PFF: "Richardson Working Hard for Minimal Gains"

[House]

Where did I ever say I wanted him to do bad? He is bad, you're just not smart enough to know the difference.

"IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU'RE DUMB!!!!!!!!"

If only there was a world where two opinions could coexist.......

[BpG]

^Didn't like drafting Trent.

Needs to keep reminding everyone why he was right, even when Trent leaves his team.

 

Not even the case. If you look back on my posts, I was being civil and objective until these guys started with the "you're a Browns fan you don't know anything" nonsense. I can fight fire with fire. 

[jshipp23]

Calling your own posts objective is not objective at all.  So forgive me if I don't find your "objectiveness" to be suspect.  You can keep posting the same garbage day in and day out about how we're like browns fans, blah blah blah.  I don't care.  The last thing I'm ever going to take seriously is a Browns fans' opinion on how good their talent, especially when he calls his own posts objective.

They can use our 1st to find the next great 28 year old QB or maybe the next Colt McCoy or Brady Quinn.....Meanwhile, they gave us their best player and the next Earl Campbell, except he runs a 4.4 and Campbell didn't...I'm impressed with Richardson I've seen the flash and talent..He is hit 3 yards behind the line and still gets positive yards and when he gets a hole its 7-10 yds a rip and he makes a lot of negative plays 3 and 4 yard gains...Not too mention he is durable and tough as nails...He is no where near his ceiling and if people can't see this they don't know football..

[House]

Not even the case. If you look back on my posts, I was being civil and objective until these guys started with the "you're a Browns fan you don't know anything" nonsense. I can fight fire with fire.

Naw your trying much to hard to be considered objective at this point. Too much history. Too much insistence on the same exact argument. Your trying to prove your point. Not be objective. Don't confuse the two.

If objectivity is shutting down anything remotely positive about Trent, then your the most objective guy on the Internet.

[BpG]

Is this guy serious? The next Earl Cambell. You're trolling or joking. 

 

Earl Cambel Ran for more than 3,000 yards his first two seasons. 

[OffensivelyPC]

You know how I can tell you're not very bright? The fact that since you know I'm a Browns fan you automatically assume I haven't been a football player. LOL @ you. Probably never played a day in your life.

 

Here is objective.

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/21441-my-take-on-t-rich/page-2#entry589831

You know how I know you're not very smart?  (1) The fact that you think being a football player is even relevant to this conversation, (2) the fact that you insult me because I assumed that it was both relevant to the conversation and that you didn't play football, AND (3) that you then assumed I didn't play football after you just called me stupid for doing the same thing.

 

As for the post.  Yeah, I saw it.  That was how many plays out of his entire ROOKIE season?  Show me some of the good ones Mr. Objective.  But since we're being so objective, Willis McGahee has never averaged below 3.8 YPC in any given year.  Now that he's with the Browns, he's at 2.8.  The problem isn't Richardson, it's your team.

[husker61]

Well of course, but just because you can drive a car doesn't mean you can take him straight out of an automatic and expect him to be able to drive a manual shift.  It takes time to learn these things.  So while your steering and decision making may be just fine, your steering and decision making slows down while you're learning to shift the gears without having to think about it.  Same thing here.  If, by next year, he's still making the same slow reads, then yeah, different story.  But after 4 games.  It's too soon. 

 

And yeah, sure you can say he didn't do it very well last year, but he was a freakin rookie for god's sake.  Not every RB in the league is going to be like Adrian Peterson and come in his first year and decimate everyone.

 

that is one of the worst analogies i have ever seen. learning how to drive a car and playing football at the highest level???

 

no one is saying he has to be adrian peterson, but he should be a lot better than he is for giving up a #1 pick.

[BpG]

Naw your trying much to hard to be considered objective at this point. Too much history. Too much insistence on the same exact argument. Your trying to prove your point. Not be objective. Don't confuse the two.

 

What is historical about what I posted? Has he started breaking off big runs? Is he seeing the hole and consistently gaining 4-5 yards?

 

San  Diego had one of the worst run defenses in the league.

[Le Neon]

LOL what? 150 yards from Scrimmage one time in 22 games is considered studly these days? hahaha keep setting your standards that low. Lesean McCoy has 3 150 + yard games already THIS YEAR. 

 

But your right. T-rich is a "stud" with one in 22 games

 

lol, do you even watch your alleged team?  Cuz he did it more than once.  ;)

[OffensivelyPC]

that is one of the worst analogies i have ever seen. learning how to drive a car and playing football at the highest level???

