramatically. Seems like the type of player who's content being a role player versus a young undrafted player like Bolden looking to make a name for himself.
Blount is only one year older, also undrafted, yet has a 1000 yard season under his belt. Some of what you are saying makes no sense. Seems like you don't know much about Blount tbh.satch said:
There may not be another game that valuable although there will certainly be some games where he is a nice contributor - of course the problem is magnified because he plays for Belicheck so you can never guess the real usage for any player. Just don't chase points already scored - like Julius Thomas first game they rarely appear again - doesn't mean they won't contribute but there isn't another 30 point game you can count on ....Yup.Gopher State said:
I'm actually not starting a Pats back. I own Bolden, but not starting him. But thanks for your reply, it was very helpful to myself and many others I'm sure. Very insightful and informative, with lots of perspective.
But per NFL.com stats they only give up 99 rushing yards per game, 11th in the NFL. I sure the RB points include rec yards and points in the passing game for RB's, how many rec yards does blount have? Any FF points blount gets will be on the ground, I take the under on 99 yards
Blount was undrafted for different reasons than Bolden. Blount had already made a name for himself before he even left college. Unfortunately, it was a bad one. Blount already had his big chance in Tampa and blew it. He had a decent season , but was shipped out of Tampa for a reason. Now he's 4th string on the Pats. I know enough about Blount to know that he comes off as a good power runner who seems content to be a role player on a team that needs him to play that role. There's nothing wrong with that and it's just my opinion. Maybe you can tell me something about Blount that changes my mind.
Sorry but you lost us all right here. Most people think Ridley is a fumbler, he averages a fumble every 70 carries, Blount averages a fumble every 50 carries. He wasn't brought in to secure leads late because he can hold the ball, he was brought in because the Pats like to have a power back and he was a cheap back up and probably is the most talented 3rd stringer in the league.
Is Blount a capable red zone and G/L back? I ask because I'm still not sure. There will be more chances to do so in a 50% role with the Pats than in his more prominent role with the Bucs. I do think he's motivated, healthy and knows now what happens when you fail in the NFL, so those are pluses. He's going to get the opportunity this weekend to be what Ridley was last year. 50-100 rush yds, no catches and about a 50% chance at a TD. Lowered the TD rate to account for the less potent passing game, but that could actually help his TD potential, IF Blount can prove effective and reliable (no fumbles) at the money stripe. That to me is the $$$ question.
Ok. So does owning neither somehow give you better insight to both? Or do you just automatically dismiss opinions from those who own the player in question because it's simply impossible to have an accurate assessment of a player while owning him?
How do you possibly think that you know what's going on inside a guy's head that you've never met? Unbelievable.
I don't know, I think with age and experience it's fairly easy to know what's going on inside someone's head when you have knowledge of their past behavior, actions, decisions and tendencies. I don't know what's unbelievable about that. It's not so much that you "know what's going on in their head" as it is you know how they are likely to act or behave in a given situation. In this scenario, we're talking about Blount and football. Based on his football related past, I don't think it's "unbelievable" to predict his football future. We have factual past events to consider. Why do you think teams pass on players due to off the field issues? Because it's reasonable to expect certain things to happen in the future based on events of the past. Doesn't mean they "know what's going on inside their head". If a guy consistently shows that he doesn't really care about making the most of his opportunities, it's reasonable to expect that trend to continue.
I think advising owners not to waste their time trying to figure out the pats rubix cube running game is being helpful.
That includes facing the Steelers and Browns (post Richardson). Both bottom of the NFL in rushing. Packers put up 150+ yards on the ground between Starks and Franklin.
A few weeks ago I might've agreed, but as of right now there are really only two colors in the Rubik's cube. It's unlikely that either Bolden or Blount will be save anyone's fantasy season, but one, the other, or maybe both should be able to at least help a little for now.
I thought the same. I tried to dig deeper with him but it was going nowhere.
Blount is a good runner. He's been a 1000 yard, 5 YPC RB in the NFL. He carries character baggage and is one dimensional, but he's a good player. It's beyond absurd to suggest that Bolden is suddenly going to be the guy because Blount is happy to be a backup -- that literally might be the most bizarre thing I've ever seen on these forums.
