1st Round Pick vs. T-Rich

[rockywoj]

 ...

Ergo, I think you should re-examine the logic of your argument

 

 

Perhaps I am over valuing Trent Richardson.  Call me a dinosaur, but I think RB is still a hugely important position and quite frankly, this notion that anybody can get an impact guy to plug in either later in the draft or as a free agent strikes me as just the current fashion / in vogue mentality.  Yes the game evolves, but I am not buying into the diminished importance of the RB position.

 

I don't think I am anymore over valuing Trent Richardson than you are over valuing the impact of first round draft picks, especially lower in the pecking order of picks.  Yeah, you can cherry pick names of players picked after our pick as being impact guys that we could have taken, but you can do that about pretty much every pick every year.  At any given draft, though, you can only fairly look at a very small range of positions near the drafting position, for players taken outside of that range quite simply were not rated high enough to justify the pick at that given time.  Also, the FACT that probably less than 50% of any drafted first rounder actually turns out to be a productive, impactful pro seems to be entirely discounted by you.  Far less than 50% of Colts first round draft picks have amounted to much.  It's basically a coin flip or worse that you are going to get a good player.  Sure, a good player "could" be taken with any particular pick, but the likelihood of such is a coin flip at best.

 

I stand by my "opinion" that in reply to the question of the thread, I would rather have what I know with Trent Richardson than have a coin flip of a late first round draft pick, for I think the odds are I will get more value out of Richardson.

 

Ultimately, though, at this point in time there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.  Only time will tell.  We will see what player goes with the Colts pick and then 3 years down from there we will be able to make an informed decision as to what the Colts should have done given hindsight.  (But alas, given hindsight I would also know that I should have simply folded my pocket aces to an *'s all in holding 7 2 off that flopped two 7s on the flop with my aces bricking out on the turn and river.)

[rockywoj]

...

 

Now, if you take out their long runs.

 

...

You can't take out long runs by a player in a game to try and make a case.  If you want to do that, I can take out long runs for Walter Payton, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, and pretty much any great running back, to make the case that without those long runs, the guy was only mediocre in yards per carry average.  A game's production is a games production, you can't cherry pick it.

 

As for time to get acclimated, you aren't seriously likening Choice's being used a little bit in garbage time to playing a key role throughout the majority of the game, including providing pass blocking in key situations, are you?

 

I would not for one second have rather had Choice in there instead of Richardson, throughout the course of the game and I would not want any person that thinks just inserting him in there instead of Richardson would not cause a drop off in performance running the Colts organization.  Your opinion, though.  In my opinion, though, I think you are wrong and mistaken.

[Balzer40]

You can't take out long runs by a player in a game to try and make a case.  If you want to do that, I can take out long runs for Walter Payton, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, and pretty much any great running back, to make the case that without those long runs, the guy was only mediocre in yards per carry average.  A game's production is a games production, you can't cherry pick it.

 

 

 

Still Choice had a higher YPC average. The only reason I eliminated the long runs was because I was sure some Trent supporter would come in and say "Yeah, but Choice had a 6 yd run that accounted for 1/3 of his yds.. Either way though, Choice still had a higher YPC average than Richardson. My only point for saying anything at all, was for those that keep using the excuse that Richardson hasn't got acclimated to our playbook. RB is a simple position to pick up at anytime during the season, the reason why Choice was immediately able to step in and run the ball a few days after being brought in off the street.

[rockywoj]

Still Choice had a higher YPC average. The only reason I eliminated the long runs was because I was sure some Trent supporter would come in and say "Yeah, but Choice had a 6 yd run that accounted for 1/3 of his yds.. Either way though, Choice still had a higher YPC average than Richardson. My only point for saying anything at all, was for those that keep using the excuse that Richardson hasn't got acclimated to our playbook. RB is a simple position to pick up at anytime during the season, the reason why Choice was immediately able to step in and run the ball a few days after being brought in off the street.

 

Methinks the higher ypc you refer to was of insignificant impact difference.  As for the rest of it, if you think the Colts would be just as well off with Choice in there though the entire course of the game as compared to having Richardson in there, well, I will leave you to your opinion.  As for time to acclimate, Richardson could have just as easily been thrown in there just during garbage time and did as well.  Richardson, however, from the getgo, has been asked to do a LOT more than take a few garbage time reps.

