Everything Trent Richardson

[21isSuperman]

Folks, try to keep personal shots aside.  Focus on football and use facts in your discussion.  Name-calling and personal shots are not tolerated

[Modern]

Trent's not gonna get 2000 yards, he's not gonna get 1500 yards, unless they give him the ball 30 times a game he isn't even gonna come near 1000 yards.

Unless Brandsaw and Ballard both go down I doubt Trent will be our feature back.

He may look good in practice, but that's against our pourous run defense, and our practice squad who have to be worse against the run then the starters or they would be on the team.

[Defjamz26]

Trent's not gonna get 2000 yards, he's not gonna get 1500 yards, unless they give him the ball 30 times a game he isn't even gonna come near 1000 yards.

Unless Brandsaw and Ballard both go down I doubt Trent will be our feature back.

He may look good in practice, but that's against our pourous run defense, and our practice squad who have to be worse against the run then the starters or they would be on the team.

 

This is all truth. But there are too many blind Grigson lovers who think every move he makes is genius and all his signings and draft picks will develop and become all pro's. In 2 years, Richardson will be off the team after only posting a season high of 640 yards in that time span. I'll also predict that by then a lot of his "trench" guys will be gone and the board will be calling for his head.

[schwamm]

This is all truth. But there are too many blind Grigson lovers who think every move he makes is genius and all his signings and draft picks will develop and become all pro's. In 2 years, Richardson will be off the team after only posting a season high of 640 yards in that time span. I'll also predict that by then a lot of his "trench" guys will be gone and the board will be calling for his head.

I think there are far more of us who have no illusions about anybody being perfect, but who generally like the direction the team is taking, warts and all.

I'm trying to recall here... give me a sec... any GMs in the history of... well... EVER... who only made excellent/perfect moves...

Nope. None come to mind. NONE.

As for your prediction... huge reach, given how many numskulls are already calling for his head after a reasonably remarkable 2 year, ground up reconstruction effort.

[Defjamz26]

I think there are far more of us who have no illusions about anybody being perfect, but who generally like the direction the team is taking, warts and all.

I'm trying to recall here... give me a sec... any GMs in the history of... well... EVER... who only made excellent/perfect moves...

Nope. None come to mind. NONE.

As for your prediction... huge reach, given how many numskulls are already calling for his head after a reasonably remarkable 2 year, ground up reconstruction effort.

 

Honestly though when you break down everything and analyze it, he's been somewhat unremarkable. No one could say that the reason this team made the playoffs 2 straight years isn't 95% due to Andrew Luck carrying the team. So using the playoffs to justify his success is out of the question. He just lucked out to get someone who is perhaps a future HoF QB.

 

And the Richardson trade isn't as bad as some trades in NFL history but its up there. Forgot how poorly he performed, look at these numbers:

 

T-Rich in 2012, started 15 games and rushed for 950 yards behind one of the leagues best O-Lines

 

Ballard who was taken in the same draft, started 12 games and rushed for 814 yards, against what was one of the worst O-lines in 2012

 

What sense does that make?? Ballard only finished 100 or so yards behind the number 3 overall pick, and he only started 12 games. That either means Ballard is underrated or Trent is overrated, and although I like Ballard, I think its mostly the latter. What sense does it make to trade away a first round pick when you have a RB who is arguably better than Richardson? I mean Richardson is so bad Andrew Luck has a higher career YPC. The trade is so bad no matter how you spin it. It is right for people to call for his head after a trade that bad.

[schwamm]

Honestly though when you break down everything and analyze it, he's been somewhat unremarkable. No one could say that the reason this team made the playoffs 2 straight years isn't 95% due to Andrew Luck carrying the team. So using the playoffs to justify his success is out of the question. He just lucked out to get someone who is perhaps a future HoF QB.

