Colts offense Titans @ Colts

[Superman]

I'm a little surprised you would chalk up the low APC by both as immaterial.  

 

3.6 on 9 carries and a long of 6 means Bradshaw was getting something useful on nearly every carry, and that you like his odds to raise the APC with more touches.  

 

2.4 on 20 carries and a long of 10 means that he is putting you in 2nd and long almost every time.  Furthermore, that 10 yard carry looked like it should have gone for 15-20 for most backs.

 

I've abstained from the debate for the most part.  I don't think our staff can afford to give up on T-Rich, and I don't think they will, but for the first time I'd be very surprised if the staff isn't concerned about the difference in productivity between what T-Rich and most NFL caliber backs could achieve in 20 carries.

 

I think the entire debate is fueled by people who live to be critical of Richardson, no matter what. If you want to discuss Richardson's play, the best way to do it is on a play by play basis, not with raw stats. Let's talk about how often he was met in the backfield by defenders on those short carries, how many tackles he broke just to get back to the line of scrimmage, etc. We also need to talk about the holes he missed, and his lack of elite speed through the hole and into the open field. You said his 10 yarder might have been 15+ with another back, but some of those 0 and 1 yarders would have been losses of 3 or 4 with another back.

 

I have absolutely no issue talking about what Richardson has and hasn't done so far this season. I just have no desire to do so with posters who are only here to talk about how terrible he is, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being blind and not willing to admit that the trade was a mistake.

 

My point about the ypc being immaterial is to state that no one ran the ball well. You'd think that Bradshaw was on fire, and Richardson was running in mud, based on the comments comparing the two. Fact is, of the two, Richardson had the best carries and the biggest gains. He also had the worst carries and the shortest gains. But for most, the negative outweighs the positive.

 

And to your last sentence, I don't think anyone was doing too much better on Richardson's 20 carries today, not with the blocking we gave him. With 11 more carries, I think Bradshaw's average would have come down another half yard, if not more. 

[ztboiler]

I think the entire debate is fueled by people who live to be critical of Richardson, no matter what. If you want to discuss Richardson's play, the best way to do it is on a play by play basis, not with raw stats. Let's talk about how often he was met in the backfield by defenders on those short carries, how many tackles he broke just to get back to the line of scrimmage, etc. We also need to talk about the holes he missed, and his lack of elite speed through the hole and into the open field. You said his 10 yarder might have been 15+ with another back, but some of those 0 and 1 yarders would have been losses of 3 or 4 with another back.

 

I have absolutely no issue talking about what Richardson has and hasn't done so far this season. I just have no desire to do so with posters who are only here to talk about how terrible he is, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being blind and not willing to admit that the trade was a mistake.

 

My point about the ypc being immaterial is to state that no one ran the ball well. You'd think that Bradshaw was on fire, and Richardson was running in mud, based on the comments comparing the two. Fact is, of the two, Richardson had the best carries and the biggest gains. He also had the worst carries and the shortest gains. But for most, the negative outweighs the positive.

 

And to your last sentence, I don't think anyone was doing too much better on Richardson's 20 carries today, not with the blocking we gave him. With 11 more carries, I think Bradshaw's average would have come down another half yard, if not more. 

Hmmmm.... 

 

I know you are tired of the conversation.  Understandably so.  It was probably too soon for me to go there.  I've ignored it, for the most part, over the course of the last year, so my legs are fresh.

 

I'm ready to look at T-Rich for what he is, not what we gave up to get him.  In fact, I still support the aggressive principles our GM used to go after him.  I was excited about the trade and thought is was a good move at the time.

 

I see the conversation about production to win now, just like any other running back discussion, but that is probably a little utopic of me.

 

Ultimately, your suggestion that Bradshaw's average would have come down is as valid as my suggestion that it may have gone up - because we will never know.  I also don't want to see Bradshaw carry it 20 times to find out - nor does anyone else.

[Superman]

Hmmmm.... 

 

I know you are tired of the conversation.  Understandably so.  It was probably too soon for me to go there.  I've ignored it, for the most part, over the course of the last year, so my legs are fresh.

