Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Browns trade Trent Richardson to Colts

Options
13567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Probably writing him off based on what he has done so far in his career. He's a great goal-line back, but you'd be nuts to give up a first round for one. I think he'll turn out to be a solid back, nothing more though. Browns got a steal by trading him for a first imo.


  • Options
    #63
    Bateman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,818 ✭✭✭Bateman


    I think it's very amusing for people to suggest that the Colts didn't weigh this up carefully.

    To suggest that the Colts don't have armies of scouts and metrics people who are already putting together various possibilities of what they could have gotten in the first round next year, versus what they might get deeper in later rounds.

    To almost suggest that every first round pick turns out to be a resounding success.

    On balance only time will tell and there's a case to be made for the prediction that Cleveland will do better out of it. But to suggest that the Colts are mugs who've allowed a steal here, give me a break


  • Options
    #64
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Probably writing him off based on what he has done so far in his career. He's a great goal-line back, but you'd be nuts to give up a first round for one. I think he'll turn out to be a solid back, nothing more though. Browns got a steal by trading him for a first imo.

    Colts haven't had a 1,000 yard rusher since 2007. I would say that's the mark of a solid rusher. So I'll take that. Plus we have Bradshaw. We have more needs than RB, but if the running game can help us out the way it did on Sunday (our most convincing win in the Pagano/Luck era), then it's worth a first round pick. No questions asked.


  • Options
    #65
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Bateman wrote: »
    I think it's very amusing for people to suggest that the Colts didn't weigh this up carefully.

    To suggest that the Colts don't have armies of scouts and metrics people who are already putting together various possibilities of what they could have gotten in the first round next year, versus what they might get deeper in later rounds.

    To almost suggest that every first round pick turns out to be a resounding success.

    On balance only time will tell and there's a case to be made for the prediction that Cleveland will do better out of it. But to suggest that the Colts are mugs who've allowed a steal here, give me a break



    Yea, because scouts and GMs have never been wrong.

    davyjose wrote: »
    Colts haven't had a 1,000 yard rusher since 2007. I would say that's the mark of a solid rusher. So I'll take that. Plus we have Bradshaw. We have more needs than RB, but if the running game can help us out the way it did on Sunday (our most convincing win in the Pagano/Luck era), then it's worth a first round pick. No questions asked.




    If the Colts wanted a 1,000 yard rusher so badly they should have just handed the ball to Ballard more often last year.


  • Options
    #66
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    davyjose wrote: »
    We have more needs than RB, but if the running game can help us out the way it did on Sunday (our most convincing win in the Pagano/Luck era), then it's worth a first round pick. No questions asked.

    If ever a game illustrated the vital importance of a strong running game. It certainly was that game against the 49er's.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,554 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    No my argument is based around relative value and talent scarcity in the position. I accept that it's hard for you to understand, but spending money on a highly drafted running back or signing a running back with ~3 years experience to a huge deal is a really inefficient use of limited player acquirement resources. Get the other stuff right and it really isn't hard to find a couple of lads who can run into holes for 4ypc+ and ~1200 yards which is all you need to balance things out.
    What exactly is hard for me to understand?

    The fact of the matter is that when it comes to drafting you can go two ways and thats pick the best fit for your team or pick the best player available. In either of those instances that player might be a RB as early as the top of the draft.
    In Richardson's case there was a huge majority saying he was worthy of being a top draft pick, I'm talking NFL scouts, media and fans and posters on this site. I wasn't one of them btw.

    Thats not too long ago either so its far too early to predict how good or not so good he will be. I think even at the level he is at now that he was a better bet than a rookie out of college given that he has a lot of potential upside and is a proven performer at NFL level even though he has not achieved the standard yet that was expected of him from the get go.


  • Options
    #68
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    Chucky the tree wrote: »




    If the Colts wanted a 1,000 yard rusher so badly they should have just handed the ball to Ballard more often last year.

    New OC this year. Much as I like Ballard (despite his injury) Richardson is an upgrade.


