GobbleDog 827 Posted October 11, 2012 So you're saying that Ridley isn't even a top 30 or top 36 back (to start at the flex every week)? Absolutely nuts. Ridley is tied for 3rd in RB points with Ray Rice thru Week 5 . He isn't a Top 5 back due to the amount of touches he could lose to Woodhead etc., but I have no issue calling him at least a top end RB2. You'd have to be pretty stacked at RB not to be starting this guy every week. Obviously Ridley should be ranked in the top 30 RBs every week (currently). But if people can trade Ridley for a WR2 like we're seeing, I think they should do it. I'd rather have a full-time WR2 than a full-time RB2 who never gets receptions and plays for Bellichick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boston Three Party 6 Posted October 11, 2012 Man Yahoo projections are such a joke. Ridley and Wayne at 8+ while Martin is 9+ and Foster at 26. Lmao! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 827 Posted October 11, 2012 Man Yahoo projections are such a joke. Ridley and Wayne at 8+ while Martin is 9+ and Foster at 26. Lmao! Here's my Ridley projection: 65 rushing yards 0 receptions 0 receiving yards 0 TDs That's the lowest I'd expect, but it's also pretty much what I expect. TDs are fluky for all RBs. An extra 8-10 points each week from receptions/receiving yards helps balance that. Ridley doesn't offer that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted October 11, 2012 Obviously Ridley should be ranked in the top 30 RBs every week (currently). But if people can trade Ridley for a WR2 like we're seeing, I think they should do it. I'd rather have a full-time WR2 than a full-time RB2 who never gets receptions and plays for Bellichick. A lousy WR 2 for a RB 2 with the obvious upside of a #1? I think you're a bit too down on him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted October 11, 2012 Here's my Ridley projection: 65 rushing yards 0 receptions 0 receiving yards 0 TDs That's the lowest I'd expect, but it's also pretty much what I expect. TDs are fluky for all RBs. An extra 8-10 points each week from receptions/receiving yards helps balance that. Ridley doesn't offer that. I guess everyone has a weakness if you look for it. Ridley offers an above average talent on arguably the most potent offense in the NFL. With Hernandez back soon they get even more dangerous again. Defenses are scared to death and run nickels at NE for entire games. What a delight it must be for Ridley to break past the DL and not see a LB anywhere near him. TD's are fluky but with an offense like that it stands to reason that there will be more opportunities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 827 Posted October 11, 2012 A lousy WR 2 for a RB 2 with the obvious upside of a #1? I think you're a bit too down on him. It's the no receptions and Bellichick rotation thing that I don't like. I'm just giving my honest opinion. I'm actually starting him this week (no-one better for flex) so I am rooting for him even though I don't expect a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites