Trent Richardson was apparently suspended for the AFCCG.

[indyagent17]

I sure hope didnt lie about the family issues just to save face that he missed a walk through.  I still think he has value on the team he just needs to admit he needs to work hard to be the running back he thinks he should be.  

 

With Ballard coming back, I am anxious to see what he has to offer after being injured for the second straight year

[Coltsman1788]

So you really think the Colts are going to eat over 3 million dollars?

Just sprinkle some salt on those $ and bon appetit Colts.  If fans can eat crow, Grigs/Irsay can eat 3 mil. 

[TKnight24]

I sure hope didnt lie about the family issues just to save face that he missed a walk through. I still think he has value on the team he just needs to admit he needs to work hard to be the running back he thinks he should be.

With Ballard coming back, I am anxious to see what he has to offer after being injured for the second straight year

Needs to do what Lacy did and drop weight, get into a much better shape

Talks of Lacy being out of shape and everything at his pro day have now been silenced as he's took the league by storm up in GB

[austriancolt]

Grigsons worst decision so far...

[Smash Mouth]

Needs to do what Lacy did and drop weight, get into a much better shape

Talks of Lacy being out of shape and everything at his pro day have now been silenced as he's took the league by storm up in GB

I think that weight is part of it but I'm just not sure Trent has the vision to be a good RB.

[TKnight24]

Grigsons worst decision so far...

David Reed anyone?

[Mitch Connors]

I heard JMV bring this up on the radio and he and his producer inferred that they have heard a few disturbing rumors about Trent and that if true, would shed new light on this situation. They wouldn't go into it though, meaning it could be nothing but more could come from it.

Who is JMV? I see the name on twitter occasionally but I have no idea who that is. I don't live in the Indy area so I don't hear him on the radio.

[Boiler_Colt]

Who is JMV? I see the name on twitter occasionally but I have no idea who that is. I don't live in the Indy area so I don't hear him on the radio.

 

 John Michael Vincent, local sports radio personality in Indy. Hosts a show on the local ESPN radio affiliate.

[indy1888]

Richardson actually suspended 2 games

 

Bob Kravitz @bkravitz · 14m14 minutes ago

Grigson says Trent Richardson was suspended two games by the club.

0 replies16 retweets2 favorites

 Reply

 Retweet16

 Favorite2

More

[ColtsLegacy]

David Reed anyone?

Are you kidding me? What did Grigson give up for Reed? Delone Freakin' Carter? Oh, yeah, that was totally a worse decision than the TR trade...

[bavanlan]

David Reed anyone?

Closest thing is probably the Hughes/Sheppard trade.

The fact we've moved on from "releasing Peyton" is refreshing.

[bavanlan]

Bet he is on the roster next year

Terms?

[TKnight24]

Closest thing is probably the Hughes/Sheppard trade.

The fact we've moved on from "releasing Peyton" is refreshing.

Rather not talk about the Hughes/Sheppard trade smh

And it's funny cause didn't the Bills get Rex Ryan? So now Hughes is BACK in a 3-4..... If he balls out it's gonna make that trade that much worse

[Dustin]

Rather not talk about the Hughes/Sheppard trade smh

And it's funny cause didn't the Bills get Rex Ryan? So now Hughes is BACK in a 3-4..... If he balls out it's gonna make that trade that much worse

 

He plays in a 50-50 43/34 defense. Last year he played more snaps as a LB and this year he played more snaps as a DE. 

[AntonMcG]

He plays in a 50-50 43/34 defense. Last year he played more snaps as a LB and this year he played more snaps as a DE. 

 

Watch him not respond after being proven wrong yet again.

[AntonMcG]

Richardson had success in a completely different system at Alabama, and benefitted from a very different zone-blocking scheme. His failure is proof to those that believe RBs to be plug-and-play regardless of system.

 

It had been an exponential failure, but I still respect the boldness of Grigson.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000462457/article/colts-trent-richardson-suspended-for-two-games

 

I wish they'd elaborate more on this.

 

"The thing is, every situation is different," Grigson said. "Every player and how we deal with him is gonna be different. But he'll be lumped into that conversation with guys this offseason -- where's he fit? Where is he going? Is his arrow up, down, sideways, 45-degree angle? -- and we gotta figure all these things out."

