Everything Trent Richardson [Merge]

[theanarchist]

I'd like to see that as well but I don't need the YPC to see how much better he's doing.  And I like that fact that, a) he is much improved over last year and b) he has improved thru-out the year.  And I especially like how well Trich has picked up the passing game, not only running his routes and catching the ball but also knowing where to look for the defender to block.  As much as I like Bradshaw's running and receiving he was really hit or miss in pass blocking.

 

I was looking at some numbers and Bradshaw has played more plays than TRich (363 to 315) but Trich gets the ball more when he's in the game.  44.7% of the time when Trich is in the game he gets his number called.  Bradshaw is at 35.7%.   Other teams track these type of percentages so what that means is when TRich is in the game the D is focusing on him.  When Bradshaw is in the game they are focusing are not focusing as heavily on Bradshaw because there is less of a chance that he will get the ball.  I think if Trich's percentage was more in that 35% range his YPC would be higher.  I don't know if it would be 4.7 (I don't even know if it would be above 4.0).  But admittedly, I don't have anything to base that on other than a feeling.

It does seem predictable when they run with Richardson. I noticed it and I'm just a fan not an opposing coach. That may have something to do with the low ypc. I also think it could have something to do with Richardson not being quite the RB that Bradshaw is. I still think he's slow to the hole, doesn't have great vision or great speed. JMO

[Surge89]

It does seem predictable when they run with Richardson. I noticed it and I'm just a fan not an opposing coach. That may have something to do with the low ypc. I also think it could have something to do with Richardson not being quite the RB that Bradshaw is. I still think he's slow to the hole, doesn't have great vision or great speed. JMO

He needs to lose some weight and try and stop going sideline to sideline. He needs to have some patience at the line and hit the hole. I completely agree with the above poster that he needs to play with much more discipline.

With that aside. I've come to terms that Trent will never rise to the expectations of a first round pick that he came priced at. It was a massive mistake by a new GM. Let's get over that part and embrace Richardson as the serviceable back he is. (This wasn't to you anarchist but in general).

[tfunky14]

I really don't care if Richardson runs for 10 yards or 200 yards on Sunday. I just want a Colts win..

[esmort]

I said rookie highlights as well.. troll

 

I see your definition of troll is someone who calls you on one of your many bad posts, based on your bad points/bad logic.

 

First off your post did not give any more weight to his rookie season over his "college days" which means almost nothing now given that we have almost 3 years of NFL tape on him.

 

Secondly, even if you do give more weight to his rookie season, look past the stat line, and actually watch him run he didn't do anything outstanding.  Something the Browns obviously also noticed which is why they were only too happy to "take a loss" to unload the #3 overall pick after only 1 season.

 

The excuses have run out. Trent is what he is ...marginally better than last season, but still nothing more than an average, nothing special, easily replaced RB.

[TheJACKCOLT]

I disagree about about him not being a very instinctual runner... I think he is too instinctual, I think he needs to be more disciplined.  He needs to hit the hole (even if there is someone in it) and not look to make a move until he gets to the LOS or beyond.

 

On the 10-15 yard runs.  Bradshaw had 12 runs of 10 yards or more... TRich has 8.  Yes Bradshaw did it on fewer carries but it's not like TRich has been unable to do it and with more opportunities to be on the field when the D is not heavily focused on him that number may go up.

    "to instinctual"   now that's funny. The only thing Trent's to of, is to slow or to fat. No defense is focusing on Trent, he presents no threat to any defense. Bradshaw was so superior to Trent in every phase of the game, hands down.Trent is better than last year,  but that's not saying much the guy is still terrible, he's not even average. I have never seen a back move laterally, as poorly as Trent does. He has to come to a complete stop in order to move laterally, absolutely the worst I ever seen. He has no vision, no burst and he's slow. We are stuck with this guy for the rest of the season, but there is no way the Colts are counting on this guy, to be the back moving forward after this season.

