Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Everything Trent Richardson [Merge]


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

its ranked 22nd because Trent is dragging it down.

I don't understand why people struggle with this. The line isn't great but it's capable enough that literally any back not named Richardson has had some semblance of success behind it, in spurts. The line needs fixing (more so for Luck's protection) but the single biggest problem with the run game is Richardson and the coaching staff's refusal to give up on trying making him a significant part of the offense

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said; he was faster, more explosive, and more decisive in college. The oline is irrelevant to those attributes. Boom Herron has shown the type of explosion and decisiveness behind this line that Richardson displayed at Alabama.

 

I'm done blaming the line.

He looked faster and more decisive at Bama because he had huge holes and the defenders weren't as athletic. Look how quick Manziel looked at A&M.....not so much in the nfl where linebackers are chasing him down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He looked faster and more decisive at Bama because he had huge holes and the defenders weren't as athletic. Look how quick Manziel looked at A&M.....not so much in the nfl where linebackers are chasing him down.

He was faster and more explosive, period. You can say the decisiveness was do to huge holes sure but he also made a lot of plays out of nothing in college. He was one of the best backs I've ever seen in college. Sure his line was amazing but that doesn't account for how great he was at the second level. He was way better than Mark Ingram or Eddie Lacy were behind that same offensive line and against the same competition. Now those 2 guys are playing at a pretty damn good level in the NFL and the concensus best back since AD can't hardly average over 3.0 a carry.

I remember watching Richardson as a true freshman spell the eventual heisman trophy winner Ingram and saying at the time that Richardson was the better back.

You don't look like one of the best college back of all times unless you actually have the talent. A gimmicky scrambling QB isn't really a relevant comparison. A lot of people questioned Manziel's NFL readyness and I don't think many realistically thought he'd be scrambling very well in the NFL. While Richardson was a can't miss RB and a concensus top 10 pick in an age where RBs are a dime a dozen and drafts often dont have 1 RB go in the first round.

Our line sucks but we have had backs run well at times behind it. Pretty much anyone we plug back there can eek out over 4.0 ypc. If Richardson was half the back he was in college he'd be able to as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the line is not to blame for the Colts running game being rated 22nd in the league even with Herron? OK, if you say so.

The line is the main problem but every other back we put in the game has shown play making ability and has managed over 4.0 YPC. Every back but Richardson.

There has to come a point where you stop making excuses for the guy. As I said in my previous post he is the best back I ever watched in college but he's not the same guy anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was faster and more explosive, period. You can say the decisiveness was do to huge holes sure but he also made a lot of plays out of nothing in college. He was one of the best backs I've ever seen in college. Sure his line was amazing but that doesn't account for how great he was at the second level. He was way better than Mark Ingram or Eddie Lacy were behind that same offensive line and against the same competition. Now those 2 guys are playing at a pretty damn good level in the NFL and the concensus best back since AD can't hardly average over 3.0 a carry.

I remember watching Richardson as a true freshman spell the eventual heisman trophy winner Ingram and saying at the time that Richardson was the better back.

You don't look like one of the best college back of all times unless you actually have the talent. A gimmicky scrambling QB isn't really a relevant comparison. A lot of people questioned Manziel's NFL readyness and I don't think many realistically thought he'd be scrambling very well in the NFL. While Richardson was a can't miss RB and a concensus top 10 pick in an age where RBs are a dime a dozen and drafts often dont have 1 RB go in the first round.

Our line sucks but we have had backs run well at times behind it. Pretty much anyone we plug back there can eek out over 4.0 ypc. If Richardson was half the back he was in college he'd be able to as well.

So want happened then? He get off the juice? Knees go bad in his early 20 's due to arthroscopic surgery? Sorry, but the guy was overrated coming out of college and got exposed in the nfl. He just isn't the player you thought he would be...it happens all the time in the nfl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The line is the main problem but every other back we put in the game has shown play making ability and has managed over 4.0 YPC. Every back but Richardson.

