The Film Room: Trent Richardson

[coltsfanmilyman]

Because "chemistry" at the college level doesn't mean anything. Want the ball? Get open.

I don't think that's true. After playing and practicing day in and day out you see tendencies develop regardless of level of play. If you play with someone long enough is inevitable.

It's like saying you don't know which way your significant other prefer to lay or which side is their dominant side. Or what they think on certain things. Being with someone constantly breeds familiarity

[BOTT]

I don't think that's true. After playing and practicing day in and day out you see tendencies develop regardless of level of play. If you play with someone long enough is inevitable.

It's like saying you don't know which way your significant other prefer to lay or which side is their dominant side. Or what they think on certain things. Being with someone constantly breeds familiarity

Give me an example of it transferring to the NFL. Guys get selected in the draft based on their talent.

[coltsfanmilyman]

Give me an example of it transferring to the NFL. Guys get selected in the draft based on their talent.

I'm not disputing guys getting selected based on talent.  Not at all, what i'm simply saying is that their time together at Stanford would have developed chemistry, i'm not saying thats the sole reason he was selected, what i'm saying is that it could have been a positive influence on Fleener's draft stock in the Colts eyes.  

 

 

Sorry to derail the thread guys

[Steamboat_Shaun]

i don't like when people make such excuses for coby.. he plays TE and if he was to be considered a good TE he should block maybe just a little bit.. it's painful watching him try to do a part of his job.. and it's not like he's a great receiver either.. 

 

it saddens me to see such a big man constantly whiffing on blocks..

 

608 yds and 4 tds is a pretty decent 2nd year for a TE, with only 1 drop. I'm not sure what everyone's expectations were for Fleener going into last season, but I have to think those numbers exceeded them.

[Superman]

I don't think the reasoning is that weird actually.  I have always heard that a QB's best friend is always the TE because of the "safety valve" aspect of the position.  Couple that with the senior season at Stanford and the logic (to me) makes sense.  Big pass catching TE that has played with the QB and they have some chemistry.  I believe you saw a little bit of that as the season wore on, especially after Wayne went down.  Personally I think that both of the TE's we have are so complimentary of each other that it would have been stupid not to get them both.

 

I think Pep's offense is about to explode this season.  Both TE's healthy and a nice compliment of receiving core, plus the 3 headed monster at the rb position.

 

I don't think a good GM uses a high second round pick on a player primarily because of that player's relationship with the QB. There were tons of good players on the board at that point. You want to make your first year QB comfortable? Put the best players you can around him.

 

I think it's much more likely that Fleener's draft stock and our extreme need for TEs influenced Grigson's decision there. Maybe the familiarity with Luck was a peripheral bonus, but not really a big reason for the decision. Some people act like the only reason we drafted Fleener is because we drafted Luck, and I disagree with that. 

[ColtsLegacy]

My biggest problem with Fleener (outside of blocking) is he seems to take an extra second to haul in a pass and turn up field. It seems he really needs to concentrate to bring each pass in rather than making it look natural and fluid. It cost him a lot of YAC last year.

Sorry, I know this is a Richardson thread.

[Surge89]

http://www.battleredblog.com/2014/7/8/5879983/the-film-room-trent-richardson-is-a-beast

Texans blog on SB Nation.

 

Thank you so much for sharing.  I'm one of the Richardson questioners and this has given me a fair amount of optimism.  I still believe he was not worth a first rounder but spilled milk is spilled milk. 

[coltsfanmilyman]

I don't think a good GM uses a high second round pick on a player primarily because of that player's relationship with the QB. There were tons of good players on the board at that point. You want to make your first year QB comfortable? Put the best players you can around him.

 

I think it's much more likely that Fleener's draft stock and our extreme need for TEs influenced Grigson's decision there. Maybe the familiarity with Luck was a peripheral bonus, but not really a big reason for the decision. Some people act like the only reason we drafted Fleener is because we drafted Luck, and I disagree with that. 

 

 

I believe you just hit the nail on the head.  We had Saunders and some guy named Hillis on the roster before the draft.  Luck having played with Fleener was just like what you said a bonus, not the reason he was picked.

[Superman]

I believe you just hit the nail on the head.  We had Saunders and some guy named Hillis on the roster before the draft.  Luck having played with Fleener was just like what you said a bonus, not the reason he was picked.

 

I remember it just being Brody Eldridge. I could be wrong. Either way, we needed TEs, most definitely. 

