That's not a good evaluation at all. Just because a player played behind a ZBS, means a large part of the production is not because of talent? They get a lower score for running ability because they play/played behind one? Run DMC has shown that he sucks more behind a ZBS than a power game. Donald Brown was suppose to be good behind a ZBS and he sucked. Yes, the Houston offensive line is very good, but even Ben Tate has nothing on Foster. Tate sucks in the red-zone while Foster is great, is a worse pass catcher and a worse pass blocker. So can you explain why Tate isn't as good as Foster when the offensive line for both is a ZBS?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Who is Brandon Bolden (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Shutout
- Start date
Shutout
Footballguy
I guess that's why we call it a complete evaluation because everything you say is just as true if you DON'T roster bolden and he pans out.
Xue
Footballguy
Tate has nothing on Foster? That must be a joke. Tate isn't as good as Foster? That must be another joke. Tell me why Tate has a better YPC when defenses know he is no threat in the passing game? Tell me why Ben Tate has a better YPC (5.54) in Lone Setback sets (the majority run formation that Texans use) than Arian Foster (4.37), again he is no threat in the passing game?
Shutout
Footballguy
Hey. No hijacking. Take the Tate and foster talk to rizzlers house. For the record, Tate is nowhere near as dynamic nor important to the texans as foster. Totally different operation and abilities when foster is in the game. Blah blah blah and stat stat stat all you want , as long as foster is playing its his show and he's a top 3 ff rb. Not the same when it's Tate and you're lying to yourself and others if you watched the games and try to tell people otherwise
I'm tired of the stat spitters on this forum. Quite selective with stats to make their argument sound solid. And I said WORSE compared to Foster, not "no threat", but yes, he's pretty much close to no threat in the passing game. Learn how to read. Then learn how to watch a football game. Tate can't hold Foster's jock and when he goes to another team as a UFA, he'll be a good starter but underwhelm in contrast to the hype on him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
fix thread title, plz
Xue
Footballguy
whatadai, we can continue the Tate/Foster talk in the appropriate thread if you wish:
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=646876&st=100&gopid=14621574entry14621574
Anyway, how did Bolden look tonight?
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=646876&st=100&gopid=14621574entry14621574
Anyway, how did Bolden look tonight?
Last edited by a moderator:
werdnoynek
Footballguy
he looked pretty good. he never really had much space to run from what i saw. he had a nice 10+ yard run where a defender was in the backfield on the handoff and he had a nice jump cut to avoid the tackle and made the nice gain out of it. he got some early touches too which was interesting.'Xue said:
He is a good name to put on your watch list in Dynasty formats
Donsmith753
Footballguy
The bolden ball keeps rolling 
Last edited by a moderator:
tombonneau
Footballguy
Wondering what the general thoughts are about Bolden after this week. Obviously he'll be claimed off waivers with that stat line but just curious how "hot" he'll be.
As a Pats fan I think he looks good but Ridley is clearly on another level. And doubt there will be another game with this many carries. I think he's crucial as a handcuff to Ridley and a decent spot flex starter but one with a very low floor.
Certainly doesn't look good for Vereen though.
As a Pats fan I think he looks good but Ridley is clearly on another level. And doubt there will be another game with this many carries. I think he's crucial as a handcuff to Ridley and a decent spot flex starter but one with a very low floor.
Certainly doesn't look good for Vereen though.
BallparkFrank
Footballguy
Every time I switched over to this game, there were GAPING holes to run through. Candy from a baby!
tombonneau
Footballguy
Yes the OL was opening huge holes. As a pats fan (and Ridley owner!) it was frustrating as Ridley is so much more explosive he'd have gotten a lot more on lots of those runs.
scrumptrulescent
Footballguy
I'm a Ridley owner too and didn't think Bolden really looked any less explosive. Maybe I'm missing something but Bolden looked pretty good to me.
tombonneau
Footballguy
Ridley has a much quicker burst and hits the hole faster in addition to having an extra gear. He just accelerates into the second level. Bolden looks good but he gets what's there; Ridley can make his own yards.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
early
duaneok66
Footballguy
it was a rotation - all four backs were used in a rotation - something rarely seen in the NFL. now if you guys can figure out what will happen (besides more of the same) going forward, then please tell me your secret.
zamboni
Footballguy
Seems that way, but problem is with Belicheck, it could be one week Ridley getting most of the load, Bolden the next and Woodhead after that.Can't blame him, as he game plans by opponent, but continues to be a thorn in the side of fantasy owners.
Shutout
Footballguy
Yesterday, Bolden really reminded me of BJGE in the way that they put him in to run for the tough yards. I guess the biggest thing I came away with in this one is Ridley is the guy and he has really impressed me this year. Woodhead still remains that clear "passing" back. Bolden seems to be Ridley's stand in. Vareen seems to have lost a role all together.
I was happy for Bolden yesterday but obviously take it with a grain of salt. There won't be opportunities like that much. But one thing seems apparent: The Patriots ARE going to run the ball enough this year to matter, come hell or high water and Bolden looks to be the guy with fantasy value should Ridley miss time or fall out of favor.
I was happy for Bolden yesterday but obviously take it with a grain of salt. There won't be opportunities like that much. But one thing seems apparent: The Patriots ARE going to run the ball enough this year to matter, come hell or high water and Bolden looks to be the guy with fantasy value should Ridley miss time or fall out of favor.
