Any chance 'Boom' supplants T-Rich? (Merge)

[OffensivelyPC]

People understand that.....and they also understand Trich looks like the least talented runner the colts have used in the last several yrs.

booms been in when it was garbage time, not really something to hang your hat on. And other than the bengals game, he hasn't looked good at all. T-rich aside, boom is a backup at best.

[Dustin]

clearly you didnt watch last game, texans, and broncos.

 

I mean, you just picked his worse 3 games. Obviosuly any player is going to look bad when you only look at his worse games.

 

Btw, what about the Denver game? He had 3 carries for 15 yards. And another 77 receiving. 

[OffensivelyPC]

I feel bad for the OL of Trent's new team in 2016. I wonder if they'll know they're about to be tainted.

as if that matters? Our oline has been questionable long before trent got here. Not sure why all the sudden hes the sole source of our run game problems. I wish theyd bag trent so i dont havecto hear everyone complain about the wrong problem

[BOTT]

booms been in when it was garbage time, not really something to hang your hat on. And other than the bengals game, he hasn't looked good at all. T-rich aside, boom is a backup at best.

My statement had nothing to do with Boom

[Moopsiepuffs]

clearly you didnt watch last game, texans, and broncos.

 

lol @ cherry picking a couple of games to try proving your invalid point. Just lol.

 

By the way, in those three games you mentioned, Bradshaw had more yards per carry, so I don't know what point you're even trying to prove. Bringing up the Denver game where Ahmad ran the ball THREE times is just as stupid as the rest of your argument.

 

Clearly you don't know that Bradshaw is ranked 14th in the league at 4.7 yards per carry while Trent is 45th at 3.4 yards per carry.

[OffensivelyPC]

I mean, you just picked his worse 3 games. Obviosuly any player is going to look bad when you only look at his worse game.

Btw, what about the Denver game? He had 3 carries for 15 yards. And another 77 receiving.

that wasnt my point. My point was that, when trent was bad, so was bradshaw. That usually means the oline is the problem.

[Dustin]

that wasnt my point. My point was that, when trent was bad, so was bradshaw. That usually means the oline is the problem.

Trent is always bad though. I think sometimes they just both happen to have bad games.

[Moopsiepuffs]

that wasnt my point. My point was that, when trent was bad, so was bradshaw. That usually means the oline is the problem.

[lennymoore24]

Eh, I am aware that Brown is no longer on the Colts roster. He still played behind the same offensive line as Richardson last year, and had far greater success.

 

This year running the ball (not catching out of the backfield), Bradshaw is averaging 4.7 yards per carry, Richardson 3.4. 

 

That is a MASSIVE difference. 

 

To put it in perspective, Bradshaw is ranked 14th in the league in yards per carry. Richardson is ranked 45th.

 

Bradshaw - 14th

Richardson - 45th

 

 

Any explanation for this? Or shall we just blame it on the offensive line...

[Moopsiepuffs]

I've watched all Colts games using the ALL 22 subscription.  Trent Richardson more often runs in more obvious running situation.  Donald Brown and Bradshaw get more carries on draws or 50/50 run/pass plays.  I believe it is about 80% offensive line and 20% RB skill.

[ponyboy]

I've watched all Colts games using the ALL 22 subscription.  Trent Richardson more often runs in more obvious running situation.  Donald Brown and Bradshaw get more carries on draws or 50/50 run/pass plays.  I believe it is about 80% offensive line and 20% RB skill.

[NewColtsFan]

Why do you always leave massive gaps                             in your posts?............... and you always 

 

 use .....................  

 

                        why is that?

 

 

I leave gaps in my posts to make it easier for everyone to read.   

 

I have a tendency to write long posts, and I don't want my post to be one big blob of internet ink.    It's harder on the eyes to read.     So, I try to space things out.

[Moopsiepuffs]

I leave gaps in my posts to make it easier for everyone to read.   

 

I have a tendency to write long posts, and I don't want my post to be one big blob of internet ink.    It's harder on the eyes to read.     So, I try to space things out.

 

cool man

[21isSuperman]

If you want to call him a bust -- fine.