 

I think Fleener has the potential to be a monster. I don't think he'll ever be a punishing blocker, but I think he can be a big playmaker for us. I just rewatched the first Texans game, and he was getting busy.

[coltsfanmilyman]

I remember it just being Brody Eldridge. I could be wrong. Either way, we needed TEs, most definitely.

I think Fleener has the potential to be a monster. I don't think he'll ever be a punishing blocker, but I think he can be a big playmaker for us. I just rewatched the first Texans game, and he was getting busy.

He started to show that potential too toward the end of last season

[Coffeedrinker]

Fleener's stock was higher because of the success of guys like Graham, Gronkowski and Hernandez (before the murder).  Teams were looking more for that WR in a TE body than a more traditional TE like Allen.

 

Also fan's mistakenly think that draft round equates to value placed on a player by a team.  It's a part of it but another part of it is anticipated draft position.  There is no reason to draft a guy in the 1st round if all your information says he probably won't be drafted until the 3rd round.  That is part of developing a draft strategy.  The Colts may have like Allen more than Fleener or about the same as Fleener but based on their info they thought Fleener would go about the middle of round 2 and Allen the middle of round 3.

[Smurphy1]

But the ONLY reason we drafted Fleener ahead of him is because of Luck.

Not necessarily. Part of drafting is your valuation but the other part is guessing what other people's valuation is. If you think a player is far better than everybody else does you should still take him later just before they would take him and use your earlier picks on people you think are good that other teams think are good too. Doesn't always go according to plan but DA draft position looked like that too me.

[Superman]

Not necessarily. Part of drafting is your valuation but the other part is guessing what other people's valuation is. If you think a player is far better than everybody else does you should still take him later just before they would take him and use your earlier picks on people you think are good that other teams think are good too. Doesn't always go according to plan but DA draft position looked like that too me.

 

I was being facetious. I don't believe that's the only reason we drafted Fleener where we did.

[Superman]

Fleener's stock was higher because of the success of guys like Graham, Gronkowski and Hernandez (before the murder).  Teams were looking more for that WR in a TE body than a more traditional TE like Allen.

 

Also fan's mistakenly think that draft round equates to value placed on a player by a team.  It's a part of it but another part of it is anticipated draft position.  There is no reason to draft a guy in the 1st round if all your information says he probably won't be drafted until the 3rd round.  That is part of developing a draft strategy.  The Colts may have like Allen more than Fleener or about the same as Fleener but based on their info they thought Fleener would go about the middle of round 2 and Allen the middle of round 3.

 

That's called demand, and it's a big part of determining value. Doesn't mean there's a wide consensus that a player is worthy of a second rounder, but if three or four teams like the guy and are moving him up their board, that speaks to his value. If you want him, you have to spend a second rounder on him, because of the perceived demand. That's essentially what his value is, at least to the teams that actually want to draft him.

 

There are two reasons the draft is so difficult. 1) You have to evaluate the future prospects of players, which is an inexact science, and 2) you have to anticipate where the players you like might be drafted. A good GM sets his board up based on the players he likes, then determines what he thinks the other teams might do. Not the other way around.

[JPFolks]

My two problems with his article are: 

 

1. If you want to reach a conclusion, you can find the 69 plays out of the body of work to make your conclusion appear real.  Only an examination of 100% gives you a fair picture and even then, it still depends on the questions and how they are asked and answered.  He may have chosen them randomly, but I assure you if you only pick 1/3 of something you can make a compelling argument for something that simply isn't real.  

 

2. In his dissing of Brown at the start of his article, even when choosing the most damning numbers/results/scenarios he could produce, it appears the numbers... the WORST numbers were still better than Richardson's season numbers.  So before he made his arguments, it seemed he'd already defeated most of the rest of the points he went on to make.  

 

I will say that I loved what he did in terms of the work putting the example gifs out there etc.  I would read what he does and enjoy the work.  But I also have to be fair and say the results could easily have been swayed to meet his theory/point.  Even if he approached it honestly and with good intent, the results still suggest Brown did better and it's an incomplete study of a subject when all the data is readily available to finish the job, for better or worse to the results.  

 

Thanks to Dustin for posting the link.  Interesting read in this barren wasteland of interesting reads about football or any other sport (unless Baseball is your thing) right now.  

[Gavin]

How do I post gifs of what I talk about when it comes to players

[Superman]

My two problems with his article are: 

 

1. If you want to reach a conclusion, you can find the 69 plays out of the body of work to make your conclusion appear real.  Only an examination of 100% gives you a fair picture and even then, it still depends on the questions and how they are asked and answered.  He may have chosen them randomly, but I assure you if you only pick 1/3 of something you can make a compelling argument for something that simply isn't real.  