 

Also keep in mind, Choice is in his 6th year and 4th team in the NFL, compared to Richardson being in his 2nd.  I would hope and expect that Choice could pick things up faster.  But, you can have Choice (and his over the past 4 years rushing totals of 210 carries for 732 yards for a ypc avg. of 3.486 and 5 TDs) and I'll happily take Richardson and his 495 2013 yards c/w his so far lowlyl ypc average, for I think Richardson is the superior RB, significantly so.

[dgambill]

Its hard to say...seeing as I love running the ball I didn't have a problem with the trade persay...but Trent has a good ways to go to hold up his end of the bargain to make this a worthy trade imo. I really was hoping for a young stud guard in the draft...seems there was some good ones where we would be picking that could help BOTH the run and Luck. I don't want to bag on Trent because he is a Colt....to say he hasn't been disappointing would be untruthful (in my opinion) but I'm not going to sell him out yet....if he struggles next year and he is 14 games in...then I could answer this question better.....still a first rd OL would be nice and much more helpful in the long run than what Trent is showing us.

[Balzer40]

Methinks the higher ypc you refer to was of insignificant impact difference.  As for the rest of it, if you think the Colts would be just as well off with Choice in there though the entire course of the game as compared to having Richardson in there, well, I will leave you to your opinion.

 

 

 

The YPC is completely irrelevant. It really wasn't my point and maybe it's not coming across like I intended it to. My only point out of any of this is that for those that think Richardson still needs to learn the playbook and that's why he's under performing, are just fooling themselves. He's under performing IMO because he isn't who many thought he was to begin with. IMO, he's a a short yardage back and a decent pass catcher. IMO, he is not an every down back and probably never will be. I also do think that we would probably be every bit as well off with Choice being in as much as Richardson. It's basically been proven, only with Brown and not Choice. Richardson is not a difference maker as a rusher or at least he sure hasn't been as of yet.

[atapcl]

In this year's past draft, the players taken in and around the Colts' pick at 24th, which will likely be close to the upcoming draft's placement, are ....

 

21. Tyler Eifert TE

22.  Desmond Trufant CB

23.  Sharrif Floyd DT

24.  Bjorn Werner DE/OLB

25.  Xavier Rhodes CB

26.  Datone Jones DE

27,  DeAndre Hopkins WR

 

Granted that I do not follow other teams close enough to know exactly how well and impactful any of these players have been in 2013, but Trent Richardson, although not doing so well from an average per carry perspective, is a player that when he is on the field is having to be accounted for by opposing defenses, he is quite good at pass blocking, and he is an effective receiving threat.  

 

How much of his poor average per carry is the result of bad play calling and or bad run blocking?  No sense in rehashing the debate, but from what I have seen, usually he has very little running room.  I don't recall many gaping holes that he has simply missed hitting because of bad decision making or lack of speed and explosion.  I blame his lack of production on a combination of bad play calling and bad blocking.  Otherwise, though, he has been a player that still brings much to the table and I am not so sure that any of those players taken around the 24th slot would have brought more to the table at this point.  Based on last year's picks, I would rather have Trent Richardson.

 

Now, let's look at how the 2014 ranked prospects compare (as rated by CBS Sports - granted, I don't know how well they are at rating it, but I am not going to go into a hugely indepth draft analysis in making my point):

 

21.  David Yankey OG

22.  Vic Beasley  OLB

23.  Louis Nix  DT

24.  Eric Ebron  TE

25.  Davante Adams  WR

26.  Justin Gilbert  CB

27.  ReShede Hageman  DT

 

I am not up to speed on the 2014 draft prospects to be able to comment on these players and their potential.  The question is, though, given the serviceability of Trent Richardson this year to date and moving forward for the rest of the season and playoffs, combined with his expected contributions next year, do any of these players offer a greater impact next year?  I am thinking not.  Down the road to 2015 and beyond, well that might be arguable.  Bottom line for me, though, is I am dubious at best that any of these players will be more impactful on the field than Trent Richardson will be on the field for the remainder of this year, next year, and the next couple of years thereafter.  For me, I still make that trade for Trent Richardson, for I think he is and will be a key offensive weapon moving forward for the next several years.  Certainly in my mind, he is a more impactful weapon that needs to be accounted for by opposing teams as compared to some journeyman rb that so many think can readily be had on the cheap.

 

Ergo, I prefer to have Trent Richardson as compared to this coming draft's first round draft pick.

Agreed. With Brown's injury history we would also be up the creek without a paddle now.

[Le Neon]

As of now Trent has more yardage, catches, touchdowns, and first down conversions than our 2014 first round draft pick. 1 in hand > 2 in the bush and all that.

Might be that Grigson overpaid, but many of us feel better that we have Richardson now as opposed to Choice or McGahee and a late first round pick.

