NFL Week 3 or whatever

[Guest]

That's too much to give up for a 15-20th pick in the 1st. They overdrafted for Richardson last year and they make up for it by getting rid of him for too little.

 

Clev. wants to completely rebuild and traded their likely only position of true 1st rd. value.

 

Quite the battle will arise between them and Jacksonville for Bridgewater.

 

I don't think a 3.5 yard/carry running back (or any running back not named Adrian Peterson, tbh) is worth even a mid first rounder.

 

Because stats for the first seventeen games of a career, on a bad team with no passing attack are predictive of the rest of a career? Yeah, I'm going to remain dubious about that.

 

Well, it's more the fact that he's a RB in the first place than what he did in Cleveland.

 

Sure, I think that's a reasonable position. I wonder if that has become such a cliche it might need some re-evaluation in some circumstances, at least (maybe not). I would just vehemently disagree that his first seventeen games prove that he is a 3.5 yards-per-carry back.

 

It's enough to convince me even further that he's not Adrian Peterson (not that I needed to be).

 

But like goony said, it's really just that he's a running back.

[Cubswin11]

Just skimmed over a Barnwell article on the trade. Found this interesting, Luck go hit/knocked down the most of any NFL QB last year (somewhere in the 80's) the QB who got hit/knocked down the 2nd most was Rodgers and Rodgers was closer to the #17 QB in hits/knockdowns than he was to Luck. I didn't realize Indy's OL was that bad.

[Guest]

I think it's a good move for both teams, and a good move for richardson. A RARE WIN-WIN-WIN.

 

Colts get a presumably good back, and they're fighting to take over the afc after brady and manning retire. browns get good value for a RB and Richardson gets to play in an offense where the team can actually open the field up by throwing the ball.

 

And for people who care about evaluating a front office, its gives a pretty clear-cut break for the new Cleveland front office to no longer be able to blame the old one, since they have a ton of picks this year. Now they have no excuse to be terrible next season and should be competitive in 2015, otherwise these guys are terrible at their job.

 

As QB centric as the NFL has become, combined with the fact that the Browns don't have one, gives them a small out. If they're not as terrible as Jacksonville and don't get Bridgewater, who do they go after and when do they pick a QB?

 

There certainly will be other QB options who'll go in the top 10 this year besides Bridgewater (Tajh Boyd, Marcus Mariota, Brett Hundley or Johnny Manziel are all possibilities). Or maybe a David Fales type later in the first round with the Colts' pick (and maybe you can pick up Clowney in this case, because Clowney > Bridgewater). Sure, it'll be tougher if a QB doesn't fall in your lap but not every elite QB went in the top 5. Trading away your #3 pick overall from the previous year and acquiring an additional first rounder adds more pressure to the current FO to turn things around rapidly.

[Exile on Waveland]

Sure, I think that's a reasonable position. I wonder if that has become such a cliche it might need some re-evaluation in some circumstances, at least (maybe not). I would just vehemently disagree that his first seventeen games prove that he is a 3.5 yards-per-carry back.

 

It's proven he isn't special. A special dynamic RB would have done more than he did even with a crappy team.

 

Why, because you say so? That's only a relevant factor in your mind.

 

Read: http://www.footballperspective.com/why-trent-richardsons-3-6-ypc-average-does-not-matter/

 

Included on the list of running backs under twenty-seven years of age that averaged less than four yards-per-carry while taking seventy-percent of their team's carries:

 

Matt Forte (2009 - 3.6 ypc)

Ricky Williams (2003 - 3.5 ypc)

Edgerrin James (2002 - 3.57 ypc)

Ladainian Tomlinson (2001 - 3.65 ypc)

Jerome Bettis (1998 - 3.65 ypc)

Curtis Martin (1998 - 3.49 ypc)

Eddie George (1998 - 3.72 ypc)

Marshall Faulk (1995 - 3.73 ypc)

 

A few rookies and their yards-per-carry:

 

Emmitt Smith 3.9

Walter Payton 3.5

LaDanian Tomlinson 3.6

 

Judging a player based on his first seventeen games (on a bad team, no less) is such a flawed undertaking that I'm surprised we are even having this discussion.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't understand why you think I'm judging a player based only on his first 17 games.

[Soul]

NFL Logo re-designs. Love a lot of these. Raiders, Bucs, Redskins...

 

http://imgur.com/a/yGJKk

 

The Bears one is ok...the inclusion of the C is a nice touch, but I don't love it like I love some others...

 

why is an engineer from prometheus on the cowboys logo?

 

Those all look like they belong on an AFL team. Terrible.

 

The Bengals one looks like some kind of weird tiger embryo.

 

The Chicago Bear got braces.

 

The Packers new logo looks like it was designed for a small regional state college.

 

Freaking terrible.

[mul21]

I don't understand why you think I'm judging a player based only on his first 17 games.

 

Because that's all the NFL experience he has for you to judge him on? I mean, I understand if you don't think he'll be all that great because you think he lacks vision or can't catch the ball or whatever, but you certainly didn't expound enough for anybody to know that.

[Guest]

If you're going to judge Trent Richardson on more than just his rookie season, your opinion of him should only go up. He was quite the dynamic talent at Alabama.

[Exile on Waveland]

I don't understand why you think I'm judging a player based only on his first 17 games.

 

Because you explicitly said so? I'm not sure how else to take the following:

 

It's proven he isn't special. A special dynamic RB would have done more than he did even with a crappy team.

 

You said it was "proven" and then specifically cited his NFL career (which is those seventeen games). Moreover, that's all the possible "proof" we could have. And it's really no proof at all, considering the quality of other young running backs who have had similar struggles.

