What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Before you trade Trent Richardson in Dyn (Read this 1st) (1 Viewer)

jacobo_moses

Footballguy
Hey guys I'm as guilty as anyone of doing knee jerk reactions in Fantasy leagues. Even in Dyn leagues. But before you ship Trent Richardson off. Read this article by Sam Monson at Pro Football Focus.

Analysis Notebook: Bonus EditionSam Monson | October 23, 2013
The signs were there from the first play of the game. Trent Richardson took the handoff, aimed at Samson Satele’s left hip and then saw the wham block ahead of him blown up and the formidable bulk of DT Kevin Vickerson forcing his way across his path right at the point of attack. Richardson had taken only three steps and the play was already dead, forcing him to cut and improvise. As it happens he made an impressive jump-cut to his left around Vickerson and what was left of the pulling guard he just beat, scampering for 4 yards before being brought down by Rahim Moore the safety.

This play looks completely unremarkable on the stat sheet, just a standard 4-yard run, leading people that look at those things to question if Richardson is really running with any purpose, or if he is just another back, capable of getting only what the line gives him and nothing more. Well in this instance he gained 4 yards more than the line gave him, because the line gave him nothing, forcing him to make it happen on his own. He may not have been able to break it open completely, but he wasn’t far from doing so (Moore only just took him down by the ankles as he burst toward daylight), and he turned a dead play into a positive one on first down.

The truth about Richardson is that his career in the NFL is only 22 games old and features injuries and some truly ugly blocking. We really haven’t seen enough to accurately determine what he is or isn’t yet, but it’s certainly too early to be writing him off as a player that can’t get it done running the ball. After this game there was another round of people looking at the stats and the fact that he wasn’t able to get much going and blaming him for it, rather than taking a look at the blocking that was supposed to be opening up holes for him.

Of his 14 carries, Richardson arrived at the intended point of attack to find it still viable just four times. That means that on 71.4% of his carries by the time he arrived at the hole he was supposed to hit it was already blown up! He was forced to make a cut in the backfield 10 times by defenders beating his blocking almost immediately, quickly enough that the average point at which he was forced to cut away from the intended point of attack was -2.1 yards. 2.1 yards deep in the backfield. Even counting the plays that weren’t destroyed before Richardson made it to the hole, the average point at which he was hit by a defender was just 0.8 yards down field.

The point I’m making? Richardson could be the hybrid lovechild of Adrian Peterson and Barry Sanders and he would struggle behind the blocking he saw against the Broncos.

There were occasions though when we saw flashes of what he is capable of. On one of the four occasions the hole didn’t collapse around him he was able to break off an 8-yard run up the middle. That may not sound like much, but it was a fantastic example of the skill set that Richardson brings to the table and why two teams have now spent a first-round pick in acquiring his services.

When Richardson heads toward the line of scrimmage there appears to be a pretty sizeable hole opening up to the left of center, and you might wonder why he doesn’t just head straight for it, but he can see that on either side there are Denver defenders squeezing it closed. Instead of heading straight to the space and finding himself taken down by one of them, he pushes the run up behind his guard before breaking to the space at the last moment, ensuring that both defenders have the maximum amount of distance to cover to get to him.

When he makes his first cut he burst through the closing gap like Will Smith exiting the mother ship in Independence Day as it slams shut behind him, only to find himself heading right for SS Duke Ihenacho who has read the play well and closed in to take him down for a minimal gain.

He then breaks out a move that most don’t believe he possesses in his arsenal, cutting off one leg he springs back to the inside away from the would-be tackler, lifting himself just high enough to leave Ihenacho grasping at air instead of what he was sure would be Richardson’s standing leg just moments ago.

As nice as those first two moves were, Richardson now runs unavoidably into contact as one of his linemen has lost control of his block at the second level. Rather than looking for another finesse move to get away from the inevitable tackle, Richardson lowers his head and goes into full-on power-back mode, dragging a pair of Denver players for additional yardage.

This was a gain of just 8 yards, but it represents everything that is good about Richardson’s running at the moment — good that exists in spite of the ugly statistics that he and the Colts are putting up on the ground.

That run was a rarity in a game in which Richardson tallied just 37 yards on 14 carries. What he saw far more often was his way blocked by bodies, both blue and white, as soon as he was handed the ball.