 

All I'm trying to get people to focus on is this....    Trent Richardson can be a decent running back for the Colts.   But he's not going to give us eye-popping numbers.    He's going to be serviceable.    He can run for 50-60 yards a game.   He can receive for 30-40 yards a game.   He can block for Luck when he's called upon. 

 

Right now, he's the best we got and he can be decent.   Boom Herron may someday be better.   And maybe that someday is this week?!?    I don't rule out anything.   But he hasn't earned the #1 spot yet.   And fans who say Trent is starting over Boom simply because we gave up a #1 and not because he's better are just frustrated that Trent is never going to be great.   

 

But Boom hasn't earned the number one spot.   And until he does,  it's Trent's job to lose.   And he may lose it this season.  Maybe Boom becomes #1 and Trent is the back-up.    But that happens on the field and not on a fans message board....

 

Really,   that's all I'm trying to say......

For one thing, any RB can be serviceable.  Ahmad Bradshaw and Vick Ballard have both shown they can be serviceable and actually do a good job.  In my opinion, RB is very much turning into a plug-and-play position.  And Richardson hasn't really shown himself to be serviceable (he's never averaged more than 3.6 ypc for a season) while Ballard (3.9 ypc in 2012, 4.8 in very limited action in 2013) and Bradshaw (4.5 ypc last year, 4.7 this year) have both shown to me more serviceable. 

 

Sure, Richardson can give you 60 yards rushing a game (which is nothing to get excited about), but it'll take him 16+ carries to get there.

 

Why hasn't Boom earned that #1 spot yet?  Perhaps it's because he hasn't been given the opportunity.  I'm all for giving him more reps and more game time to see what he can do.  Give the guy a chance to be the #1 because Richardson hasn't earned it.

[21isSuperman]

that wasnt my point. My point was that, when trent was bad, so was bradshaw. That usually means the oline is the problem.

But there were also many times where Trent was bad and Bradshaw was good.  The OL hasn't been great, but Bradshaw has still been able to make something out of it.

[NewColtsFan]

It's common knowledge, my friend, that teams hesitate giving 27 year old RBs second contracts - reasonably productive RBs, which Richardson is not - and they often must find their payday elsewhere(That was said, by the way,  to hammer home just how long Richardson has already been in the league.) 

 

Richardson currently holds the 51st best rushing avg. in the league, and it's his best season... through three years.  Do you really need it somehow proven to you that RBs with that type of performance don't last long in this league?  Just on the Colts alone, he might be the worst or one of the worst RBs of past decade, and plenty of RBs on this team alone have been cut or let go, right? 

 

I suppose it could be said you are fighting the good fight on this thing, but at some point you'll have to give up, just as the Colts will be forced to give up on the guy.  Even though I was one who supported the trade, I made that decision long ago and admitted my mistake.   

 

 

Your understanding of what is common knowledge further shows just how little you know about football.

 

Richardson won't be 27 when he's going for his 2nd contract, he'll be 26.  

 

Doesn't matter though.  

 

YOUR argument was that productive RB's have trouble getting a 2nd contract.    I disagreed and asked for a list of names.

 

YOUR list has no names on it.   None.    Given what is "common knowledge"  one would think you'd have some names.

 

All I've defended is that Trent is a serviceable running back who is the best we have until Boom or someone else proves otherwise in a game.     Stating that Boom is better and the coaches are only playing Trent to cover themselves or any other silly reason is what makes up Internet Fan Message Boards.    It's nonsense.

[NewColtsFan]

Richardson is statistically the 2nd worst runner in NFL history to ever get significant carries. Not that big of a leap to assume he wouldn't be on a roster if he wasn't living off of his hype.

 

No team in their right mind would be giving him carries like Grigson insists on doing. 

 

Grigson "insists" because he doesn't have better options.    Once Boom shows he can be better than Trent,  then Boom goes to #1.     But he's got to show it in games.     Because I don't think he's showing it in practice.

 

Who knows,  Boom might show it this week?   Or next week?    Or sometime before the 2014 season is over.   I don't rule out anything.   But he's got to show it.

 

The proof is demonstrated on the field of play,  not on internet message boards.

[NewColtsFan]

The Colt's run blocking isn't even half as bad as you people make it seem. It looks a lot worse when your runningback is awful. 

