Grigson Saving Face?

[Robert Johnson]

His rookie stats weren't bad in Cleveland,a team with a mediocre QB,Lets see how he does next year.Time will tell

[dudeski]

I disagree with you, but that's not the point. He wasn't a bust in Cleveland.

i was being sarcastic. I was trying to show how foolish that dudes argument is

[Modern]

I'm interested in how many times he didnt pick up the 1st when he ran it on 3rd down and just how far were those touchdown runs.

We have Luck, he can throw it in from the 2 yard line or run it in himself. Ypc is what keeps the opposing offense sitting on the bench.

11 touchdowns would be awesome, but I would rather have 5 or 6 touchdowns and 4+ ypc. Maybe even break a big run for 20+ sometimes.

The guy is putting up 6th round talent numbers, 3rd string type numbers, not first round numbers.

I have a feeling his numbers aren't going to improve even slightly but actually go down again.

[dudeski]

I'm interested in how many times he didnt pick up the 1st when he ran it on 3rd down and just how far were those touchdown runs.

We have Luck, he can throw it in from the 2 yard line or run it in himself. Ypc is what keeps the opposing offense sitting on the bench.

11 touchdowns would be awesome, but I would rather have 5 or 6 touchdowns and 4+ ypc. Maybe even break a big run for 20+ sometimes.

The guy is putting up 6th round talent numbers, 3rd string type numbers, not first round numbers.

I have a feeling his numbers aren't going to improve even slightly but actually go down again.

you rate ypc way too high

[Modern]

3 runs for 3 ypc = punt.

3 runs for 4 ypc = first down.

[Superman]

I'm interested in how many times he didnt pick up the 1st when he ran it on 3rd down and just how far were those touchdown runs.

We have Luck, he can throw it in from the 2 yard line or run it in himself. Ypc is what keeps the opposing offense sitting on the bench.

11 touchdowns would be awesome, but I would rather have 5 or 6 touchdowns and 4+ ypc. Maybe even break a big run for 20+ sometimes.

The guy is putting up 6th round talent numbers, 3rd string type numbers, not first round numbers.

I have a feeling his numbers aren't going to improve even slightly but actually go down again.

 

We all want more production out of Trent Richardson. His numbers sucked this year. You won't meet very much resistance with that argument. When you start having a problem is when you start exaggerating for no apparent reason. It's easy to be critical of Richardson, so why you feel the need to overdo it is unknown to me. 

[Modern]

Scoring from the one or two yard line is great, but how you gonna get there ? How often are you gonna be in that situation ?

Not nearly as many times as you are going to be in 3rd and 4 situations.

Gotta be able to move the ball. Ypc is moving the ball. Busting off a 20+ yarder every now and then makes the defense play you honest.

How can you possibly say that ypc isnt the most important stat for a running back ? If he is handed the ball 200 times and puts up 450 yards is it negated by pounding a couple in from the goal line during the season ? I dont think so. If so then William Perry was an awesome running back, and Walter Payton should have rode the bench.

[Modern]

We all want more production out of Trent Richardson. His numbers sucked this year. You won't meet very much resistance with that argument. When you start having a problem is when you start exaggerating for no apparent reason. It's easy to be critical of Richardson, so why you feel the need to overdo it is unknown to me.

When was it overdone ? People say he is gonna be a beast, I disagree, we each make our arguments as to why we see things the way we do. Its just a discussion.

I'm a Colts fan so if he does break out then I will be thrilled to be wrong.

[chrisfarley]

Grigson is just protecting his domain, it's a humans natural instinct to do so.  Your domain consists of your job, your family, your extended family who rely on you for money (he is a rich man who can share the wealth with those around him that really need it, i.e., help send family and friends to college, buy homes for mom and pops, etc.)  -- By making these statements, he is backing up his decisions, his employment indirectly due to Irsay hearing these comments, and solidifying his take on TRich to the community and the country.  Thus, if he were to get a massive raise from the Colts or get a job elsewhere, he would certainly have the ability to make a very nice salary increase, a huge bonus program with many perks and 401K matches, health/dental/vision insurance, company car, travel expense reimbursement, and a host of other add-ons.  He is doing the right thing for his domain.

[Superman]

When was it overdone ? People say he is gonna be a beast, I disagree, we each make our arguments as to why we see things the way we do. Its just a discussion.

