Trent Richardson traded to Colts

[marionbarberthe4th]

Richardson breaks a lot of tackles he's very good.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Not that good? Compared to what?

He may not have been worth the 3rd pick in the draft, but he's certainly more valuable than a pick in the 20s. They had someone who was a proven performer, and he was easily the best player on their offense. Now they have to hope they hit on a pick in the 20s, which is no sure thing by a long shot. Sure you can list some players who have panned out who were picked in the 20s, but there are just as many busts in the 20s.

They could have kept him and still got their QB with their pick in Round 1. As it is, now when they pick a QB next year, he's either going to have to carry the load or they're going to have to draft another RB. Sounds like a great idea huh... Let's pick Bridgewater and make him have to throw it 50 times a game as a rookie.

To compare this to what we should have done with Martellus Bennet is ridiculous. He was a backup TE to a hall of famer, and was never going to see many passes here. Richardson was Cleveland's whole offense.

Not that good compared to every legit measure of the quality of a running back in the history of football.

The production simply wasn't there last year, and after two games it wasn't there this year either. They found a sucker to give them a first for them and they pulled the trigger before it was too late and they got nothing for him. The comparison to Bennett is quite apt. We should've moved on from Bennett once we realized he wasn't what we thought he was when we drafted him (or at the very least we wouldn't use him effectively) and someone was willing to give us a high draft pick for him.

You are acknowledging he wasn't worth the #3 pick in the draft but yet somehow a pick in the 20s (maybe) isn't enough? Yes there are some busts in the 20s just like there are some busts in the top 5. But you should be valuing a pick based on the likelihood of getting a good player and in the 20s of the first round is pretty likely to get a good player. Let's be intellectually honest and acknowledge that. So if that's the case, and you yourself admitted that he wasn't worth the top 5 pick they used on him, I can only assume, since you are defending him, that you consider him good but not elite. So if you are likely to get a good player in the 20s, where's the problem. Hell, I'd argue you could easily get a better RB in the 20s than Richardson (e.g. MJD, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Ray Rice, etc.).

You will notice I never used their ability to acquire a legit QB as a defense for this trade; my stance is that this was a smart move regardless. However, I will address your comment that they would put an undue burden on a rookie QB due to a lack of a running game without Richardson. A) It is quite easy to find a good RB. They just about grow on trees. B) It is especially easy to replace the below average production Richardson gave them.

 

[peplaw06]

Attempts is a measure of quantity, not quality. TDs is very circumstantial. It takes a mere 62 yards per game to get 1000 yards and despite being 11th in attempts he couldn't even do that.

In other words, not a top 10 back. For christs sake, he averaged 3.6 yards per carry. Not only is that not a top 10 back, that's downright terrible.

Yes he was on a 5-11 team. And part of the reason they were 5-11 was because he wasn't particularly good.

Most stats are circumstantial.

You want to measure it based solely on yards I guess. Most RBs can only do as much as his offense allows him to do. They had little to no passing threat and were forced to run the ball. Defenses knew to stack the box against him and he still performed. 3.6 YPC in those circumstances is not terrible.

There's no one stat you can look at to rate the overall performance of an RB. You have to look at the whole picture.

 

[Genghis Khan]

So Richardson was a "subpar" player... I doubt any GM in the NFL would have said that last year.

The other side of the trade is the Colts, who have made a lot of good moves the last couple of years. So they're just that dumb?

And edit, just saw that... Richardson was a substantial contributing factor to their going 5-11? Like he held them back? Awesome.

Yes. Well, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said he was a substantial factor.

But yes, if you are averaging 3.6 yards per carry, you are helping your team to 11 losses.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Most stats are circumstantial.

You want to measure it based solely on yards I guess. Most RBs can only do as much as his offense allows him to do. They had little to no passing threat and were forced to run the ball. Defenses knew to stack the box against him and he still performed. 3.6 YPC in those circumstances is not terrible.

There's no one stat you can look at to rate the overall performance of an RB. You have to look at the whole picture.

3.6 yards per carry is terrible under any circumstances.

By circumstantial, I mean some teams are inside the 5 more than others, some teams are inclined to run the ball inside the 10 more than others, some teams have no other running options so the lead back doesn't have to share goal line carries, some teams can't pass so they have to run it in to score, and on and on. So yeah, circumstantial. Even if his 11 TDs make some kind of quality goal line back or scoring specialist, it does not in a vacuum make him a good RB generally. The other aspects of being a good RB simply aren't there.

 

[peplaw06]

Not that good compared to every legit measure of the quality of a running back in the history of football.