And the Richardson trade isn't as bad as some trades in NFL history but its up there. Forgot how poorly he performed, look at these numbers:

T-Rich in 2012, started 15 games and rushed for 950 yards behind one of the leagues best O-Lines

Ballard who was taken in the same draft, started 12 games and rushed for 814 yards, against what was one of the worst O-lines in 2012

What sense does that make?? Ballard only finished 100 or so yards behind the number 3 overall pick, and he only started 12 games. That either means Ballard is underrated or Trent is overrated, and although I like Ballard, I think its mostly the latter. What sense does it make to trade away a first round pick when you have a RB who is arguably better than Richardson? I mean Richardson is so bad Andrew Luck has a higher career YPC. The trade is so bad no matter how you spin it. It is right for people to call for his head after a trade that bad.

I struggle to see how you arrive at your conclusions. From a financial perspective, the trade is cheap for the Colts, so if it doesn't work, who cares? For comparison, Shonn Greene's contract is (I believe) pricier, and his stats with Tennessee are comparable. At least TR can add some value for his blocking and catching out if the backfield. Greene is "just a guy" in all aspects of his game, IMO.

The only rotten part of the deal from my perspective is the draft pick. Frankly my biggest issue with losing the pick is simply because draft day is kinda like Xmas, and it stings to know I'm not getting that big present this year. In the NFL, though, there is a healthy percentage of first round picks EVERY YEAR that don't work out. So we may have to count TR in that company. At least we didn't pay a #4 overall, and $20.4M for 18 games of his game.

So I have a question for the cap and contract experts: I keep reading that TR's contract with Cleveland was fully guaranteed with no offset. That would suggest the Browns are obligated for the full 20.4M, with no relief due to the trade. But does that mean that the Colts have to guarantee his remaining years on the contract, or is that aspect nullified?

If the guarantees were indeed nullified, this may make me rethink things. It could have been a much better risk/reward move than even I thought... even if TR never sees the field again.

[Defjamz26]

The move may have been cheap financially but that doesn't make it any better. And I arrive at my conclusions by a basic comparative method. Compare him to Ballard for example, which I already did. We got similar production out of him and he only cost a 5th I believe. Richardson cost us a 1st.

Also look at it like this. The same time we traded for Richardson Josh Gordon was coming off his second violation and hadn't even begun to put up his increase numbers yet. If the Browns were intent on getting another first round pick regardless, than I'm sure they would have gladly traded Gordon away for the same price. They basically fleeced us into taking away their worst offensive player in exchange for a first. I think everyone but Grigson knew Richardson wasn't worth anything.

[Modern]

Last seasons first round pick contributed very little and wasn't a good pick IMO, not for a first rounder.

This years first round pick is garbage, even if Trent improves he will only be a low impact to average player at best. He will never live up to first round talent and surelynwill never live up to being 3rd overall.

Other then Luck who was a no brainer, Grigson has found nothing in the first round of his drafts.

His free agents have been mediocre for the most part. He found TY and everything else was just kinda what you would expect. So I will give him TY and Davis for a second rounder, other then that he took a couple of tight ends that performed well, Allen being the better of the 2 but that isn't really a surprise because many analyst graded him higher then Fleener. Ballard did OK for a rookie considering where he was taken, but isn't the beast that SOE have tried to make him out to be.

Last seasons draft was poor, no real play makers so far.

Richardson is a bust, he wasn't good his rookie year, low end mediocre, and last season he was one of the very worst in the NFL and showed no signs of that changing anytime soon.

Grigson needs to step it up in the draft this season because so far other then a franchise quarterback who was obviously who you would have to take, he hasn't done much. Signing a backup center isn't impressive, when the starter you release was basically the same guy with longer hair.

Grigson doesn't have the Polian name to cover his mistakes so he is on a much shorter leash and when Trent looks like garbage again this season he better hope some of his draft picks start showing up and playing some ball.

[schwamm]

The move may have been cheap financially but that doesn't make it any better. And I arrive at my conclusions by a basic comparative method. Compare him to Ballard for example, which I already did. We got similar production out of him and he only cost a 5th I believe. Richardson cost us a 1st.