I'm a Colts fan so if he does break out then I will be thrilled to be wrong.

 

Calling Trent Richardson a bust is over the top. Bad trade for us, but he had a reasonably good rookie year. Not a bust.

 

Calling our trade the worst of the season is over the top. I again suggest that you take a look at other teams and their trades/drafting, if for nothing else, just to gain some perspective. As bad as the Richardson trade was for the Colts, it wasn't the worst of the season. And as much as it justifies second guessing Ryan Grigson, it doesn't undo the good decisions he's made, nor does it take any shine off of the significant turnaround the Colts have made in just two seasons.

 

I don't think Richardson is going to be a beast. That would be nice, but that's not what I'm arguing. My stance is simple: I don't like the trade (never really did), but I hope he plays better moving forward. No sense -- IMO -- dwelling on it. And as much as I disagree with the thinking that led to the trade in the first place, I still think Ryan Grigson has done a really good job as the GM. 

[Gavin]

I think going over and over and over with this topic is overdone, Beating a dead horse here...he sucked overall this year, He had a few good runs and a few good catches, He flashed once in a great while...but overall sucked as a whole.  Nothing can be done about that this year...Thats done and over with. Just hope for the best moving forward.....we are going to need it

[jskinnz]

I think going over and over and over with this topic is overdone, Beating a dead horse here...he sucked overall this year, He had a few good runs and a few good catches, He flashed once in a great while...but overall sucked as a whole.  Nothing can be done about that this year...Thats done and over with. Just hope for the best moving forward.....we are going to need it

The irony abounds. You saying a topic has been beaten to death is just funny.

[Modern]

I dont understand the love for Richardson by some people. We paid a premium price for a guy who failed to live up to a discount price.

There are 400 excuses being made for why he sucked. No excuse needed for believing why he sucked, plenty of film to back that up.

"He wasnt the worst trade this season "

He was the worse trade made by the team I am a fan off. I dont care if any other team trades their whole draft for a punter, I just worry about the Colts.

Let's say you screw up bad at work, would your defense be that a guy who does the same kinda work for another company screwed up worse ? I dont think that would work. You boss would only care about you and how you screwed up his company, the other company would be no concern to him.

Now I am not the owner here, I'm just a fan, but as a fan I dont think pointing to someone else and saying they screwed up worse really makes things better.

I dont care of Garvin has a 100 million dollar fully guaranteed contract, he dont play for the Colts.

Like I said I am just a fan and have no influence over the team at all, but as a fan it does suck to see a GM blow a 1st round pick not on a guy who may not put up good numbers, but instead a guy who had already put up low numbers.

Honestly what do you think the trade value of Richardson is ? What do you think a team would be willing to give up for him and his fully guaranteed contract ?

[Superman]

I dont understand the love for Richardson by some people. We paid a premium price for a guy who failed to live up to a discount price.

There are 400 excuses being made for why he sucked. No excuse needed for believing why he sucked, plenty of film to back that up.

"He wasnt the worst trade this season "

He was the worse trade made by the team I am a fan off. I dont care if any other team trades their whole draft for a punter, I just worry about the Colts.

Let's say you screw up bad at work, would your defense be that a guy who does the same kinda work for another company screwed up worse ? I dont think that would work. You boss would only care about you and how you screwed up his company, the other company would be no concern to him.

Now I am not the owner here, I'm just a fan, but as a fan I dont think pointing to someone else and saying they screwed up worse really makes things better.

I dont care of Garvin has a 100 million dollar fully guaranteed contract, he dont play for the Colts.

Like I said I am just a fan and have no influence over the team at all, but as a fan it does suck to see a GM blow a 1st round pick not on a guy who may not put up good numbers, but instead a guy who had already put up low numbers.

Honestly what do you think the trade value of Richardson is ? What do you think a team would be willing to give up for him and his fully guaranteed contract ?

 

Once again, some perspective would serve you well. I don't care about Percy Harvin or the Seahawks either, but when you realize that good teams sometimes make bad decisions, it's easier to let go of the bad one(s) your team made. That's especially true when your team is still having a good degree of success, all things considered.

 

If you want to sit here and harp on the Richardson trade for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative. But it's over, and there is no making it better, so you might as well come to terms with it. I have my fingers crossed that Richardson performs better moving forward, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a bad trade. The reasons he sucked -- legitimate or not -- don't change the quality of the trade.