There has to come a point where you stop making excuses for the guy. As I said in my previous post he is the best back I ever watched in college but he's not the same guy anymore.

When your QB throws 40+ times a game there will be RBs who average 4 yards a carry. When the opposing defenses want to stop what little running game we have it is no problem. As you say there come a point for everything. But singling out TR and him alone is not right. I understand why TR is thought of as a bust but it's not just him. Grigson has had a tough time of finding offensive linemen. Then there is those who even want to point a finger at him and say he does a poor job. The teams who do have good linemen are teams who have spent a lot of time building those lines. Dallas spent 3 #1 draft picks on theirs. The Colts lack of seasoned veterans and true leaders shows every week. Can you tell me is there another team in the NFL that has 49 new players on the roster in three years and went 11-5 three seasons in a row? I could be wrong but I cant think of any. TR would not be the first to struggle in the pros after being a star in collage. The list is too long to mention and so many are even forgot about now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So want happened then? He get off the juice? Knees go bad in his early 20 's due to arthroscopic surgery? Sorry, but the guy was overrated coming out of college and got exposed in the nfl. He just isn't the player you thought he would be...it happens all the time in the nfl.

He may have been overrated because he was herolded as the best back in ages by basically everyone, but he was a way better running back coming out then he is right now. There is no way with all his talent he should have turned into what he is. Something happened to him, I don't know what, I feel it's largely in his head and the injuries probably played a factor as well.

I just don't buy that he was "exposed" in the NFL. This guy ran circles around talented backs like Lacy and Ingram. He was electrifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When your QB throws 40+ times a game there will be RBs who average 4 yards a carry. When the opposing defenses want to stop what little running game we have it is no problem. As you say there come a point for everything. But singling out TR and him alone is not right. I understand why TR is thought of as a bust but it's not just him. Grigson has had a tough time of finding offensive linemen. Then there is those who even want to point a finger at him and say he does a poor job. The teams who do have good linemen are teams who have spent a lot of time building those lines. Dallas spent 3 #1 draft picks on theirs. The Colts lack of seasoned veterans and true leaders shows every week. Can you tell me is there another team in the NFL that has 49 new players on the roster in three years and went 11-5 three seasons in a row? I could be wrong but I cant think of any. TR would not be the first to struggle in the pros after being a star in collage. The list is too long to mention and so many are even forgot about now.

You're just making excuses for TR. The fault isn't all his but it largely is. You keep using the line excuse so I'll say it again, it's a bad line, but every running back we stick back there does better than TR. It's really as easy as that.

I'd expect if our o line improved that the backs who currently run better behind our poor line would also run better behind an improved line. Doesn't that make sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just making excuses for TR. The fault isn't all his but it largely is. You keep using the line excuse so I'll say it again, it's a bad line, but every running back we stick back there does better than TR. It's really as easy as that.

I'd expect if our o line improved that the backs who currently run better behind our poor line would also run better behind an improved line. Doesn't that make sense?

I stated my opinion. You have yours. We both spoke how we feel. Is it OK to let it go now and leave it at that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've had the chance to really watch him, I offer the following observation. Great RB's run like they're going to the endzone on every rush. They run with attitude and great purpose. Most importantly, they defeat the first level of big men with explosiveness. The key to their success is their ability to accelerate through the initial seams in the D-front rapidly. Forcing the second and third level players to make all the tackles. A miss or broken tackle at that level can change a game. Punishing runner?  220 backs don't punish 290 pound D-Linemen, they get punished. To be a punishing runner, you have to consistently get to the second level clean, and take on out of position LB's and 198 pound DB's. So, while there have been way to many linemen in the backfield because of poor line play and less than ideal blocking far to often, I've seen enough to know TR has not demonstrated any of the most necessary qualities to be a real threat. Defenses don't worry about TRich, there's no fire burning there.