[TKnight24]

He plays in a 50-50 43/34 defense. Last year he played more snaps as a LB and this year he played more snaps as a DE.

And now he's gonna move back to OLB (assuming Rex takes control of that defense). So if he now does well at OLB, that's now 2 positions he played well in while Sheppard position with us was voided. Making the trade that much worse. That was my point. Hughes was better here than what Sheppard gave us. That's all I was saying

[RockThatBlue]

Bet he is on the roster next year

I highly doubt it.

[Larry Horseman]

And now he's gonna move back to OLB (assuming Rex takes control of that defense). So if he now does well at OLB, that's now 2 positions he played well in while Sheppard position with us was voided. Making the trade that much worse. That was my point. Hughes was better here than what Sheppard gave us. That's all I was saying

 

If you're talking production for the Colts, neither made a significant positive impact. It is a wash.

 

You're so bullish about everything. Did you ever think that Hughes needed a change of scenery to develop into a somewhat productive NFL player? That perhaps he would have never played as good in Indy as he did in Buffalo? In all reality, Hughes is nothing more than a mediocre NFL player. 

 

To fixate on the Hughes/Sheppard trade like it is some major black eye is short sided, agenda driven, and pretty silly. 

[Superman]

Richardson had success in a completely different system at Alabama, and benefitted from a very different zone-blocking scheme. His failure is proof to those that believe RBs to be plug-and-play regardless of system.

 

It had been an exponential failure, but I still respect the boldness of Grigson.

 

It's worse than that. Donald Brown was mostly misused here, and was still not all that good of a back. But in the chances he did get, he was far more effectively than Trent Richardson, even in the wrong blocking schemes. 

 

Richardson is just bad. Put him back in a ZBS and he'll still be bad, I think, because he's slow to the spot/hole and doesn't even seem to run with the power he used to. I think he has to lose 10-15 pounds, regardless of what kind of scheme he's in. And given the news of his suspension, he obviously needs to be better in between Sundays as well.

 

It's just... outside of a QB, I don't think I've ever seen such a precipitous decline from a player. It was hard to believe in 2013, but you could hope that he just needed time to adjust and whatnot. Now, he's just bad.

[Rebelknight]

I read on Bleacher report that with him being suspended into next year it may do something to his contract to where the Colts do not have to pay when they release him...Something like conduct detrimental to the team.

The thing I find odd is if he is suspended 2 games ( Bengals,Pats ) was/is it more than just a 2 game suspension. It did say it only pertains to if he is on the Colts roster next year so it isn't a league thing.

[Superman]

If you're talking production for the Colts, neither made a significant positive impact. It is a wash.

 

You're so bullish about everything. Did you ever think that Hughes needed a change of scenery to develop into a somewhat productive NFL player? That perhaps he would have never played as good in Indy as he did in Buffalo? In all reality, Hughes is nothing more than a mediocre NFL player. 

 

To fixate on the Hughes/Sheppard trade like it is some major black eye is short sided, agenda driven, and pretty silly. 

 

I'm not fixated on it, and it pains me to lend credence to anything TK is saying because, like you say, he's so sensational about pretty much everything, but...

 

I've said this many times. I'd rather have what Jerry Hughes gave us in 2012 than what Sheppard gave us in 2013. So it's not about him needing a change of scenery or not fitting the scheme or any of that. Even before he went to Buffalo, when he was still nothing more than the disappointment of the 2010 draft, he was more productive and beneficial than the guy we traded him for. 

 

Let alone what Hughes has become, or might have become. Sheppard wasn't beneficial for us at all. He wasn't even mediocre.

 

Now, as always, judging moves like this with the benefit of hindsight, and without all the facts, is folly. We don't know what was happening with Hughes inside the building. He seems to have a little bit of a bad attitude, seems to be a little selfish, doesn't seem to be a team-first kind of guy, etc., just based on how things went with him here, and even some of his public comments since. The staff may have been ready to cut him outright, in which case, trading him for an established vet who played a lot of snaps for us is actually a net-plus. But there's no question that we didn't get the better player, and it doesn't even require hindsight to determine that. 

[TKnight24]

If you're talking production for the Colts, neither made a significant positive impact. It is a wash.

