Pats' Likely Inactives

Share this page

The Gr8est

The Gr8est

"It's time to shut up, Fat Boy!"
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
6,777
Reaction score
528
Points
113
Location
Closer than I appear in your mirror
I heard Mike Reiss today predict the Pats' inactive players as Ryan Mallett, Shane Vereen, Stevan Ridley, Donald Thomas, Marcus Cannon, Gary Guyton, and Ron Brace.

He mentioned that the toughest call for him was Stevan Ridley and I agree. I hope Ridley is active. He adds a dimension that the other RBs don't and we may need that versatility.

I imagine it is between Ridley and Faulk, and this is likely Faulk's last SB if not actually his last game period, so this is sentimental for him. He is sure handed and a good player to have when you need a sure handed player for a pressure situation.

Ridley has got to be really motivated, and could really help the Pats running game as well as keeping them less predictable with both BJGE's and Ridley's style differences. Plus if BJGE gets hurt, who is the Pats RB?

Thoughts?
 
Because Vollmer will most likely be active, so we'll need another roster spot, I'm guessing that the fullback they added, Polite, probably won't be active. I don't know who else, though. I believe Faulk remains active, so maybe it will be Ridley.
 
I thought Ridley was going to be playing in the game. I guess when you fumble in 2 staright games. BB don't trust you in the two biggest games of the year.
 
Ridley should not only be active, he should get the majority of the carries. Having your best back inactive is foolish.

And Woodhead should be inactive because of his fumble last game, right?:coffee:
 
Sorry to say, but having faulk active cause this might be his last game and not because its in the best interest of the team is foolish. This is the superbowl its not week 17 in the regular season with nothing to play for.
 
Michigan Dave said:
Ridley should not only be active, he should get the majority of the carries. Having your best back inactive is foolish.

And Woodhead should be inactive because of his fumble last game, right?:coffee:
Click to expand...

I thought I heard that Ridley was definitely playing?
 
I can live without Faulk being active, and I'm not on board with the "we should keep him active because this is probably his last game" club. Keep Ridley/BJGE/Woodhead as the backers. Also don't agree with sitting Polite as it puts an extra blocker on the field when you need him.
 
Michigan Dave said:
Ridley should not only be active, he should get the majority of the carries. Having your best back inactive is foolish.

And Woodhead should be inactive because of his fumble last game, right?:coffee:
Click to expand...

I agree but think BJGE should get the bulk. Split the carries and make each one like your last. No fair dodgin', bitch.

If they activate Faulk and sit Ridley I would say that it is pure foolishness. You can't start honoring vets who can't produce and Kevin can't produce any more. Not at the expense of a guy who could maybe carry an offense for a while if Gronk can't go. It's too important for sentimentality.

So, you're afraid the kid will make a turnover. Fine. Grow a set and take a chance on winning the damn game with a young player with talent.
 
Hawg73 said:
I agree but think BJGE should get the bulk. Split the carries and make each one like your last. No fair dodgin', bitch.

If they activate Faulk and sit Ridley I would say that it is pure foolishness. You can't start honoring vets who can't produce and Kevin can't produce any more. Not at the expense of a guy who could maybe carry an offense for a while if Gronk can't go. It's too important for sentimentality.

So, you're afraid the kid will make a turnover. Fine. Grow a set and take a chance on winning the damn game with a young player with talent.
Click to expand...

Woodhead is more likely to turn the ball over than Ridley.
 
Annihilus said:
He is?
Click to expand...

I think so. I think Woodhead brings little to the table. If Ridley had to sit for fumbling in garbage time against Denver, Woodhead should have to sit for fumbling when the stakes were actually much higher. He put the ball on the ground in the Jets playoff game last year, in the AFCCG game this year...I don't trust him.
 
Annihilus said:
So you'll be pissed when Ridley is inactive?
Click to expand...

If Ridley is inactive, we've crippled our ability to effectively run the ball. I hope I'm wrong. I trust Benny to an extent, but he lacks explosiveness and if something happens to him, we'd be toast with only Woodhead.
 
I agree with those who say Ridley over Faulk. I mentioned the sentimentality factor for Faulk, but it doesn't mean that that's the way to go.

It will hurt ANYONE if they get told they will be a spectator for the Superbowl, but Fault HAS already played in several.

Ridley can be the feature back if needed to be, whereas neither Faulk nor Woodhead can be that guy, and additionally, he offers a different style with outside s[eed which will put more stress on the defense.

After sitting against the Ravens I am confident Ridley will be extra careful with ball security.

The choice should be between Woodhead and Faulk, and other than blocking (which COULD be huge by the way), Woodhead offers more than Faulk.

Sorry Kevin, I love you man, but the laundry comes first.
 
Of all our non-existent kick return options, Woodhead is the least crappy IMO. I'm not sure I believe he's any more likely to turn it over than Ridley. That being said, Ridley should be in. There are definitely other bodies taking up space that we can live without.
 
Michigan Dave said:
I think so. I think Woodhead brings little to the table. If Ridley had to sit for fumbling in garbage time against Denver, Woodhead should have to sit for fumbling when the stakes were actually much higher. He put the ball on the ground in the Jets playoff game last year, in the AFCCG game this year...I don't trust him.
Click to expand...

For real? :high:

I really couldn't disagree with you more. He's made a lot of big plays for us over the last couple of years (especially when compared to Ridley). I seriously doubt he fumbles again.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ridley. But if there's a choice to be made between the two, Woodhead wins that all day long (at this exact moment in time). That probably changes in the future - but not right now.

Now Woodhead over Faulk, I can definitely see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top