 

I'm ready to look at T-Rich for what he is, not what we gave up to get him.  In fact, I still support the aggressive principles our GM used to go after him.  I was excited about the trade and thought is was a good move at the time.

 

I see the conversation about production to win now, just like any other running back discussion, but that is probably a little utopic of me.

 

Ultimately, your suggestion that Bradshaw's average would have come down is as valid as my suggestion that it may have gone up - because we will never know.  I also don't want to see Bradshaw carry it 20 times to find out - nor does anyone else.

 

Like I said, we can talk about it. I just don't think ypc is the way to do it. Especially on a day when no one was running the ball with any effectiveness. First half, Bradshaw had 6 carries for 17 yards. To that point, no one was doing anything on the ground.

 

The way I see it, Bradshaw has been better, but Richardson has been productive enough to keep defenses honest. And he's had some nice rips on the ground, so no one is going to just forget about him back there. The way we've been splitting time between the two is ideal, IMO, because it puts Bradshaw in position to pick up good gains. He can't carry the load; he'll get hurt. He's at his best as a part of a committee. To me, that justifies Richardson's role in the offense. (He also averaged 13 yards on 4 catches.)

 

I usually stay out of the Richardson debates, because, like I said, they are powered by people who only want to complain about how bad he's been. He goes for 27 yards last week, and it's about how he should have been gone for a TD. Seriously, I'm not making that up. Like you said, I just want to talk about how he plays, not about how he's "the worst back in the NFL," and "he's a bust" and all that. Unlike you, I don't like using a first rounder on a RB, even if you get good production out of him. I just don't think the players at that position are that important, especially when you have a really good QB. You can find good enough RBs without giving up such a valuable asset. It was a bad trade, IMO. But that's done, and it really never needs to be brought up when we're talking about Richardson's play.

 

Somewhat related: Collinsworth just mentioned that he thinks if you can run block, if you can push guys off the ball and create holes, you can find a dozen guys who can run through the ball for you. I mostly agree. Guys like Peterson and McCoy and Charles and so on are special, but for the most part, your back isn't going to be the key to your offensive attack. I don't think anyone ever compared Richardson with those guys, though.

[ztboiler]

Like I said, we can talk about it. I just don't think ypc is the way to do it. Especially on a day when no one was running the ball with any effectiveness. First half, Bradshaw had 6 carries for 17 yards. To that point, no one was doing anything on the ground.

 

The way I see it, Bradshaw has been better, but Richardson has been productive enough to keep defenses honest. And he's had some nice rips on the ground, so no one is going to just forget about him back there. The way we've been splitting time between the two is ideal, IMO, because it puts Bradshaw in position to pick up good gains. He can't carry the load; he'll get hurt. He's at his best as a part of a committee. To me, that justifies Richardson's role in the offense. (He also averaged 13 yards on 4 catches.)

 

I usually stay out of the Richardson debates, because, like I said, they are powered by people who only want to complain about how bad he's been. He goes for 27 yards last week, and it's about how he should have been gone for a TD. Seriously, I'm not making that up. Like you said, I just want to talk about how he plays, not about how he's "the worst back in the NFL," and "he's a bust" and all that. Unlike you, I don't like using a first rounder on a RB, even if you get good production out of him. I just don't think the players at that position are that important, especially when you have a really good QB. You can find good enough RBs without giving up such a valuable asset. It was a bad trade, IMO. But that's done, and it really never needs to be brought up when we're talking about Richardson's play.

 

Somewhat related: Collinsworth just mentioned that he thinks if you can run block, if you can push guys off the ball and create holes, you can find a dozen guys who can run through the ball for you. I mostly agree. Guys like Peterson and McCoy and Charles and so on are special, but for the most part, your back isn't going to be the key to your offensive attack. I don't think anyone ever compared Richardson with those guys, though.

I agree that YPC across a short data set is pretty worthless, and comparing your main back to your change of pace back with YPC is usually a bad idea in general.  Brown's high average last year didn't phase me, he and T-Rich were used completely different and faced different looks.  As you are saying, you do have to look at each play not just whine about things in general.

