TRENT TRADE

[esmort]

lol. Ridiculous

 

Yeah because up until the last game TR had been such a contributor.  Totally Ridiculous.  They have both been bad, but to suggest that TR has contributed far more than DHB is what's ridiculous.  TR easily got stuffed at the line when we only needed a 2-3 yds as many times as DHB dropped crucial passes.  You have a selective memory if you don't think DHB made a few big plays.

[Superman]

Really? Has DHB really stalled any more drives by dropping balls than TR has by getting stuffed?  DHB has dropped some big passes but he has caught some big passes too ... his "big catches" easily outweigh TR's "big runs".  DHB is also a good blocker and I have seen him throw some nice down field blocks. I think if we went back and compared play by play we would see its not unrealistic at all that DHB possibly contributed more than TR.

 

You're really getting into "Bitter Richardson Hater" territory. The premise is entirely unrealistic.

 

DHB's failures have been entirely on him, from drops to poor route running. Give him all the points in the world for downfield blocking, but that's really his only redeeming quality at this point. 

 

Richardson is ultimately reliant on a failing blocking unit, and while he hasn't played well, I do believe the majority of his issues are with poor blocking. (It's mind boggling that you'd point to stalled drives from runs getting stuffed, as if that's the back's fault.)

 

There's this meme developing that our other backs have done so much better, and that's really not true. The only back to do well in the lead back role was Bradshaw, and that was one game with an altered line. Ballard was average in his start, no better than Richardson was last week. Brown was pretty much just as bad as Richardson in the lead back role, because the blocking was awful. Brown has looked good in his change role, mostly because gets different looks from the defense and is used in the more appropriate trap/edge/zone/draw situations that we should be using more of anyways. This is all chartable. 

 

But even if you ignore all of this, just chalking it up to excuse making (which it's not; I readily admit that Richardson hasn't played well), the raw stats favor Richardson. He has more yards, more touchdowns, more first downs. Richardson's receiving stats ALONE rival DHB's, without the drops.

 

Lastly, you said DHB has contributed "far more" than Richardson. Contributions are what they are, and DHB's are actually far less. It's only through the distortion of your kaleidoscope that anyone could possibly see how DHB has contributed more than Richardson.

[House]

.

DHB contributing more than Richardson.

Joke of the day.

[dudeski]

Yeah because up until the last game TR had been such a contributor. Totally Ridiculous. They have both been bad, but to suggest that TR has contributed far more than DHB is what's ridiculous. TR easily got stuffed at the line when we only needed a 2-3 yds as many times as DHB dropped crucial passes. You have a selective memory if you don't think DHB made a few big plays.

dropping a pass is on dhb.

Getting stuffed is not the same at all

[dudeski]

You're really getting into "Bitter Richardson Hater" territory. The premise is entirely unrealistic.

DHB's failures have been entirely on him, from drops to poor route running. Give him all the points in the world for downfield blocking, but that's really his only redeeming quality at this point.

Richardson is ultimately reliant on a failing blocking unit, and while he hasn't played well, I do believe the majority of his issues are with poor blocking. (It's mind boggling that you'd point to stalled drives from runs getting stuffed, as if that's the back's fault.)

There's this meme developing that our other backs have done so much better, and that's really not true. The only back to do well in the lead back role was Bradshaw, and that was one game with an altered line. Ballard was average in his start, no better than Richardson was last week. Brown was pretty much just as bad as Richardson in the lead back role, because the blocking was awful. Brown has looked good in his change role, mostly because gets different looks from the defense and is used in the more appropriate trap/edge/zone/draw situations that we should be using more of anyways. This is all chartable.

But even if you ignore all of this, just chalking it up to excuse making (which it's not; I readily admit that Richardson hasn't played well), the raw stats favor Richardson. He has more yards, more touchdowns, more first downs. Richardson's receiving stats ALONE rival DHB's, without the drops.

Lastly, you said DHB has contributed "far more" than Richardson. Contributions are what they are, and DHB's are actually far less. It's only through the distortion of your kaleidoscope that anyone could possibly see how DHB has contributed more than Richardson.

well done sir.

Best poster on this site not named dudeski

[BOTT]

You're really getting into "Bitter Richardson Hater" territory. The premise is entirely unrealistic.