That isn’t to say that Richardson is entirely blameless, or that he couldn’t have squeezed out a little more from the game. Every running back leaves something on the table at some stage in a game. Adrian Peterson will go through tape of a game in which he topped 200 yards and pick his play to pieces, pointing out cuts he could have made here, moves he could have broken out there, as if he’d been held without a significant gain all day. On Richardson’s fumble, for example, he was a little too quick to abandon the intended point of attack — perhaps simply used to bailing on it by that point in the game given what had happened to him so far — and instead of delaying a beat to let his blocking develop, elected to bounce it outside where he was gang-tackled and ultimately stripped of the football.

There were plays too where he perhaps didn’t find the ideal spot to cut towards once the initial play had broken down. I’m not saying Richardson has been incredible or anything, but when the biggest issues come from not being able to fix other people’s mistakes, perhaps you need to think about those mistakes being made so consistently, rather than his inability to turn lead into gold.

This is why separating a runner from his blocking is so difficult to do. On that play Richardson was a little too quick to bail on the play and try to bounce it outside, but was this because he didn’t see it? Was his clock simply reset by the caliber of the blocking on that day and he had become conditioned to having to try to make things happen on his own? Even on something we can identify as a mistake from Richardson we can’t accurately determine the cause of that mistake.

The bottom line is the Colts have been an awful run blocking unit this season. People point to the numbers put up by Ahmad Bradshaw and Donald Brown behind the same line, but for a couple of reasons those comparisons aren’t necessarily fair. Firstly, the line hasn’t been the same all the way along. The Colts have been dealing with injuries and re-shuffling, and did so several times in the course of this game alone. Secondly, the sample size is so small that one half-decent run by any of the three runners instantly swings their average YPC wildly up or down. Bradshaw may have a much healthier looking average, but based on just 41 attempts.

Lastly, those numbers don’t take into account the situations or formations in which the three are being used. Richardson is being used more than Brown in heavy sets, when teams are expecting the run, only magnifying the problems on the O-line.

Where am I going with all of this?

He may never live up to the draft picks that have already been spent on him, but it would be a mistake to write Trent Richardson off as just another guy running the football, a plodding power back with little else to his game. The Colts are giving him little to no chance at the moment, but the tape shows a guy who is making explosive moves with the ball in his hands. Only Marshawn Lynch has more than the 34 forced missed tackles Richardson has tallied this season, and there is no back in football with a significant number of carries who is making people miss at a better rate than Richardson. This is a guy who is doing his best to make things happen, but so far hasn’t been able to overcome the plays crashing down around him.

If the Colts can’t improve their O-line it may never happen, but I don’t think we can pin the blame on Richardson right now, whatever the average yards per carry is.

Follow Sam on Twitter: @PFF_Sam

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/10/23/analysis-notebook-bonus-edition/

 
Trading Richardson depends on what you can get for him. If you can get a lot for him, I'd trade him.

On the other hand, if you can acquire him for peanuts, I'd trade FOR him. It depends on the mood of your league.

He's failed to produce in the NFL for going on 20+ games. This in itself doesn't mean he's doomed, but it's certainly not a good thing!

I'm done reading articles that analyze and break down all the reasons Trent isn't getting it done. It's getting old, boring and tiresome. At this point, he's probably a hold if you still own him. If you don't, and can get him for cheap, it might be worth the gamble. But he's now reached the point where he has to show me something before I believe in him.

 
It's a weak article that makes ridiculous posts under the guise that it's some kind of in depth analysis because it has pretty pictures and diagrams.

The article basically boils down to two points, neither of which are worth putting any stock into.

Point 1) Brown, Ballard, and Bradshaw have all performed better, but their individual sample sizes are small.

Why it's a bad point) He totally neglects that all three added together make a pretty legitimate sample size of "other Indy running backs". Sure, we don't have enough carries from Ballard to compare Richardson to Ballard, but we have enough carries from other Indy running backs to compare Richardson to other Indy running backs.

Point 2) Richardson should be commended for not going after the secondary hole and instead running to where the play was designed, even when there is no hole there.

Why it's a bad point) Not sure I really need to elaborate on this. It's a ridiculous point. Every good running back tries to find a way through the line, not just ram straight into the spot the play was designed whether it is open or not. He's essentially trying to say that running backs don't need to have vision, which is convenient because vision is one of Richardson's biggest knocks. Other Indy running backs have done as much and have had much more success. That's not even to mention that one of Richardson's biggest faults is the slowness and cautiousness with which he hits the hole. If he were just running to the designed spot every time you'd think he could at least do it with some force.