 

[Coffeedrinker]

 

    "to instinctual"   now that's funny. The only thing Trent's to of, is to slow or to fat. No defense is focusing on Trent, he presents no threat to any defense. Bradshaw was so superior to Trent in every phase of the game, hands down.Trent is better than last year,  but that's not saying much the guy is still terrible, he's not even average. I have never seen a back move laterally, as poorly as Trent does. He has to come to a complete stop in order to move laterally, absolutely the worst I ever seen. He has no vision, no burst and he's slow. We are stuck with this guy for the rest of the season, but there is no way the Colts are counting on this guy, to be the back moving forward after this season.

 

 

[Gavin]

All I can say is, all your claims about Richardson being the worst you've ever seen just means you obviously have not seen much football at any level.

[Coffeedrinker]

In all fairness I believe I have noticed a few of his issues in no particular order

 

1.He looks to me to be an upright runner who don't consistently run behind his pads

2.Very little acceleration to the hole, Not much of a burst

3.He only appears to have three types of Cuts in his arsenal, Power Cut and Jump Cut and Lunge Cut. all of which seems to slow him down when he lands he appears to have to readjust do to all the force with which he lands often

4.Has trouble adjusting to breaking out of ankle tackles

 

I'd personally like to see him develop more of Speed Cut given his height and bulk and ability to shift his hips

 

None of this is to be anti Trent of course, The O Line has simply not done well with any consistency http://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/breaking-down-the-cutting-actions-of-rbs-part-2/

 

 

Tell me what you think of the article. Im hoping  to see 20-25 carries from Trent today actually (Though I don't expect it, I we probably try to jump on them early again but Im hoping they find ways or the defense gives us looks to where we can get him 5-6 carries Quarter...assuming we take care of the ball)

I agree that TRich has things to work on but he is not the worst ever in any of those categories. 

 

You have shared that article with me before and after the first read it seems to have some good information in it, although I have not had time to read it thoroughly.  But I don't have a problem with Trich's cutting ability, he makes some guys miss that you think have a good shot at him.  The problem I have with his cuts are when he does it behind the LOS.  I know sometimes he has to but more often if it's just lower his shoulder and hit the hole and then look to make a move once he gets past the LOS.  Additionally, while he does not have elite acceleration he is fast enough to get to the hole when he's supposed to.

[lennymoore24]

I have been a big Richardson supporter because I feel as long as the RBs are being hit behind the line with no holes, it is very hard to evaluate our runners.  And comparing him to Brown or Bradshaw isn't really apples to apples because they are used in different situations.

 

But I will say this about Richardson.  For a guy who supposed to have 4.4 speed, he looks like he takes the handoff at 6.4 speed.  He doesn't seem to really kick into top gear unless he sees an obvious hole right in front of him.  Boom is supposed to be like a 4.6 guy coming out of college, but he looks like he is moving twice as fast from handoff to hole.  Not sure why Richardson isn't hitting everything at top speed.

[Modern]

I think if Boom has a couple note decent games in a row then that proves that Trent is a bust.

Fumbles aside, Boom picked up yards, which is a running backs main job.

I'm not ready to say Boom is great, lots of players do decent their first time off the bench then fail to consistently deliver.

What I am saying is that if Boom does keep a good ypc then that tells you all you need to know about Trent and his ability. Boom, Bradshaw and Brown all ran behind the same lines and outperformed Trent.

The time for excuses is over, he knows the playbook, he did the camps and practices, if he can't match the level of the other backs then he is a bust.

[tfunky14]

I think if Boom has a couple note decent games in a row then that proves that Trent is a bust.

Fumbles aside, Boom picked up yards, which is a running backs main job.

I'm not ready to say Boom is great, lots of players do decent their first time off the bench then fail to consistently deliver.

What I am saying is that if Boom does keep a good ypc then that tells you all you need to know about Trent and his ability. Boom, Bradshaw and Brown all ran behind the same lines and outperformed Trent.

The time for excuses is over, he knows the playbook, he did the camps and practices, if he can't match the level of the other backs then he is a bust.

Really...I didn't see any great rushing days from Bradshaw yet this year...Bradshaw runs hard, yes he does but he wasn't piling up huge yardage totals.

Unfortunately the Colt's offensive line this year is not good at run blocking.