Also look at it like this. The same time we traded for Richardson Josh Gordon was coming off his second violation and hadn't even begun to put up his increase numbers yet. If the Browns were intent on getting another first round pick regardless, than I'm sure they would have gladly traded Gordon away for the same price. They basically fleeced us into taking away their worst offensive player in exchange for a first. I think everyone but Grigson knew Richardson wasn't worth anything.

I agree the trade appears to be a mistake. But EVERY GM and EVERY club makes mistakes. This one appears to be a pretty sensible one, all things considered. Low cost, low risk.

Playing the hindsight game is disengenuous, in my opinion. Any imbecile can find fault after. All I am saying is that the really good GMs seem to know how to take risks and mitigate costs in the event of the worst case. Grigson is showing all indications of having that kind of way about him.

Let's just toss out the whole Gordon arguement... at the time the Colts needed a RB, and we thought we were set at WR. It wasn't for a few more weeks that it became totally evident that DHB was never going to cut it, and another 6 weeks before Wayne was lost to IR. Gordon wasn't really an option.

I also used the competitive method, btw, and chose someone who has actually played in the past year (Greene). Ballard and Bradshaw going down were the reason Grigson had to make a move in the first place.

From what I'm seeing, if TR can continue to be a decent blocker and threat out of the backfield, and can occassionally soften up the line for the other guys, he's cheap enough that he'll prove to be worth it. If he can actually become an NFL caliber RB (based only on blind hope, not any rational expectation)... It'll prove to be bargain bin stuff. If not, the attempt really didn't cost much.

In fact, the more y'all have protracted this arguement, the more I'm convinced that Grigs is a genius, and that this "bad" trade highlights his brilliance.

[Defjamz26]

I agree the trade appears to be a mistake. But EVERY GM and EVERY club makes mistakes. This one appears to be a pretty sensible one, all things considered. Low cost, low risk.

Playing the hindsight game is disengenuous, in my opinion. Any imbecile can find fault after. All I am saying is that the really good GMs seem to know how to take risks and mitigate costs in the event of the worst case. Grigson is showing all indications of having that kind of way about him.

Let's just toss out the whole Gordon arguement... at the time the Colts needed a RB, and we thought we were set at WR. It wasn't for a few more weeks that it became totally evident that DHB was never going to cut it, and another 6 weeks before Wayne was lost to IR. Gordon wasn't really an option.

I also used the competitive method, btw, and chose someone who has actually played in the past year (Greene). Ballard and Bradshaw going down were the reason Grigson had to make a move in the first place.

From what I'm seeing, if TR can continue to be a decent blocker and threat out of the backfield, and can occassionally soften up the line for the other guys, he's cheap enough that he'll prove to be worth it. If he can actually become an NFL caliber RB (based only on blind hope, not any rational expectation)... It'll prove to be bargain bin stuff. If not, the attempt really didn't cost much.

In fact, the more y'all have protracted this arguement, the more I'm convinced that Grigs is a genius, and that this "bad" trade highlights his brilliance.

 

Trading away first round picks is very dangerous though. When you do that, you're missing out on potential pro-bowl caliber players. I mean you can find those in any round technically, but generally speaking, 1st round is where the best talent is at. So that makes the deal a little less sensible. Especially when you have a team with a lot of holes. You trade away a 1st for something that wasn't necessarily a huge need. Every GM makes mistakes (lol Jerry Jones) but it doesn't excuse it when they do.

 

And I wasn't playing the hindsight game. I was saying a smarter GM would have used a more direct comparative method to realize that he had a guy on the roster who is probably better than Richardson. You could argue that had Ballard started 4 more games, he probably would have out-rushed the number 3 overall pick. But regardless, I'm not sure how RB was a need. When injuries happen, you go to FA or try and trade a low round pick for a stop gap guy. You don't trade a 1st round pick for a guy who isn't even close to being an elite player. I'm convinced Grigson is the only person who would have made the trade. Richardson was never worth a first round pick to begin with, the Browns just reached on him.