The other big issue with this article is that it only covers one game, against the league's best rush defense, which he then tries to extrapolate out to the whole season. "The line wasn't opening enough holes in the perfect spot when they played against the best run defense in the league, so clearly this is how it's been all year and the line sucks. But ignore those other guys that did well behind the same line, because if we split them up into 3 separate groups then each of those groups individually are too small a sample size to draw conclusions from". :rolleyes:

 
Makes me feel even better that I acquired him today (with Travis Benjamin) for Ryan Matthews and Alshon Jeffery in a non-PPR dynasty league.

 
When Richardson heads toward the line of scrimmage there appears to be a pretty sizeable hole opening up to the left of center, and you might wonder why he doesn’t just head straight for it, but he can see that on either side there are Denver defenders squeezing it closed. Instead of heading straight to the space and finding himself taken down by one of them, he pushes the run up behind his guard before breaking to the space at the last moment, ensuring that both defenders have the maximum amount of distance to cover to get to him.
Not gonna quote the entire article but this basically sums it up. For struggling running backs with seemingly above average talent, it comes down to trust. That's it. You can look at a guy like Reggie Bush (different type of back, same mental issue) as an example. Maybe the hole is closing or maybe second level defenders are gonna get there but not trusting the play at all equals minimal to no gain.

If he's a such tackle-breaker then the faster he hits that hole the better chance he has of pushing through the second level. Unlike a guy like Reggie, the longer he hangs behind that line 'brilliantly' waiting or looking for other options, the less likely he is to make anything happen. This is because he's a bulkier back that needs to use his momentum to his advantage not a little agile guy that can make 5 defenders miss and still break a 50 yarder every now and again. He doesn't have that game and his current style won't produce value unless he has a truly exceptional o-line in front of him.

The problem is that if you're a team with a truly exceptional o-line, then you can do better than Trent Richardson anyway.

 
Forced missed tackles are really only relevant if you are moving forward when doing it.

Watching all the Browns games last year, this year, and a couple of the Colts games he was there................frankly his game has not translated well to the NFL.

Much like last year, even when holes are provided, he isn't getting through them any better than some bum off the street.

I got a projected high 2014 1st for him a few days ago. Sucks cause I gave up Ray Rice and Pierce to get him before week 1, but I feel like I salvaged something good. Best PLAYER offer I got after shopping him around was Woodhead straight up.

 
However I will say this. In Indy, when Richardson is in the game, they are loading up the box more than when Brown is in there, I think partially because Richardson has not been used in the passing game at all. AT ALL!!!!

Maybe that changes a little when he learns the offense a bit more. It really should, because he is a decent receiving back.

 
Even if I post the link to the actual story and give credit to the Author? Please link where that it says doing that is illegal?

 
An aside: it is uncool (and actually illegal) to wholesale paste an article like that.
if it's free content and you give proper attribution (and even a direct link) what possible complaint would they have for the free advertisement on this site?

I'd let the site owners worry about the legality of what's posted on their site

edit ps

although proper netiquette would probably be a paragraph teaser and hotlink to direct traffic over there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's covered under the "Fair Use" Doctrine and being free and giving credit have nothing to do with it.

 
It's covered under the "Fair Use" Doctrine and being free and giving credit have nothing to do with it.
Please provide a link so I know what your talking about. And if what Im doing is so Illegal wouldnt the forum monitors catch it and call me on it? It is there job u know.?

 
It's a weak article that makes ridiculous posts under the guise that it's some kind of in depth analysis because it has pretty pictures and diagrams.

The article basically boils down to two points, neither of which are worth putting any stock into.

Point 1) Brown, Ballard, and Bradshaw have all performed better, but their individual sample sizes are small.

Why it's a bad point) He totally neglects that all three added together make a pretty legitimate sample size of "other Indy running backs". Sure, we don't have enough carries from Ballard to compare Richardson to Ballard, but we have enough carries from other Indy running backs to compare Richardson to other Indy running backs.

Point 2) Richardson should be commended for not going after the secondary hole and instead running to where the play was designed, even when there is no hole there.

Why it's a bad point) Not sure I really need to elaborate on this. It's a ridiculous point. Every good running back tries to find a way through the line, not just ram straight into the spot the play was designed whether it is open or not. He's essentially trying to say that running backs don't need to have vision, which is convenient because vision is one of Richardson's biggest knocks. Other Indy running backs have done as much and have had much more success. That's not even to mention that one of Richardson's biggest faults is the slowness and cautiousness with which he hits the hole. If he were just running to the designed spot every time you'd think he could at least do it with some force.