 

So, heading into the playoffs, worry about,Giovani Bernard and Jeremy Hill (Cin), both have 80+ yard runs to the house this season. Worry about Le'Veon Bell (Pit) has an 80 yarder. But rest assured no one is worried about TR's big 27 yarder earlier this year. And before blaming the O-Line, remember Boom Herron has a 49 yarder for a TD with half the number of carries and Ahmad Bradshaw playing injured had a 29 yarder behind the same guys. 3 years, no threat, no heart, no other way to spin it... There's no fire burning there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have been overrated because he was herolded as the best back in ages by basically everyone, but he was a way better running back coming out then he is right now. There is no way with all his talent he should have turned into what he is. Something happened to him, I don't know what, I feel it's largely in his head and the injuries probably played a factor as well.

I just don't buy that he was "exposed" in the NFL. This guy ran circles around talented backs like Lacy and Ingram. He was electrifying.

He was electrifying to you and others who couldn't see he didnt have any special qualities. Lots of the same people prob though Reggie Bush was the next great back too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was electrifying to you and others who couldn't see he didnt have any special qualities. Lots of the same people prob though Reggie Bush was the next great back too.

Others = pretty much everyone except for you. Because he was special in college and 9 out 10 times that kind of talent (super star RB) should transfer to the NFL in some capacity.

He had the "qualities" to be special. He had speed, he had vision, he had decisiveness, he had toughness, he could make you miss, he could run you over, he could out run you, he could turn a nothing play into a big play, he was a very good receiver. Reggie Bush was more of a scat back who relied too much on speed in college. He's not comparable to Richardson, different beast, but he's turned into one of the best receiving backs in the game and a solid runner, which is more or less what I expected out of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't buy that he was "exposed" in the NFL. This guy ran circles around talented backs like Lacy and Ingram. He was electrifying.

 

Career stats at Alabama:

 

Ingram -------- Rushing: 573 / 3261 5.7 YPC, 42 TD    Rec: 60 / 670  11.2 AVG  4 TD

Richardson -- Rushing: 540 / 3130 5.8 YPC, 35 TD    Rec: 68 / 730  10.7 AVG  7 TD

 

Very similar production for Ingram/Trent at Alabama.  Lacy averaged 6.8 YPC on 355 rushes (30 TD).  Good numbers all but it doesn't look like Trent ran circles around them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Career stats at Alabama:

 

Ingram -------- Rushing: 573 / 3261 5.7 YPC, 42 TD    Rec: 60 / 670  11.2 AVG  4 TD

Richardson -- Rushing: 540 / 3130 5.8 YPC, 35 TD    Rec: 68 / 730  10.7 AVG  7 TD

 

Very similar production for Ingram/Trent at Alabama.  Lacy averaged 6.8 YPC on 355 rushes (30 TD).  Good numbers all but it doesn't look like Trent ran circles around them.

 

Statistically true, but the eye test said Richardson was a better back which would account for the praise he got and explain him going #3 as opposed to Ingram's #32 (and Lacy end of second). Still you'd think he'd be able to produce at least at Ingram's level in the NFL (though Ingram was pretty crappy his first 2 seasons or so in the NFL).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically true, but the eye test said Richardson was a better back which would account for the praise he got and explain him going #3 as opposed to Ingram's #32 (and Lacy end of second). Still you'd think he'd be able to produce at least at Ingram's level in the NFL (though Ingram was pretty crappy his first 2 seasons or so in the NFL).

i remember when he was drafted that Jim Brown said what a waste of a pick it was to get him. That Richardson had no special skills. He was right on this one. I realize everyone is right/wrong on saying something when talking about many different things. And I don't go along with everything said by someone just because he was one of the best backs ever either. But Brown got this one right by saying he is nothing special.
Link to post
Share on other sites

you seriously think Trent is the only reason our run game is almost non existent? The guy that's only ran the ball 58 times since week 9 is the sole reason?

i never said Trent alone but the other backs made it look better. The Oline is garbage but Trents stats are far worse then the others in his 2 years
Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember when he was drafted that Jim Brown said what a waste of a pick it was to get him. That Richardson had no special skills. He was right on this one. I realize everyone is right/wrong on saying something when talking about many different things. And I don't go along with everything said by someone just because he was one of the best backs ever either. But Brown got this one right by saying he is nothing special.