DHB's failures have been entirely on him, from drops to poor route running. Give him all the points in the world for downfield blocking, but that's really his only redeeming quality at this point.

Richardson is ultimately reliant on a failing blocking unit, and while he hasn't played well, I do believe the majority of his issues are with poor blocking. (It's mind boggling that you'd point to stalled drives from runs getting stuffed, as if that's the back's fault.)

There's this meme developing that our other backs have done so much better, and that's really not true. The only back to do well in the lead back role was Bradshaw, and that was one game with an altered line. Ballard was average in his start, no better than Richardson was last week. Brown was pretty much just as bad as Richardson in the lead back role, because the blocking was awful. Brown has looked good in his change role, mostly because gets different looks from the defense and is used in the more appropriate trap/edge/zone/draw situations that we should be using more of anyways. This is all chartable.

But even if you ignore all of this, just chalking it up to excuse making (which it's not; I readily admit that Richardson hasn't played well), the raw stats favor Richardson. He has more yards, more touchdowns, more first downs. Richardson's receiving stats ALONE rival DHB's, without the drops.

Lastly, you said DHB has contributed "far more" than Richardson. Contributions are what they are, and DHB's are actually far less. It's only through the distortion of your kaleidoscope that anyone could possibly see how DHB has contributed more than Richardson.

Vick Ballard was much more impressive running the ball in his lone game than Richardson has been all season....he averaged almost 5 yards per carry and was even great in pass protection.

Rick Venturi charted the plays for Brown and Richardson and claimed that for the last several weeks Brown and Richardson were getting similar looks/situations. I thinks it's clear every running back has outperformed Richardson....and it's not really close. If the Colts had picked up Delone Carter off the street and he was performing like TRich the excuses wouldn't be nearly as exhaustive.

[esmort]

You're really getting into "Bitter Richardson Hater" territory. The premise is entirely unrealistic.

 

DHB's failures have been entirely on him, from drops to poor route running. Give him all the points in the world for downfield blocking, but that's really his only redeeming quality at this point. 

 

Richardson is ultimately reliant on a failing blocking unit, and while he hasn't played well, I do believe the majority of his issues are with poor blocking. (It's mind boggling that you'd point to stalled drives from runs getting stuffed, as if that's the back's fault.)

 

There's this meme developing that our other backs have done so much better, and that's really not true. The only back to do well in the lead back role was Bradshaw, and that was one game with an altered line. Ballard was average in his start, no better than Richardson was last week. Brown was pretty much just as bad as Richardson in the lead back role, because the blocking was awful. Brown has looked good in his change role, mostly because gets different looks from the defense and is used in the more appropriate trap/edge/zone/draw situations that we should be using more of anyways. This is all chartable. 

 

But even if you ignore all of this, just chalking it up to excuse making (which it's not; I readily admit that Richardson hasn't played well), the raw stats favor Richardson. He has more yards, more touchdowns, more first downs. Richardson's receiving stats rival DHB's, without the drops.

 

Lastly, you said DHB has contributed "far more" than Richardson. Contributions are what they are, and DHB's are actually far less. It's only through the distortion of your kaleidoscope that anyone could possibly see how DHB has contributed more than Richardson.

 

Never said DHB is has been good or he is not responsible for drops.

 

However, even though much of the blame can be put on the OL TR has missed plenty of holes as well as failed to bounce outside which is on him. Getting stuffed when there are running lanes available are on TR as much as DHBs drop are on him. When he gets hits in the backfield as soon as he gets the ball, of course those are not on him but that has not been close to every play.

 

Of course he is going to have more stats; how many touches does he get by comparison (even when he doesn't deserve them). They feed the ball to him regardless if he is getting stuffed or not.  If DHB was targeted as often as TR is targeted/handed off to he would have more stats as well. Run DHB out of the backfield as a wing back and his stats would be as good or better than TR's.

 

DHB's contribution in defeating Denver alone trumps anything TR has done.

 

-27 yard catch for 1st down

 

-11 yard catch for TD to take lead

 

-30 yard rush for 1st down (which is longer than TR's longest run)

 

Even his stat padding last game (which I have no problem admitting he looked better than normal in) his play was not a big factor in the win. 

 

It has nothing to do with the "distortion of my kaleidoscope" as much as it does with the fact that DHB is an acceptable whipping boy, while TR must be protected because no one wants to admit he's not very good and we got taken to the cleaners by Cleveland.