 

I really don't see how it is a low cost move. In the NFL, cost isn't just in terms of money.  Draft picks and time can also cost. Just how Blaine Gabbert cost the Jags a lot. They wasted a draft pick and time by allowing him to start that long. Putting time into Gabbert and not moving on sooner is why they are missing out on a QB now.  It's a shame that people are trying to damage control by saying it was low cost or that it'll pay off if Richardson becomes a marginally okay player.

[esmort]

I agree the trade appears to be a mistake. But EVERY GM and EVERY club makes mistakes. This one appears to be a pretty sensible one, all things considered. Low cost, low risk.

Playing the hindsight game is disengenuous, in my opinion. Any imbecile can find fault after. All I am saying is that the really good GMs seem to know how to take risks and mitigate costs in the event of the worst case. Grigson is showing all indications of having that kind of way about him.

Let's just toss out the whole Gordon arguement... at the time the Colts needed a RB, and we thought we were set at WR. It wasn't for a few more weeks that it became totally evident that DHB was never going to cut it, and another 6 weeks before Wayne was lost to IR. Gordon wasn't really an option.

I also used the competitive method, btw, and chose someone who has actually played in the past year (Greene). Ballard and Bradshaw going down were the reason Grigson had to make a move in the first place.

From what I'm seeing, if TR can continue to be a decent blocker and threat out of the backfield, and can occassionally soften up the line for the other guys, he's cheap enough that he'll prove to be worth it. If he can actually become an NFL caliber RB (based only on blind hope, not any rational expectation)... It'll prove to be bargain bin stuff. If not, the attempt really didn't cost much.

In fact, the more y'all have protracted this arguement, the more I'm convinced that Grigs is a genius, and that this "bad" trade highlights his brilliance.

 

Bradshaw was not injured yet when we traded for Richardson so that was not the main reason Grigson made the move. We did not need a RB that bad when the trade was made, definitely not bad enough to spend a 1st round pick. It was not a "cheap" trade.

[schwamm]

Trading away first round picks is very dangerous though. When you do that, you're missing out on potential pro-bowl caliber players. I mean you can find those in any round technically, but generally speaking, 1st round is where the best talent is at. So that makes the deal a little less sensible. Especially when you have a team with a lot of holes. You trade away a 1st for something that wasn't necessarily a huge need. Every GM makes mistakes (lol Jerry Jones) but it doesn't excuse it when they do.

And I wasn't playing the hindsight game. I was saying a smarter GM would have used a more direct comparative method to realize that he had a guy on the roster who is probably better than Richardson. You could argue that had Ballard started 4 more games, he probably would have out-rushed the number 3 overall pick. But regardless, I'm not sure how RB was a need. When injuries happen, you go to FA or try and trade a low round pick for a stop gap guy. You don't trade a 1st round pick for a guy who isn't even close to being an elite player. I'm convinced Grigson is the only person who would have made the trade. Richardson was never worth a first round pick to begin with, the Browns just reached on him.

I really don't see how it is a low cost move. In the NFL, cost isn't just in terms of money. Draft picks and time can also cost. Just how Blaine Gabbert cost the Jags a lot. They wasted a draft pick and time by allowing him to start that long. Putting time into Gabbert and not moving on sooner is why they are missing out on a QB now. It's a shame that people are trying to damage control by saying it was low cost or that it'll pay off if Richardson becomes a marginally okay player.

Among a long list of things you state that I completely disagree with: 1st round pick equals loss of potential pro-bowler? Reach much?

OK. Let's assume you could be right. What percentage if all players taken in the first round in the last 20 years have made the pro bowl? What percentage were out if the league before receiving a second contract?

[schwamm]

Bradshaw was not injured yet when we traded for Richardson so that was not the main reason Grigson made the move. We did not need a RB that bad when the trade was made, definitely not bad enough to spend a 1st round pick. It was not a "cheap" trade.

I saw it differently... obviously. I was not prepared to rely on Bradshaw. No way. I have been a fan of his, but when Ballard went down, I definitely thought they had a gaping hole at RB. I didn't like the way they chose to address the problem, and have argued many times before how foolish I think it is to spend a 1st on a RB... EVER... but the more I learn about the trade, the less it bothers me.