If that's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard on these forums, you haven't been here long.
Blount is a good runner. He's been a 1000 yard, 5 YPC RB in the NFL. He carries character baggage and is one dimensional, but he's a good player. It's beyond absurd to suggest that Bolden is suddenly going to be the guy because Blount is happy to be a backup -- that literally might be the most bizarre thing I've ever seen on these forums.
Are you Blount's shrink or something? You kind of sound like a moron acting like you know what another human being thinks or wants.If that's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard on these forums, you haven't been here long.Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said Blount isn't a good runner. You may have taken something the wrong way as an overly sensitive Blount owner hoping for big things, but I think most of us agree that Blount is good at what he does. That's how I feel at least. Blount was a big part of a successful fantasy season for me a few years ago. I also don't recall anyone claiming that "Bolden is suddenly going to be the guy". That would be absurd if someone said it. But again, I don't think anyone did.
Speaking for myself, I did say that I think Blount is content in his role on the team as a power runner when needed. Is that what you find absurd? Is it really absurd that a professional football player is content being good at what he does, and not necessarily yearning to be a do-everything superstar? He had a chance to be "the guy" in Tampa and either couldn't take advantage of it or didn't want it. Not everyone wants to be "the guy". Just because you want him to doesn't mean he wants to.
The Patriots team motto is "Do your job." It's that simple. Blount is already doing his job and doing it well. Why do you assume he has a burning desire to be more than that? Just because Ridley is out doesn't mean Belichick suddenly wants Blount to do a different job. Perhaps Belichick wants Blount to just continue doing his job. He may ask Blount to take on a larger role, but to what extent is hard to say. We do know Blount isn't much of a receiving threat, so he likely won't have much of a role in the passing game which I think we can all agree is a pretty big part of the Pats success. You said it yourself, Blount is one dimensional.
Bolden, on the other hand, is a receiving threat who can also run the ball. That's Bolden's job. So, it's conceivable that Belichick could ask Bolden to take on a larger role, which would simply be doing more of what he already does, as opposed to asking Blount to suddenly become a receiving threat, or completely change the offense to fit Blounts power running style.
This thread is about whether or not this week will be "Blount's breakout game", and all I've tried to say is that based on my interpretation of what a breakout game is, Bolden would be more likely to have a breakout game than Blount based on his skill set and role going forward. Neither of these guys is going to be handed the role of "the guy". The Patriots just don't operate that way. They don't need one specific RB to be "the guy". But based on the way the Patriots offense runs, if both players simply continue to "do their job", and continue to play their respective roles in this offense, it's more likely that while Blount will have an increased role, Bolden's useage and production will see a greater increase than Blount. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it absurd. It also doesn't make it true, it's just my opinion. I think both players will see an increase in production, but Bolden's production will likely see a greater increase than Blount's based solely on their respective roles in the offense. Of course, all of this hinges on the status of Bolden's knee.
Are you Blount's shrink or something? You kind of sound like a moron acting like you know what another human being thinks or wants.If that's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard on these forums, you haven't been here long.Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said Blount isn't a good runner. You may have taken something the wrong way as an overly sensitive Blount owner hoping for big things, but I think most of us agree that Blount is good at what he does. That's how I feel at least. Blount was a big part of a successful fantasy season for me a few years ago. I also don't recall anyone claiming that "Bolden is suddenly going to be the guy". That would be absurd if someone said it. But again, I don't think anyone did.
Speaking for myself, I did say that I think Blount is content in his role on the team as a power runner when needed. Is that what you find absurd? Is it really absurd that a professional football player is content being good at what he does, and not necessarily yearning to be a do-everything superstar? He had a chance to be "the guy" in Tampa and either couldn't take advantage of it or didn't want it. Not everyone wants to be "the guy". Just because you want him to doesn't mean he wants to.