[esmort]

Perhaps I am over valuing Trent Richardson.  Call me a dinosaur, but I think RB is still a hugely important position and quite frankly, this notion that anybody can get an impact guy to plug in either later in the draft or as a free agent strikes me as just the current fashion / in vogue mentality.  Yes the game evolves, but I am not buying into the diminished importance of the RB position.

 

I agree RB is an important position.  But, if you look at the passing numbers that go up every year in the league I think you have to conclude RB does not hold the same importance it once did. Yes you need a running game, but if you can pass well and play good defense you can easily win in the NFL with just a decent running game.

 

I don't think the idea that RBs can be taken later in the draft and as free agents is simply the "current fashion".  If you look at the top RBs many come from rounds other than 1st (Charles, McCoy, Forte. Murray, Gore, etc ...), good serviceable RBs are also acquired through FA (Sproles, Jackson, Bush, Bradshaw, etc ...)

 

I don't think I am anymore over valuing Trent Richardson than you are over valuing the impact of first round draft picks, especially lower in the pecking order of picks.  Yeah, you can cherry pick names of players picked after our pick as being impact guys that we could have taken, but you can do that about pretty much every pick every year.  At any given draft, though, you can only fairly look at a very small range of positions near the drafting position, for players taken outside of that range quite simply were not rated high enough to justify the pick at that given time.  Also, the FACT that probably less than 50% of any drafted first rounder actually turns out to be a productive, impactful pro seems to be entirely discounted by you.  Far less than 50% of Colts first round draft picks have amounted to much.  It's basically a coin flip or worse that you are going to get a good player.  Sure, a good player "could" be taken with any particular pick, but the likelihood of such is a coin flip at best.

 

I agree as the pick gets lower there is a bit more risk, but with the new CBA the the rewards far outweigh the risks at the bottom of the 1st round. 

 

I would not consider the 4 names I gave you cherry picking, that's half the players picked between our pick and the end of the round and if you include Elam who I forgot than that is 5 players out of 8; and the other players may well come on by the 2nd or 3rd year (which is how long you are suggesting we TR) and will be playing positions that are harder to fill than RB.  I will take those odds.

 

I stand by my "opinion" that in reply to the question of the thread, I would rather have what I know with Trent Richardson than have a coin flip of a late first round draft pick, for I think the odds are I will get more value out of Richardson.

Richardson is still a coin flip at this point and we are paying him more and will have him for less time than the late 1st. 

 

Even if you weren't going to use the 1st where ever our draft pick happens to be .... it's still worth more as currency than what TR brings to the party.

 

If you have that low opinion of draft picks and believe they are such a huge gamble why not just trade them all every year and skip the draft??  That way we know exactly what player we are getting.

 

Ultimately, though, at this point in time there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.  Only time will tell.  We will see what player goes with the Colts pick and then 3 years down from there we will be able to make an informed decision as to what the Colts should have done given hindsight.  (But alas, given hindsight I would also know that I should have simply folded my pocket aces to an *'s all in holding 7 2 off that flopped two 7s on the flop with my aces bricking out on the turn and river.)

 

Its not who is picked at our spot it is who is available since we won't know who Grigson we would have picked.

 

I don't need to hindsight to know the "TR hand" we are holding is going to take that long shot "runner-runner" to pay off, and that I would rather have a new hand.

 

[Superman]

I agree with you for the most part. My only reason for the comparison with Choice to begin with, was just to point out that it doesn't take 10 weeks for a RB to learn how to play RB. Choice had been here for literally a few days and done every bit as well as Richardson and many keep using the excuse that he just isn't acclimated to the playbook yet or that he didn't have a training camp and preseason with the Colts. IMO, that is a ridiculous and unintelligent excuse. some just seem to have a problem admitting that Richardson has been terrible. You're right, there are a multitude of reasons for this, but many of which fall directly on the shoulders of Richardson himself. The interior line is terrible, we all know that but the other RB's haven't had nearly the problems that Richardson has had. Like I keep saying, I hope he gets it together and provides us with who many thought we were getting. Were stuck with him now, so rooting for him to do badly is stupid, but pointing out that he has been bad, is just truthful.

 

That bolded part is where I think you're way off. Choice didn't do every bit as well as Richardson, despite what the YPC says. Choice came in with the game already decided and ran straight ahead for a few yards. He had one carry where he made a nice play, and the rest of it was him simply going forward. Didn't make anyone miss, didn't break any tackles, didn't show any explosiveness... There was nothing impressive about what Choice did.