[esmort]

I saw it differently... obviously. I was not prepared to rely on Bradshaw. No way. I have been a fan of his, but when Ballard went down, I definitely thought they had a gaping hole at RB. I didn't like the way they chose to address the problem, and have argued many times before how foolish I think it is to spend a 1st on a RB... EVER... but the more I learn about the trade, the less it bothers me.

 

What have you learned that made it bother you less? If anything it seems you should be more bothered by it now than you were initially.

[schwamm]

What have you learned that made it bother you less? If anything it seems you should be more bothered by it now than you were initially.

1. Low dollar hit, comparable to contracts "just guys" like Greene have received... and the possibility that it might not even be guaranteed.

2. Not an early first round pick, as I suspected when they first made the trade.

3. I can understand why the move needed to be made, even if TR wouldn't have been the answer if I were asked.

4. I'm not inclined to cry over spilled milk. It's already done, so now I prefer to focus on best moves from here instead of wringing hands and pointing fingers. I'm all about "Don't gripe about problems... Identify them calmly and show me solutions." But that's just me.

[esmort]

1. Low dollar hit, comparable to contracts "just guys" like Greene have received... and the possibility that it might not even be guaranteed.

2. Not an early first round pick, as I suspected when they first made the trade.

3. I can understand why the move needed to be made, even if TR wouldn't have been the answer if I were asked.

4. I'm not inclined to cry over spilled milk. It's already done, so now I prefer to focus on best moves from here instead of wringing hands and pointing fingers. I'm all about "Don't gripe about problems... Identify them calmly and show me solutions." But that's just me.

 

1. We knew the dollar cost shortly after the trade was made so that is nothing new to learn, and I don't know where it not being guaranteed comes from; but I am pretty certain it is.. spotrac shows it as dead cap money.  While I agree the $ amount is not necessarily large compared to some players, it significantly more than we needed to spend.

 

2. It's still a 1st round pick, which is a high value commodity; even though being later makes it slightly less valuable than an early round pick it's still has a high value .... way more than TR is worth.  Look at the potential players for that pick and tell me you would not rather have that pick + a RB we could have gotten in the 2nd or 3rd; or the extra picks we could have gotten this year/next year/some combination instead of TR.

 

3.  "A" move may have been needed, but "the move we made" was not.  We could have picked up a RB off the street and got as much or more production, and than picked up a RB in the 2nd or 3rd in the draft who likely would have given us at least the same level of play as TR(if not better) for less money on a longer contract.

 

4. I prefer to call it accountability ... Grigson made a horrible trade potentially costing us a valuable building block (or multiple building blocks).  People can try all they want to justify that it wasn't a bad trade or "is not that big of deal" ... but almost anyone who objectively looks at all the facts of this trade know it was just a flat out bad decision by the Colts/Grigson. 

 

"I'm all about "Don't gripe about problems... Identify them calmly and show me solutions." ... that's great except when the solutions you choose actually make the problem worse or cause more problems than they solve.

[Modern]

You know Grigson made himself the laughing stock of every front office in the NFL with the Richardson trade. When the lowly Browns get over on you, that's bad.

Trent isn't that great of a blocker, he is average, and he is average coming out of the backfield for a pass. These seem like his strong points because he is horrible at his main job which is running the ball, bit statistically he is average at them both.

Saying Grigson deserves a free pass on the worst trade of the season because Trent can block .... That's like a man giving his wife a free pass for cheating on him because she makes a mean meatloaf. Small things will never add up to cover the biggest thing.

Yes we gave up a late round first, but all we have now is a late round second which means it will be almost the 3rd round before we get to draft anyone. I seen quite a few drafts showing the Browns taking an OG with our former pick, I wonder if we could have used an OG ? They block too.

Its not a matter of accepting it and getting over it. It was a colossal mistake. Men are fired for such mistakes dailyin the real wworld.

[OffensivelyPC]

Saying Grigson deserves a free pass on the worst trade of the season because Trent can block .... That's like a man giving his wife a free pass for cheating on him because she makes a mean meatloaf. Small things will never add up to cover the biggest thing.