[Modern]

Bradshaw is older, often injured, and wasn't a first round pick.

He still had better numbers then Trent.

I'm not saying the line is good, but if Trent needs a fantastic line to do anything then think of how good everyone else would be behind that fantastic line. Everyone else's production wouldn't stay the same with a better line, they would all put up better numbers, which logically means Trent would still have the lowest numbers of the group.

Bradshaw wasn't a highly sought after running back, he was on the downside in years and has had a history of injuries. Brown was a bust, but he outperformed Trent. Boom is 6th round pick, basically a bench warmer, and out performs Trent.

The Browns didn't trade him away for a fraction of what they gave up for him because they are nice guys who thought he could help the Colts win a Superbowl. They unloaded him because they knew they had screwed up drafting him and the longer he played the less value he had.

He is a bust, which means he can't live up to the price paid by the Colts for him, forget about what the Browns gave up to get him.

He has been out performed by guys who are in no way top running backs in the league. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

[tfunky14]

Bradshaw is older, often injured, and wasn't a first round pick.

He still had better numbers then Trent.

I'm not saying the line is good, but if Trent needs a fantastic line to do anything then think of how good everyone else would be behind that fantastic line. Everyone else's production wouldn't stay the same with a better line, they would all put up better numbers, which logically means Trent would still have the lowest numbers of the group.

Bradshaw wasn't a highly sought after running back, he was on the downside in years and has had a history of injuries. Brown was a bust, but he outperformed Trent. Boom is 6th round pick, basically a bench warmer, and out performs Trent.

The Browns didn't trade him away for a fraction of what they gave up for him because they are nice guys who thought he could help the Colts win a Superbowl. They unloaded him because they knew they had screwed up drafting him and the longer he played the less value he had.

He is a bust, which means he can't live up to the price paid by the Colts for him, forget about what the Browns gave up to get him.

He has been out performed by guys who are in no way top running backs in the league. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

Bla bla bla bla bla bla

 

 

same old tune

[Modern]

Bla bla bla bla bla bla

same old tune

Please enlighten us all with the special knowledge that you have that makes you disagree.

You know why I still say what I said before the season started ? Because I was right, Trent sucks. Sucked last season, sucks this season. You don't have any viable excuses so you try and act like you have some great knowledge or insight that I will never understand. Please share with the group. I'm sure Trent himself would love a new reason to excuse him from being a bust once again.

[tfunky14]

Please enlighten us all with the special knowledge that you have that makes you disagree.

You know why I still say what I said before the season started ? Because I was right, Trent sucks. Sucked last season, sucks this season. You don't have any viable excuses so you try and act like you have some great knowledge or insight that I will never understand. Please share with the group. I'm sure Trent himself would love a new reason to excuse him from being a bust once again.

See in Bold

[JPFolks]

He has 5 reg season games left to show life.  If he doesn't show he can provide legitimate value at the spot, he needs to go and make room for a new FA signing or draft choice.  I think enough is enough.  Keeping him on payroll just because you made a mistake is making two mistakes.  Keep in mind the Colts had Forsett and let him go.  Imagine him on our team right about now. 

[Modern]

Trent will be on the team next season. Hopefully he will be the 3rd sting back, but make no mistake, he will be here.

Then he will probably sign with someone in the off season and be cut in training camp, or maybe if he's lucky play on someone's practice squad.

[tfunky14]

Trent will be on the team next season. Hopefully he will be the 3rd sting back, but make no mistake, he will be here.

Then he will probably sign with someone in the off season and be cut in training camp, or maybe if he's lucky play on someone's practice squad.

Yes he will. I believe the best thing for Trent and the Colts is to become a complimentary back or a 3rd down back as he does catch well out of the back field. I'm not going to argue he was worth a draft pick or not, that's under the bridge by now. Trent is not a bust as he does produce, maybe not as much as people thought but he would but he is far from a bust. 

 

I focus on going forward, so right not I'm hoping the run blocking gets better so both Herron and Richardson can have success.