[Gavin]

Vick Ballard was much more impressive running the ball in his lone game than Richardson has been all season....he averaged almost 5 yards per carry and was even great in pass protection.

Rick Venturi charted the plays for Brown and Richardson and claimed that for the last several weeks Brown and Richardson were getting similar looks/situations. I thinks it's clear every running back has outperformed Richardson....and it's not really close. If the Colts had picked up Delone Carter off the street and he was performing like TRich the excuses wouldn't be nearly as exhaustive.

Carter is a backup for the Jaguars right now, I liked Carter but he had 4 fumbles(3 lost) in 133 carries in his career.....although Richardson has had 2 fumbles (1 lost) in 133 carries as a Colt

[Superman]

Of course he is going to have more stats; how many touches does he get by comparison

 

Running backs always get more touches.

 

TR must be protected because no one wants to admit he's not very good and we got taken to the cleaners by Cleveland.

 

 

When you take that out of your stump speech, then we can have a real conversation. I never liked the price, and have never claimed that Richardson has been good for us. But claiming that DHB has contributed more -- far more, in your words -- is just beyond the pale.

[ponyboy]

.

DHB contributing more than Richardson.

Joke of the day.

 

What if this was rephrased as "DHB's drops have been detrimental to the offense but not to the extent of Richardson's stuffs"?   It's hard to argue with that.  I think esmort makes valid points in this thread.

 

Trent has shown some improvement and looked very nice catching the ball (especially on the TD), but you can't ignore the high percentage of stuffs.. and you can't blame it all on the oline.  Heck, even in Trent's "breakout" game he had 15 of 19 rushes that were for 2 yards or less.

[dudeski]

What if this was rephrased as "DHB's drops have been detrimental to the offense but not to the extent of Richardson's stuffs"? It's hard to argue with that. I think esmort makes valid points in this thread.

Trent has shown some improvement and looked very nice catching the ball (especially on the TD), but you can't ignore the high percentage of stuffs.. and you can't blame it all on the oline. Heck, even in Trent's "breakout" game he had 15 of 19 rushes that were for 2 yards or less.

how much do you blame on the Oline?

[Superman]

Vick Ballard was much more impressive running the ball in his lone game than Richardson has been all season....he averaged almost 5 yards per carry and was even great in pass protection.

Rick Venturi charted the plays for Brown and Richardson and claimed that for the last several weeks Brown and Richardson were getting similar looks/situations. I thinks it's clear every running back has outperformed Richardson....and it's not really close. If the Colts had picked up Delone Carter off the street and he was performing like TRich the excuses wouldn't be nearly as exhaustive.

 

Running the ball, sure. But Richardson impacted the game by catching passes as well. Ballard's production was average, but he was outstanding in protection.

 

Even if you say that's a stretch, fine. I'll give Ballard's game the edge over Richardson on Sunday. But the point is that Ballard didn't blow the doors off the joint. That's the picture that's being painted.

 

As for this charting of Brown vs. Richardson, link please?

 

Lastly, I'm not making excuses for Richardson. If you asked me for my opinion, straight up, I'd say he's been abysmal. I acknowledge the reasons why, but that's only coming up because I'm being told that Richardson's contributions are outweighed by those of DHB.

[BOTT]

how much do you blame on the Oline?

The line looked great last week....until Brown got hurt, then magically they stunk again.

[House]

What if this was rephrased as "DHB's drops have been detrimental to the offense but not to the extent of Richardson's stuffs"? It's hard to argue with that. I think esmort makes valid points in this thread.

Trent has shown some improvement and looked very nice catching the ball (especially on the TD), but you can't ignore the high percentage of stuffs.. and you can't blame it all on the oline. Heck, even in Trent's "breakout" game he had 15 of 19 rushes that were for 2 yards or less.

First off. That's not what the phrasing was.

Second. Drops are 100% on DHB. Getting stuffed has variables outside of just Trent. Him and Brown get stuffed multiple times a game because our line is so poor.

[House]

The line looked great last week....until Brown got hurt, then magically they stunk again.

Nope. They always stunk. Brown just runs better behind them than Trent.

[BOTT]

Running the ball, sure. But Richardson impacted the game by catching passes as well. Ballard's production was average, but he was outstanding in protection.