 

Also, comparing a player taking a few handoffs at the end of the game, where we're probably calling the same play over and over again, and someone being thrust into a lead back role a month into the season (which includes playing on passing downs, protecting, knowing routes, knowing audibles, running several different concepts, etc.), isn't reasonable. I don't think Richardson's poor play is entirely attributable to him not being comfortable with the offense, but like I said earlier, it would be crazy to ignore that as a factor. All Choice did was take  few handoffs with the game already decided. He didn't show any familiarity with playbook.

 

The ONLY back who has actually looked good in the lead back role this season was Ahmad Bradshaw. That includes Vick Ballard. Donald Brown's production has been mostly as the change back, getting different looks and running out of different formations. And Bradshaw's first game as the lead back was mostly an average outing. Still better than what Richardson has done every week, but nothing to write home about. The Niners game was special, for whatever reason, and none of our backs have done that since then. Especially not Tashard Choice. To be honest, 3.6 yards/carry in garbage time is kind of a laugh. It's not even worth discussing.

 

Again, I'm not against critiquing Richardson. I'm certainly not against critiquing the trade, which was a mistake, plain and simple. But, to me, it begins with the run schemes, which have been a disaster. 

[BOTT]

Perhaps I am over valuing Trent Richardson. Call me a dinosaur, but I think RB is still a hugely important position and quite frankly, this notion that anybody can get an impact guy to plug in either later in the draft or as a free agent strikes me as just the current fashion / in vogue mentality. Yes the game evolves, but I am not buying into the diminished importance of the RB position.

I don't think I am anymore over valuing Trent Richardson than you are over valuing the impact of first round draft picks, especially lower in the pecking order of picks. Yeah, you can cherry pick names of players picked after our pick as being impact guys that we could have taken, but you can do that about pretty much every pick every year. At any given draft, though, you can only fairly look at a very small range of positions near the drafting position, for players taken outside of that range quite simply were not rated high enough to justify the pick at that given time. Also, the FACT that probably less than 50% of any drafted first rounder actually turns out to be a productive, impactful pro seems to be entirely discounted by you. Far less than 50% of Colts first round draft picks have amounted to much. It's basically a coin flip or worse that you are going to get a good player. Sure, a good player "could" be taken with any particular pick, but the likelihood of such is a coin flip at best.

I stand by my "opinion" that in reply to the question of the thread, I would rather have what I know with Trent Richardson than have a coin flip of a late first round draft pick, for I think the odds are I will get more value out of Richardson.

Ultimately, though, at this point in time there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions. Only time will tell. We will see what player goes with the Colts pick and then 3 years down from there we will be able to make an informed decision as to what the Colts should have done given hindsight. (But alas, given hindsight I would also know that I should have simply folded my pocket aces to an *'s all in holding 7 2 off that flopped two 7s on the flop with my aces bricking out on the turn and river.)

It's the in vogue way of thinking because it's true. One only has to look at recent Colts history.....Marshall Faulk is hurt and a couple no name RB's help the Colts to the AFC championship game.....Edge leaves and Addai and a journeyman running back lead the Colts to a SB victory. It's been proven the key to a good running game is the offensive line.

Even a dinosaur like Gil Brandt has come to the conclusion that running backs aren't worth first round picks.

[Superman]

 

Richardson is still a coin flip at this point and we are paying him more and will have him for less time than the late 1st. 

 

 

The money savings are negligible at this point. Matter of fact, we're probably saving money, because we didn't pay Richardson's bonus and don't have to account for it on our cap. 

[esmort]

Agreed. With Brown's injury history we would also be up the creek without a paddle now.

 

Richardson isn't much of a paddle.  I think there are equally good paddles out there.

 

As of now Trent has more yardage, catches, touchdowns, and first down conversions than our 2014 first round draft pick. 1 in hand > 2 in the bush and all that.

Might be that Grigson overpaid, but many of us feel better that we have Richardson now as opposed to Choice or McGahee and a late first round pick.

 

"Overpaid" is the beyond an understatement.  Yeah there is no way a FA RB could be giving us what Richardson is (doesn't necessarily have to be McGahee and Choce).

[esmort]

The money savings are negligible at this point. Matter of fact, we're probably saving money, because we didn't pay Richardson's bonus and don't have to account for it on our cap. 

 

The paying him more isn't as big of part of that point as having him less time before having to give him a new contract which will eat up any money we saved by not having to pay his bonus.

[Superman]

The paying him more isn't as big of part of that point as having him less time before having to give him a new contract which will eat up any money we saved by not having to pay his bonus.