[tfunky14]

He has 5 reg season games left to show life.  If he doesn't show he can provide legitimate value at the spot, he needs to go and make room for a new FA signing or draft choice.  I think enough is enough.  Keeping him on payroll just because you made a mistake is making two mistakes.  Keep in mind the Colts had Forsett and let him go.  Imagine him on our team right about now. 

Forsett has a O-line now

[Dustin]

Since the Colts acquired Trent Richardson, he's averaged 3.13 YPC. All other Colts RBs have averaged 4.78 YPC.

[BOTT]

Yes he will. I believe the best thing for Trent and the Colts is to become a complimentary back or a 3rd down back as he does catch well out of the back field. I'm not going to argue he was worth a draft pick or not, that's under the bridge by now. Trent is not a bust as he does produce, maybe not as much as people thought but he would but he is far from a bust. 

 

I focus on going forward, so right not I'm hoping the run blocking gets better so both Herron and Richardson can have success.

He's a bust.....it's okay to say it.

[tfunky14]

He's a bust.....it's okay to say it.

As long as your playing in the NFL on Sundays your not a bust..

[BOTT]

As long as your playing in the NFL on Sundays your not a bust..

That's what DHB keeps telling himself

[dw49]

SPN Colts reporter Mike Wells reports Boom Herron will continue to start over Trent Richardson.

Coach Chuck Pagano would only say that Herron "may" start again this week against the Redskins because he practiced so well leading up to Week 12, but most Colts beat writers get the impression it'll be Herron getting the nod over Richardson again. This comes two days after Richardson said he didn't start last week because he was recovering from the flu. We didn't buy it. It really doesn't matter, as the two will split reps, but it shows the Colts are higher on Herron than sloth-like T-Rich in the backfield.

[rockywoj]

Interesting article at NFL.com about how few "elite" 1st round picks have amounted to anything ... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000434871/article/rgiiis-benching-highlights-failures-of-2012-draft-class

In particular, from the 2012 & 2013 draft years.

I said it much earlier in the thread, but I will say it again ... it is rather factual that a LOT of 1st round picks never amount to much. So far, the player selected with the pick the Colts gave up hasn't produced a thing. Richardson, despite how much most people seem to loathe him, is at least contributing.

I think almost everybody can agree that it was a mistake to give up the 1st rounder for Richardson, despite the fact that he is out performing the player that pick was used for, but most people's hatred of Richardson is because of the (over valued) price paid to acquire him. People need to get over the price paid and accept Richardson for what he apparently is, which is a (once promising) role player.

I said it before, as long as he can contribute to the cause, that's all that matters. To continue to bemoan the price paid, which as it turns out, as verified in the NFL.com article I cite, is really not all that much after all, well, it's just unproductive, if not now senseless.

This thread is really a dead horse being beaten to death. I propose that it is time for this thread to be un-pinned, so it can finally fade away. Colts use RB by committee and Richardson is simply one of those bodies. Now move along. :-)

[Gavin]

Interesting article at NFL.com about how few "elite" 1st round picks have amounted to anything ... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000434871/article/rgiiis-benching-highlights-failures-of-2012-draft-class

In particular, from the 2012 & 2013 draft years.

I said it much earlier in the thread, but I will say it again ... it is rather factual that a LOT of 1st round picks never amount to much. So far, the player selected with the pick the Colts gave up hasn't produced a thing. Richardson, despite how much most people seem to loathe him, is at least contributing.

I think almost everybody can agree that it was a mistake to give up the 1st rounder for Richardson, despite the fact that he is out performing the player that pick was used for, but most people's hatred of Richardson is because of the (over valued) price paid to acquire him. People need to get over the price paid and accept Richardson for what he apparently is, which is a (once promising) role player.

I said it before, as long as he can contribute to the cause, that's all that matters. To continue to bemoan the price paid, which as it turns out, as verified in the NFL.com article I cite, is really not all that much after all, well, it's just unproductive, if not now senseless.

This thread is really a dead horse being beaten to death. I propose that it is time for this thread to be un-pinned, so it can finally fade away. Colts use RB by committee and Richardson is simply one of those bodies. Now move along. :-)

There is a massive chink in your post, But I have moved long on

[dw49]

Interesting article at NFL.com about how few "elite" 1st round picks have amounted to anything ... http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000434871/article/rgiiis-benching-highlights-failures-of-2012-draft-class

In particular, from the 2012 & 2013 draft years.