 

I won't say anything else about this. I'm just trying to help a fellow fan get over a really bad trade so that he/she can enjoy the position the team is in. Take it or leave it.

[braveheartcolt]

The irony abounds. You saying a topic has been beaten to death is just funny.

Jerry Hughes anybody?......

[ztboiler]

So, the way you blow a first rounder is more important than the mere fact that you blew it in the first place? I guess that's true, but all I care about is that we don't have a first rounder this year. That's the reason I didn't like the trade to begin with. Plus the fact that I -- like you -- don't think RBs are worth first rounders. I disagree with the sentiment that Richardson isn't a good player, which is growing more and more (for good reason; he didn't have a good year, but extenuating circumstances and all that...)

 

At this point, though, what do you want Grigson to say? Seriously, give me some idea...

 

Lastly, some perspective would be nice. It's never fun when it happens to your team, but GMs blow first rounders all the time. Even good ones.

I believe that we, as fans, miss the 1st round pick for emotional off-season hope/withdrawl issues more than for our actual connection to wins/losses or program building.  It's off-season FOMO.  Our greatest off-season anticipation is what will we do with our first round pick? - a player we can all project as a starter or significant contributor next season.  It's hard to enjoy the draft as much when you don't get to play in the first round....I'm going to miss it.

 

Beyond that, I think Grigson is getting it right.  Not with this trade, but in the way he values draft picks.  He may even be out in front of a trend as the pendulum swings.  He is valuing players, not picks - Seattle shows similar values - and gaining confidence because his team is winning immediately.  He is proving that you can get productive players from all means necessary, and that their GPA (round drafted) in college is not so important in the NFL. Given the league's track record with 1st rounders, you can even argue that there are many different ways to get a player who plays to the 1st round standard on your team.  On that principle, I'm very glad he pulled the trigger on the T-Rich trade - you'll win more than you lose by valuing players over picks.  As of today, T-Rich is an awful trade, but there is time on the clock still.  I was a big fan of the trade when it happened - I was obviously wrong - and I'm still a big fan of the principle on which the trade was based..

[ColtsDynasty1988]

I agree that we should not have given up a first rounder.. BUT I think with a full offseason, Richardson could become like Matt Forte (Bears).. He could be excellent on the screen plays.. Once the Colts figure out how and when to use him, its smooth sailing from there.. 

[Modern]

We shall see.

[esmort]

I believe that we, as fans, miss the 1st round pick for emotional off-season hope/withdrawl issues more than for our actual connection to wins/losses or program building.  It's off-season FOMO.  Our greatest off-season anticipation is what will we do with our first round pick? - a player we can all project as a starter or significant contributor next season.  It's hard to enjoy the draft as much when you don't get to play in the first round....I'm going to miss it.

 

I agree not having a first round pick takes some of the fun out of the off-season/draft and I am going to miss that, but I don't think that is the primary reason for many of the fan's vocal disappointment with the trade.

 

Beyond that, I think Grigson is getting it right.  Not with this trade, but in the way he values draft picks.  He may even be out in front of a trend as the pendulum swings.

 

I don't necessarily agree with this, if anything I think the new CBA should add even more value to draft picks than they already had ... especially 1st round ones.

 

He is valuing players, not picks - Seattle shows similar values - and gaining confidence because his team is winning immediately.

I think this could be a bad thing the fact that we are winning in the short term could reinforce bad behaviors/practices that hurt the franchise long term when we have less cap space in FA to make up for mistakes made spending draft picks unwisely.

 

He is proving that you can get productive players from all means necessary, and that their GPA (round drafted) in college is not so important in the NFL. Given the league's track record with 1st rounders, you can even argue that there are many different ways to get a player who plays to the 1st round standard on your team.  On that principle, I'm very glad he pulled the trigger on the T-Rich trade - you'll win more than you lose by valuing players over picks.  As of today, T-Rich is an awful trade, but there is time on the clock still.  I was a big fan of the trade when it happened - I was obviously wrong - and I'm still a big fan of the principle on which the trade was based..

While I agree that there is more than one way to get productive players and that we should be open to using them all. I disagree with the bold/underlined I think when you look at the teams that are successful over the long term they place a very high value on draft picks, while the teams that gamble more on FAs and value draft picks less tend to be more inconsistent from season to season.