  • Options
    #69
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    TO. wrote: »
    Not forgetting his touchdown. Sure Richardson has a lot to prove and sure he could fail in Indy but has he become your new Tebow? First game with the Colts and only in for selected plays. Yet to full grasp the playbook and sharing carries with Bradshaw who was a beast yesterday. But hey not surprised you are writing Richardson off already. Colts may have overpaid for him in many eyes but writing him because of that is just nonsense at this point especially after 1 game with the Colts.

    Did I write him off? He's performing averagely since he got into the league in and around replacement level. He deserves to be an NFL player, the question is about being very clear headed on whether he is still worth a first round pick.
    davyjose wrote: »
    Colts haven't had a 1,000 yard rusher since 2007. I would say that's the mark of a solid rusher. So I'll take that. Plus we have Bradshaw. We have more needs than RB, but if the running game can help us out the way it did on Sunday (our most convincing win in the Pagano/Luck era), then it's worth a first round pick. No questions asked.

    16 backs in the NFL ran for over 1000 yards last season. You don't need to spend a first round pick to achieve an increasingly average production standard.


  • Options
    #70
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »


    16 backs in the NFL ran for over 1000 yards last season. You don't need to spend a first round pick to achieve an increasingly average production standard.

    Yeah but waiting til the 3rd doesn't automatic ally guarantee you a good RB. The ones expected to do well go early but it doesn'talways work out. You only hear about guys like Alfred Morris, but where's Kenjon Barner or Lamichael James right now?


  • Options
    #71
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    davyjose wrote: »
    Yeah but waiting til the 3rd doesn't automatic ally guarantee you a good RB. The ones expected to do well go early but it doesn'talways work out. You only hear about guys like Alfred Morris, but where's Kenjon Barner or Lamichael James right now?

    There were 16 guys doing it last year, another five or so moving the rock well relative to volume of carries. To put it another way, last year:

    - 17 guys ran for more yards than Richardson;
    - 34 guys ran for more yards per attempt than Richardson;

    Loads of ways to pick up a guy on the cheap who'll give you Richardson type production.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    There were 16 guys doing it last year, another five or so moving the rock well relative to volume of carries. To put it another way, last year:

    - 17 guys ran for more yards than Richardson;
    - 34 guys ran for more yards per attempt than Richardson;

    Loads of ways to pick up a guy on the cheap who'll give you Richardson type production.
    Yeah but my point is, it gets much more hit and miss the further down the draft you go.
    Sure you might get the next Arian Foster, but you probably won't. At least TRich is a lock to give a reaaonably high level of production.


  • Options
    #73
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    davyjose wrote: »
    Yeah but my point is, it gets much more hit and miss the further down the draft you go.
    Sure you might get the next Arian Foster, but you probably won't. At least TRich is a lock to give a reaaonably high level of production.

    He is? He's replacement level thus far.


  • Options
    #74
    Bateman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,818 ✭✭✭Bateman


    Can we please end the "cost/value" argument? Whatever people's opinions are on the lad's ability and/or potential...
    Read elsewhere:
    Indianapolis is acquiring a guy who would never have fallen out of the top five just a year ago for a pick that will almost surely not fall into the top five in 2014. That's the definition of buying low.

    The Colts are also getting Richardson at a greatly reduced price. While they do miss out on one year of a cost-controlled Richardson by trading for him during his sophomore season, they're not forced to repay any of Richardson's already paid $13.3 million signing bonus to the Browns, who will see the remaining unassigned (in terms of the salary cap) $10.1 million of that bonus accelerate onto their cap in 2013 ($3.5 million) and 2014 ($6.7 million). Instead, the Colts basically have Richardson signed to a guaranteed three-year deal for an average of about $2.2 million per season. If Richardson succeeds in his new digs, the Colts will get a franchise running back at less than half of his original price and at pennies of his true market value.


  • Options
    #75
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Even if Richardson's ypc is a bit low he can still catch, block, score and handle a large load. Besides, apart from Peyton Hillis for a few weeks, practically no recent Cleveland rusher has been able to rack up the yards, for one reason or another.


  • Options
    #76
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    He is? He's replacement level thus far.

    I believe so. Time will tell I suppose. The Colts front office believe so too. Every trade is a risk, but he's 19 games into his career.
    Plenty of time to make good on his undoubted potential.