I said it much earlier in the thread, but I will say it again ... it is rather factual that a LOT of 1st round picks never amount to much. So far, the player selected with the pick the Colts gave up hasn't produced a thing. Richardson, despite how much most people seem to loathe him, is at least contributing.

I think almost everybody can agree that it was a mistake to give up the 1st rounder for Richardson, despite the fact that he is out performing the player that pick was used for, but most people's hatred of Richardson is because of the (over valued) price paid to acquire him. People need to get over the price paid and accept Richardson for what he apparently is, which is a (once promising )role player. I said it before, as long as he can contribute to the cause, that's all that matters. To continue to bemoan the price paid, which as it turns out, as verified in the NFL.com article I cite, is really not that much, well, it's just unproductive, if not now senseless. This thread is really a dead horse being beaten to death.

I propose that it is time for this thread to be un-pinned, so it can finally fade away. Colts use RB by committee and Richardson is simply one of those bodies. Now, move along. :-)

 

 

Why do people with reasonable intelligence compare Manziel's performance to Richardson's and infer that the Colts lost nothing by dealing that pick ?  There is zero chance the Cots use it on Manziel , thus you would have to have access to their draft board and compare TR to the player they would have taken in that spot. Just looking at some of the players that fell later in the 1st round ...

 

Deonne Buchannon 1.27 is a starting s for AZ. 

Verrett and Dennard 1.24 and 1.25 are two very good rookie CB's 

 

Didn't do guys like K Benjamen as I don't believe we go R in round 1. But don't forget we could have terraced up a bit as there were SIX (6) O linemen safeties and LB's taken between picks 15 and 22. 

 

So I think one would be better served to try to figure what theColts would have had at 1.22 instead of plugging in a flyer a team took on a rookie QB

[rockywoj]

Why do people with reasonable intelligence compare Manziel's performance to Richardson's and infer that the Colts lost nothing by dealing that pick ?  There is zero chance the Cots use it on Manziel , thus you would have to have access to their draft board and compare TR to the player they would have taken in that spot. Just looking at some of the players that fell later in the 1st round ...

 

Deonne Buchannon 1.27 is a starting s for AZ. 

Verrett and Dennard 1.24 and 1.25 are two very good rookie CB's 

 

Didn't do guys like K Benjamen as I don't believe we go R in round 1. But don't forget we could have terraced up a bit as there were SIX (6) O linemen safeties and LB's taken between picks 15 and 22. 

 

So I think one would be better served to try to figure what theColts would have had at 1.22 instead of plugging in a flyer a team took on a rookie QB

 

Ummm, Manziel was not the player used with the Colts pick.  The pick ended up in the hands of Philadelphia.  So if you think I am comparing Manziel to Richardson, you are completely off base.  Colts pick was the 26th of the first round ... Used By the Eagles for DE Marcus Smith.

 

And even still, you are playing the compare game and judging Richardson by that.  Sunk cost, a cost that usually turns into nothing useful anyway.  Apparently you missed the entire point of my post, based on your continuing "what if" game.

[dw49]

Ummm, Manziel was not the player used with the Colts pick.  The pick ended up in the hands of Philadelphia.  So if you think I am comparing Manziel to Richardson, you are completely off base.  Colts pick was the 26th of the first round ... Used By the Eagles for DE Marcus Smith.

 

And even still, you are playing the compare game and judging Richardson by that.  Sunk cost, a cost that usually turns into nothing useful anyway.  Apparently you missed the entire point of my post, based on your continuing "what if" game.

 

 

I really wasn't directing the Manziel analogy at you . I've read it before from people that seem to have reasonable intelligence and I fail to see what Manziel has to do with what the Colts gave up. It can be used to give Cleveland a grade on the TR trade but has zero to do with grading the Colts. I also did forget the Browns traded up to make that pick.