 

no one is saying he has to be adrian peterson, but he should be a lot better than he is for giving up a #1 pick.

Would you prefer me to use a different analogy?  The point still remains, it takes most rookies a year or two to get comfortable with the NFL speeds and the playbook.  He finally gets into his second year and he has to start all over again.  Now do you get it?

[House]

What is historical about what I posted? Has he started breaking off big runs? Is he seeing the hole and consistently gaining 4-5 yards?

San Diego had one of the worst run defenses in the league.

It doesn't take much to figure out you've disliked Richardson as a pro for awhile. Stemming from, my guess, you thinking he was a wasted pick for the Browns when he was drafted, and everything since has been skewed negatively to match that.

San Diego also had one of the worst passing D's too. Would you advise we cut Luck?

[BpG]

 

As for the post.  Yeah, I saw it.  That was how many plays out of his entire ROOKIE season?  Show me some of the good ones Mr. Objective.  But since we're being so objective, Willis McGahee has never averaged below 3.8 YPC in any given year.  Now that he's with the Browns, he's at 2.8.  The problem isn't Richardson, it's your team.

 

 

So the Browns are the problem? Ok, then Richardson must have started breaking off big runs yeah? Having hundred yard games consistency right? Increased his YPC average significantly with such a superior team right?

 

oh wait. 

[jshipp23]

What is historical about what I posted? Has he started breaking off big runs? Is he seeing the hole and consistently gaining 4-5 yards?

 

San  Diego had one of the worst run defenses in the league.

Meanwhile, in Cleveland the Browns recently honored 1 of the 2 good players they have ever had Jim Brown for the 50th time....You can't give any creedence to Browns fans they are still talking about the Glory Kosar years...It's pathetic...They don't know good football players cause they never see them except when they are beating on their team...

[BpG]

lol, do you even watch your alleged team?  Cuz he did it more than once.   ;)

 

 

What? I just looked at the numbers. He never once topped 150 yards. His best was 145 against the Bengals. 

[OffensivelyPC]

So the Browns are the problem? Ok, then Richardson must have started breaking off big runs yeah? Having hundred yard games consistency right? Increased his YPC average significantly with such a superior team right?

 

oh wait. 

lol this isn't fantasy football. Which was my point all along.  It takes time.

[BpG]

It doesn't take much to figure out you've disliked Richardson as a pro for awhile. Stemming from, my guess, you thinking he was a wasted pick for the Browns when he was drafted, and everything since has been skewed negatively to match that.

San Diego also had one of the worst passing D's too. Would you advise we cut Luck?

 

I don't have any negative feeling for Richardson. It's just a simple fact that he isn't that good. He's serviceable, if they use him right but as a running back, he is ineffective.  No hard feelings, good kid, just not that good and certainly not Earl friggin Cambell. 

 

 

The dropped passes last night speak for themselves. Your team is making a clear (and perhaps ill advised) attempt to emphasize the power run game when they have one of the best QB's in football. They should have thrown the ball a lot more than they did last night.

[BpG]

lol this isn't fantasy football. 

 

 

ohh so it's excusable to not be good because it's real football? 

[husker61]

Would you prefer me to use a different analogy?  The point still remains, it takes most rookies a year or two to get comfortable with the NFL speeds and the playbook.  He finally gets into his second year and he has to start all over again.  Now do you get it?

 

some positions are more instinct than others. running the ball is all instinct, you don't have time to think, you have to react or it's too late. pass blocking and running routs are learned.

[husker61]

It doesn't take much to figure out you've disliked Richardson as a pro for awhile. Stemming from, my guess, you thinking he was a wasted pick for the Browns when he was drafted, and everything since has been skewed negatively to match that.

San Diego also had one of the worst passing D's too. Would you advise we cut Luck?

 

luck didn't have a great game but he has a great body of evidence, richardson doesn't.

[OffensivelyPC]

some positions are more instinct than others. running the ball is all instinct, you don't have time to think, you have to react or it's too late. pass blocking and running routs are learned.

Okay, we're just going to have ot disagree.  You don't have high instincts, look at a playbook and turn on a lightswitch.  If that were the case, there'd never be a reason to practice and you wouldn't get better with the more games you play.  You practice so that you use your instincts with more fluidity and confidence.  Change the playbook and the team and you start all over.  I honestly don't see why this is so hard to understand.