Brown was butthurt he got fired by the Browns. Notice how he had nothing but nice things to say about him when he got re-hired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. He wasn't part of the org then.

He got hired back a year later.

As far as I know Brown never had anything nice about Richardson to say other then about his character and ability to play through injury as a rookie, He has always thought Richardson was just "ordinary" from the time he was drafted...First link from 2012, second from 2013

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8289f671/article/jim-brown-unimpressed-by-ordinary-trent-Richardson

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000250930/article/jim-brown-trent-richardson-trade-by-browns-brilliant

Link to post
Share on other sites

It happened to have the Bengals game from this year recorded and re-watched it yesterday. I noticed T Rich had probably his best game as a Colt, quite a few plays of more than 3 yards, including one run of about 10 yards and a couple of long gains after catching the ball. Maybe there is something with Bengals defense that favors his running style, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just making excuses for TR. The fault isn't all his but it largely is. You keep using the line excuse so I'll say it again, it's a bad line, but every running back we stick back there does better than TR. It's really as easy as that.

I'd expect if our o line improved that the backs who currently run better behind our poor line would also run better behind an improved line. Doesn't that make sense?

One could argue that when a defense sees t-rich in the game. Theyre more expecting the run. Making it a bigger point to stop him. But when we put a no name back boom herron in or tipton or grandfather bradshaw teams seem to sit back.. boom hasnt had a great game since what people call his break out game in week 13 against the redskins. All in theory of course.. but fact of the matter is.. trying to repeatedly run any of our backs up the middle isnt helping anyone.. very rarely do we run to the outside

Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that when a defense sees t-rich in the game. Theyre more expecting the run. Making it a bigger point to stop him. But when we put a no name back boom herron in or tipton or grandfather bradshaw teams seem to sit back.. boom hasnt had a great game since what people call his break out game in week 13 against the redskins. All in theory of course.. but fact of the matter is.. trying to repeatedly run any of our backs up the middle isnt helping anyone.. very rarely do we run to the outside

Lol....why would the defense be concerned about Richardson? Oh no, here comes cement feet....

Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that when a defense sees t-rich in the game. Theyre more expecting the run. Making it a bigger point to stop him. But when we put a no name back boom herron in or tipton or grandfather bradshaw teams seem to sit back.. boom hasnt had a great game since what people call his break out game in week 13 against the redskins. All in theory of course.. but fact of the matter is.. trying to repeatedly run any of our backs up the middle isnt helping anyone.. very rarely do we run to the outside

I would say that argument is equivalent to a pile of dog doodoo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It happened to have the Bengals game from this year recorded and re-watched it yesterday. I noticed T Rich had probably his best game as a Colt, quite a few plays of more than 3 yards, including one run of about 10 yards and a couple of long gains after catching the ball. Maybe there is something with Bengals defense that favors his running style, I don't know.

 

Wow!   A few runs over 3 yds and a 10 yd run as the highlight!  Did someone say FedEx ground player of the week?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that when a defense sees t-rich in the game. Theyre more expecting the run. Making it a bigger point to stop him. But when we put a no name back boom herron in or tipton or grandfather bradshaw teams seem to sit back.. boom hasnt had a great game since what people call his break out game in week 13 against the redskins. All in theory of course.. but fact of the matter is.. trying to repeatedly run any of our backs up the middle isnt helping anyone.. very rarely do we run to the outside

I try telling people the same thing, but it makes no difference.  Just like Donald Brown last year, also!  He was so good and we should've kept him (claims fans), look at his stats now with SD, it would change their minds. He had a great 1st couple games, but once D coordinators realized he was their featured back, then he got shut down.  I think Boom has done a good job, for the most part, and is our best back on the roster, but he hasn't been doing as good as his first game. 