The other big issue with this article is that it only covers one game, against the league's best rush defense, which he then tries to extrapolate out to the whole season. "The line wasn't opening enough holes in the perfect spot when they played against the best run defense in the league, so clearly this is how it's been all year and the line sucks. But ignore those other guys that did well behind the same line, because if we split them up into 3 separate groups then each of those groups individually are too small a sample size to draw conclusions from". :rolleyes:
Agreed. The other 3 have 86 carries for 444 yards (5.2 ypc) compared to Richardson's 75 carries for 228 (3.0 ypc). They have more carries and get 73% more yards on every carry.

What I cannot fathom is how on 75 carries he has 34 forced missed tackles, second most to only Lynch. How can a guy force a missed tackle on half of his runs and still get 3.0 ypc?

 
It's a weak article that makes ridiculous posts under the guise that it's some kind of in depth analysis because it has pretty pictures and diagrams.

The article basically boils down to two points, neither of which are worth putting any stock into.

Point 1) Brown, Ballard, and Bradshaw have all performed better, but their individual sample sizes are small.

Why it's a bad point) He totally neglects that all three added together make a pretty legitimate sample size of "other Indy running backs". Sure, we don't have enough carries from Ballard to compare Richardson to Ballard, but we have enough carries from other Indy running backs to compare Richardson to other Indy running backs.

Point 2) Richardson should be commended for not going after the secondary hole and instead running to where the play was designed, even when there is no hole there.

Why it's a bad point) Not sure I really need to elaborate on this. It's a ridiculous point. Every good running back tries to find a way through the line, not just ram straight into the spot the play was designed whether it is open or not. He's essentially trying to say that running backs don't need to have vision, which is convenient because vision is one of Richardson's biggest knocks. Other Indy running backs have done as much and have had much more success. That's not even to mention that one of Richardson's biggest faults is the slowness and cautiousness with which he hits the hole. If he were just running to the designed spot every time you'd think he could at least do it with some force.

The other big issue with this article is that it only covers one game, against the league's best rush defense, which he then tries to extrapolate out to the whole season. "The line wasn't opening enough holes in the perfect spot when they played against the best run defense in the league, so clearly this is how it's been all year and the line sucks. But ignore those other guys that did well behind the same line, because if we split them up into 3 separate groups then each of those groups individually are too small a sample size to draw conclusions from". :rolleyes:
Agreed. The other 3 have 86 carries for 444 yards (5.2 ypc) compared to Richardson's 75 carries for 228 (3.0 ypc). They have more carries and get 73% more yards on every carry.

What I cannot fathom is how on 75 carries he has 34 forced missed tackles, second most to only Lynch. How can a guy force a missed tackle on half of his runs and still get 3.0 ypc?
because he runs to traffic and gets hit by a mob at like 1-2 yards, breaks 3 tackles and gets an extra yard.

 
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering the BIG picture..........he may end up being a bigger bust than Ingram.

Tex

 
You realize that anyone and there Gra

It's covered under the "Fair Use" Doctrine and being free and giving credit have nothing to do with it.
Please provide a link so I know what your talking about. And if what Im doing is so Illegal wouldnt the forum monitors catch it and call me on it? It is there job u know.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Times_v._Free_Republic
You realize anyone plus there Grandma can write on Wikipedia. There is a reason in College I couldn't use that as a resource. Try again. Need something more reliable then Wikipedia.

 
Here's a highly drafted RB (#7) who got off to a slow start:

Trent Richardson - 373/1283 (3.49),13 TD, 60 rec./437/0

Thomas Jones - 362/1264 (3.49),9 TD, 73 rec./472/0

 
You realize anyone plus there Grandma can write on Wikipedia. There is a reason in College I couldn't use that as a resource. Try again. Need something more reliable then Wikipedia.
http://www.dmlp.org/threats/la-times-v-free-republic

http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/losangt.html

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm

Although ... the Free Republic case was strictly a copyright infringement case. Content of the newspapers that sued was copyrighted. Gotta check on PFF.

EDIT: Yes, PFF material is copyighted -- go to the linked article in the OP, then scroll to the very bottom to see copyright information.

It's a easy fix for the OP, though ... just trim the article down to a paragraph or two.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.
He's the 6th most elusive back according to elusive rating at PFF. (out of backs that have received 50% of their teams snaps)

ETA: This puts him ahead of McCoy, Charles, Lacy, Foster, Martin, and Forte (among others).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I cannot fathom is how on 75 carries he has 34 forced missed tackles, second most to only Lynch. How can a guy force a missed tackle on half of his runs and still get 3.0 ypc?
This actually happened to Marshawn Lynch in 2010 where he was being hit in the backfield 2-3 yards behind the LOS and then gaining positive yardage. Although it is passé to blame the O-line for RB woes I do think this is the case.