 

Even if you say that's a stretch, fine. I'll give Ballard's game the edge over Richardson on Sunday. But the point is that Ballard didn't blow the doors off the joint. That's the picture that's being painted.

 

As for this charting of Brown vs. Richardson, link please?

 

Lastly, I'm not making excuses for Richardson. If you asked me for my opinion, straight up, I'd say he's been abysmal. I acknowledge the reasons why, but that's only coming up because I'm being told that Richardson's contributions are outweighed by those of DHB.

If the starting running back can average 4.8 yard per carry,, well, I call that pretty damn good. And I will probably sound like a hater, but most of Richardson's receptions are where he catches it and runs straight ahead untouched....or junk time catches vs the Bengals. Although he did catch over 50 passes last year, so he must be doing something right.

I don't have a link for Venturi....he comes on local radio 3 days a week, and trust me, Richardson has been a hot topic. He may have even referred to him as a drive killer....although I think even he would admit there is blame to go around. The biggest problem he sees with Richardson is he is just a tick slow hitting the hole.

And I wasn't actually referring to you when speaking of excuses, as I know you are somewhat lukewarm on the situation.

[BOTT]

Nope. They always stunk. Brown just runs better behind them than Trent.

Yes, because brown is a better running back

[esmort]

Running backs always get more touches.

 

 

I agree, but when they are force feeding TR the ball even on plays that should have been passes they are inflating his numbers even more. Up until the last week or so they were going to run the ball regardless of the outcome and TR's stats benefited from that stubbornness. And Prior to the Houston game he had 2 TD's and the first one was a gift "get your confidence up" give me. I don't believe stats give an accurate measurement of their individual contributions.

When you take that out of your stump speech, then we can have a real conversation. I never liked the price, and have never claimed that Richardson has been good for us. But claiming that DHB has contributed more -- far more, in your words -- is just beyond the pale.

I know you are far more critical about the trade than most, but you weren't the only one chiming in. And although I might be willing to take back the phrasing "far more". I still believe DHB's net contribution to the team was greater than TR's. I am sure that will change if with Rogers increased playing time and DHB's decreased playing time. Up until Hou they were both making big mistakes, but the plays DHB did make seemed to be greater impact plays.

[Superman]

If the starting running back can average 4.8 yard per carry,, well, I call that pretty damn good. And I will probably sound like a hater, but most of Richardson's receptions are where he catches it and runs straight ahead untouched....or junk time catches vs the Bengals. Although he did catch over 50 passes last year, so he must be doing something right.

I don't have a link for Venturi....he comes on local radio 3 days a week, and trust me, Richardson has been a hot topic. He may have even referred to him as a drive killer....although I think even he would admit there is blame to go around. The biggest problem he sees with Richardson is he is just a tick slow hitting the hole.

And I wasn't actually referring to you when speaking of excuses, as I know you are somewhat lukewarm on the situation.

 

Remember, this is being framed as Richardson vs. DHB. So Richardson catching the ball and running straight ahead untouched is better than what DHB does when the ball comes his way. Even in garbage time.

 

I can't debate your recollection of a radio show, with no visual evidence. I haven't gone so far as to chart Richardson's carries vs. Brown's carries, but as you know, I watch each game multiple times and pay close attention to how each unit is playing. I disagree with any assessment that says they've been getting carries in similar situations. Sure there's overlap, but they mostly get different looks from the defense, and different kinds of runs. (I would make that a project and actually chart it, but I don't care to. It doesn't change the fact that Richardson hasn't played well, and I've never argued that he has.)

[esmort]

First off. That's not what the phrasing was.

Second. Drops are 100% on DHB. Getting stuffed has variables outside of just Trent. Him and Brown get stuffed multiple times a game because our line is so poor.

Many of those stuffs are 100% on TR. Sometimes there are holes or the outside is wide open and TR stands like a deer in headlights before running straight into a non-existent hole or right into the back of an OL and tries to push ... some of the runs he demonstrates so little vision that it is just as pathetic as DHB dropping a pass that hits him between the numbers.

[Superman]

 

 

I agree, but when they are force feeding TR the ball even on plays that should have been passes they are inflating his numbers even more. Up until the last week or so they were going to run the ball regardless of the outcome and TR's stats benefited from that stubbornness. And Prior to the Houston game he had 2 TD's and the first one was a gift "get your confidence up" give me. I don't believe stats give an accurate measurement of their individual contributions.