 

That said , what you have is really nothing more than someone pointing out how bad the first rounds turned out in 2012 and 2013. No where is there proof or even implication of ...."And even still, you are playing the compare game and judging Richardson by that.  Sunk cost, a cost that usually turns into nothing useful anyway.  

 

 

In fact you are the first human being I've ever heard state a first round draft pick in the NFL is not worth much. JFI.. the 26th pick is said to be worth 700 points. Picks 26 in the following rounds 2-7 are said to be valued at around 540 pouts. So I guess according to you the whole NFL draft has no value.

 

My what if game .. LOL on that one . How else would you ever try to quantify what the Colts gave up for TR ? It would depend on the player they took or how they used (maybe a trade) that pick. 

 

Saying the Colts really gave up nothing for nothing because there were some failures the last few years is really pretty crazy. Plus a lot of those bad picks are on teams reaching for QB's. I don't think the Colts would have taken a QB... you ?

[Defjamz26]

I gave up before, but this past weekend I figured it out. When you watch all the other RB's in the league, you see something that you don't see in Trent. All these teams are losing starting RB's left and right, but then you see these no name guys come in and look decent. But one similarity is that they all look better than Trent.

 

You watch a Vikings game and Jerrick Mckinnon has a couple 100 yard games. You go to Cleveland and guys like Isiah Crowell are putting up numbers and getting yards. Then you watch Trent and it's not there. He can't seem to get out of the backfield consistently. Bad O-Line or not. Every other back on the team seems to at least be decent and can at least average 4 or so YPC, but Trent just can't seem to ever get it going.

 

IDK if it's just me but it seems like there are RB's with half the talent who outperform him.

[rockywoj]

If you look at the percentages of picks, MOST picks don't work out to be very much.  Look at the Colts own hit and miss record for their 1st round picks over the past bunch of years.  Castonzo is a hit, Werner is still a player waiting to be graded, and who else?  Been awhile.  Yes, I believe draft choices are over valued.  Yes they are key to building a team, but any single pick is really hit or miss at best.  So where Richardson is concerned, a miss (Richardson) and a miss (the player that the Colts pick was ultimately used for). 

 

My point is, though, that people keep worrying about what was given up and hate on Richardson because of it.  I say, sunk cost, quit playing the useless what if game, agree that Richardson is not what we hoped he would be, and move on.  He's just a plug like any other plug.

 

This is the most tiresome thread.  It should be unpinned and allowed to drift away.  

[Gavin]

If you look at the percentages of picks, MOST picks don't work out to be very much.  Look at the Colts own hit and miss record for their 1st round picks over the past bunch of years.  Castonzo is a hit, Werner is still a player waiting to be graded, and who else?  Been awhile.  Yes, I believe draft choices are over valued.  Yes they are key to building a team, but any single pick is really hit or miss at best.  So where Richardson is concerned, a miss (Richardson) and a miss (the player that the Colts pick was ultimately used for). 

 

My point is, though, that people keep worrying about what was given up and hate on Richardson because of it.  I say, sunk cost, quit playing the useless what if game, agree that Richardson is not what we hoped he would be, and move on.  He's just a plug like any other plug.

 

This is the most tiresome thread.  It should be unpinned and allowed to drift away.  

It would be nice if it would drift away but the reality of it all is that it wont until either Richardson is let go or we move to a 1 Back set where he gets almost all the carries and breaks out in the process consistently. Also as to the pick we gave up for Richardson and what was eventually done with that pick....

 

Its not about what was done with that pick......Its about the players we had a chance to get with that pick......Now I know alot of players are either not playing at all or are in very very limited action......That dont matter either......Just because those players are not playing dont mean they are all not ready to play or are not good (Marcus Smith for example drafted by the Eagles in the 1st at pick 26....What we traded to the Browns for Richardson....up till tonight only played in 68 defensive snaps.......His Linebacker coach thinks hey may just need significant time on the field to produce.....Chip Kelly disagrees......either way I doubt he gets significant consistent playing time behind Barwin and Cole)

[dw49]

If you look at the percentages of picks, MOST picks don't work out to be very much.  Look at the Colts own hit and miss record for their 1st round picks over the past bunch of years.  Castonzo is a hit, Werner is still a player waiting to be graded, and who else?  Been awhile.  Yes, I believe draft choices are over valued.  Yes they are key to building a team, but any single pick is really hit or miss at best.  So where Richardson is concerned, a miss (Richardson) and a miss (the player that the Colts pick was ultimately used for). 