 

2. In his dissing of Brown at the start of his article, even when choosing the most damning numbers/results/scenarios he could produce, it appears the numbers... the WORST numbers were still better than Richardson's season numbers.  So before he made his arguments, it seemed he'd already defeated most of the rest of the points he went on to make.  

 

I will say that I loved what he did in terms of the work putting the example gifs out there etc.  I would read what he does and enjoy the work.  But I also have to be fair and say the results could easily have been swayed to meet his theory/point.  Even if he approached it honestly and with good intent, the results still suggest Brown did better and it's an incomplete study of a subject when all the data is readily available to finish the job, for better or worse to the results.  

 

Thanks to Dustin for posting the link.  Interesting read in this barren wasteland of interesting reads about football or any other sport (unless Baseball is your thing) right now.  

 

I agree about the sample size.

 

I disagree about the Donald Brown remarks. He didn't diss Brown; he dissed the assertion that Brown had no problems running behind this line.

 

When Brown was asked to handle bigger loads, his raw numbers suffered just as much as Richardson due to Indy’s terrible offensive line. Nobody in that backfield was safe. 

 

His brief comments about Brown's stats illustrates that point. I don't think his intention was to say anything negative about Donald Brown, just to expose the transparency of the "But Donald Brown ran fine behind that same line!" argument. It's flimsy, and he briefly mentions why it's flimsy. The piece was devoted to how Brown didn't run better, just how much the offensive line hurt Richardson.

[Narcosys]

I'm not sure what your getting at. Brown was a better back last year. And technically that is how it works.

Arguable

[Dustin]

How do I post gifs of what I talk about when it comes to players

 

Right click--->copy

 

Right click---->paste

[Gavin]

Right click--->copy

 

Right click---->paste

Cant do that on Rewind to show what I want

[Dustin]

Cant do that on Rewind to show what I want

 

You'd have to download some video capture program. 

[Gavin]

Record Screen

[JPFolks]

I agree about the sample size.

 

I disagree about the Donald Brown remarks. He didn't diss Brown; he dissed the assertion that Brown had no problems running behind this line.

 

 

His brief comments about Brown's stats illustrates that point. I don't think his intention was to say anything negative about Donald Brown, just to expose the transparency of the "But Donald Brown ran fine behind that same line!" argument. It's flimsy, and he briefly mentions why it's flimsy. The piece was devoted to how Brown didn't run better, just how much the offensive line hurt Richardson.

 

"When Brown was asked to handle bigger loads, his raw numbers suffered just as much as Richardson due to Indy’s terrible offensive line. Nobody in that backfield was safe."

 

See this is an example of why I have a problem.  He mentioned actual numbers in various ways (all which indicated superior YPC etc for Brown, but then made that comment without actual stats to illustrate the point.  I saw nothing which clearly showed Browns numbers were ever worse than Richardson's in any Apples to Apples fair or complete comparison.  

 

Look, I thought he did a nice job with the work involved in the post.   It was a lot of fun to read the comments and see the gifs to illustrate it.  And there's never been ANY question by anyone I am aware of that w had a good line last year.  Many knew it was going to be a problem before the season started and throughout as injuries made it worse.  I can't recall much support of Satele at any time by most folks here for good reason.   So if the takeaway was simply we had a terrible line and with better blocking Richardson will likely do better, then hooray.  Thanks Mr. Obvious.  I watched the games and I have seen the seasons number totals and they all favor Brown.  At the end of the season, Brown kept us in games and without his running we would have lost multiple games.  Richardson just couldn't get over the hump.  

 

I sure hope he finds his groove.  I won't be shocked if he does, nor will I be shocked if he doesn't.   A better line should allow a healthy Bradshaw to rock and roll.  If both he and Richardson stay healthy, I'd use Bradshaw as the standard bearer productivity wise... he could run behind that line and will again run as well as anyone can.  Should Richardson leave him in the dust, we'll know he's the real deal.  If he falls short then we'll also know something once and for all.  Let's all hope they both take off like Rockets.  The idea of a team that can effectively run the ball with a monster QB to use that to decimate the opposing defense at will may take us to the Super Bowl as the USA reporter predicted.  Sort of like Seattle but with a much more dynamic QB and better receivers.  And if Chuck's expertise in Defensive Backfields shows up to the level he should produce, it may put us in a winning cycle that lasts for years.  Just reload and reload and reload once it's refined and perfected.  