I know you are far more critical about the trade than most, but you weren't the only one chiming in. And although I might be willing to take back the phrasing "far more". I still believe DHB's net contribution to the team was greater than TR's. I am sure that will change if with Rogers increased playing time and DHB's decreased playing time. Up until Hou they were both making big mistakes, but the plays DHB did make seemed to be greater impact plays.

 

 

We're both on record. I don't think there's very much more to say about it. End of the day, it's meaningless, as neither player has had a good year. 

[House]

Yes, because brown is a better running back

Right now? No question. He's also been at this for years to get to this point.

Still not an argument that our line is good.

[dudeski]

The line looked great last week....until Brown got hurt, then magically they stunk again.

nothing magic about it. What happened?

[House]

Many of those stuffs are 100% on TR. Sometimes there are holes or the outside is wide open and TR stands like a deer in headlights before running straight into a non-existent hole or right into the back of an OL and tries to push ... some of the runs he demonstrates so little vision that it is just as pathetic as DHB dropping a pass that hits him between the numbers.

Some I'm sure, but it's not even close to an apples to apples comparison to dropping a pass that hits you right in the numbers. No one else influences those drops but DHB.

[Superman]

Right now? No question. He's also been at this for years to get to this point.

Still not an argument that our line is good.

 

Excellent point. Go back to Donald Brown in 2010, and we were having this argument about him vs. Mike Hart, of all people. 

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Many of those stuffs are 100% on TR. Sometimes there are holes or the outside is wide open and TR stands like a deer in headlights before running straight into a non-existent hole or right into the back of an OL and tries to push ... some of the runs he demonstrates so little vision that it is just as pathetic as DHB dropping a pass that hits him between the numbers.

So let's say tomorrow we were forced to cut Trich or DHB, who would you cut?

[dudeski]

So let's say tomorrow we were forced to cut Trich or DHB, who would you cut?

if anyone says trich, all credibility is lost

[Superman]

These discussions often veer off into the extreme. I've started then erased a handful of posts in this thread alone, because I don't want to be labeled as a Richardson apologist. But I think a lot of the criticism is over the top. 

 

There's not a lot of room to defend him missing holes, being slow to commit, failing to bounce to the outside, showing little to no burst, etc. He's missed plenty of opportunities because he either doesn't make the right decision or doesn't have the explosiveness to make the play. I've mentioned all of this in my grades, and in other threads. 

 

But he's also not getting a lot of help. Our run schemes have been maddeningly ineffective, as we all would agree. Our run blocking has flat out sucked. The receiving corps has been very inconsistent.

 

To me, it's six in one, half dozen in the other. Richardson probably isn't the back we hoped he would be when the trade was made. And that's too bad. But if we adjust our gameplans and improve the run blocking, I think he'll look better. If he gets a training camp and a preseason, I think that helps him. I certainly hope it does. He's not suddenly going to be a game-changing back, but I do think he's a good player, and he should be better than 3 yards/carry. And when we pair him with Vick Ballard, I think things get dramatically better in our backfield.

[BOTT]

Right now? No question. He's also been at this for years to get to this point.

Still not an argument that our line is good.

I don't think anyone would really argue that that the interior of the Colts Oline is good., but Richardson doesn't do the line any favors either.

Yes, it's taken time for Brown to get to this point, but he has always compared favorably to the other running backs he played with all the while running behind a crap line. In fact I was never one to be hard on Brown, or Addai for that matter, because I knew the line stunk. Richardson, on the other hand, just isn't that great of a runner imo.

Jim brown can call him ordinary, Marshall Faulk and Tomlinson can point out he isn't running well, he can be demoted by Pagano, his production can be well below his teammates...yet, we still wanna place the blame elsewhere. I just don't get it.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

These discussions often veer off into the extreme. I've started then erased a handful of posts in this thread alone, because I don't want to be labeled as a Richardson apologist. But I think a lot of the criticism is over the top. 

 

There's not a lot of room to defend him missing holes, being slow to commit, failing to bounce to the outside, showing little to no burst, etc. He's missed plenty of opportunities because he either doesn't make the right decision or doesn't have the explosiveness to make the play. I've mentioned all of this in my grades, and in other threads. 