 

As far there being time on the clock on the Richardson trade this is another area where the trade hurt us.  The clock has already ticked down to half what we would have had had we drafted a RB in the 2014 draft which means if he does do well we have to pay more via a new contract that much sooner.  Not to mention we most likely could have gotten a RB of equal quality for less than a 1st round pick, which would have allowed us to possibly address a different area of need in FA or to spend more on a higher caliber player, which most likely saves us money and cap space in the longer term, and that brings us full circle on why draft picks (especially high ones) have a high value and why I don't want Grigson to get in the habit of spending/trading them so freely.

[CanuckColt]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000314233/article/trent-richardson-a-vital-part-of-colts-success-gm-says

I guess this is from the presser today. GM Ryan Grigson asserts that the Colts don't win 12 games without Richardson. The author suggests that maybe we win 13. Is this just Grigson defending the trade in light of a 2.9 YPC? He doesn't really believe this, right?

I don't think Grigson deserves ALL the heat for the Richardson trade...Big Jim was pretty excited and tweeting away and all in favor of it at the time...but then again, Cleveland phoned the Colts first...should have smelled something there.

[ztboiler]

 

I agree not having a first round pick takes some of the fun out of the off-season/draft and I am going to miss that, but I don't think that is the primary reason for many of the fan's vocal disappointment with the trade.

 

 

I don't necessarily agree with this, if anything I think the new CBA should add even more value to draft picks than they already had ... especially 1st round ones.

 

I think this could be a bad thing the fact that we are winning in the short term could reinforce bad behaviors/practices that hurt the franchise long term when we have less cap space in FA to make up for mistakes made spending draft picks unwisely.

 

While I agree that there is more than one way to get productive players and that we should be open to using them all. I disagree with the bold/underlined I think when you look at the teams that are successful over the long term they place a very high value on draft picks, while the teams that gamble more on FAs and value draft picks less tend to be more inconsistent from season to season.

 

As far there being time on the clock on the Richardson trade this is another area where the trade hurt us.  The clock has already ticked down to half what we would have had had we drafted a RB in the 2014 draft which means if he does do well we have to pay more via a new contract that much sooner.  Not to mention we most likely could have gotten a RB of equal quality for less than a 1st round pick, which would have allowed us to possibly address a different area of need in FA or to spend more on a higher caliber player, which most likely saves us money and cap space in the longer term, and that brings us full circle on why draft picks (especially high ones) have a high value and why I don't want Grigson to get in the habit of spending/trading them so freely.

It is not easy to get this on a message board....your reply is extremely well-written and reasoned.  Very enjoyable.

 

Like business, most follow the herd while the most successful think a little different.  I'm not talking about a departure from sound team building or long term fiscal thinking.  Valuing players over picks has nothing to do with that, nor does it mean an emphasis on big money free agents.  It is, however, the enabler that frees you from the fear of not having a first round pick when Richardson is on the market.  It is the boldness to pull the trigger.  

 

There is nothing in Grigson's behavior thus far, from my perspective, to suggest that he undervalues first round picks or any picks, but there is evidence to suggest that he sees the landscape of possibilities a little differently and is more open to opportunities that he thinks might have current and long term benefit, including the use of high draft picks,  than others in the league that fear the backlash of being wrong now and without your future picks.

 

Wasting first round picks is obviously bad business, and repeated misses certainly correlates with future failure.  At this point, I'd love to have the pick back, but its all relative and all teams are scrambling to make their mistakes and recover from them as well.  There are a lot of ways to heal, so we need not be so micro-focused on one outcome...especially when this one could still heal itself.

[Gavin]

The irony abounds. You saying a topic has been beaten to death is just funny.

Cant argue that....I got nuttin

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000314233/article/trent-richardson-a-vital-part-of-colts-success-gm-says

I guess this is from the presser today. GM Ryan Grigson asserts that the Colts don't win 12 games without Richardson. The author suggests that maybe we win 13. Is this just Grigson defending the trade in light of a 2.9 YPC? He doesn't really believe this, right?

 

Of course he believes it .

 

The trade does not need to be defended at this point .

[Modern]

Yet he defended it.

[braveheartcolt]

If anyone needs to save face, it is Trent. GM's and Coaches and Owners can to a lot, but players with obvious skills need to be held accountable when they just cannot get it done. Sure, it looks like a bad trade, but every team has oodles of them, year in year out.