 

My point is, though, that people keep worrying about what was given up and hate on Richardson because of it.  I say, sunk cost, quit playing the useless what if game, agree that Richardson is not what we hoped he would be, and move on.  He's just a plug like any other plug.

 

This is the most tiresome thread.  It should be unpinned and allowed to drift away.  

 

 

He is what he is and this is the type thing that get's discussed in forums. What I've said was you lose some and you win some. V Davis was great , this one was horrible. You can't win them all. If you are trying to say that losing the 26th pick in the first round is not a "franchise killer" , that's OK. But to say it's "over valued" just has no basis. Teams now value their draft picks more than they  have ever before. Let's follow the logic down.

 

1) We agree that teams are built through the draft.

2) The pick in the first round is valued at more than the following 6 picks that would complete a teams draft. (See value chart)

3) So if it's a well know fact that how you draft is how you do and pick 1 is worth more than the combined total of picks 2-7 ... how can the first round pick be "over valued " as you assert. If what you are insinuating was true , teams would trade their first rounder for packages like 2 thirds and a 5th.

 

Furthermore if Colt brass would have stopped the "I'd still do this trade" a little sooner , it may have led to less controversy. I mean big deal... Grigson made a really bad deal. Not the end of the world but it is what it is and it was a raping.

 

 

Values of draft picks . It's supposedly close to what teams go by ....

 

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php 

[dw49]

It would be nice if it would drift away but the reality of it all is that it wont until either Richardson is let go or we move to a 1 Back set where he gets almost all the carries and breaks out in the process consistently. Also as to the pick we gave up for Richardson and what was eventually done with that pick....

 

Its not about what was done with that pick......Its about the players we had a chance to get with that pick......Now I know alot of players are either not playing at all or are in very very limited action......That dont matter either......Just because those players are not playing dont mean they are all not ready to play or are not good (Marcus Smith for example drafted by the Eagles in the 1st at pick 26....What we traded to the Browns for Richardson....up till tonight only played in 68 defensive snaps.......His Linebacker coach thinks hey may just need significant time on the field to produce.....Chip Kelly disagrees......either way I doubt he gets significant consistent playing time behind Barwin and Cole)

 

 

Let's put it this way. If you keep trading your 1st round picks for Trent Richardson type players , you'll soon be picking 1.1

[Gavin]

Let's put it this way. If you keep trading your 1st round picks for Trent Richardson type players , you'll soon be picking 1.1

In this case its not about the player...its about the players we could have got with the pick

[dw49]

In this case its not about the player...its about the players we could have got with the pick

 

No.. it's also about what you received in return for "the players you could have had with the pick." If Richardson turned out to be a wonderful RB , then it would be considered a good trade for the Colts .. no ? So it's about comparing what you received compared to what you could have received. You can only really completely "grade" Cleveland on the trade as we see what they received for TR and the bonus money they paid to him. You can only say the Colts made a bad deal but you really can't quantify how much it hurt the franchise unless you have privy to their draft board.

[Modern]

I think the fact that a 1st round pick was traded for a player who already had a year of NFL experience and IMO had underperformed makes it worse the picking a player in the draft who doesn't work out.

Trent's numbers in Cleveland weren't great, his best game was against the Colts. He was handed the ball a ton of times and his ypc was very low. His longest run was like 32 yards.

He had a 12 touchdowns, mostly on short yardage runs, and that was about it. Other then that his numbers were pretty consistent with Ballards.

Ballard was decent, but nobody outside of the Indy fan base considered him great. He would must likely have made a solid backup.

So to trade a first round pick for a player whose numbers were the same as a solid backup is mind boggling.

The willingness of Cleveland to trade a player that they had given so much to acquire for what at best might have been a mid to late pick in the first should have been a huge red flag.

