I'm not blaming everything on the Colts, or saying that Trent couldn't play better. I'm just saying let's pump the brakes here. His perceived value was too high 6 months ago; I think it may be too low now...or at least worth the risk associated with him.
I agree that the people talking about cutting him are reactive and short-sighted, but I'm not sure where you're seeing his dynasty value plummeting to any great extent.
He's RB9 in the FBG consensus dynasty rankings; the lowest any individual staffer has him is RB16. Looking through the dynasty trade thread, he's consistently brought return far above what his production alone would dictate. In most decent leagues, you're not getting the guy without coughing up something solid in return. Put a tangible value on it -- where do you take him in a startup? Where should he be ranked among RBs and overall? Paying RB1 prices for a guy who just got benched for Donald Brown isn't close to a "buy low" in my book.
I honestly can't see that. I own Richardson in two leagues, so I would hope he has that value, but I can't imagine taking him as my #1 RB in a startup and would probably also pass on him as my #2. I don't have current rankings done, but off the top of my head I would probably have him slotted at RB25.
9 is too high, but from the Backs currently in the NFL (so not counting next year's rookie crop), where should he be grouped?
Charles, Forte, McCoy, Lacy, Bernard, Bell, Lynch, Martin
Foster, AD, Morris, Stacy, Spiller, Bush, Murray?, Moreno, Ball...
Then it gets fuzzy. I think I'd take him soon after these guys.