Regardless, Trent Richardson is still fetching too high a price for me to try to "buy low".

 
You realize anyone plus there Grandma can write on Wikipedia. There is a reason in College I couldn't use that as a resource. Try again. Need something more reliable then Wikipedia.
http://www.dmlp.org/threats/la-times-v-free-republic

http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/losangt.html

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/Default.htm

Although ... the Free Republic case was strictly a copyright infringement case. Content of the newspapers that sued was copyrighted. Gotta check on PFF.

EDIT: Yes, PFF material is copyighted -- go to the linked article in the OP, then scroll to the very bottom to see copyright information.

It's a easy fix for the OP, though ... just trim the article down to a paragraph or two.
PFF has a copyright notice right on the bottom of the webpage.

The point is that if the entire article is posted here, then there is no reason for people to click through to the website. And clickthroughs help drive ad revenue and subscriptions to their premium stats and articles.

And not that it's a huge deal, but the article has been linked at least twice in other Richardson threads already. But I can see some value in a new thread on the article even though I ultimately agree with FreeBaGel.

 
I have Richardson in a keeper league and will likely keep him but all this stuff about broken tackles, making defenders miss, yards after contact...whatever other metric you want to use is all great but his production on the field is not good. There isn't some great conspiracy to block for Bradshaw/Brown and not for Trich. He needs to break some plays for more than 4 yards...he needs to earn carries and his touches are going in the wrong direction. To be effective I think he needs to be a volume back but I don't know if he's going to get that opportunity.

I think he's a talented back but he's regressing and seems to be more tenative when he just needs to take the ball and blast it up the field. Guys turn around their career all the time and I think he'll be given the opportunity but he needs to start making improvements.

 
It's a weak article that makes ridiculous posts under the guise that it's some kind of in depth analysis because it has pretty pictures and diagrams.

The article basically boils down to two points, neither of which are worth putting any stock into.

Point 1) Brown, Ballard, and Bradshaw have all performed better, but their individual sample sizes are small.

Why it's a bad point) He totally neglects that all three added together make a pretty legitimate sample size of "other Indy running backs". Sure, we don't have enough carries from Ballard to compare Richardson to Ballard, but we have enough carries from other Indy running backs to compare Richardson to other Indy running backs.

Point 2) Richardson should be commended for not going after the secondary hole and instead running to where the play was designed, even when there is no hole there.

Why it's a bad point) Not sure I really need to elaborate on this. It's a ridiculous point. Every good running back tries to find a way through the line, not just ram straight into the spot the play was designed whether it is open or not. He's essentially trying to say that running backs don't need to have vision, which is convenient because vision is one of Richardson's biggest knocks. Other Indy running backs have done as much and have had much more success. That's not even to mention that one of Richardson's biggest faults is the slowness and cautiousness with which he hits the hole. If he were just running to the designed spot every time you'd think he could at least do it with some force.

The other big issue with this article is that it only covers one game, against the league's best rush defense, which he then tries to extrapolate out to the whole season. "The line wasn't opening enough holes in the perfect spot when they played against the best run defense in the league, so clearly this is how it's been all year and the line sucks. But ignore those other guys that did well behind the same line, because if we split them up into 3 separate groups then each of those groups individually are too small a sample size to draw conclusions from". :rolleyes:
Agreed. The other 3 have 86 carries for 444 yards (5.2 ypc) compared to Richardson's 75 carries for 228 (3.0 ypc). They have more carries and get 73% more yards on every carry.

What I cannot fathom is how on 75 carries he has 34 forced missed tackles, second most to only Lynch. How can a guy force a missed tackle on half of his runs and still get 3.0 ypc?
Because the blocking is horrible?

 
I posted this in the other thread... but I think it needs to be repeated. People continue to bang the drum for YPC of the other backs for Indy. It's a ridiculous argument.

Right now Chris Ogbonnaya has the best YPC (5.6) in the NFL of all backs who have received half of their teams snaps.

Does that make him better than all of the other backs in the league? Mccoy? Peterson? Bush? Rhetorical questions are fun.

Why does Gerhart have a better YPC than Peterson? Why does Hillman have a better YPC than Moreno? Khiry Robinson vs Sproles? Polk vs McCoy? Felix Jones vs Bell? James vs Gore? Turbin vs Lynch? Greene vs CJ2K?