You're so bullish about everything. Did you ever think that Hughes needed a change of scenery to develop into a somewhat productive NFL player? That perhaps he would have never played as good in Indy as he did in Buffalo? In all reality, Hughes is nothing more than a mediocre NFL player.

To fixate on the Hughes/Sheppard trade like it is some major black eye is short sided, agenda driven, and pretty silly.

Definitely not a "wash" at all

Hughes was a developing young player starting to come into his own in that 3-4 whereas Sheppard has already been around long enough to where you knew what he was bringing to the table.

I get the concept, but don't agree with it. Hughes was in a bad spot cause he was drafted in the 1st due to the ignorance of the former front office. You don't draft someone in the 1st to ride the bench. Don't care how good Hughes was, he wasn't starting over Freeney & Mathis.

So Grigson came in seeing an underperforming 1st rounder thus the trade happen. Like I said, I get the concept/reasoning for the trade.... But don't agree with it and we definitely got the short end of the deal as the player we received is no longer here while the player we traded is reviving his career in Buffalo

[ColtsFanMikeC]

I read on Bleacher report that with him being suspended into next year it may do something to his contract to where the Colts do not have to pay when they release him...Something like conduct detrimental to the team.

The thing I find odd is if he is suspended 2 games ( Bengals,Pats ) was/is it more than just a 2 game suspension. It did say it only pertains to if he is on the Colts roster next year so it isn't a league thing.

 

He wasn't technically suspended against Bengals --- he still has 1 game left on his suspension.

[Superman]

I read on Bleacher report that with him being suspended into next year it may do something to his contract to where the Colts do not have to pay when they release him...Something like conduct detrimental to the team.

The thing I find odd is if he is suspended 2 games ( Bengals,Pats ) was/is it more than just a 2 game suspension. It did say it only pertains to if he is on the Colts roster next year so it isn't a league thing.

 

I think contracts are only affected if it's a league suspension, and even then, it might have to be related to drugs/PEDs. I don't think the team can suspend a player for being a knucklehead and thereby void future guarantees. If that were the case, the Bears could suspend Jay Cutler and get out of his ridiculous contract.

[PeterBowman]

maybe Trent was one of the players who we're considered "all in" when they had the players only meeting.

[Superman]

He wasn't technically suspended against Bengals --- he still has 1 game left on his suspension.

 

Not the Bengals game; he actually played a snap. But the Broncos game, very possibly that was a team suspension. Then the Pats game, obviously. Grigson didn't elaborate on that, and wasn't asked to (fault the guys in the room for that lacking detail, IMO).

[AntonMcG]

It's worse than that. Donald Brown was mostly misused here, and was still not all that good of a back. But in the chances he did get, he was far more effectively than Trent Richardson, even in the wrong blocking schemes. 

 

Richardson is just bad. Put him back in a ZBS and he'll still be bad, I think, because he's slow to the spot/hole and doesn't even seem to run with the power he used to. I think he has to lose 10-15 pounds, regardless of what kind of scheme he's in. And given the news of his suspension, he obviously needs to be better in between Sundays as well.

 

It's just... outside of a QB, I don't think I've ever seen such a precipitous decline from a player. It was hard to believe in 2013, but you could hope that he just needed time to adjust and whatnot. Now, he's just bad.

 

I'm not saying he would have set the league alight with the inside zone like he did in Alabama, but come on....

 

We all seen him play, every scout seen him play, he was a can't miss. And the argument that college doesn't always translate to the pros doesn't wash... there is a huge sample size of tape and data to assess an RBs pro potential... everyone could just not have been that wrong.

 

There has got to be more to it. As you say, he doesn't run with power anymore... but why? What turned him from the best RB running back prospect since Peterson to the least effective RB in the league?

[krunk]

It's worse than that. Donald Brown was mostly misused here, and was still not all that good of a back. But in the chances he did get, he was far more effectively than Trent Richardson, even in the wrong blocking schemes. 

 

Richardson is just bad. Put him back in a ZBS and he'll still be bad, I think, because he's slow to the spot/hole and doesn't even seem to run with the power he used to. I think he has to lose 10-15 pounds, regardless of what kind of scheme he's in. And given the news of his suspension, he obviously needs to be better in between Sundays as well.