The Patriots team motto is "Do your job." It's that simple. Blount is already doing his job and doing it well. Why do you assume he has a burning desire to be more than that? Just because Ridley is out doesn't mean Belichick suddenly wants Blount to do a different job. Perhaps Belichick wants Blount to just continue doing his job. He may ask Blount to take on a larger role, but to what extent is hard to say. We do know Blount isn't much of a receiving threat, so he likely won't have much of a role in the passing game which I think we can all agree is a pretty big part of the Pats success. You said it yourself, Blount is one dimensional.
Bolden, on the other hand, is a receiving threat who can also run the ball. That's Bolden's job. So, it's conceivable that Belichick could ask Bolden to take on a larger role, which would simply be doing more of what he already does, as opposed to asking Blount to suddenly become a receiving threat, or completely change the offense to fit Blounts power running style.
This thread is about whether or not this week will be "Blount's breakout game", and all I've tried to say is that based on my interpretation of what a breakout game is, Bolden would be more likely to have a breakout game than Blount based on his skill set and role going forward. Neither of these guys is going to be handed the role of "the guy". The Patriots just don't operate that way. They don't need one specific RB to be "the guy". But based on the way the Patriots offense runs, if both players simply continue to "do their job", and continue to play their respective roles in this offense, it's more likely that while Blount will have an increased role, Bolden's useage and production will see a greater increase than Blount. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it absurd. It also doesn't make it true, it's just my opinion. I think both players will see an increase in production, but Bolden's production will likely see a greater increase than Blount's based solely on their respective roles in the offense. Of course, all of this hinges on the status of Bolden's knee.
Resorting to name calling? What are you like 10 years old?Are you Blount's shrink or something? You kind of sound like a moron acting like you know what another human being thinks or wants.If that's the most bizarre thing you've ever heard on these forums, you haven't been here long.Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone has said Blount isn't a good runner. You may have taken something the wrong way as an overly sensitive Blount owner hoping for big things, but I think most of us agree that Blount is good at what he does. That's how I feel at least. Blount was a big part of a successful fantasy season for me a few years ago. I also don't recall anyone claiming that "Bolden is suddenly going to be the guy". That would be absurd if someone said it. But again, I don't think anyone did.
Speaking for myself, I did say that I think Blount is content in his role on the team as a power runner when needed. Is that what you find absurd? Is it really absurd that a professional football player is content being good at what he does, and not necessarily yearning to be a do-everything superstar? He had a chance to be "the guy" in Tampa and either couldn't take advantage of it or didn't want it. Not everyone wants to be "the guy". Just because you want him to doesn't mean he wants to.
The Patriots team motto is "Do your job." It's that simple. Blount is already doing his job and doing it well. Why do you assume he has a burning desire to be more than that? Just because Ridley is out doesn't mean Belichick suddenly wants Blount to do a different job. Perhaps Belichick wants Blount to just continue doing his job. He may ask Blount to take on a larger role, but to what extent is hard to say. We do know Blount isn't much of a receiving threat, so he likely won't have much of a role in the passing game which I think we can all agree is a pretty big part of the Pats success. You said it yourself, Blount is one dimensional.
Bolden, on the other hand, is a receiving threat who can also run the ball. That's Bolden's job. So, it's conceivable that Belichick could ask Bolden to take on a larger role, which would simply be doing more of what he already does, as opposed to asking Blount to suddenly become a receiving threat, or completely change the offense to fit Blounts power running style.
This thread is about whether or not this week will be "Blount's breakout game", and all I've tried to say is that based on my interpretation of what a breakout game is, Bolden would be more likely to have a breakout game than Blount based on his skill set and role going forward. Neither of these guys is going to be handed the role of "the guy". The Patriots just don't operate that way. They don't need one specific RB to be "the guy". But based on the way the Patriots offense runs, if both players simply continue to "do their job", and continue to play their respective roles in this offense, it's more likely that while Blount will have an increased role, Bolden's useage and production will see a greater increase than Blount. I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it absurd. It also doesn't make it true, it's just my opinion. I think both players will see an increase in production, but Bolden's production will likely see a greater increase than Blount's based solely on their respective roles in the offense. Of course, all of this hinges on the status of Bolden's knee.