TDs is not a legit measure of an RB? GTFO.

The production simply wasn't there last year, and after two games it wasn't there this year either. They found a sucker to give them a first for them and they pulled the trigger before it was too late and they got nothing for him. The comparison to Bennett is quite apt. We should've moved on from Bennett once we realized he wasn't what we thought he was when we drafted him (or at the very least we wouldn't use him effectively) and someone was willing to give us a high draft pick for him.

No, it's not apt. Bennett didn't do anything for us, and he was never going to. Richardson has been in the league a year and was the only weapon on that offense.

You are acknowledging he wasn't worth the #3 pick in the draft but yet somehow a pick in the 20s (maybe) isn't enough? Yes there are some busts in the 20s just like there are some busts in the top 5. But you should be valuing a pick based on the likelihood of getting a good player and in the 20s of the first round is pretty likely to get a good player. Let's be intellectually honest and acknowledge that. So if that's the case, and you yourself admitted that he wasn't worth the top 5 pick they used on him, I can only assume, since you are defending him, that you consider him good but not elite. So if you are likely to get a good player in the 20s, where's the problem. Hell, I'd argue you could easily get a better RB in the 20s than Richardson (e.g. MJD, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Ray Rice, etc.).

The problem is you already had a good player, and you're taking on an unnecessary risk that you might get a good player. 100% is better than 70% or 80%. Even if you're "likely" to get a good player in the 20s, you're not assured of it. That's intellectual honesty.

You will notice I never used their ability to acquire a legit QB as a defense for this trade; my stance is that this was a smart move regardless. However, I will address your comment that they would put an undue burden on a rookie QB due to a lack of a running game without Richardson. A) It is quite easy to find a good RB. They just about grow on trees. B) It is especially easy to replace the below average production Richardson gave them.

We can't seem to find a good RB. And we've thrown tons of mid round picks at the problem.

 

[GloryDaysRBack]

Nobody is suggesting that Richardson isn't good. But he isn't going to take a team over the top (colts)...and he damn sure isn't a player that's going to take a team out of the gutter (browns)

 

[cmd34(work)]

The Browns were well are on their way to having a legit chance at Teddy Bridgewater (or Manziel who supposedly intrigues their owner) before this trade. How nice would it be for whatever rookie franchise QB they are breaking in to have a dependable workhorse like Trent Richardson?

This is straight up tanking. Reminds me of what NBA teams used to do before they put in the lottery.

 

[Genghis Khan]

TDs is not a legit measure of an RB? GTFO.

Not by itself it isn't, no. I'd think that should be obvious. Plenty of RBs have been in the top ten in TDs and otherwise were not top ten RBs. Marion Barber III would be an example. Hell, just last year Leshoure was an example.

Here is another illustration. Richardson was 18 carries 42 yards week 13 against KC. 2.33 ypc. TERRIBLE game. Had 2 touchdowns though. Same thing the next week against Washington. 11 carries 28 yards. 2.55 ypc. TERRIBLE. But had another 2 touchdowns. 4 touchdowns in 2 games in which he averaged 35 total yards rushing and 2.4 yards per carry.

You are god damn right that TDs by themselves are not a legit measure of the quality of a RB. Like I said, circumstantial.

No, it's not apt. Bennett didn't do anything for us, and he was never going to. Richardson has been in the league a year and was the only weapon on that offense.

Yes, it is apt. Richardson wasn't a weapon for them, wasn't doing anything for them, and can be easily replaced. Same thing.

The problem is you already had a good player, and you're taking on an unnecessary risk that you might get a good player. 100% is better than 70% or 80%. Even if you're "likely" to get a good player in the 20s, you're not assured of it. That's intellectual honesty.

No, the problem was you had a player that wasn't giving you good production, and you had a team that was giving you a very, very good chance at finding a good player. No brainer. The real intellectual honesty is acknowledging that Richardson was not producing at the level you'd want from a player taken in the 20s, let alone a player taken in the top 5.

Look, you are impressed with his draft status. I get it. Apparently a lot of people are. But pretty soon people will see him for what he is producing, and not where he was drafted.

We can't seem to find a good RB. And we've thrown tons of mid round picks at the problem.

Really? Because the way I see it, we have a RB as good as or better than Richardson right now, production-wise. I think the opposite is actually true, we've been able to find good RBs while barely trying. Just because we haven't run the ball enough and haven't had good enough blocking doesn't mean we haven't had good enough RBs.