[husker61]

it would be nice if fellow colt fans could try and make points in this discussion with facts instead of name calling and accusations. it's embarrassing.

[husker61]

Okay, we're just going to have ot disagree. 

 

agreed.

[House]

luck didn't have a great game but he has a great body of evidence, richardson doesn't.

So if he would have done not as well last year he would be cutable?

His body of work is 1 season. That's not a huge sample size.

[House]

I don't have any negative feeling for Richardson. It's just a simple fact that he isn't that good. He's serviceable, if they use him right but as a running back, he is ineffective. No hard feelings, good kid, just not that good and certainly not Earl friggin Cambell.

The dropped passes last night speak for themselves. Your team is making a clear (and perhaps ill advised) attempt to emphasize the power run game when they have one of the best QB's in football. They should have thrown the ball a lot more than they did last night.

Exactly you didn't like him as the number 3 pick for your team, and you are adamant about being right that he's not good lol. You dismiss anything positive, but claim objectivity.

I understand the want to be right in a prediction, but that doesn't make you unbiased.

If in 3 years he looks the same lets meet up on here and I'll eat some crow, but if he turns out good I get the feeling your going to disappear faster than I could blink .

[OffensivelyPC]

ohh so it's excusable to not be good because it's real football? 

Nice strawman there.  No, i'm just saying that you don't get what all goes into developing a player.  I'm saying that for the vast majority of players, it takes over a year to develop.  I'm saying that, during said development, things like a trade can be a major setback because they have to learn a new playbook.  I'm saying that even veterans take an entire year to become comfortable with a new team and playbook.  I'm saying you're an * for thinking that you can just plug and play in the NFL, much less with a younger guy.  I'm saying the Browns were a terrible team and expected Richardson to carry the load with 8/9 guys in teh box on a regular basis because Weeden was an awful QB who couldn't get anything to his WRs, telegraphed teh run, and still ran for over a 1,000 yards last year.  I'm saying that your obvious hatred for Richardson is reason enough for me to not take you seriously. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Exactly you didn't like him as the number 3 pick for your team, and you are adamant about being right that he's not good lol. You dismiss anything positive, but claim objectivity.

I understand the want to be right in a prediction, but that doesn't make you unbiased.

If in 3 years he looks the same lets meet up on here and I'll eat some crow, but if he turns out good I get the feeling your going to disappear faster than I could blink .

I'll second that.  But coming on these forums claiming busts after he's only been ehre a few weeks, there's going to be push back. 

[husker61]

So if he would have done not as well last year he would be cutable?

His body of work is 1 season. That's not a huge sample size.

 

who said anything about cutting richardson???

 

why do people have to make things up to try and make their point!

[OffensivelyPC]

it would be nice if fellow colt fans could try and make points in this discussion with facts instead of name calling and accusations. it's embarrassing.

First, I've got no issue with you.  The attitude is directed solely at BpG which started it with this.

 

When has he ever had a "stud" performance. Just name one in his year and a half in the league. The more you talk the more people realize you have no idea what you're talking about. 

I returned fire with saying I wouldn't take someone's opinion seriously when they called themselves objective, but spewed out only the evidence that made his point and ignored the rest.  It snowballed from there. 

 

As a matter of fact, I really kinda liked the Browns and have had plenty of knowledgeable and intelligent discussions with their fans.  BpG isn't one of htem.   You and I disagree, which is cool I can live with that.  And we can get to disagreement amicably.  I think it's great what they are doing down there, and the have a heckuva D right now.  But bottom line is, if BpG wnats to come over here and stir the pot, fine, let him.  But please understand, comments against him were meant for him and not all Browns fans.  I understand that by insulting the Browns in general, it'll get other Browns fans upset, and for that I apologize.  But it takes two to argue, and he brought it on himself. 

[House]

who said anything about cutting richardson???

why do people have to make things up to try and make their point!

No one? I was still talking about Luck when I sarcastically asked if we should cut him for last nights game against a bad D.

Who's making anything up? You quoted me.

I hate when people quote me and don't actually read!

[TKnight24]

LOL what? 150 yards from Scrimmage one time in 22 games is considered studly these days? hahaha keep setting your standards that low. Lesean McCoy has 3 150 + yard games already THIS YEAR.

But your right. T-rich is a "stud" with one in 22 games

All they did was what you asked. You said name ONE time he was a stud. And that's what they did. I really hope you're not developing memory loss

[TKnight24]

Just kills me how "select" players are blamed after last night's pathetic performance.