 

It's just... outside of a QB, I don't think I've ever seen such a precipitous decline from a player. It was hard to believe in 2013, but you could hope that he just needed time to adjust and whatnot. Now, he's just bad.

 

 

The guy used to out muscle a lot of those college guys, but when he got to the NFL he found the tackling to be much more superior.  On top of that you add the lack of vision and no ability to change direction. I'm not sure who clocked him at

a 4.4 but something must have been wrong with the timer.  Richardson always seemed to be running fairly slow on the field.

[dw49]

I think contracts are only affected if it's a league suspension, and even then, it might have to be related to drugs/PEDs. I don't think the team can suspend a player for being a knucklehead and thereby void future guarantees. If that were the case, the Bears could suspend Jay Cutler and get out of his ridiculous contract.

 

 

I totally agree that this will not be an "out" to the 2015 contract but I did see this. But I think Wells is full of poop.

 

 

 

Trent Richardson's suspension will extend to Week 1 of the 2015 season if he remains with the Colts.

The suspension was purportedly for both the AFC Championship Game and Super Bowl, but the Colts didn't make it to the Super Bowl. So T-Rich is technically suspended one more game. It's conceivable the Colts could use Richardson's suspension to free themselves from his 2015 guaranteed salary. The guarantees may void if Richardson's conduct was detrimental to the team.

 

 

Source: Mike Wells on Twitter

 

[Larry Horseman]

I'm not fixated on it, and it pains me to lend credence to anything TK is saying because, like you say, he's so sensational about pretty much everything, but...

 

I've said this many times. I'd rather have what Jerry Hughes gave us in 2012 than what Sheppard gave us in 2013. So it's not about him needing a change of scenery or not fitting the scheme or any of that. Even before he went to Buffalo, when he was still nothing more than the disappointment of the 2010 draft, he was more productive and beneficial than the guy we traded him for. 

 

Let alone what Hughes has become, or might have become. Sheppard wasn't beneficial for us at all. He wasn't even mediocre.

 

Now, as always, judging moves like this with the benefit of hindsight, and without all the facts, is folly. We don't know what was happening with Hughes inside the building. He seems to have a little bit of a bad attitude, seems to be a little selfish, doesn't seem to be a team-first kind of guy, etc., just based on how things went with him here, and even some of his public comments since. The staff may have been ready to cut him outright, in which case, trading him for an established vet who played a lot of snaps for us is actually a net-plus. But there's no question that we didn't get the better player, and it doesn't even require hindsight to determine that. 

 

I won't argue against what you are saying. My general point is that I don't think the trade had a large enough impact on the Colts to be fixated on as a major negative for Grigs. I personally think it was an attitude issue in Indy and that was the basis of my mindset on the issue. Perhaps Hughes could have had a great impact last year and this year. Perhaps he wouldn't have. To me, it just isn't worth the heartburn to keep bringing it up. The Colts were also seriously in need of MLB depth and looked strong on paper at OLB going into last season, which I'm sure factored into the decision

 

 

Definitely not a "wash" at all

Hughes was a developing young player starting to come into his own in that 3-4 whereas Sheppard has already been around long enough to where you knew what he was bringing to the table.

I get the concept, but don't agree with it. Hughes was in a bad spot cause he was drafted in the 1st due to the ignorance of the former front office. You don't draft someone in the 1st to ride the bench. Don't care how good Hughes was, he wasn't starting over Freeney & Mathis.

So Grigson came in seeing an underperforming 1st rounder thus the trade happen. Like I said, I get the concept/reasoning for the trade.... But don't agree with it and we definitely got the short end of the deal as the player we received is no longer here while the player we traded is reviving his career in Buffalo

 

I actually supported drafting Hughes at the time: one factor in the Colts SB loss to the Saints was a lack of pass rush behind Freeney and Mathis. Grigson watched Hughes play in the system for 1 year and obviously thought he didn't fit. As I said above, I think it had more to do with attitude/personality and team need than anything else. 

 

So, maybe saying the trade was a wash was a bit much on my part, but I just don't think you can sit here and say he would have had the same success in Indy as he has in Buffalo. Your key phrase is "revive" his career. Much of the time that entails new scenery. 