[Modern]

Yeah but at the same time a GM's job is to make the right trades. You can't say the player failed to live up to expectations more then a couple times as a GM and expect to keep your job.

Where Trent was drafted by the Browns is irrelevant at this point.

He can't say that if he Browns drafted the guy in the first then he is gonna be awesome. First off the Browns have a huge lack of awesome players, they for the most part seem to not draft really well and free agents who want to win generally know to avoid them.

So he had to have sat down and looked at Trent's body of work s a pro. Touchdowns, nice. Ypc, not so much.

Maybe he thought he could get more ypc out of Trent, if so that would be a failure on both their parts, but mainly on Grigson. Trent's numbers with the Browns had declined since last year.

I didnt watch Trent last season much, but from what I have heard Browns fans say the problems he has here are nothing new. Can't find the hole, dances too much, and runs slow.

I think Trent's rookie season was the best he will ever do and other then the touchdowns isnt impressive in the slightest.

Him saying he can't learn the playbook and would rather sit back and watch how its done leads me to believe he is probably lazy. Most players want touches, Trent thinks he is doing good if other guys get the touches, he is fine with that.

Grigson had all the draft info on Trent, wonderlic, interview, everything. He had the body of work from the Browns last season and he had a couple of games this season to exam. He had a team seemingly foaming at the mouth to take a loss on a player they had just paid a huge price for the previous year.

There were red flags there.

Now if Grigson was influenced by Irsay and told to pull the trigger then that would really hurt. I have a lot of repsect for Irsay and the last thing I would want him to do is start acting like Jerry Jones

Grigson owns the Richardson trade and he defended it because he knows right now it looks like a complete failure. He hasn't go Polians reputation and status so a bad trade, which I think this is a real bad trade, can really hurt him moving forward as a GM.

Davis was a good trade, Richardson was a bad trade. His first draft was a home run, his second draft left a lot to be desired. We will probably never have the number 1 overall pick again as long as Luck is healthy, so now its gonna be harder to ever have another amazing draft.

If I was Grigson I would be working on finding some very good players in this draft, because if Richardson fails to perform next season it will be a huge black mark on his career.

[dudeski]

Yeah but at the same time a GM's job is to make the right trades. You can't say the player failed to live up to expectations more then a couple times as a GM and expect to keep your job.

Where Trent was drafted by the Browns is irrelevant at this point.

He can't say that if he Browns drafted the guy in the first then he is gonna be awesome. First off the Browns have a huge lack of awesome players, they for the most part seem to not draft really well and free agents who want to win generally know to avoid them.

So he had to have sat down and looked at Trent's body of work s a pro. Touchdowns, nice. Ypc, not so much.

Maybe he thought he could get more ypc out of Trent, if so that would be a failure on both their parts, but mainly on Grigson. Trent's numbers with the Browns had declined since last year.

I didnt watch Trent last season much, but from what I have heard Browns fans say the problems he has here are nothing new. Can't find the hole, dances too much, and runs slow.

I think Trent's rookie season was the best he will ever do and other then the touchdowns isnt impressive in the slightest.

Him saying he can't learn the playbook and would rather sit back and watch how its done leads me to believe he is probably lazy. Most players want touches, Trent thinks he is doing good if other guys get the touches, he is fine with that.

Grigson had all the draft info on Trent, wonderlic, interview, everything. He had the body of work from the Browns last season and he had a couple of games this season to exam. He had a team seemingly foaming at the mouth to take a loss on a player they had just paid a huge price for the previous year.

There were red flags there.

Now if Grigson was influenced by Irsay and told to pull the trigger then that would really hurt. I have a lot of repsect for Irsay and the last thing I would want him to do is start acting like Jerry Jones

Grigson owns the Richardson trade and he defended it because he knows right now it looks like a complete failure. He hasn't go Polians reputation and status so a bad trade, which I think this is a real bad trade, can really hurt him moving forward as a GM.

Davis was a good trade, Richardson was a bad trade. His first draft was a home run, his second draft left a lot to be desired. We will probably never have the number 1 overall pick again as long as Luck is healthy, so now its gonna be harder to ever have another amazing draft.

If I was Grigson I would be working on finding some very good players in this draft, because if Richardson fails to perform next season it will be a huge black mark on his career.

1)  it is not beyond the realm of possibility that trich will turn into a productive back.  you still care way too much about ypc. 