 

Fair point. We'll see how that goes in the future. As of right now, we're getting a discount on Richardson. 

[Superman]

 

"Overpaid" is the beyond an understatement.  Yeah there is no way a FA RB could be giving us what Richardson is (doesn't necessarily have to be McGahee and Choce).

 

This is where the whole hindsight thing enters the picture. We thought we were getting a lead back guy who would carry the running offense. Grigson didn't give up a first rounder anticipating 400 yards and 2 touchdowns. For that, you could have signed anyone off the street, absolutely. We expected someone who would change the complexion of the offense.

 

However, I thought a first rounder was too much from the beginning, for any back, no matter what he's giving you. So yes, we overpaid, but this thing has been skewed majorly by poor output from Richardson.

[The Fish]

I think Tashard Choice has a excellent name. 

[Balzer40]

That bolded part is where I think you're way off. Choice didn't do every bit as well as Richardson, despite what the YPC says. Choice came in with the game already decided and ran straight ahead for a few yards. He had one carry where he made a nice play, and the rest of it was him simply going forward. Didn't make anyone miss, didn't break any tackles, didn't show any explosiveness... There was nothing impressive about what Choice did.

 

Also, comparing a player taking a few handoffs at the end of the game, where we're probably calling the same play over and over again, and someone being thrust into a lead back role a month into the season (which includes playing on passing downs, protecting, knowing routes, knowing audibles, running several different concepts, etc.), isn't reasonable. I don't think Richardson's poor play is entirely attributable to him not being comfortable with the offense, but like I said earlier, it would be crazy to ignore that as a factor. All Choice did was take  few handoffs with the game already decided. He didn't show any familiarity with playbook.

 

The ONLY back who has actually looked good in the lead back role this season was Ahmad Bradshaw. That includes Vick Ballard. Donald Brown's production has been mostly as the change back, getting different looks and running out of different formations. And Bradshaw's first game as the lead back was mostly an average outing. Still better than what Richardson has done every week, but nothing to write home about. The Niners game was special, for whatever reason, and none of our backs have done that since then. Especially not Tashard Choice. To be honest, 3.6 yards/carry in garbage time is kind of a laugh. It's not even worth discussing.

 

Again, I'm not against critiquing Richardson. I'm certainly not against critiquing the trade, which was a mistake, plain and simple. But, to me, it begins with the run schemes, which have been a disaster. 

 

 

 

I agree that comparing what Choice did to what Richardson has/hasn't done is a terrible comparison and I said that in a different post in this thread(wasn't in response to you), but my issue is with people saying that with a full TC and preseason we'll see what we really have in Richardson. IMO, that's ludicrous. We've seen what were going to get out of Richardson until the O-line is improved. That was/is my entire problem with this trade. The O-line has to be improved before any RB is going to do anything worth talking about. I don't believe that Richardson is ever going to amount to what many think he will. He will be a serviceable RB behind a good O-line but will never be anything special IMO. He doesn't have good vision, he doesn't have a strong or quick 1st step, he isn't shifty. He is basically a guy that if he has a good sized hole to run through, then he can break a few tackles before being brought down. So in other words, he's pretty much just about like 75-80% of the other RB's in the league.

[Superman]

I agree that comparing what Choice did to what Richardson has/hasn't done is a terrible comparison and I said that in a different post in this thread(wasn't in response to you), but my issue is with people saying that with a full TC and preseason we'll see what we really have in Richardson. IMO, that's ludicrous. We've seen what were going to get out of Richardson until the O-line is improved. That was/is my entire problem with this trade. The O-line has to be improved before any RB is going to do anything worth talking about. I don't believe that Richardson is ever going to amount to what many think he will. He will be a serviceable RB behind a good O-line but will never be anything special IMO. He doesn't have good vision, he doesn't have a strong or quick 1st step, he isn't shifty. He is basically a guy that if he has a good sized hole to run through, then he can break a few tackles before being brought down. So in other words, he's pretty much just about like 75-80% of the other RB's in the league.

 

I do think a training camp and preseason will make a difference. But I don't think Richardson is a difference maker, which is what we hoped he would be when making the trade. All the thoughts here about how his presence would open up the offense for Luck, take pressure off of him, etc.... Nope. 

 

But in the offseason, a player learns the playbook, works with the coaches on the field and in film study as everything gets installed, goes through 50+ practices and four preseason games, along with more film study on those practices and games, and really starts to get a handle on everything. I think OTAs and camp are huge for a new player. So I can see Richardson benefiting significantly from an offseason with the Colts. It won't make him the potentially great player we hoped we were getting in September, but I think it will help him get better.