Nucker101
Footballguy
Too hard to trust any NE back at this point. Obviously Bolden is worth claiming, but I don't think you can start him unless you're ina desperate situation or if you believe that the Pats will be this effective at running the ball every game. Ridley owners should be selling while they still can get good value IMO. The Pats won't play the Bills and put up 50+ points on the board or even come close to that most weeks. The Pats offense in general has a ton of mouths to feed now, especially when Edelman and Hernandez are back in the mix.
two_dollars
Footballguy
That's what The Hoodie wants. You can't gameplan for everything.
pantherclub
Footballguy
Based on what?
ponchsox
Footballguy
I think the Patriots will run the ball a lot to protect leads in games vs BUF, NYJ, and MIA so both backs should produce. In the event Ridley gets dinged or starts to fumble a guy like Bolden is even more valuable.
Matt Bitonti
Moderator
i have followed the draft closely for many years, it was surprising to me that Bolden went undrafted. He had many productive games, in a very tough conference, without alot of help.
BallparkFrank
Footballguy
Ridley did fumble once out of bounds last game didn't he? Ridley should obviously have a pretty long leash, but they did bench him last year for fumbles and in preseason for fumbles in practice and BB is a "what have you done for me lately" type of coach. I also wouldn't be shocked if he's a factor down the stretch. He's a must cuff for Ridley owners on the WW at the very least.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
What a headache this is. Ridley is guaranteed some amount of touches per week where Woodhead and Bolden's carries will likely fluctuate depending on the game state (no huddle vs. grinding). Throw in a little bit of Vereen who's more versatile than any one of these RBs and you have a fantasy situation to avoid.
Warpig
Footballguy
Assuming Buffalo's D gets better down the stretch (don't they have one of the biggest D-lines in the NFL?), who would want a RB (fantasy wise) facing those defenses during the playoff stretch? Especially one that may get 0 carries one week, and 20 the next?
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
ponchsox
Footballguy
Yeah, they looked awesome last week allowing two, one hundred yard rushers.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
yeah, but assume they didn't
Warpig
Footballguy
Hey Kool-Aid Larry and ponchsox...the TOOL store called...they're running out of you! 
Marcell Dareus was/is a beast coming in to this year. Kyle Williams is good as well. Then they add Mario Williams and Mark Anderson who had 10 sacks last year with the Pats. Kelvin Sheppard was the next great young LB coming in to the season. They still have Nick Barnett and whomever they wanna rotate at SLB with some solid safety play.
No body expected the Bills D to be this bad. Perhaps they aren't...just a bad day at the office against the Pats. Allowing two 100 yard rushers is pretty pathetic. But we would have to assume they get it together and start playing to their potential. On paper, their D looked great!
Surely it won't happen again. I just don't see the value in a Bolden if he's only going to be a novelty that is sprinkled in every now and then...especially against the defenses in the AFC East.
Marcell Dareus was/is a beast coming in to this year. Kyle Williams is good as well. Then they add Mario Williams and Mark Anderson who had 10 sacks last year with the Pats. Kelvin Sheppard was the next great young LB coming in to the season. They still have Nick Barnett and whomever they wanna rotate at SLB with some solid safety play.
No body expected the Bills D to be this bad. Perhaps they aren't...just a bad day at the office against the Pats. Allowing two 100 yard rushers is pretty pathetic. But we would have to assume they get it together and start playing to their potential. On paper, their D looked great!
Surely it won't happen again. I just don't see the value in a Bolden if he's only going to be a novelty that is sprinkled in every now and then...especially against the defenses in the AFC East.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
A bad day? Have you forgotten that Mark Sanchez looked like Joe Montana against that Buffalo D back in Week 1? Regardless of how they look on paper, the Bills D stinks in reality, and assuming they'll get better is an assumption many of us aren't willing to hold on to given the recent sad history of the Bills.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
Let's get back to Bolden here. So the spread has NE favored by about score this week at home vs. DEN. If the game is close-ish or NE has to throw I'm assuming we'll see a decent amount of Woodhead, if not Bolden might get some looks again. What are you guys expecting from Shananigans 2.0 this week?
duaneok66
Footballguy
it's not Shananigans - it's the rare instance where four backs seemed to be integrated into the gameplan - and Bill changes plans every week - Shanahan (before this year) seemed to change backs on a dime - if you can pick Bill's brain, then you are a better mindreader than me.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
There HAS to be a pattern though right? It may be near impossible to decipher, but I have to believe there's a method to his madness.
duaneok66
Footballguy
good luck figuring it out.
Insein
Footballguy
Sold Ridley for McFadden this week. Too much uncertainty on who will get the majority of touches each week. Great for the Pats to have that depth but horrible for Fantasy owners.
tombonneau
Footballguy
This is simply not true. I think by the end of the season we'll look back at Baltimore as the aberration. I doubt we will see another game where Ridley is so astonishingly uninvolved. The only really annoying bit in this for Ridley owners is that he won't be getting 100% of he GL work with Bolden emerging but otherwise this is exactly what I signed up for. (To put it in perspective, if Ridley had Boldens 2 TDs he'd have 69 FP and be tied for RB3.)
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Okay, but he doesn't, and since Belichick isn't likely to give any one RB most of the touches on a weekly basis, this is just something us Ridley owners will have to put up with. But I won't complain it since I knew what I was getting myself into when I took a NE RB.This is simply not true. I think by the end of the season we'll look back at Baltimore as the aberration. I doubt we will see another game where Ridley is so astonishingly uninvolved. The only really annoying bit in this for Ridley owners is that he won't be getting 100% of he GL work with Bolden emerging but otherwise this is exactly what I signed up for. (To put it in perspective, if Ridley had Boldens 2 TDs he'd have 69 FP and be tied for RB3.)