[Superman]

I'm not saying he would have set the league alight with the inside zone like he did in Alabama, but come on....

 

We all seen him play, every scout seen him play, he was a can't miss. And the argument that college doesn't always translate to the pros doesn't wash... there is a huge sample size of tape and data to assess an RBs pro potential... everyone could just not have been that wrong.

 

There has got to be more to it. As you say, he doesn't run with power anymore... but why? What turned him from the best RB running back prospect since Peterson to the least effective RB in the league?

 

Completely speculative, but it might be a mix of laziness/poor work ethic, and lack of fortitude.

 

Even before he was traded (or maybe right after he was traded), some vet from the Browns was quoted as saying that 'Trent has a lot to learn about being a pro,' or something to that effect. Then he got traded, which had to be a slap in the face, to a certain extent. Then he didn't play well here, then he got benched by the end of the year, and basically didn't play in the playoffs. He's been beat down a lot, publicly and privately.

 

And again, just speculating, but I don't think he's in the best shape he can be in. I think he's too heavy, and somewhat ironically, that's sapped him of some of his power. He can't play smoothly and explosively, and if he can't get going, then how can he finish? He's listed at 225, but he doesn't really look it. And even if he is, he just looks too thick and bulky. His BMI blows Marshawn Lynch out of the water. He has to get in better shape.

[ColtsFanMikeC]

Not the Bengals game; he actually played a snap. But the Broncos game, very possibly that was a team suspension. Then the Pats game, obviously. Grigson didn't elaborate on that, and wasn't asked to (fault the guys in the room for that lacking detail, IMO).

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000462457/article/colts-trent-richardson-suspended-for-two-games  

 

"The Colts told NFL Media that Richardson has one game remaining on his suspension, and it's up to the team's discretion whether he will serve it next season. Grigson did not elaborate further, citing personal reasons."

 

Richardson being a healthy scratch against Denver may well have been a punishment from the team, but the fact that he's got 1 game left on the 2-game suspension suggests it wasn't a formal suspension.  I actually believed Chuck when he said Michael Hill was activated because he had more special teams ability than Richardson at the time he said it.  Now I am a bit confused, Trent may have done something to get himself in trouble with the organization prior to Denver.... or, if Pagano was being totally honest, Richardson may have acted immaturely after being a healthy scratch in Denver that resulted in his suspension.

[Superman]

 

I totally agree that this will not be an "out" to the 2015 contract but I did see this. But I think Wells is full of poop.

 

 

 

Trent Richardson's suspension will extend to Week 1 of the 2015 season if he remains with the Colts.

The suspension was purportedly for both the AFC Championship Game and Super Bowl, but the Colts didn't make it to the Super Bowl. So T-Rich is technically suspended one more game. It's conceivable the Colts could use Richardson's suspension to free themselves from his 2015 guaranteed salary. The guarantees may void if Richardson's conduct was detrimental to the team.

 

 

Source: Mike Wells on Twitter

 

 

 

I don't respect Wells' knowledge of the league or the game. His use of the word "purportedly" means it's entirely conjecture, if you ask me. We just don't know, but it makes sense that his inexplicable benching in the Denver game has something to do with him being suspended. The team wasn't forthcoming with the suspension information to begin with. And it could have been two 1 game suspensions. Grigson's comments were a little vague, and no one asked him to clarify. So we don't know.

 

As for the contract, yeah, I don't think a team suspension affects future guarantees. That'd be too easy. I should look it up, but don't feel like it. I'm certainly not going to take Wells' word for it.

[Superman]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000462457/article/colts-trent-richardson-suspended-for-two-games

 

"The Colts told NFL Media that Richardson has one game remaining on his suspension, and it's up to the team's discretion whether he will serve it next season. Grigson did not elaborate further, citing personal reasons."

 

Richardson being a healthy scratch against Denver may well have been a punishment from the team, but the fact that he's got 1 game left on the 2-game suspension suggests it wasn't a formal suspension.  I actually believed Chuck when he said Michael Hill was activated because he had more special teams ability than Richardson at the time he said it.  Now I am a bit confused, Trent may have done something to get himself in trouble with the organization prior to Denver.... or, if Pagano was being totally honest, Richardson may have acted immaturely after being a healthy scratch in Denver that resulted in his suspension.