 

None of this means Richardson will be special. His early career certainly provides ample ammunition for those that think he will never be more than an acceptable starter. I am of the opinion that his talent level coupled with his collegiate performance shows an ability to be special. Certainly, I could be wrong; no one will confuse me as a football scout (and, even if I am correct about his talent level, strange things can happen to even those athletes with elite-level talent to prevent elite-level performance).

[Guest]

The NFL isn't baseball. He's a running back. I feel pretty safe in saying that Richardson isn't the kind of special we're talking about after 17 or 18 games.

[UMFan83]

If you're going to judge Trent Richardson on more than just his rookie season, your opinion of him should only go up. He was quite the dynamic talent at Alabama.

 

So was Cedric Benson at Texas, or Curtis Enis at Penn State, or Darren McFadden at Arkansas, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, etc.

 

But I do agree he needs more than 18 games to be considered a bust.

[Banedon]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/06/21/how-predictive-are-rookie-running-back-statistics/

 

Long article from June, but jumping to the end....

 

Conclusion

 

That turned out to be a fairly lengthy study, but we generated some useful information. We now know that a small sample of rookie data is not much of an indicator of future success. In fact, rookies who don’t see much of a workload tend struggle to progress into a strong players. On the other hand, strong production on a decent to large workload has meant good production over time. If anything, you should come away from this study feeling better about David Wilson and Doug Martin and a bit more wary of spending a pick on Trent Richardson and Lamar Miller.

[sneakypower]

If you're going to judge Trent Richardson on more than just his rookie season, your opinion of him should only go up. He was quite the dynamic talent at Alabama.

http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2010/09/08/090810-CFB-Alabama-Mark-Ingram-PI_20100908123959_660_320.JPG

[jersey cubs fan]

If you're going to judge Trent Richardson on more than just his rookie season, your opinion of him should only go up. He was quite the dynamic talent at Alabama.

 

So was Cedric Benson at Texas, or Curtis Enis at Penn State, or Darren McFadden at Arkansas, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, etc.

 

But I do agree he needs more than 18 games to be considered a bust.

 

I'm not talking about him being a bust. The question is, is he a special back like Peterson, or just another in a long line of replaceable effective runners. Those guys come and go, should not be drafted early, and should be traded at the drop of a hat by currently bad teams receiving a first round pick.

[Guest]

I think Richardson is better than his first 18 games(in addition to the crummy offense around him I believe he played with cracked ribs for part of the year), but I think his limitations mean that getting a first rounder for him is assuredly a good value. Especially since the Colts already have one loss, and games like @SF, v. Den, @Cin, @KC still to come, in addition to the full divisional slate.

[Soul]

Yeah, but the whole thing sets up kind of a sucky situation for Browns fans, who will now watch every Colts win in dismay. Every Colts win with a big play by Richardson will likely have some snarky headline attached to it in the Cleveland papers, with their own team's latest debacle buried on page 2.

 

It's just incredibly horrifying to be a Browns fan, and I don't blame them for being upset.

[Smack]

Yeah, but the whole thing sets up kind of a sucky situation for Browns fans, who will now watch every Colts win in dismay. Every Colts win with a big play by Richardson will likely have some snarky headline attached to it in the Cleveland papers, with their own team's latest debacle buried on page 2.

 

It's just incredibly horrifying to be a Browns fan, and I don't blame them for being upset.

 

How pissed would you be if you had season tickets?

[Andy]

If you're going to judge Trent Richardson on more than just his rookie season, your opinion of him should only go up. He was quite the dynamic talent at Alabama.

http://static.foxsports.com/content/fscom/img/2010/09/08/090810-CFB-Alabama-Mark-Ingram-PI_20100908123959_660_320.JPG

Putting up a photo of the RB Richardson outperformed during his Bama career (and who wasn't on the team when Richardson had his excellent 2011 season) tells us nothing

[Pushfrog98]

Yeah, but the whole thing sets up kind of a sucky situation for Browns fans, who will now watch every Colts win in dismay. Every Colts win with a big play by Richardson will likely have some snarky headline attached to it in the Cleveland papers, with their own team's latest debacle buried on page 2.

 

It's just incredibly horrifying to be a Browns fan, and I don't blame them for being upset.

 

How pissed would you be if you had season tickets?

I would be pissed that I was stupid enough to by season tickets to see the Browns.

[sneakypower]

Putting up a photo of the RB Richardson outperformed during his Bama career (and who wasn't on the team when Richardson had his excellent 2011 season) tells us nothing

Heisman count

Ingram: 1

Richardson: 0

[Guest]

If you're going to judge Trent Richardson on more than just his rookie season, your opinion of him should only go up. He was quite the dynamic talent at Alabama.

 

So was Cedric Benson at Texas, or Curtis Enis at Penn State, or Darren McFadden at Arkansas, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, etc.

 

But I do agree he needs more than 18 games to be considered a bust.

 

Benson and Enis don't belong in the same class of pro prospects coming out of college as McFadden, Brown and Richardson (I wasn't as big a fan of Cadillac but understand why he was rated as highly as he was).

[Guest]

Putting up a photo of the RB Richardson outperformed during his Bama career (and who wasn't on the team when Richardson had his excellent 2011 season) tells us nothing

Heisman count

Ingram: 1

Richardson: 0

 

Richardson was the better pro prospect coming out of college.

[Andy]

Putting up a photo of the RB Richardson outperformed during his Bama career (and who wasn't on the team when Richardson had his excellent 2011 season) tells us nothing

Heisman count

Ingram: 1

Richardson: 0

I just...wow.

[Careless]

The revolutionary, amazing offense has been pedestrian and plain for the past 6 quarters or so

[Cubswin11]

Look at that offense go!!! Trailblazers I tell ya