 

A guy can hope anyway! 

[Adonai]

Yes, because this is literally the first time I've ever expressed that sentiment.

 

Aww testy testy. ;)

 

But that's what happens when you make presumptuous conclusions like so many others did regarding Trent Richardson - then you have to kvetsh some kind of rebranded objection that straddles your previously ill-informed condemnations and the truth that has come out.

 

Truth be told, I'm surprised by how many seemingly well-informed Colts fans were quick to jump to such silly if not downright ignorant conclusions regarding Richardson's talent-ability. Hopefully this article serves to throttle back some of the hyperbole and get us all on a sane[r] footing.

 

Now that the team has jettisoned some of the Arena Leaguesque talent we were using on our O-line, maybe we can see what Trent can really do.

 

[Gavin]

Aww testy testy. ;)

 

But that's what happens when you make presumptuous conclusions like so many others did regarding Trent Richardson - then you have to kvetsh some kind of rebranded objection that straddles your previously ill-informed condemnations and the truth that has come out.

 

Truth be told, I'm surprised by how many seemingly well-informed Colts fans were quick to jump to such silly if not downright ignorant conclusions regarding Richardson's talent-ability. Hopefully this article serves to throttle back some of the hyperbole and get us all on a sane[r] footing.

 

Now that the team has jettisoned some of the Arena Leaguesque talent we were using on our O-line, maybe we can see what Trent can really do.

 

88 runs were not charted...88...That's a lot....As much as the O Line was at fault (and it deserves the majority of it) Richardson deserves plenty of the blame as well. If I knew how to post gifs it would be easy for me to find more then a few times where he flat out whiffed on an open hole...If you can go back and take a look at the fumble he lost vs the Broncos where he jumped cut right away from a hole created by the pulling Thornton (and did not even see a hole Castonzo created) turned his back and slammed right into Fleener...For every trashy block the O line did last year Richardson missed his share of holes

[CroatianColtsFan21]

My biggest problem with Fleener (outside of blocking) is he seems to take an extra second to haul in a pass and turn up field. It seems he really needs to concentrate to bring each pass in rather than making it look natural and fluid. It cost him a lot of YAC last year.

Sorry, I know this is a Richardson thread.

 

My biggest problem with Fleener (outside of blocking) is when he catches the ball, turns up field and when the secondary starts to close in on him he jumps out of bounds..

 

i get that's the way to protect yourself, and understand why ty hilton does it, but for a guy that's 6-6 and 240 it just looks silly.. why not try make a cut back in, or try plowing over a much smaller db and get few extra yards??

 

i like the guy, seems like a smart and funny dude, but as a player to me he looks soft and not that into it.. that might be the reason for his poor blocking also..

[CroatianColtsFan21]

My biggest problem with Fleener (outside of blocking) is when he catches the ball, turns up field and when the secondary starts to close in on him he jumps out of bounds..

 

i get that's the way to protect yourself, and understand why ty hilton does it, but for a guy that's 6-6 and 240 it just looks silly.. why not try make a cut back in, or try plowing over a much smaller db and get few extra yards??

 

i like the guy, seems like a smart and funny dude, but as a player to me he looks soft and not that into it.. that might be the reason for his poor blocking also..

 

p.s. how do i delete a post i accidentally made?

Edited July 10, 2014 by CroatianColtsFan21

[Nadine]

p.s. how do i delete a post i accidentally made?

report it and ask mods to delete

[Narcosys]

Football analysis isn't best served by random sampling.

Also, I don't think the writer did random sampling. I think he watched a handful of games and broke those down. He didn't pick at random from all of Richardson's carries.

but does picking those games at random not count as random sampling.  Those other carries in the other games that werent picked still had just as much of a chance to get viewed as the others.  I get what your saying though.  Pick out of all the plays as individuals and not plays grouped together within a game.  I still believe it can apply and the average will most likely drop some, but not significantly enough to make it richardsons fault. you make good points

[Superman]

Aww testy testy. ;)

 

But that's what happens when you make presumptuous conclusions like so many others did regarding Trent Richardson - then you have to kvetsh some kind of rebranded objection that straddles your previously ill-informed condemnations and the truth that has come out.

 

Truth be told, I'm surprised by how many seemingly well-informed Colts fans were quick to jump to such silly if not downright ignorant conclusions regarding Richardson's talent-ability. Hopefully this article serves to throttle back some of the hyperbole and get us all on a sane[r] footing.