 

And to the specifics of each play....this isn't about Bradshaw and Richardson at all anymore - never was.  This is about normalizing the discussion to the attributes of the position that can generate production to the standards you set as a coaching staff.  I think that this staff is probably making observations right now that are causing them a lot of concern about Richardsons ability to ever meet those standards.  I don't think they were that concerned after last year, but I believe that is changing - it has to be or they would be ignoring the obvious, and I don't think that is the case.  Even in Richardson's watershed game against the Eagles, there was cause for concern.  

 

Looking at it on a play by play basis, if you took the names off the backs of the jerseys and had the chance to hand the ball to someone 20 times, there are guys in street clothes right now that could probably give you more production.  It doesn't have to be an emotional topic to talk about it on that level.  He will probably get the rest of the year to prove it, but eventually this staff will look at it with that kind of objectivity if not already.

[NewEra]

Colts 41 Titans 17

Offense:

31 FD's, 82 Plays, 498 Yards, 42:21 Possession, 1 Turnover

Defense:

16 FD's, 47 Plays, 261 Yards, 17:39 Possession, 3 Forced Turnovers

Not a bad days work.

Hey Blue, was listening to mike & Mike this morning. I didn't know Dallas had 3 first rounders on their o line. Must have been why they were able to run the ball better than we did. Our line looked like they did a better job keeping the pressure of Luck though. Over all, bout the same outcome that I thought so all good ;)

[Kirie89]

Like I said, we can talk about it. I just don't think ypc is the way to do it. Especially on a day when no one was running the ball with any effectiveness. First half, Bradshaw had 6 carries for 17 yards. To that point, no one was doing anything on the ground.

 

The way I see it, Bradshaw has been better, but Richardson has been productive enough to keep defenses honest. And he's had some nice rips on the ground, so no one is going to just forget about him back there. The way we've been splitting time between the two is ideal, IMO, because it puts Bradshaw in position to pick up good gains. He can't carry the load; he'll get hurt. He's at his best as a part of a committee. To me, that justifies Richardson's role in the offense. (He also averaged 13 yards on 4 catches.)

 

I usually stay out of the Richardson debates, because, like I said, they are powered by people who only want to complain about how bad he's been. He goes for 27 yards last week, and it's about how he should have been gone for a TD. Seriously, I'm not making that up. Like you said, I just want to talk about how he plays, not about how he's "the worst back in the NFL," and "he's a bust" and all that. Unlike you, I don't like using a first rounder on a RB, even if you get good production out of him. I just don't think the players at that position are that important, especially when you have a really good QB. You can find good enough RBs without giving up such a valuable asset. It was a bad trade, IMO. But that's done, and it really never needs to be brought up when we're talking about Richardson's play.

 

Somewhat related: Collinsworth just mentioned that he thinks if you can run block, if you can push guys off the ball and create holes, you can find a dozen guys who can run through the ball for you. I mostly agree. Guys like Peterson and McCoy and Charles and so on are special, but for the most part, your back isn't going to be the key to your offensive attack. I don't think anyone ever compared Richardson with those guys, though.

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

 

To all those who just look at the ypc and since you mentioned McCoy, here are Richardson and McCoy’s rushing numbers after four games:

(car, yds, ypc, tds)

Richardson: 61   203   3.3   1

       McCoy: 70   192   2.7   1

 

[Superman]

I agree that YPC across a short data set is pretty worthless, and comparing your main back to your change of pace back with YPC is usually a bad idea in general.  Brown's high average last year didn't phase me, he and T-Rich were used completely different and faced different looks.  As you are saying, you do have to look at each play not just whine about things in general.

 

And to the specifics of each play....this isn't about Bradshaw and Richardson at all anymore - never was.  This is about normalizing the discussion to the attributes of the position that can generate production to the standards you set as a coaching staff.  I think that this staff is probably making observations right now that are causing them a lot of concern about Richardsons ability to ever meet those standards.  I don't think they were that concerned after last year, but I believe that is changing - it has to be or they would be ignoring the obvious, and I don't think that is the case.  Even in Richardson's watershed game against the Eagles, there was cause for concern.  