 

I'm not saying Trent is great or doesn't deserve criticism, but a RB comes in and does okay for a few games, and fans want to add it to the arguement of how Trent sucks or, this back got the job done (yeah, everybody has good games once in awhile)!  I don't understand why people are so hell bent to get rid of Richardson, when they should be blaming the O line and after the changes takes place, then see if he can run... It's like standing in the line of fire during a gun fight, if you're not hiding behind an object you will be exposed and get lit up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I try telling people the same thing, but it makes no difference. Just like Donald Brown last year, also! He was so good and we should've kept him (claims fans), look at his stats now with SD, it would change their minds. He had a great 1st couple games, but once D coordinators realized he was their featured back, then he got shut down. I think Boom has done a good job, for the most part, and is our best back on the roster, but he hasn't been doing as good as his first game.

I'm not saying Trent is great or doesn't deserve criticism, but a RB comes in and does okay for a few games, and fans want to add it to the arguement of how Trent sucks or, this back got the job done (yeah, everybody has good games once in awhile)! I don't understand why people are so hell bent to get rid of Richardson, when they should be blaming the O line and after the changes takes place, then see if he can run... It's like standing in the line of fire during a gun fight, if you're not hiding behind an object you will be exposed and get lit up.

So your explanation for Trent Richardson's poor play is bad o line and defenses focus on him when he's in but don't focus on the other backs? Let me tell you something, if anything teams focus on the run game more when he's not in the game because the other guys have all shown a spark that Richardson hasn't. Defenses may have focused on TR early on after the trade but that quickly became not the case. I can guarantee you teams planned for and were more worried about Ahmad Bradshaw and he far outperformed Richardson.

It amazes me people are still using this excuse (or any excuse) to defend Richardson. How much evidence do you need against the guy before you just admit he's a bad RB?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trent followed the yellow line.

trent-richardson-run.jpg

That's the offensive lines fault. They didn't tell Richardson before the play that they would open up a huge hole right in front of his face.

Serious note: Richardson never would have missed that hole in college.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So your explanation for Trent Richardson's poor play is bad o line and defenses focus on him when he's in but don't focus on the other backs? Let me tell you something, if anything teams focus on the run game more when he's not in the game because the other guys have all shown a spark that Richardson hasn't. Defenses may have focused on TR early on after the trade but that quickly became not the case. I can guarantee you teams planned for and were more worried about Ahmad Bradshaw and he far outperformed Richardson.

It amazes me people are still using this excuse (or any excuse) to defend Richardson. How much evidence do you need against the guy before you just admit he's a bad RB?

That's not my explanation at all, just a point.  Richardson's poor play isn't solely on the offensive line, and no I don't think teams focus on him more.  Last year, Yes, but not really torwards the end of the season.  My point was we brought in Boom (just like Donald Brown last season), and he had a couple good games.  After teams got some game film on them, and noticed he was a bigger part of our offense because of injuries, he didn't produce as much.  Coincidence? I think not!  Same with D Brown...

 

Yes Bradshaw was our featured back, and Boom is now.  People need to forget the term starter, and think use the term featured, because it describes the 2 back system better.  Just because Richardson is out for the first play of the game doesn't mean he is our featured back. 