 

Now that the team has jettisoned some of the Arena Leaguesque talent we were using on our O-line, maybe we can see what Trent can really do.

 

 

Not testy, just don't understand why you'd ask that. I've been complaining about the offensive line since Hector was a pup...

[Superman]

but does picking those games at random not count as random sampling.  Those other carries in the other games that werent picked still had just as much of a chance to get viewed as the others.  I get what your saying though.  Pick out of all the plays as individuals and not plays grouped together within a game.  I still believe it can apply and the average will most likely drop some, but not significantly enough to make it richardsons fault. you make good points

 

It's random sampling of those games, but not technically random sampling of the 188 carries he had last year.

 

I agree, the point still stands. We all know how terrible the blocking was, how much Richardson was sabotaged by our offensive line play. I just don't think the 90% statement would come close to holding up.

[Blueblazes]

88 runs were not charted...88...That's a lot....As much as the O Line was at fault (and it deserves the majority of it) Richardson deserves plenty of the blame as well. If I knew how to post gifs it would be easy for me to find more then a few times where he flat out whiffed on an open hole...If you can go back and take a look at the fumble he lost vs the Broncos where he jumped cut right away from a hole created by the pulling Thornton (and did not even see a hole Castonzo created) turned his back and slammed right into Fleener...For every trashy block the O line did last year Richardson missed his share of holes

Good points. I hope Trent turns it around. Unfortunately, when you look at his carries vs. other RBs on the Browns or Colts it looks bad for TR. Wtih the Browns, he averaged 3.6 ypc, while the other top 2 RBs averaged 4.1 ypc behind the same line. Last year with the Colts, despite the bad O-line, (taking out Luck's 6.0 ypc), our average was 4.8 ypc. TR's were 2.9 behind the same line. Small samplings sku things, but when you look at 2 seasons and get the same pattern with both teams, it doesn't look good. But I hope Trent turns it around this season and surprises me!

[Coffeedrinker]

So, if I'm to understand this thread... football is a team game that requires all 11 players to do their job if a play is to be successful.

 

Huh, who would have thunk it?

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I agree and actually liked Allen better than Fleener, I was just addressing the notion that DA was considered the best TE in the draft. Hell, a few people even had Orson Charles as the #TE that yr.

This is correct went and looked back at my publications for that year, TE class was considered weak that year earning a D grade. In 1 publication Allen, was considered the #1 TE in the draft, with Fleener #4. In the other publication it brakes TE's down by flex TE an traditional TE's. In the one Fleener is considered the best flex TE, And Allen the the 2nd rated traditional TE, behind yes Orson Charles. both had virtually the same score. All 3 were considered low first to 2nd round picks! Charles was rated 2nd in the first book. Charles is only 6'2!

[BlueShoe]

So, if I'm to understand this thread... football is a team game that requires all 11 players to do their job if a play is to be successful.

Huh, who would have thunk it?

LOL. NICE!

[Modern]

Depending on which way you wanted to slant the article, for or against Trent, you could by picking plays that supported your argument.

He isn't going to be running behind the best line in football this season, odds are that they will be mediocre at the very best. So it falls on him. Can he make something from nothing ? Does he have the vision and instincts needed to take what a defense gives him ? Will he stop hesitating and dancing ?

All this is on Trent.

I am waiting eagerly in anticipation to see what he brings to the table this season.

[HOZER]

Depending on which way you wanted to slant the article, for or against Trent, you could by picking plays that supported your argument.

He isn't going to be running behind the best line in football this season, odds are that they will be mediocre at the very best. So it falls on him. Can he make something from nothing ? Does he have the vision and instincts needed to take what a defense gives him ? Will he stop hesitating and dancing ?

All this is on Trent.

I am waiting eagerly in anticipation to see what he brings to the table this season.

Was wondering when you'd chime in......so you are now saying he might be able right the ship? I believe he will, especially with a better line.

[Modern]

In my opinion no. But time will tell

[HOZER]

In my opinion no. But time will tell

Fair enough.

[Superman]

This is correct went and looked back at my publications for that year, TE class was considered weak that year earning a D grade. In 1 publication Allen, was considered the #1 TE in the draft, with Fleener #4. In the other publication it brakes TE's down by flex TE an traditional TE's. In the one Fleener is considered the best flex TE, And Allen the the 2nd rated traditional TE, behind yes Orson Charles. both had virtually the same score. All 3 were considered low first to 2nd round picks! Charles was rated 2nd in the first book. Charles is only 6'2!

Is that pre or post Combine? Just curious...