YPC doesn't really tell us much when it comes to running backs, it get's tossed around way too much when trying to compare players but situations are different... even when it's two backs on the same team. It rarely gives us a full picture of what's really happening.

 
Here's a highly drafted RB (#7) who got off to a slow start:

Trent Richardson - 373/1283 (3.49),13 TD, 60 rec./437/0

Thomas Jones - 362/1264 (3.49),9 TD, 73 rec./472/0
Who here thinks TRich will have a better rest of his career than TJ?

 
Makes me feel even better that I acquired him today (with Travis Benjamin) for Ryan Matthews and Alshon Jeffery in a non-PPR dynasty league.
Oooooooof.
You don't like the deal for me?

ETA - it's in a dynasty league
Don't like it at all, personally. IMO Jeffrey is the most valuable player in the deal by far, and I'm not sure I'd trade Matthews straight up for Richardson at this point, despite the big age difference. Matthews has proven to be a talented RB -- IMO his FF value has been somewhat artificially deflated d/t the debacle in SD last year and his role this year. IMO to this point Matthews has simply looked like a MUCH better player than Richardson, and might bounce back to his 2011 FF RB1 form at some point. Richardson appears to be spiraling down the bowl to me -- his role appears to be shrinking, and he's simply not an effective runner.

Of course, I've long been at the head of the Trent hater bandwagon, so YMMV, but the guy just looks terrible to me every time I've watched him play.

 
Talking to a friend about the article, and thought I'd share here:

I like a lot of what PFF does, but some of their advanced stats are flawed. I don't like using their elusive rating, which they are using as a plus for Richardson. Deciding what is and isn't a broken tackle is subjective, for one. And, based on style, guys like Lynch and Trent are going to get credit for breaking a lot of tackles. Deciding whether they are elusive or not, in my opinion, has to be done outside of this stat. What a guy does after breaking a tackle is an important missing variable, in my opinion, as well as determining if the runners shortcomings (speed, vision, etc) led to him needing to break a tackle in the first place. Guys like Arian Foster are punished unfairly by this stat. In his prime, his vision and cutback ability allowed him to reach areas of the field, untouched, that other backs would need to fight to reach.

Richardson is a very strong goal line back, in my opinion. He is a load to bring down, no doubting that. One of my problems with Richardson as a pro, is that he seems to square up and ready for the next hit after breaking a tackle, rather than turning it into a productive run. Guys like McCoy and Spiller (still not the best at it) had to learn that they can't bounce runs to the outside as much at this level; sometimes you need to take what is there and not leave yards on the field. I feel like Trent needs to learn that he is not going to break tackles on his way to long runs. It's as though he expects to be able to break every tackle, so he's allowing contact that you'd hope he'd be able to run away from.

The most damning thing to me is usage. The Colts gave up a 1st round pick for the guy, and have every incentive for him to look good. Irsay and his staff would love to be able to thump their chests right now, but they can't, when it comes to this trade. They have to win games and they seem to feel Donald Brown helps them as much as Richardson, if not more. Them giving Brown goal line touches worries me too.

I think he can turn it around; he's got the tools and his situation has sucked. I just think we're looking at a bigger prime Marion Barber if and when he gets there, rather than a top 3 NFL back like I expected. Barber could have been a top 5 back in any given season with more touches (assuming he could hold up). Richardson can too, in my opinion, I'm just less sure of it.

Not to get you down on him, as he's a young, talented guy. I am just not personally too encouraged by the article. I think there was some agenda or pro-bias. You can pick the best few runs of any back and use them to suggest whatever is needed. I felt the tone was too kind in talking about his positive plays, and too dismissive of his negative plays, or lack of big plays.

Just my opinion and I could certainly be way off. But, again, I didn't take too much from the article.

 
werdnoynek said:
Craig_MiamiFL said:
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.
He's the 6th most elusive back according to elusive rating at PFF. (out of backs that have received 50% of their teams snaps)

ETA: This puts him ahead of McCoy, Charles, Lacy, Foster, Martin, and Forte (among others).
Anyone who has ever watched football can plainly see Richardson isn't more elusive than any of those guys

 
werdnoynek said:
Craig_MiamiFL said:
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.
He's the 6th most elusive back according to elusive rating at PFF. (out of backs that have received 50% of their teams snaps)

ETA: This puts him ahead of McCoy, Charles, Lacy, Foster, Martin, and Forte (among others).
Anyone who has ever watched football can plainly see Richardson isn't more elusive than any of those guys
By your subjective idea of elusiveness sure. I'm probably more elusive than him too.