Trent was supposed to be someone they could build around, instead they dumped him off the first chance they could. If he was the next AP you would think that even if Cleveland wanted to suddenly go in another direction they could have found someone with a horrible team to give them their first round pick.

Grigson ignoring the red flags, ignoring the NFL film on Richardson, not questioning why Cleveland was so willing to dump the guy after one season for a fraction of his original price, all of that makes it a worse move then if he was just drafted at 26 and was a bust.

He had to have known that Cleveland had a much better line to run behind and Richardson couldn't do much behind that line.

From a fantasy standpoint Trent was good his first season, but from an actual NFL standpoint he wasn't very good at all. Tons of carries, no big runs, and all the problems he currently has were already there. He hesitated, he danced, couldn't find holes, and even when he found a hole he could never pick up big yards.

Its like trading a 1st for RG3 at this point, nobody would do that.

[Gavin]

No.. it's also about what you received in return for "the players you could have had with the pick." If Richardson turned out to be a wonderful RB , then it would be considered a good trade for the Colts .. no ? So it's about comparing what you received compared to what you could have received. You can only really completely "grade" Cleveland on the trade as we see what they received for TR and the bonus money they paid to him. You can only say the Colts made a bad deal but you really can't quantify how much it hurt the franchise unless you have privy to their draft board.

To me it would not have been a good trade had it worked out....Sure had it worked out better to this point it would hav said alot of pages and threads on Richardson and it would help the team but your still giving up a 1st round pick for a position where you normally get 6-7 years of good...hopefully great production....as opposed to keeping the pick and drafting a player at a position with a longer lifespan in the nfl with possible great production...No brainer you take the player with the longer lifespan in the NFL

[dw49]

To me it would not have been a good trade had it worked out....Sure had it worked out better to this point it would hav said alot of pages and threads on Richardson and it would help the team but your still giving up a 1st round pick for a position where you normally get 6-7 years of good...hopefully great production....as opposed to keeping the pick and drafting a player at a position with a longer lifespan in the nfl with possible great production...No brainer you take the player with the longer lifespan in the NFL

 

 

The RB position devalued big time for sure. I won't argue that one .

[dw49]

I think the fact that a 1st round pick was traded for a player who already had a year of NFL experience and IMO had underperformed makes it worse the picking a player in the draft who doesn't work out.

Trent's numbers in Cleveland weren't great, his best game was against the Colts. He was handed the ball a ton of times and his ypc was very low. His longest run was like 32 yards.

He had a 12 touchdowns, mostly on short yardage runs, and that was about it. Other then that his numbers were pretty consistent with Ballards.

Ballard was decent, but nobody outside of the Indy fan base considered him great. He would must likely have made a solid backup.

So to trade a first round pick for a player whose numbers were the same as a solid backup is mind boggling.

The willingness of Cleveland to trade a player that they had given so much to acquire for what at best might have been a mid to late pick in the first should have been a huge red flag.

Trent was supposed to be someone they could build around, instead they dumped him off the first chance they could. If he was the next AP you would think that even if Cleveland wanted to suddenly go in another direction they could have found someone with a horrible team to give them their first round pick.

Grigson ignoring the red flags, ignoring the NFL film on Richardson, not questioning why Cleveland was so willing to dump the guy after one season for a fraction of his original price, all of that makes it a worse move then if he was just drafted at 26 and was a bust.

He had to have known that Cleveland had a much better line to run behind and Richardson couldn't do much behind that line.

From a fantasy standpoint Trent was good his first season, but from an actual NFL standpoint he wasn't very good at all. Tons of carries, no big runs, and all the problems he currently has were already there. He hesitated, he danced, couldn't find holes, and even when he found a hole he could never pick up big yards.

Its like trading a 1st for RG3 at this point, nobody would do that.

 

 

No doubt Colts figured they stacked the box vs TR and that's why the bad stats. Pretty obvious at this point what you have above was indeed the case. I guess now you would ask who in God's name watched the game tapes and made the bad decision. It's a little like Landry having a career game vs us and then giving him a big FA contract. Most felt that Landry was way over rated and I think he no doubt was. Not saying we have a major problem with Grigson and Pagano  .. just a friendly discussion.