 

But he's also not getting a lot of help. Our run schemes have been maddeningly ineffective, as we all would agree. Our run blocking has flat out sucked. The receiving corps has been very inconsistent.

 

To me, it's six in one, half dozen in the other. Richardson probably isn't the back we hoped he would be when the trade was made. And that's too bad. But if we adjust our gameplans and improve the run blocking, I think he'll look better. If he gets a training camp and a preseason, I think that helps him. I certainly hope it does. He's not suddenly going to be a game-changing back, but I do think he's a good player, and he should be better than 3 yards/carry. And when we pair him with Vick Ballard, I think things get dramatically better in our backfield.

I'm not judging TRich or any Colts RB ever until we upgrade our o-line to at least mediocre.  I will stick to that story as long as I'm still standing.

[esmort]

Some I'm sure, but it's not even close to an apples to apples comparison to dropping a pass that hits you right in the numbers. No one else influences those drops but DHB.

There is no way to do an apples to apples comparison across positions especially if you want to try quantify influence. But, I still stick with my original preference, and I will take DHB's contribution & drops up to this point over TR's contribution & ineffective running.

[House]

I don't think anyone would really argue that that the interior of the Colts Oline is good., but Richardson doesn't do the line any favors either.

Yes, it's taken time for Brown to get to this point, but he has always compared favorably to the other running backs he played with all the while running behind a crap line. In fact I was never one to be hard on Brown, or Addai for that matter, because I knew the line stunk. Richardson, on the other hand, just isn't that great of a runner imo.

Jim brown can call him ordinary, Marshall Faulk and Tomlinson can point out he isn't running well, he can be demoted by Pagano, his production can be well below his teammates...yet, we still wanna place the blame elsewhere. I just don't get it.

I honestly don't care enough about this topic to get into a huge discussion about it. But the line is bad no matter who's running. It's not a good line when Brown runs, and a bad one when Trent runs. It's bad for both and Brown is better right now.

[House]

There is no way to do an apples to apples comparison across positions especially if you want to try quantify influence. But, I still stick with my original preference, and I will take DHB's contribution & drops up to this point over TR's contribution & ineffective running.

And I will continue politely laughing at that notion and we can agree to disagree.

[esmort]

So let's say tomorrow we were forced to cut Trich or DHB, who would you cut?

I cut DHB because of the investment we have in TRich. I have to hope we can get some value out of him and recoup some of our investment.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

There is no way to do an apples to apples comparison across positions especially if you want to try quantify influence. But, I still stick with my original preference, and I will take DHB's contribution & drops up to this point over TR's contribution & ineffective running.

There have been a lot of over the top ridiculous statements made on this forum...but this one may be the greatest of them all.

[esmort]

There have been a lot of over the top ridiculous statements made on this forum...but this one may be the greatest of them all.

You are right ... which of TR's game changing contributions is most memorable for you?

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

You are right ... which of TR's game changing contributions is most memorable for you?

We are all entitled to our opinions...but just admit it...you are flat out wrong on this one...My favorite TRich moment is the block he made vs. Seattle that allowed Luck to throw that long TD to Hilton...ok your turn.

[esmort]

We are all entitled to our opinions...but just admit it...you are flat out wrong on this one.

Feel free to laugh along with House, but like I said earlier I stick with what I said ... up until he was effectively benched I would take what DHB has contributed over TR's contributions. TR's combined contributions do not even equal what DHB brought to the Denver game. Also like I said I am sure that changes by the end of the season if they do like they did in Hou.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Feel free to laugh along with House, but like I said earlier I stick with what I said ... up until he was effectively benched I would take what DHB has contributed over TR's contributions. TR's combined contributions do not even equal what DHB brought to the Denver game. Also like I said I am sure that changes by the end of the season if they do like they did in Hou.

Well...that settles it...you just haven't watch any games.  There's no other explanation for you coming to that conclusion.  74 Total yards and a TD vs. everything TRich has done this season...you are entering Troll territory.

[esmort]

Well...that settles it...you just haven't watch any games.  There's no other explanation for you coming to that conclusion.

You caught me, I haven't watched a single game; because there is no other way anyone would come to the conclusion that TR has contributed almost nothing for most of his time in Indy.