But statistically speaking and factoring in missed tackles and yards after contact per attempt, Richardson is elusive.

 
werdnoynek said:
Craig_MiamiFL said:
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.
He's the 6th most elusive back according to elusive rating at PFF. (out of backs that have received 50% of their teams snaps)

ETA: This puts him ahead of McCoy, Charles, Lacy, Foster, Martin, and Forte (among others).
Anyone who has ever watched football can plainly see Richardson isn't more elusive than any of those guys
By your subjective idea of elusiveness sure. I'm probably more elusive than him too.

But statistically speaking and factoring in missed tackles and yards after contact per attempt, Richardson is elusive.
You should probably take a look at where he ranks in this category, even last year when he looked much better than he has in Indy, before you say stuff like this. And giving the guy kudos for missing a huge wide open cutback lane, running into the pile, and breaking two tackles while getting a yard and a half is pretty dumb. PFFs "elusiveness rating" is HUGELY flawed for reasons that have been discussed for years around here.

 
Talking to a friend about the article, and thought I'd share here:

I like a lot of what PFF does, but some of their advanced stats are flawed. I don't like using their elusive rating, which they are using as a plus for Richardson. Deciding what is and isn't a broken tackle is subjective, for one. And, based on style, guys like Lynch and Trent are going to get credit for breaking a lot of tackles. Deciding whether they are elusive or not, in my opinion, has to be done outside of this stat. What a guy does after breaking a tackle is an important missing variable, in my opinion, as well as determining if the runners shortcomings (speed, vision, etc) led to him needing to break a tackle in the first place. Guys like Arian Foster are punished unfairly by this stat. In his prime, his vision and cutback ability allowed him to reach areas of the field, untouched, that other backs would need to fight to reach.

Richardson is a very strong goal line back, in my opinion. He is a load to bring down, no doubting that. One of my problems with Richardson as a pro, is that he seems to square up and ready for the next hit after breaking a tackle, rather than turning it into a productive run. Guys like McCoy and Spiller (still not the best at it) had to learn that they can't bounce runs to the outside as much at this level; sometimes you need to take what is there and not leave yards on the field. I feel like Trent needs to learn that he is not going to break tackles on his way to long runs. It's as though he expects to be able to break every tackle, so he's allowing contact that you'd hope he'd be able to run away from.

The most damning thing to me is usage. The Colts gave up a 1st round pick for the guy, and have every incentive for him to look good. Irsay and his staff would love to be able to thump their chests right now, but they can't, when it comes to this trade. They have to win games and they seem to feel Donald Brown helps them as much as Richardson, if not more. Them giving Brown goal line touches worries me too.

I think he can turn it around; he's got the tools and his situation has sucked. I just think we're looking at a bigger prime Marion Barber if and when he gets there, rather than a top 3 NFL back like I expected. Barber could have been a top 5 back in any given season with more touches (assuming he could hold up). Richardson can too, in my opinion, I'm just less sure of it.

Not to get you down on him, as he's a young, talented guy. I am just not personally too encouraged by the article. I think there was some agenda or pro-bias. You can pick the best few runs of any back and use them to suggest whatever is needed. I felt the tone was too kind in talking about his positive plays, and too dismissive of his negative plays, or lack of big plays.

Just my opinion and I could certainly be way off. But, again, I didn't take too much from the article.
Broken tackles aren't subjective? A tackle is either broken or it isn't. If a defender makes contact but doesn't bring the runner down, it's a broken tackle. Yards after contact shows what a guy does after breaking a tackle. These are values that can be quantified. The subjective part is vision. Looking at the coaches tape on the Indy games gives us a good idea of what Richardson is seeing and that's a whole lot of bodies in the holes his linemen are supposed to be creating.

 
werdnoynek said:
Craig_MiamiFL said:
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.
He's the 6th most elusive back according to elusive rating at PFF. (out of backs that have received 50% of their teams snaps)

ETA: This puts him ahead of McCoy, Charles, Lacy, Foster, Martin, and Forte (among others).
Anyone who has ever watched football can plainly see Richardson isn't more elusive than any of those guys
By your subjective idea of elusiveness sure. I'm probably more elusive than him too.