[HeSoColt]

If TRich can give us games like he had last week... give me him ALL DAY!

[esmort]

If TRich can give us games like he had last week... give me him ALL DAY!

 

I give him credit for an improved and decent game last week ... but, he did not do anything most any starting RB in the league couldn't do or hasen't done many times.  His performance definitely didn't do anything that showed he was worthy of a 1st round pick.  Ballard (a 5th round pick) has had many more, much better games than Richardson's last game.

[Flash7]

I do think a training camp and preseason will make a difference. But I don't think Richardson is a difference maker, which is what we hoped he would be when making the trade. All the thoughts here about how his presence would open up the offense for Luck, take pressure off of him, etc.... Nope. 

 

But in the offseason, a player learns the playbook, works with the coaches on the field and in film study as everything gets installed, goes through 50+ practices and four preseason games, along with more film study on those practices and games, and really starts to get a handle on everything. I think OTAs and camp are huge for a new player. So I can see Richardson benefiting significantly from an offseason with the Colts. It won't make him the potentially great player we hoped we were getting in September, but I think it will help him get better.

Let's hope so. However, he did attend training camp and preseason for the Browns to begin this season. He finished 2012 with a 3.6 yard average (per ESPN stats), and began this season (I know it was for only 2 games and a small sample) with a lower YPC of 3.4. It's possible that his lack of improvement, even after the preseason is what led to the Browns wanting to trade him.

[Superman]

Let's hope so. However, he did attend training camp and preseason for the Browns to begin this season. He finished 2012 with a 3.6 yard average (per ESPN stats), and began this season (I know it was for only 2 games and a small sample) with a lower YPC of 3.4. It's possible that his lack of improvement, even after the preseason is what led to the Browns wanting to trade him.

 

Perhaps. But the Browns had a dreadful passing offense last year, and in his two games with them this year, there was no Josh Gordon. He faced a lot of stacked boxes. The thinking was that he'd have more room to operate here because we have a better passing attack. It hasn't worked out that way.

 

But beyond his YPC is his actual play. You can see some hesitation when he takes the handoff, some times where he doesn't see where the hole will be, and by the time he gets there it's closing up. Just a fraction of a second is all it takes. And with our poor blocking, maybe that's only a difference of a yard or two, but that's enough, and it would have an impact on his stats. His lack of familiarity also shows up from time to time in the passing game; he's missed a handful of blocks this year.

 

I'm not suggesting he'll turn into Eric Dickerson with a training camp under his belt. But I absolutely expect him to play better once he has the benefit of an offseason with our team. 

[BpG]

Please stop saying he faced stacked boxes, it's simply not the case. Time and time again this fallacy gets regurgitated. 

 

 

His ceiling is probably what Eddie Lacy is this year. Seeing as how they got him with the 29th pick of the 2nd round. From a franchise standpoint a 1st round pick is better. Obviously having him on your team right NOW, is better than having the pick because a pick can't play this year. The Power run game isn't going away in this league, but I'm not sure Richardson is good enough to produce in it. 

 

Let's look at last week. 

 

Richardson

19 attempts 64 yards (3.4 YPC)

4 Receptions 38 yards

1TD

 

 

Many of you probably won't know who this guy is, but his name is Edwin Baker, he was a 7th round pick and we signed him as a Free Agent last week. 

 

Baker

8 attempts 38 yards (4.8 YPC)

4 Receptions 46 yards

1TD

 

 

It's not about what he "might" be able to do with an offseason. It's about what his replacement value is and right now, his replacement value is filled with Free Agents and day 3 draft picks. 

[ztboiler]

Perhaps. But the Browns had a dreadful passing offense last year, and in his two games with them this year, there was no Josh Gordon. He faced a lot of stacked boxes. The thinking was that he'd have more room to operate here because we have a better passing attack. It hasn't worked out that way.

 

But beyond his YPC is his actual play. You can see some hesitation when he takes the handoff, some times where he doesn't see where the hole will be, and by the time he gets there it's closing up. Just a fraction of a second is all it takes. And with our poor blocking, maybe that's only a difference of a yard or two, but that's enough, and it would have an impact on his stats. His lack of familiarity also shows up from time to time in the passing game; he's missed a handful of blocks this year.

 

I'm not suggesting he'll turn into Eric Dickerson with a training camp under his belt. But I absolutely expect him to play better once he has the benefit of an offseason with our team. 