That's really a terrible analogy.  I get the point you were trying to make, but cheating is an outright betrayal.  A bad business move is simply just a mistake, the blame of which would fall on not only Grigson, but of several other high ranking members of the business.  There may have been some dissent, but Grigson wouldn't (and most likely couldn't) make unilaterally. 

[Defjamz26]

1. We knew the dollar cost shortly after the trade was made so that is nothing new to learn, and I don't know where it not being guaranteed comes from; but I am pretty certain it is.. spotrac shows it as dead cap money.  While I agree the $ amount is not necessarily large compared to some players, it significantly more than we needed to spend.

 

2. It's still a 1st round pick, which is a high value commodity; even though being later makes it slightly less valuable than an early round pick it's still has a high value .... way more than TR is worth.  Look at the potential players for that pick and tell me you would not rather have that pick + a RB we could have gotten in the 2nd or 3rd; or the extra picks we could have gotten this year/next year/some combination instead of TR.

 

3.  "A" move may have been needed, but "the move we made" was not.  We could have picked up a RB off the street and got as much or more production, and than picked up a RB in the 2nd or 3rd in the draft who likely would have given us at least the same level of play as TR(if not better) for less money on a longer contract.

 

4. I prefer to call it accountability ... Grigson made a horrible trade potentially costing us a valuable building block (or multiple building blocks).  People can try all they want to justify that it wasn't a bad trade or "is not that big of deal" ... but almost anyone who objectively looks at all the facts of this trade know it was just a flat out bad decision by the Colts/Grigson. 

 

"I'm all about "Don't gripe about problems... Identify them calmly and show me solutions." ... that's great except when the solutions you choose actually make the problem worse or cause more problems than they solve.

 

2. Exactly. And had we not have finished as good as we did, it would be a middle of the round 1st round pick. Not to mention that the lack of a first pretty much threw out any chance we had of trading up higher into the first without a significant loss. Plus you miss out on the lower ranked first round prospects or the guys who fall. No matter how you look at it. A 1st is extremely valuable.

 

3. The Browns did exactly what we should have done. They signed McGahee and got arguably the same amount of production.

 

And I agree about accountability. That's my biggest thing in all this Richardson mess. It seems that people are so hypnotized by the good Grigson has done, that no one wants to really acknowledge how bad of a mistake it is. People are still trying to damage control it, and the excuses are pathetic. The fact that he blocks well, catches the ball out of the backfield, and may become average does not make the deal sensible. Neither does the fact that we got him on a rookie contract (which are all pretty cheap now since the CBA) so technically he doesn't "cost a lot". Every GM makes mistakes, but that doesn't mean they're spared from criticism when they do, especially big ones at critical times. It's one thing when Kerwynn Williams, Tim Fugger, and John Boyett don't work, no one really sweats that stuff. It's another when you spend a first on a team that desperately needs quality players, for a below average player.

[schwamm]

1. We knew the dollar cost shortly after the trade was made so that is nothing new to learn, and I don't know where it not being guaranteed comes from; but I am pretty certain it is.. spotrac shows it as dead cap money. While I agree the $ amount is not necessarily large compared to some players, it significantly more than we needed to spend.

2. It's still a 1st round pick, which is a high value commodity; even though being later makes it slightly less valuable than an early round pick it's still has a high value .... way more than TR is worth. Look at the potential players for that pick and tell me you would not rather have that pick + a RB we could have gotten in the 2nd or 3rd; or the extra picks we could have gotten this year/next year/some combination instead of TR.

3. "A" move may have been needed, but "the move we made" was not. We could have picked up a RB off the street and got as much or more production, and than picked up a RB in the 2nd or 3rd in the draft who likely would have given us at least the same level of play as TR(if not better) for less money on a longer contract.

4. I prefer to call it accountability ... Grigson made a horrible trade potentially costing us a valuable building block (or multiple building blocks). People can try all they want to justify that it wasn't a bad trade or "is not that big of deal" ... but almost anyone who objectively looks at all the facts of this trade know it was just a flat out bad decision by the Colts/Grigson.