 

Come on now....   even you don't believe that.    You know who gained almost no yards Sunday night?

 

Ahmad Bradshaw.

 

There was no where to run Sunday and you know it.

 

When your argument becomes our line isn't that bad,  then you're reading for an argument.

 

As I've long maintained....  if we had traded a 5 for Trent and not a 1,   almost no one here would give a rip.

 

The outrage with Trent is because we spent a 1.     If we had traded a lower pick,  no one would care.

[NewColtsFan]

But there were also many times where Trent was bad and Bradshaw was good.  The OL hasn't been great, but Bradshaw has still been able to make something out of it.

[krunk]

If Herron and Tipton show to be more effective than Richardson I say we should make it into more of a 3 headed monster like they had in New York with Bradshaw, Jacobs, and Ward.  I've been calling for it but it never happens.

[21isSuperman]

You mean like Sunday?

 

Trent had 6 carries for zero yards.

 

And Ahmad had 7 carries for.......   4 yards.     Including a long of 5.   So, the other 6 carries were for -1.

 

Look.....    there's no doubt that Ahmad is better back.    I don't know anyone who argues otherwise.

 

My only argument is Trent is currently the best we have and the coaches play him because they have more faith in him than they do now in Boom.    Maybe that changes,  but not yet....

I don't think we have enough on Boom to know whether or not he is the best back.  That's why I advocate for giving him more carries this upcoming game and seeing what he can do

[OffensivelyPC]

Well you haven't made a good point. Picking games where Bradshaw has run the ball less than half a dozen times is just stupid.

lol after ive clarified my point you still insist on arguing against whatever you thought i said.

[OffensivelyPC]

Trent is always bad though. I think sometimes they just both happen to have bad games.

and again...thats still not an argument that boom should supplant trent.

To everone else: Im not making an argument that trent is good, though, apparently thats all everyone ever hears...im saying hes better than boom and the guy on the practice squad. Im also saying our o line isnt that good. If it were trent and all the RBs you want to replace trent would run for over 4 YPC...YPC, as we all know, being the end all ultimate stat in the history of football. I wish more people on here could read and understand plain english...thats apparently asking too much.

[IndyD4U]

and again...thats still not an argument that boom should supplant trent.

To everone else: Im not making an argument that trent is good, though, apparently thats all everyone ever hears...im saying hes better than boom and the guy on the practice squad. Im also saying our o line isnt that good. If it were trent and all the RBs you want to replace trent would run for over 4 YPC...YPC, as we all know, being the end all ultimate stat in the history of football. I wish more people on here could read and understand plain english...thats apparently asking too much.

 

I had the same problem. I finally gave up.

[OffensivelyPC]

But there were also many times where Trent was bad and Bradshaw was good. The OL hasn't been great, but Bradshaw has still been able to make something out of it.

on the year, no...not really. But iwill bite...point to all the games he did better rushing. I doubt you will find more than two games where trent got less than 4 YPC and ahmad got at least 1 more yard per carry higher.

[Gavin]

on the year, no...not really. But iwill bite...point to all the games he did better rushing. I doubt you will find more than two games where trent got less than 4 YPC and ahmad got at least 1 more yard per carry higher.

you shouldn't have bit on that

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/trentrichardson/2533032/profile

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/ahmadbradshaw/2495560/gamelogs

[Dustin]

Grigson "insists" because he doesn't have better options. Once Boom shows he can be better than Trent, then Boom goes to #1. But he's got to show it in games. Because I don't think he's showing it in practice.

Who knows, Boom might show it this week? Or next week? Or sometime before the 2014 season is over. I don't rule out anything. But he's got to show it.

The proof is demonstrated on the field of play, not on internet message boards.

Boom is an upgrade as long as he isn't literally the worst RB ever.

[Dustin]

Come on now.... even you don't believe that. You know who gained almost no yards Sunday night?

Ahmad Bradshaw.

There was no where to run Sunday and you know it.

When your argument becomes our line isn't that bad, then you're reading for an argument.

As I've long maintained.... if we had traded a 5 for Trent and not a 1, almost no one here would give a rip.

The outrage with Trent is because we spent a 1. If we had traded a lower pick, no one would care.