 

Okay, that might be different. If that report is in addition to Grigson's comments, then that would be the clarification we didn't get earlier. 

[TKnight24]

I won't argue against what you are saying. My general point is that I don't think the trade had a large enough impact on the Colts to be fixated on as a major negative for Grigs. I personally think it was an attitude issue in Indy and that was the basis of my mindset on the issue. Perhaps Hughes could have had a great impact last year and this year. Perhaps he wouldn't have. To me, it just isn't worth the heartburn to keep bringing it up. The Colts were also seriously in need of MLB depth and looked strong on paper at OLB going into last season, which I'm sure factored into the decision

I actually supported drafting Hughes at the time: one factor in the Colts SB loss to the Saints was a lack of pass rush behind Freeney and Mathis. Grigson watched Hughes play in the system for 1 year and obviously thought he didn't fit. As I said above, I think it had more to do with attitude/personality and team need than anything else.

So, maybe saying the trade was a wash was a bit much on my part, but I just don't think you can sit here and say he would have had the same success in Indy as he has in Buffalo. Your key phrase is "revive" his career. Much of the time that entails new scenery.

Yeah, he did have to revive it cause the Polians killed it before it ever started. Where you get drafted indicates the expectations you have against you from the time you put your NFL helmet on for the first time. Hughes has no business going in the 1st for numerous reasons

He was coming along well in the 3-4 IMO, but the plugged was pulled too soon for my liking..... But not the general standard of Grigson

I get his perspective, but to this day I won't agree with it

[Superman]

I won't argue against what you are saying. My general point is that I don't think the trade had a large enough impact on the Colts to be fixated on as a major negative for Grigs. I personally think it was an attitude issue in Indy and that was the basis of my mindset on the issue. Perhaps Hughes could have had a great impact last year and this year. Perhaps he wouldn't have. To me, it just isn't worth the heartburn to keep bringing it up. The Colts were also seriously in need of MLB depth and looked strong on paper at OLB going into last season, which I'm sure factored into the decision

 

Not a major negative, no. But the player he brought in wasn't very good, so when we're talking about overall roster quality, that has to be considered. 

 

Of course, most people are assuming that Grigson made the trade either because he didn't value Hughes or because he really wanted Sheppard, but in reality, his hand could have been forced by factors we know nothing about. We see that the team likes to keep certain information quiet, like in-house discipline, etc. As I said, they could have been ready to cut Hughes for some reason. We don't know, but that would probably recalibrate the entire discussion.

 

It's not really worth bringing up, but it's hard to ignore when we had such a glaring need at pass rusher, and Hughes was putting up another 10 sack season as a member of the #3 defense in the league. We certainly didn't come out ahead on that deal.

[Superman]

The guy used to out muscle a lot of those college guys, but when he got to the NFL he found the tackling to be much more superior.  On top of that you add the lack of vision and no ability to change direction. I'm not sure who clocked him at

a 4.4 but something must have been wrong with the timer.  Richardson always seemed to be running fairly slow on the field.

 

It's another example of why speed tests at the Combine are overrated. It's fun to measure guys against one another, but when a high level athlete spends six weeks working on running the perfect 40 yard dash, you should expect peak performance. That has little to do with how he carries the football in the 4th quarter in mid-December. 

 

As for power, Richardson ran strong in his rookie year. Not great adjusted numbers, but he did a better job of running through contact and finishing strong than he ever has as a Colt. 

[dw49]

I don't respect Wells' knowledge of the league or the game. His use of the word "purportedly" means it's entirely conjecture, if you ask me. We just don't know, but it makes sense that his inexplicable benching in the Denver game has something to do with him being suspended. The team wasn't forthcoming with the suspension information to begin with. And it could have been two 1 game suspensions. Grigson's comments were a little vague, and no one asked him to clarify. So we don't know.

 

As for the contract, yeah, I don't think a team suspension affects future guarantees. That'd be too easy. I should look it up, but don't feel like it. I'm certainly not going to take Wells' word for it.

 

 

Agree that Wells is way out in left field on this. There is no way you can suspend a player for two games on what is in all probability non egregious stuff and then void his guaranteed money. I think its almost laughable