"I'm all about "Don't gripe about problems... Identify them calmly and show me solutions." ... that's great except when the solutions you choose actually make the problem worse or cause more problems than they solve.

So we disagree on all counts. So be it. I guess neither of us has enough information to convince the other... Shockingly.

[schwamm]

And I agree about accountability.

That's where the rub is for me. The more I think about it, this statement snacks as absolutely rediculous. So does mine about solutions over griping about problems, actually.

Do you really believe anything you have to say about the trade is "holding Grigson accountable"? Really? I guarantee the man operates under a system of accountability, but your opinion, my opinion, or Esmort's opinion account for a hill of beans in that equation.

At the end of it all, this is an arguement of under informed opinions, and mine is that you, Esmort's and others are making a mountain of this little hill of beans.

[jvan1973]

You know Grigson made himself the laughing stock of every front office in the NFL with the Richardson trade. When the lowly Browns get over on you, that's bad.

Trent isn't that great of a blocker, he is average, and he is average coming out of the backfield for a pass. These seem like his strong points because he is horrible at his main job which is running the ball, bit statistically he is average at them both.

Saying Grigson deserves a free pass on the worst trade of the season because Trent can block .... That's like a man giving his wife a free pass for cheating on him because she makes a mean meatloaf. Small things will never add up to cover the biggest thing.

Yes we gave up a late round first, but all we have now is a late round second which means it will be almost the 3rd round before we get to draft anyone. I seen quite a few drafts showing the Browns taking an OG with our former pick, I wonder if we could have used an OG ? They block too.

Its not a matter of accepting it and getting over it. It was a colossal mistake. Men are fired for such mistakes dailyin the real wworld.

It wasn't the worst trade of the season

[schwamm]

1. We knew the dollar cost shortly after the trade was made so that is nothing new to learn, and I don't know where it not being guaranteed comes from; but I am pretty certain it is.. spotrac shows it as dead cap money. While I agree the $ amount is not necessarily large compared to some players, it significantly more than we needed to spend.

I've asked the question a couple times already, but no one is giving me any kind of reason to stop asking...

In a standard trade, the new club picks up the contract where the old club left off. In this trade, though, the Browns fully guaranteed TRs contract, and there was no offset language. That means the Browns have to see the financial side through to the end, no matter what the Colts negotiate.

I've been doing some surfing trying to find answers. I have yet to find any definitive "the terms of the contract are..." kind of document.

Everything I've read about the Colts contract with TR seems to be stating nothing more than a general assumption (read: unsubstantiated opinion) that the Colts would naturally just assume the same terms. I don't know enough about fully guaranteed, no offset contracts, or about a rare trade early into such a contract... but that assumption strikes me as quite possibly wrong.

Do you, or does anyone here, know FOR A FACT that the Colts are obligated to guarantee the same 2M for '14 and 3M for '15?

[Nadine]

Testing

[Nadine]

Testing

[jvan1973]

1 2 3

[Nadine]

I was testing tapatalk and getting an error message

but apparently the post actually goes through even though you get that error message

[Le Neon]

I was testing tapatalk and getting an error message

but apparently the post actually goes through even though you get that error message

This is probably the most productive thing to emerge from this discussion. At last, something resolved!

[OffensivelyPC]

I was testing tapatalk and getting an error message

but apparently the post actually goes through even though you get that error message

I tried, it, didn't really see the appeal in it.  It doesn't accomplish anything any easier than just simply using the mobile website for these forums.  Better off saving the space and just using my mobile web if a compy isn't handy.

[esmort]

I tried, it, didn't really see the appeal in it.  It doesn't accomplish anything any easier than just simply using the mobile website for these forums.  Better off saving the space and just using my mobile web if a compy isn't handy.

 Agree, I used tapatalk for a while and was not impressed; liked mobile site better and went back to using it.