[adamthyst]

I'm patient on T-Rich plus he still has yet to learn the full system and it's predictable to see when they're gonna use him to run. One of these days he'll explode.

[BpG]

Nice strawman there.  No, i'm just saying that you don't get what all goes into developing a player.  I'm saying that for the vast majority of players, it takes over a year to develop.  I'm saying that, during said development, things like a trade can be a major setback because they have to learn a new playbook.  I'm saying that even veterans take an entire year to become comfortable with a new team and playbook.  I'm saying you're an * for thinking that you can just plug and play in the NFL, much less with a younger guy.  I'm saying the Browns were a terrible team and expected Richardson to carry the load with 8/9 guys in teh box on a regular basis because Weeden was an awful QB who couldn't get anything to his WRs, telegraphed teh run, and still ran for over a 1,000 yards last year.  I'm saying that your obvious hatred for Richardson is reason enough for me to not take you seriously. 

 

My "obvious hate" of Richardson, what a total and complete joke. Just keep making up stuff to try a prove a losing point. 

 

Exactly you didn't like him as the number 3 pick for your team, and you are adamant about being right that he's not good lol. You dismiss anything positive, but claim objectivity.

I understand the want to be right in a prediction, but that doesn't make you unbiased.

If in 3 years he looks the same lets meet up on here and I'll eat some crow, but if he turns out good I get the feeling your going to disappear faster than I could blink .

 

Again, just making things up to try and discredit people. HA! I already said he is good in space and that they should use him like Darren Sproles and YOU QUOTED IT!

 

But yeah I dismiss anything objective. 

 

Right. 

 

It won't take 3 years for you to realize he isn't good. It only took me one full season. 

 

New playbook blah blah blah, he rushed for 1,000 yards (which he didn't is was only 950 on 267 carries) like that is an accomplishment.

 

guys don't need "time" to assimilate into a playbook at the running back position. Muscle Hampster and Alfred Morris, I guess they needed less time than Richardson because their rushing totals put him to shame in their rookie year.

 

But your right, just give him some more "time" to learn the playbook because you know, it's such a fine art to know where the gap is and run to it. What a joke. have fun with your "stud". I'm done with you clowns twisting my words.

[OrlandoDawg]

Nice strawman there.  No, i'm just saying that you don't get what all goes into developing a player.  I'm saying that for the vast majority of players, it takes over a year to develop.  I'm saying that, during said development, things like a trade can be a major setback because they have to learn a new playbook.  I'm saying that even veterans take an entire year to become comfortable with a new team and playbook.  I'm saying you're an * for thinking that you can just plug and play in the NFL, much less with a younger guy.  I'm saying the Browns were a terrible team and expected Richardson to carry the load with 8/9 guys in teh box on a regular basis because Weeden was an awful QB who couldn't get anything to his WRs, telegraphed teh run, and still ran for over a 1,000 yards last year.  I'm saying that your obvious hatred for Richardson is reason enough for me to not take you seriously. 

 

Browns fan here, just to get that out of the way. ;)

 

I think what you have to realize is that Richardson was taken 2 spots away from Luck, and I think we can agree that the QB position should take longer to develop as the position involves way more than the RB position, so we shouldn't 'expect' a long development from a player taken that high in the draft.

 

So you claim it was because teams were stacking the box because we had/have a terrible QB but how do you explain Richardson's lack of production from the RB posiition in Indy?  Its not because Luck is a terrible QB who can't get the ball to WRs and the whole stacking the box thing is kind of a myth in relation to Trent.

 

I'm not trying to argue at all, just found it curious when I ventured over here to see what the thoughts were on Trent and I see almost the same identical posts about Trent as we saw on the Browns boards.  A mix of some people making the same excuses while others see him as an average RB.

[Le Neon]

My "obvious hate" of Richardson, what a total and complete joke. Just keep making up stuff to try a prove a losing point. 

 

 

Again, just making things up to try and discredit people. HA! I already said he is good in space and that they should use him like Darren Sproles and YOU QUOTED IT!

 

But yeah I dismiss anything objective. 

 

Right. 

 

It won't take 3 years for you to realize he isn't good. It only took me one full season. 

 

New playbook blah blah blah, he rushed for 1,000 yards (which he didn't is was only 950 on 267 carries) like that is an accomplishment.