 

To answer your question about what I need to admit that Richardson isn't very good; is when or "IF" the offensive line plays above average (not below average, or up to par) consistently, to where our backs arent getting hit in the backfield, and actually have holes in the middle, and Trent still performs poorly, then at that point, I will admit he isn't a good RB.  Until then, I think it's funny how people actually believe in the garbage well this guy did okay, in reality he did okay with a small sample size, and have different running styles.  Let me ask you this, how many good power backs have you seen perform well with a bad offensive interior line?  Furthermore, how many of them have the ability to break runs to the outside and create for themselves?  Trent doesn't have that speed, so he desperately depends on the interior line to create holes (which doesn't happen).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not my explanation at all, just a point. Richardson's poor play isn't solely on the offensive line, and no I don't think teams focus on him more. Last year, Yes, but not really torwards the end of the season. My point was we brought in Boom (just like Donald Brown last season), and he had a couple good games. After teams got some game film on them, and noticed he was a bigger part of our offense because of injuries, he didn't produce as much. Coincidence? I think not! Same with D Brown...

Yes Bradshaw was our featured back, and Boom is now. People need to forget the term starter, and think use the term featured, because it describes the 2 back system better. Just because Richardson is out for the first play of the game doesn't mean he is our featured back.

To answer your question about what I need to admit that Richardson isn't very good; is when or "IF" the offensive line plays above average (not below average, or up to par) consistently, to where our backs arent getting hit in the backfield, and actually have holes in the middle, and Trent still performs poorly, then at that point, I will admit he isn't a good RB. Until then, I think it's funny how people actually believe in the garbage well this guy did okay, in reality he did okay with a small sample size, and have different running styles. Let me ask you this, how many good power backs have you seen perform well with a bad offensive interior line? Furthermore, how many of them have the ability to break runs to the outside and create for themselves? Trent doesn't have that speed, so he desperately depends on the interior line to create holes (which doesn't happen).

I have a counter question to your question. How many good or even average "power backs" have averaged ~3 YPC for nearly 2 full years and remained in the league, let alone a major part of an offense?

That being said, I reject the term "power back" for TR, he loves to dance. He is more like a poor man's Joe Addai than any power back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a counter question to your question. How many good or even average "power backs" have averaged ~3 YPC for nearly 2 full years and remained in the league, let alone a major part of an offense?

That being said, I reject the term "power back" for TR, he loves to dance. He is more like a poor man's Joe Addai than any power back.

That's what "power backs" are for!  They get the tough short yards near the goal line or on 3rd and short.  They aren't meant to pick up big gains necessarily.  My only problem is that as much our coaching staff wants to be a power run team, we don't have the athletes necessary to carry that out. Hint Hint, It's more about the line than the RB in a power run game!

 

To answer your question, TR has one of the worst YPC in history, and there probably isn't any, but that doesn't mean squat IMO, because you put AP or Murray behind our line and you may see them get up to 5 YPC but probably not.  These are taller and thicker power backs, that also have speed, unlike Trent.  Now go ahead and answer my question, which you totally avoided. 

 

Would you really want to get rid of Trent at this point, and allow Boom or Zurlon be the one protecting Luck in the backfield?  BTW if you answers the question with Yes, then you clearly don't understand the importance of Richardson in the backfield for pass protection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what "power backs" are for!  They get the tough short yards near the goal line or on 3rd and short.  They aren't meant to pick up big gains necessarily.  My only problem is that as much our coaching staff wants to be a power run team, we don't have the athletes necessary to carry that out. Hint Hint, It's more about the line than the RB in a power run game!

 

To answer your question, TR has one of the worst YPC in history, and there probably isn't any, but that doesn't mean squat IMO, because you put AP or Murray behind our line and you may see them get up to 5 YPC but probably not.  These are taller and thicker power backs, that also have speed, unlike Trent.  Now go ahead and answer my question, which you totally avoided. 

 

Would you really want to get rid of Trent at this point, and allow Boom or Zurlon be the one protecting Luck in the backfield?  BTW if you answers the question with Yes, then you clearly don't understand the importance of Richardson in the backfield for pass protection. 

 

Again, Trent Richardson is not a power back. He's an indecisive plodder, who likes to dance and is poor in short yardage situations. These are not characteristics of a power back.

 

His best asset is his pass blocking and having a good pass blocking RB is very important (especially with a line such as ours) but you also would prefer if that RB would be a little more than useless carrying the rock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...