 

Looking at it on a play by play basis, if you took the names off the backs of the jerseys and had the chance to hand the ball to someone 20 times, there are guys in street clothes right now that could probably give you more production.  It doesn't have to be an emotional topic to talk about it on that level.  He will probably get the rest of the year to prove it, but eventually this staff will look at it with that kind of objectivity if not already.

 

I don't know that the staff hasn't already been objective about it. Bradshaw gets a lot of critical situation opportunities, which is why he has a bunch of TDs already. Even last year, they benched Richardson down the stretch, and pretty much completely in the KC playoff game.

 

The bolded is what I believe the discussion should be about. We're on the same page there. I don't think there's too much concern about whether Richardson can meet those standards. I think he just had two good games, aside from the fumbles against Philly, and then our run blocking struggled against the Titans, but Richardson still produced in the passing game. Me personally, I think what he did against Philly and Jacksonville is acceptable for a timeshare RB. He's not wowing anyone (and we all know that he's not worth a first rounder), but he's certainly not holding us back, IMO. 

[ztboiler]

I don't know that the staff hasn't already been objective about it. Bradshaw gets a lot of critical situation opportunities, which is why he has a bunch of TDs already. Even last year, they benched Richardson down the stretch, and pretty much completely in the KC playoff game.

 

The bolded is what I believe the discussion should be about. We're on the same page there. I don't think there's too much concern about whether Richardson can meet those standards. I think he just had two good games, aside from the fumbles against Philly, and then our run blocking struggled against the Titans, but Richardson still produced in the passing game. Me personally, I think what he did against Philly and Jacksonville is acceptable for a timeshare RB. He's not wowing anyone (and we all know that he's not worth a first rounder), but he's certainly not holding us back, IMO. 

I believe there is considerable concern about whether he can meet those standards, particularly against good teams where our margin for error is less.  We'll need more data to be conclusive, but he is potentially holding us back if his production doesn't meet minimum standards at some point.

[Superman]

I believe there is considerable concern about whether he can meet those standards, particularly against good teams where our margin for error is less.  We'll need more data to be conclusive, but he is potentially holding us back if his production doesn't meet minimum standards at some point.

 

When hasn't his production met minimum standards? To me, it's only the Titans game.

[ztboiler]

When hasn't his production met minimum standards? To me, it's only the Titans game.

We could just as easily say, when has he met minimum standards?  It is too early to say anything conclusively one way or the other.  He has been above 4 YPC in 1 game - against the Jags - and not by a lot at that.  That is also a game where the going rate for other carries was 50% more than he was getting.  Since we agree that YPC isn't the answer to the question without more data behind this O-line....then this has the potential to become circular.  

 

I think that a coach who is watching the game, and whose job depends on production from that position, is already concerned that T-Rich is below minimum standards based on what they know and expect from each carry as they watch the tape.  He'll get credit for pushing the pile, but he'll also lose credit for always being in the pile.  I'll bet they are discouraged by how much momentum he loses when he tries to change directions, and how easy he is to bring down once he slows down in traffic.  They've also certainly noticed how little big play potential he has in the running game to offset the small gains.

 

This early in the year, all we can say is that it is fair to have concerns about meeting minimum standards.  Other backs in the league, like McCoy, are below standards as well, except that they have offsetting history to suggest that the slump is an outlier, not a trend.  We simply don't have any offsetting evidence right now, and T-Rich is yet to run in a way that makes you not want to give someone else a try as well.

[TheJACKCOLT]

I'm not just talking about the Tenn game. I'm talking about what I've seen since he became a Colt. I just believe he leaves yards on the field, and that someone like Herron or Bradshaw could get more production with some of his carries. The hole is not going to be there with every run, but if you can bounce it outside or cut it back you can still get yards, sometimes big yards.

I just don't feel like Trent has the lateral quickness to do this. When the hole is not there, he either runs into the pile or gets caught behind the line trying to make a lateral move, (which he just can't do). Some of Bradshaws biggest runs are when there is no hole, and he just bounces it outside for big yards, Herron can do this too. Anyone can run it through, when the hole is there. We shouldn't just concede that 10 to 15 carries a game are going to go for nothing, when we have backs that could get something out of some of these carries.