Hell, Leshoure's season last year was on par with Richardson's production. Look around the league. RBs practically grown on trees.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

So when we don't run it well enough, it's blocking... When the Browns don't, it's because the back sucks.

I love it when people throw around "intellectual honesty" a lot, though.

 

[Genghis Khan]

So when we don't run it well enough, it's blocking... When the Browns don't, it's because the back sucks.

I love it when people throw around "intellectual honesty" a lot, though.

No, don't be dense. Murray averaged 4.1 ypc last year, Richardson averaged 3.6.

Intellectual honesty indeed.

 

[Jon88]

Hey, looks who's back.

 

[Jon88]

TDs is not a legit measure of an RB? GTFO.

Emmmit had 25 rushing touchdowns in 1995.

 

[GloryDaysRBack]

They don't need to trade away Richardson to tank. Thats just fucking dumb.

They can now get Clowney AND a QB in round 1 next year. >>>>>>>> Richardson + whoever they take w their pick

 

[Jon88]

I haven't really read the thread so someone may have said this, but I can't believe they took a running back with the 3rd overall pick. Now they'll get like the 15th-23rd. They must have consulted with Jerry before they made the trade.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Definitely an eye opener. I think Richardson isn't as good as some (including me) thought he'd be, but giving up on the #3 overall pick after only a season? To a team that might make the playoffs? (which means essentially you gave away the 3rd overall for a 2nd rd pick)

Yes folks, there are indeed people stupider than Jerruh.

They can resource it to a more position friendly 1st round pick.

You don't take RBs that high in the draft anymore.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think both teams made out pretty well on this trade. The Colts are only a few players away from turning into something special. The Browns, well, they're too terrible to be drafting RBs in the 1st round, and now get a chance to redeem themselves.

Yes, cmd, Bridgewater and Richardson would be a nice duo in the backfield, but how many awesome QB/RB duos are doing anything?

 

[Cowboysrule122]

Cleveland Browns ‏@Browns 2m
The Browns have signed RB Willis McGahee.

There's their answer for the rest of the year.

 

[peplaw06]

Not by itself it isn't, no. I'd think that should be obvious. Plenty of RBs have been in the top ten in TDs and otherwise were not top ten RBs. Marion Barber III would be an example. Hell, just last year Leshoure was an example.

Here is another illustration. Richardson was 18 carries 42 yards week 13 against KC. 2.33 ypc. TERRIBLE game. Had 2 touchdowns though. Same thing the next week against Washington. 11 carries 28 yards. 2.55 ypc. TERRIBLE. But had another 2 touchdowns. 4 touchdowns in 2 games in which he averaged 35 total yards rushing and 2.4 yards per carry.

You are god damn right that TDs by themselves are not a legit measure of the quality of a RB. Like I said, circumstantial.

I didn't say by themselves did I? Now who's putting words in who's mouth? They are a measure, not the measure.

Yes, it is apt. Richardson wasn't a weapon for them, wasn't doing anything for them, and can be easily replaced. Same thing.

Richardson not a weapon? Give me a fuckin break.

No, the problem was you had a player that wasn't giving you good production, and you had a team that was giving you a very, very good chance at finding a good player. No brainer. The real intellectual honesty is acknowledging that Richardson was not producing at the level you'd want from a player taken in the 20s, let alone a player taken in the top 5.

He was producing more than anyone else on that team. He wasn't producing like a number 3 pick (through one season mind you), but anyone can see that he's going to be a good back on a team with talent. Anyone.

Look, you are impressed with his draft status. I get it. Apparently a lot of people are. But pretty soon people will see him for what he is producing, and not where he was drafted.

I feel like we certainly will see the production out of him to warrant trading a first rounder. I'm not impressed with his draft status. I'm impressed with what he did as a diamond surrounded by trash.

Really? Because the way I see it, we have a RB as good as or better than Richardson right now, production-wise. I think the opposite is actually true, we've been able to find good RBs while barely trying. Just because we haven't run the ball enough and haven't had good enough blocking doesn't mean we haven't had good enough RBs.

Our backs have been shitty since Emmitt left compared to Richardson. Murray has had some good games but can't stay healthy, and he doesn't score.

Hell, Leshoure's season last year was on par with Richardson's production. Look around the league. RBs practically grown on trees.

If by "on par", you mean "was behind in rushing yards, receiving yards, TDs, and attempts," then ok.

 

[peplaw06]

So when we don't run it well enough, it's blocking... When the Browns don't, it's because the back sucks.

I love it when people throw around "intellectual honesty" a lot, though.

Exactly.