This is the kind of specific and thoughtful analysis about the T-Rich trade that resonates with me.  The amount of emotion poured into conclusions about him and the trade value is, well, fan-like - so I guess it is exactly what it should be.  The reality looks more like you are describing.  There are actual RB fundamentals in play here along with issues of instinct and physical talent to consider.  He does hesitate when he should commit or plow when he should be patient - the timing is off.  Some of that is fundamental training and some is instinct, but both are likely to improve.  Acting like it will only be what it is today is silly.  There is a much better chance that he will be a solid NFL feature back than that he won't.  However, as a big fan of the trade initially, I've also come back to earth and will acknowledge the limitations. Jim Brown is probably right, T-Rich isn't a special talent, most feature backs aren't - and yes, that disappoints me.

 

We probably didn't need to give up our first round pick this year to get the production at the RB position that he will give us across his career.  That is a fair point that many are making.  That said, could he have as much career value to the team as Bjoern Werner will?  He very well might, so it isn't rational to call him a complete waste of a mid-20's range first rd. pick either (unless you feel that way about Werner as well).  T-Rich will probably never equate to the production expected of the 3rd overall pick, but that isn't what we gave for him.  I'd love to have it back, but that wouldn't be a guarantee that we would use it any better.

[riderprider47]

Trent, he's gonna be a stud, you watch

[Tark The Shark]

I would take Trent in a heart beat right now. He is slowly getting better behind a very poor offensive line, and the more wins we get, the lower the pick gets.

 

It all depends on who the Browns take with our draft pick

[Gavin]

I would take Trent in a heart beat right now. He is slowly getting better behind a very poor offensive line, and the more wins we get, the lower the pick gets.

 

It all depends on who the Browns take with our draft pick

I dont see why some people say that...It dont matter who they pick at the spot where they will eventually pick...It matters whos available with 1st round grades at the time of there pick......Not there actual pick....If Jordan Matthews is there or

[HtownColt]

I'll compare this when I see who the Browns pick with our spot, just like the Vontae Davis trade when the Dolphins took Jamar Taylor with our 2nd round pick. I would take Vontae Davis over Taylor 10 out of 10 times.

So ima just wait and see come draft time

[Gavin]

I'll compare this when I see who the Browns pick with our spot, just like the Vontae Davis trade when the Dolphins took Jamar Taylor with our 2nd round pick. I would take Vontae Davis over Taylor 10 out of 10 times.

So ima just wait and see come draft time

Both are physical man corners.....Still dont know why it would matter who the Browns pick when it should matter who would be available at the time of there pick

[esmort]

I'll compare this when I see who the Browns pick with our spot, just like the Vontae Davis trade when the Dolphins took Jamar Taylor with our 2nd round pick. I would take Vontae Davis over Taylor 10 out of 10 times.

So ima just wait and see come draft time

 

Like Gavin said it is irrelevant who the Browns actually pick with our pick.  What matters is who is available. I am not saying I am not happy we have VD, but the comparison to Jamar Taylor does not represent the value of the pick.   With the Vontae Davis pick Eddie Lacy, Larry Warford, and others were also still on the board and viable options.

[Gavin]

Like Gavin said it is irrelevant who the Browns actually pick with our pick.  What matters is who is available. I am not saying I am not happy we have VD, but the comparison to Jamar Taylor does not represent the value of the pick.   With the Vontae Davis pick Eddie Lacy, Larry Warford, and others were also still on the board and viable options.

I cant complain about Davis, earlier in the season he went through a stretch where he was playing very well then he suffered a groin strain vs Cardinals , I dont think he has been quite the same since

[esmort]

I cant complain about Davis, earlier in the season he went through a stretch where he was playing very well then he got suffered a groin strain vs Cardinals , I dont think he has been quite the same since

 

I agree I am happy we have Davis and have no problem with the Davis trade... I was just pointing out that the value of the pick we traded to get Davis can't be based on Jamar Taylor.  Just like the value of the pick we traded for TR shouldn't be judged against who is actually picked at that spot; but instead the value of a traded pick is based on what players are available that could potentially be picked at that spot.