  • Options
    #77
    Bateman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,818 ✭✭✭Bateman


    The blocking is a big thing - especially with Ballard now injured and Brown not being a great protector, plus Bradshaw's dodgy foot.


  • Options
    #78
    taidghbaby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,746 ✭✭✭taidghbaby


    At the end of the day the Colts want to play power football! You may not agree that that's the best way to go about winning (I have my reservations) but Richardson fits into the type of back you want for this!

    Bradshaw can be very good, but he has durability issues! The other two backs on the roster (Browne and Williams) are smaller and don't fit the offence Hamilton is trying to run!

    I think someone mentioned earlier about drafting for need against drafting the BPA! Richardson is an example of drafting for need! For me I might not 100% agree with the trade but I can see the logic behind it!


  • Options
    #79
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    20 carries for 60 yards in rout
    1 catch for 6 yards


  • Options
    #80
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,554 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Isn't it mad when you think about it?

    Since the Colts signed Richardson they have looked almost unstoppable, I'm not saying thats mutally exclusive to the signing of Trent obviously.

    At the same time the Browns have won two in a row and sit joint top of their division. :eek:


  • Options
    #81
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    18 carries for 56 yards in win


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,605 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    18 carries for 56 yards in win

    Not bad considering the Hawks crowded the box most of the time, and he got a couple of big first downs.

    Definitely a big asset to the team, opens up the play downfield where Luck is just bombing the ball down to Hilton and Wayne.


  • Options
    #83
    taidghbaby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,746 ✭✭✭taidghbaby


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    18 carries for 56 yards in win

    Did you watch the game?


  • Options
    #84
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    taidghbaby wrote: »
    Did you watch the game?

    Nope, his stat line very consistent thus far this season though.


  • Options
    #85
    taidghbaby
    Registered Users Posts: 2,746 ✭✭✭taidghbaby


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Nope, his stat line very consistent thus far this season though.

    Yeah but of course the stats don't mention the fact the Seahawks d-line dominated the Colts o-line in the 1st half, or that he made a great pass block on the 80 yard TD pass to TY that got the colts back into the game! Nor does it mention the fantastic 5 yard run he had on third down late in the 4th quarter which set up a field goal that forced the Seahwaks to attempt to go 80 yards in under 2 mins!

    But if were gonna judge a player solely on statistics taken off NFL.com then that's fair enough I suppose!


  • Options
    #86
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    taidghbaby wrote: »
    Yeah but of course the stats don't mention the fact the Seahawks d-line dominated the Colts o-line in the 1st half, or that he made a great pass block on the 80 yard TD pass to TY that got the colts back into the game! Nor does it mention the fantastic 5 yard run he had on third down late in the 4th quarter which set up a field goal that forced the Seahwaks to attempt to go 80 yards in under 2 mins!

    But if were gonna judge a player solely on statistics taken off NFL.com then that's fair enough I suppose!

    He's a high first round running back. He's paid to run the rock. No doubt he'd be a hell of a fullback though by the sounds of things!!


  • Options
    #87
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,554 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Both teams are 3-0 since the trade.:eek:


  • Options
    #88
    nerd69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭nerd69


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    He's a high first round running back. He's paid to run the rock. No doubt he'd be a hell of a fullback though by the sounds of things!!

    Yes because a back that can do multiple jobs well is pointless
    in the modern nfl pass blocking is huge in a half back


  • Options
    #89
    HigginsJ
    Registered Users Posts: 7,317 ✭✭✭HigginsJ


    nerd69 wrote: »
    Yes because a back that can do multiple jobs well is pointless
    in the modern nfl pass blocking is huge in a half back

    It's a huge reason why David Wilson is struggling to make an impact with us


  • Options
    #90
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,141 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    nerd69 wrote: »
    Yes because a back that can do multiple jobs well is pointless
    in the modern nfl pass blocking is huge in a half back

    He doesn't run the ball well though


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    nerd69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,632 ✭✭✭nerd69


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    He doesn't run the ball well though

    I disagree he's not Adrian Peterson but he's cost the colts a late first round pick I feel he's better runner than most late first round picks in recent years

    Well see how he is by the end if thus year but I think he's gona be huge for Andrew luck


Advertisement