I didn't say it was good. It just isn't as bad as you all make it seem. It's not the worst in the NFL by a far margin.

And you're right, nobody would be talking about him if he was traded for a 5th. Mostly because he wouldn't be on a roster.

[krunk]

I think Boom will do better than Trent running the football simply because he has better vision and when he sees the hole he's very decisive about hitting that hole.  That's what you have to do when you are running behind a line that is average at run blocking.

 

 

Even though this clip is from the preseason you have to ask yourself if given this same type of play would T Rich do what Herron does here through this small space?

 

T Rich would probably run into somebodys back and get about 3 to 4 yards.

[krunk]

I don't think there is a back on our roster that is better at running through trash and small spaces better than Herron, and I say that with a lot of confidence. He'll slip through a small crack in a minute for a big gain even though he's not all that fast.

 

If you read through Colts.com even Luck says he has 110 percent confidence in Boom Herron.  I haven't heard him say that about any other back on the roster.  We'll see how it plays out on Sunday. Hopefully they will give him enough carries to prove it.

 

If you want my opinion I'd like to see more of Herron and Tipton because I like the way both of them run.  Don't take this as me calling for T Rich to be benched because I'm not.  I just think we'd get more out of the running game using all 3 running styles.

[NewColtsFan]

I didn't say it was good. It just isn't as bad as you all make it seem. It's not the worst in the NFL by a far margin.

And you're right, nobody would be talking about him if he was traded for a 5th. Mostly because he wouldn't be on a roster.

[OffensivelyPC]

you shouldn't have bit on that

http://www.nfl.com/player/trentrichardson/2533032/profile

http://www.nfl.com/player/ahmadbradshaw/2495560/gamelogs

so theres thred games. Close enough.

[jvan1973]

They are desperate for him to succeed and they are giving him every opportunity. You don't want one of the biggest busts of all time hanging over your head. I think they know he's terrible like the rest of us.

[LordHelpOurColts]

Man...you guys argue about the stupidest stuff.

[ColtStronger]

You're right. Hoping to see your first round RB perform at league average is exceptionally unrealistic. 

[ColtStronger]

It don't work that way. "Fan is short for "fanatic" and these threads are full of those. Week to week complaints. The Colts are expected to be a super bowl contender no matter they are not ready yet. At least a draft and a free agent or two away but most think it's an easy task to get players without making an error. The problem the Colts have one or two players are not going to fix.

[ColtStronger]

What constitutes a "real fan"..? 

 

"I care about a team more than you! Take that as an insult!" 

Anybody who would say "Fire Pep, Grigson, or Chuck"!  isn't a real fan because they're doing pretty darn good for the most part. That is just *ic in my mind.  Also the people who think Trent, Hakeem, or Greg Toler is terrible, usually are in that same category because they merely look at the stat sheet.  Everybody that brings the doom and gloom into the forum after a loss isn't my favorite type of person either!

[GoColts8818]

Not if boom keeps putting the ball in the ground.

[Surge89]

Come on now.... even you don't believe that. You know who gained almost no yards Sunday night?

Ahmad Bradshaw.

There was no where to run Sunday and you know it.

When your argument becomes our line isn't that bad, then you're reading for an argument.

As I've long maintained.... if we had traded a 5 for Trent and not a 1, almost no one here would give a rip.

The outrage with Trent is because we spent a 1. If we had traded a lower pick, no one would care.

I hate to say it but isn't this obvious? Everyone's outrage is that we wasted a 1st round pick on a back that is "servicable" and barely better than Boom. A back we could get in FA. It wasted a ton of precious time off of Luck's contract and instead of being used to improve the oline or dine or LB we got a RB that doesn't improve us as a team...

Regardless of who runs the ball if they run into a wall they get no where. So most fans are upset because of the waste that hurt "potentially" 3 phases of our team because are GM freaked when he lost a RB....

[Surge89]

Anybody who would say "Fire Pep, Grigson, or Chuck"! isn't a real fan because they're doing pretty darn good for the most part. That is just *ic in my mind. Also the people who think Trent, Hakeem, or Greg Toler is terrible, usually are in that same category because they merely look at the stat sheet. Everybody that brings the doom and gloom into the forum after a loss isn't my favorite type of person either!