[HtownColt]

Both are physical man corners.....Still dont know why it would matter who the Browns pick when it should matter who would be available at the time of there pick

Obviously it's talent on the level of Jamar Taylor, so I would pass on whoever was available,(Vance McDonald, Arthur Brown, DJ Swearinger, Montee Ball, Robert Alford, Eddie Lacy, Travis Kelce, Larry Warford,Dwayne Gratz, Sio Moore, Christine Michael, Keenan Allen, Tyrann Matheui, Leon McFadden etc.).....still taking Vontae 10 out of 10 times if done all over again

[tfunky14]

Perhaps I am over valuing Trent Richardson.  Call me a dinosaur, but I think RB is still a hugely important position and quite frankly, this notion that anybody can get an impact guy to plug in either later in the draft or as a free agent strikes me as just the current fashion / in vogue mentality.  Yes the game evolves, but I am not buying into the diminished importance of the RB position.

 

I don't think I am anymore over valuing Trent Richardson than you are over valuing the impact of first round draft picks, especially lower in the pecking order of picks.  Yeah, you can cherry pick names of players picked after our pick as being impact guys that we could have taken, but you can do that about pretty much every pick every year.  At any given draft, though, you can only fairly look at a very small range of positions near the drafting position, for players taken outside of that range quite simply were not rated high enough to justify the pick at that given time.  Also, the FACT that probably less than 50% of any drafted first rounder actually turns out to be a productive, impactful pro seems to be entirely discounted by you.  Far less than 50% of Colts first round draft picks have amounted to much.  It's basically a coin flip or worse that you are going to get a good player.  Sure, a good player "could" be taken with any particular pick, but the likelihood of such is a coin flip at best.

 

I stand by my "opinion" that in reply to the question of the thread, I would rather have what I know with Trent Richardson than have a coin flip of a late first round draft pick, for I think the odds are I will get more value out of Richardson.

 

Ultimately, though, at this point in time there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.  Only time will tell.  We will see what player goes with the Colts pick and then 3 years down from there we will be able to make an informed decision as to what the Colts should have done given hindsight.  (But alas, given hindsight I would also know that I should have simply folded my pocket aces to an *'s all in holding 7 2 off that flopped two 7s on the flop with my aces bricking out on the turn and river.)

I like this 

"I stand by my "opinion" that in reply to the question of the thread, I would rather have what I know with Trent Richardson than have a coin flip of a late first round draft pick, for I think the odds are I will get more value out of Richardson."

[Le Neon]

Like Gavin said it is irrelevant who the Browns actually pick with our pick. What matters is who is available. I am not saying I am not happy we have VD, but the comparison to Jamar Taylor does not represent the value of the pick. With the Vontae Davis pick Eddie Lacy, Larry Warford, and others were also still on the board and viable options.

There's no perfect way to assess who might've been picked. But to cherry pick the best players within 11 isn't better than simply comparing to the player the other team drafted.

To truly geek out about it and get it right you need to consider both the hits and the misses. Straight up I'd rather have (third round pick) Larry Warford then TR. But no way would I want Vance McDonald or Aaron Dobson.

[Just_IN_3D]

T-Rich at least we know he is not injury prone. He is the only Colt RB thats been healthy thats always good right.

[esmort]

There's no perfect way to assess who might've been picked. But to cherry pick the best players within 11 isn't better than simply comparing to the player the other team drafted.

To truly geek out about it and get it right you need to consider both the hits and the misses. Straight up I'd rather have (third round pick) Larry Warford then TR. But no way would I want Vance McDonald or Aaron Dobson.

 

I agree we can't say the colts would have picked one of those better players and that there is some way to accurately quantify the value of the pick based on hits, maybes, and likely misses if someone wanted to sit down and mess with it. But, I disagree that looking at the good players (and potentially good players) that were available isn't better than comparing to the player that was picked to assess the value of the pick.  I also only listed a couple of indisputable names.  I didn't take into account players likely to develop by next season or so.  I also only went a a few picks down, when in actuality I think this is where draft boards start to be really different, and so in reality I believe everyone up to our next pick was conceivably in play.

[Le Neon]

I agree we can't say the colts would have picked one of those better players and that there is some way to accurately quantify the value of the pick based on hits, maybes, and likely misses if someone wanted to sit down and mess with it. But, I disagree that looking at the good players (and potentially good players) that were available isn't better than comparing to the player that was picked to assess the value of the pick.  I also only listed a couple of indisputable names.  I didn't take into account players likely to develop by next season or so.  I also only went a a few picks down, when in actuality I think this is where draft boards start to be really different, and so in reality I believe everyone up to our next pick was conceivably in play.

That's reasonable. I just think the misses need to be considered along with the hits. We can never really know who they would've picked, only who we would've liked them to take as fans.

[masterlock]

As many have pointed out, good running backs can be gotten in the later rounds. It was a horrible trade. It's not as if running back was the final piece standing in the way of a Super Bowl.