 

guys don't need "time" to assimilate into a playbook at the running back position. Muscle Hampster and Alfred Morris, I guess they needed less time than Richardson because their rushing totals put him to shame in their rookie year.

 

But your right, just give him some more "time" to learn the playbook because you know, it's such a fine art to know where the gap is and run to it. What a joke. have fun with your "stud". I'm done with you clowns twisting my words.

 

You mean the "muscle hampster" currently averaging 3.5 ypc?  Man, that guy will never amount to anything.

[House]

My "obvious hate" of Richardson, what a total and complete joke. Just keep making up stuff to try a prove a losing point.

Again, just making things up to try and discredit people. HA! I already said he is good in space and that they should use him like Darren Sproles and YOU QUOTED IT!

But yeah I dismiss anything objective.

Right.

It won't take 3 years for you to realize he isn't good. It only took me one full season.

New playbook blah blah blah, he rushed for 1,000 yards (which he didn't is was only 950 on 267 carries) like that is an accomplishment.

guys don't need "time" to assimilate into a playbook at the running back position. Muscle Hampster and Alfred Morris, I guess they needed less time than Richardson because their rushing totals put him to shame in their rookie year.

But your right, just give him some more "time" to learn the playbook because you know, it's such a fine art to know where the gap is and run to it. What a joke. have fun with your "stud". I'm done with you clowns twisting my words.

Who's trying to discredit you? Certainly not me. I just have seen enough from your posts to know that you have a horse in this race, and your not posting from a position of enlightened objectivity. You've made good posts, and a few concessions when necessary, but your overall point is quite clear.

Also I never called him a stud so who's twisting words now? Clowns? Yeah your clearly not emotional about this topic.

But certainly I too often write posts the size of novels on players I have no feelings for. I also often follow them to their new team to talk about them....guess I'm just getting these signals from no where though......

[BpG]

You mean the "muscle hampster" currently averaging 3.5 ypc?  Man, that guy will never amount to anything.

 

, he has had an 144 yard game and an 88 yard game this year on a 0-5 football team. He has 1,400 yards rushing last year. 

 

He's proven his worth. Richardson doesn't have 80 yards rushing this year. 

[BpG]

Who's trying to discredit you? Certainly not me. I just have seen enough from your posts to know that you have a horse in this race, and your not posting from a position of enlightened objectivity. You've made good posts, and a few concessions when necessary, but your overall point is quite clear.

Also I never called him a stud so who's twisting words now? Clowns? Yeah your clearly not emotional about this topic.

But certainly I too often write posts the size of novels on players I have no feelings for. I also often follow them to their new team to talk about them....guess I'm just getting these signals from no where though......

 

 

I came originally to just give some perspective from experience. I stopped by to see what people were saying and when I see things like I saw, I felt I should try and give some more perspective. You would have been much better served trying to go after a guy like Ben Tate. 

 

Yeah, I'm annoyed. I get annoyed when people start twisting what I'm trying to get across as a blind agenda. 

[House]

I came originally to just give some perspective from experience. I stopped by to see what people were saying and when I see things like I saw, I felt I should try and give some more perspective. You would have been much better served trying to go after a guy like Ben Tate.

Yeah, I'm annoyed. I get annoyed when people start twisting what I'm trying to get across as a blind agenda.

It's not a blind agenda I'm accusing you of lol. Only that you have the way you see it, and your sticking to those assessments. You've made up your mind on the guy. Maybe smartly. Maybe prematurely. Time will tell.

But it's a different situation here than Cleveland. It's the perfect spot for him, so if he can't succeed here I can't imagine he will have much luck anywhere else.

[BpG]

It's not a blind agenda I'm accusing you of lol. Only that you have the way you see it, and your sticking to those assessments. You've made up your mind on the guy. Maybe smartly. Maybe prematurely. Time will tell.

But it's a different situation here than Cleveland. It's the perfect spot for him, so if he can't succeed here I can't imagine he will have much luck anywhere else.

 

 

Here is the point I'm trying to make. Elite backs, always produce, even on bad teams. Especially with 270 carries in 15 games. The Bucs were a bad football team and Doug Martin put up a great season. The Jags have been bad for a decade and MJD has always produced until he finally got hurt seriously. Peterson has been on bad teams his entire career minus the Favre years. 

 

Elite backs produce. All I'm trying to say is that he is not, nor will he ever be elite. Perhaps that's premature, but the history on good backs is they produce almost always right away.