[BrentMc11]

I was testing tapatalk and getting an error message

but apparently the post actually goes through even though you get that error message

I'm not going for it this time  

[esmort]

I've asked the question a couple times already, but no one is giving me any kind of reason to stop asking...

In a standard trade, the new club picks up the contract where the old club left off. In this trade, though, the Browns fully guaranteed TRs contract, and there was no offset language. That means the Browns have to see the financial side through to the end, no matter what the Colts negotiate.

I've been doing some surfing trying to find answers. I have yet to find any definitive "the terms of the contract are..." kind of document.

Everything I've read about the Colts contract with TR seems to be stating nothing more than a general assumption (read: unsubstantiated opinion) that the Colts would naturally just assume the same terms. I don't know enough about fully guaranteed, no offset contracts, or about a rare trade early into such a contract... but that assumption strikes me as quite possibly wrong.

Do you, or does anyone here, know FOR A FACT that the Colts are obligated to guarantee the same 2M for '14 and 3M for '15?

 

I don't know for absolute fact, but I did a little research and it seems that offsets only come into play if the player is "released" and than picked up by another team. It appears offsets do not apply to "traded" players all guarantees go with him to new team.

 

I could be wrong, but that is what I get from the explanation by overthecap ... here is a story about offsets by overthecap, and their explanation of how it applies to trades. Looks like the 7th paragraph down if I counted correctly.

 

"Offsets don’t matter in a trade. If you trade the player to a team that sees value in him for their scheme or their culture the contract and guarantees transfer with him." - overthecap

 

http://overthecap.com/offset-language-should-never-cause-players-to-miss-time/

[Nadine]

I tried, it, didn't really see the appeal in it.  It doesn't accomplish anything any easier than just simply using the mobile website for these forums.  Better off saving the space and just using my mobile web if a compy isn't handy.

 

I like it because it notifies me right away when I'm quoted or have a pm. If you are not looking for that, the mobile site works well

I use that also

[AgentOrange]

Among a long list of things you state that I completely disagree with: 1st round pick equals loss of potential pro-bowler? Reach much?

OK. Let's assume you could be right. What percentage if all players taken in the first round in the last 20 years have made the pro bowl? What percentage were out if the league before receiving a second contract?

 

50% of the players drafted in the 1st round of the 2010 draft have made a Pro Bowl. 40% of those in the 2011 draft. Most years going back further fall in the 30-50% range. This draft class is said to be deeper than any in recent memory. So no, he wasn't really 'reaching' when he said the pick had the potential to be a Pro Bowler, especially since the position of the pick was unknown at the time.

[schwamm]

50% of the players drafted in the 1st round of the 2010 draft have made a Pro Bowl. 40% of those in the 2011 draft. Most years going back further fall in the 30-50% range. This draft class is said to be deeper than any in recent memory. So no, he wasn't really 'reaching' when he said the pick had the potential to be a Pro Bowler, especially since the position of the pick was unknown at the time.

I feel like crap, and am checking in here between salutations to the porcelain deity...

the pick also has the potential to be no better than TR. Potential is a very vague word in this context. Picks at the end if the first round are far from guaranteed to even make a team, let alone make the pro bowl.

On that note, back to my bowl.

[Modern]

It wasn't the worst trade of the season

yes it was

[Modern]

I feel like crap, and am checking in here between salutations to the porcelain deity...

the pick also has the potential to be no better than TR. Potential is a very vague word in this context. Picks at the end if the first round are far from guaranteed to even make a team, let alone make the pro bowl.

On that note, back to my bowl.

no way the pick could have been worse unless the guy got a career ending injury in training camp

[Modern]

no way the pick could have been worse unless the guy got a career ending injury in training camp

no i take that back. the only way it could have been worse is if the player somehow injured Luck and Mathis while injuring himself. yep that would be worse then Trent

[aessma33]

sure he had a bad year, but I mean give the man a break... he's only human. he only had a sophomore slump after being in the top 5 rushing as a rookie, look out NFL 2014 for TRich

[jvan1973]

yes it was

maybe educate yourself on the trades that occurred last year before speaking on the subject