 

2)  pretty sure irsay had nothing to do with trading for trich other than saying go ahead once he was told of the deal.  i do believe irsay stated that after the trade

 

3)  way too early to say whether or not this last draft was good or bad.  some players are gone which doesn't look good but he also took 3 linemen and an olber that used to be a lineman.  the learning curve is usually pretty high for those players.  and werner, hughes and thornton did show some talent that is encouraging

[Modern]

I dont see how any stat for a runningback can be more important then ypc. Please explain to me a stat that means more.

[masterlock]

The logic some people use to justify giving up a #1 pick just doesn't hold up. For example, just because Eric Walden made several crucial plays this season without which the Colts would have lost, doesn't mean he was worth a #1 pick. The same applies to Richardson.

 

Regardless how many games the Colts MIGHT have lost w/o a few key plays by Richardson, the point is, if being a decent blocker and averaging 2.9 yards/carry was so crucial to the Colts' success then surely they could have STILL HAD THIS by signing a lesser-drafted RB or free agent, and saving the #1 pick.

[Superman]

The logic some people use to justify giving up a #1 pick just doesn't hold up. For example, just because Eric Walden made several crucial plays this season without which the Colts would have lost, doesn't mean he was worth a #1 pick. The same applies to Richardson.

 

Regardless how many games the Colts MIGHT have lost w/o a few key plays by Richardson, the point is, if being a decent blocker and averaging 2.9 yards/carry was so crucial to the Colts' success then surely they could have STILL HAD THIS by signing a lesser-drafted RB or free agent, and saving the #1 pick.

 

I don't see very many people justifying giving up a first rounder. I don't understand why people continue to argue the extremes of this topic. Everyone knows it wasn't a good trade.

[Modern]

Rumors went around saying the Colts were looking at Gerhart. I would have preferred that over the Richardson trade. Give up a later round pick for Gerhart who was in the last season of his contract. If he worked out then you resign him and if it didnt then you let him walk and it cost you nothing against the cap.

Instead we have fullback numbers from a supposed starting halfback.

No way to get him to restructure because he is fully guaranteed. There is no way on earth he doesnt know that he is failing to live up to his hype coming out of college. Unless he turns his game around quick then this will be the biggest contract he ever gets, he might linger as a back up for minimum pay, but the first round money will never be in reach again.

So we are stuck with him for a few years, hopefully Grigson isnt blind to the situation and gets a solid plan B in place if Richardson sucks again.

As far as saying we dont win all those games without Richardson ..... We dont beat Seattle without Lawrence Guy, but he got demoted the next day.

[K-148]

I still believe Richardson was taken not for 2013 season but for future. Bradshaw and Brown were healthy, so Grigson took Richardson because he was available, not because he was needed. 2013 Colts were unable to run zone blocking, because Satele and McGlynn are both bad-balanced and unathletic offensive linemen who allow too much penetration up middle. Thornton being a rookie doesn't help as well.I expect much more from Richardson in 2014.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

I don't see very many people justifying giving up a first rounder. I don't understand why people continue to argue the extremes of this topic. Everyone knows it wasn't a good trade.

Not everybody    2013 coming to the team after the start of the season IMO means the jury is still out next season we'll see .

 

&

 

I believe its only fair to fix the O-line first & give Richardson a off season & pre season with his new team & coachs before declaring it was'nt a good trade .

[Jason_]

I dont see how any stat for a runningback can be more important then ypc. Please explain to me a stat that means more.

 

There is no single stat that tells the whole story.  

[esmort]

I still believe Richardson was taken not for 2013 season but for future. Bradshaw and Brown were healthy, so Grigson took Richardson because he was available, not because he was needed. 2013 Colts were unable to run zone blocking, because Satele and McGlynn are both bad-balanced and unathletic offensive linemen who allow too much penetration up middle. Thornton being a rookie doesn't help as well.I expect much more from Richardson in 2014.

 

I do not believe for a second the primary motivation for the trade was to acquire Richardson for next season "because he was available". They definitely acquired him with the expectation he would contribute significantly this season due to a combination of the earlier loss of Ballard, Bradshaw's injury history, and not knowing that Brown would play at a high level this season.  I think the fact that they believed he would be an asset beyond this season contributed to them being able to justify the trade; but if they knew he would contribute so little this season or Ballard had been healthy there is no way they make the trade for Richardson