But statistically speaking and factoring in missed tackles and yards after contact per attempt, Richardson is elusive.
W/o diving too far into the numbers, I'd guess Richardson benefits from the yards after contact part of the equation

 
werdnoynek said:
Craig_MiamiFL said:
He'll always be amongst the league leaders in broken tackles (while he's getting majority of carries). He just isn't elusive -- nothing is going to change that he's a pure power back. Trent misses the hole most of the time because he ALWAYS jump cuts (whether there's a defender or not) instead of getting north-south and setting up defenders with the cut. It is clear as day if you watch Donald Brown vs. Trent Richardson right now. (And why Donald appears so much quicker)

Trent is getting the normal running RB start, gets the handoff, jump cuts (putting his forward momentum to a near halt) and has to start back up & by that time the hole has closed. There's nothing wrong with Trent physically at all now (Even if he'll never be a burner in the NFL, I definitely think he's a bit slower right now with added weight)

PPR: I'd look to acquire Richardson hoping he can correct the habit, but I'm not giving more than a older RB + WR2ish type. Their are times you can jump cut to set guys up. Right now, he's just setting himself up everytime 2-3 yards behind the line. If you have access to Game Rewind, you can clearly see it when he carries the football. (Then compare it to Donald Brown's carries this year)

His issue isn't a matter of 'getting acclimated to the Indy offense', Protections I can understand (and you've probably seen his issues there). I think it's a matter of correcting the jumpcut habit he does on every run that he's developed behind the line. Their are times he has to use it, but he's using it on every run behind the line instead of getting north-south.
He's the 6th most elusive back according to elusive rating at PFF. (out of backs that have received 50% of their teams snaps)

ETA: This puts him ahead of McCoy, Charles, Lacy, Foster, Martin, and Forte (among others).
Anyone who has ever watched football can plainly see Richardson isn't more elusive than any of those guys
By your subjective idea of elusiveness sure. I'm probably more elusive than him too.

But statistically speaking and factoring in missed tackles and yards after contact per attempt, Richardson is elusive.
W/o diving too far into the numbers, I'd guess Richardson benefits from the yards after contact part of the equation
Actually not so much. I don't pay for PFF, but IIRC he was at 1.6 yards after contact last year, which was near the very bottom. He's hard to bring down, but unable to get moving forward after he gets hit. Zero burst -- he needs a multi-yard head of steam built up to do anything.

 
Talking to a friend about the article, and thought I'd share here:

I like a lot of what PFF does, but some of their advanced stats are flawed. I don't like using their elusive rating, which they are using as a plus for Richardson. Deciding what is and isn't a broken tackle is subjective, for one. And, based on style, guys like Lynch and Trent are going to get credit for breaking a lot of tackles. Deciding whether they are elusive or not, in my opinion, has to be done outside of this stat. What a guy does after breaking a tackle is an important missing variable, in my opinion, as well as determining if the runners shortcomings (speed, vision, etc) led to him needing to break a tackle in the first place. Guys like Arian Foster are punished unfairly by this stat. In his prime, his vision and cutback ability allowed him to reach areas of the field, untouched, that other backs would need to fight to reach.

Richardson is a very strong goal line back, in my opinion. He is a load to bring down, no doubting that. One of my problems with Richardson as a pro, is that he seems to square up and ready for the next hit after breaking a tackle, rather than turning it into a productive run. Guys like McCoy and Spiller (still not the best at it) had to learn that they can't bounce runs to the outside as much at this level; sometimes you need to take what is there and not leave yards on the field. I feel like Trent needs to learn that he is not going to break tackles on his way to long runs. It's as though he expects to be able to break every tackle, so he's allowing contact that you'd hope he'd be able to run away from.

The most damning thing to me is usage. The Colts gave up a 1st round pick for the guy, and have every incentive for him to look good. Irsay and his staff would love to be able to thump their chests right now, but they can't, when it comes to this trade. They have to win games and they seem to feel Donald Brown helps them as much as Richardson, if not more. Them giving Brown goal line touches worries me too.

I think he can turn it around; he's got the tools and his situation has sucked. I just think we're looking at a bigger prime Marion Barber if and when he gets there, rather than a top 3 NFL back like I expected. Barber could have been a top 5 back in any given season with more touches (assuming he could hold up). Richardson can too, in my opinion, I'm just less sure of it.

Not to get you down on him, as he's a young, talented guy. I am just not personally too encouraged by the article. I think there was some agenda or pro-bias. You can pick the best few runs of any back and use them to suggest whatever is needed. I felt the tone was too kind in talking about his positive plays, and too dismissive of his negative plays, or lack of big plays.

Just my opinion and I could certainly be way off. But, again, I didn't take too much from the article.
Broken tackles aren't subjective? A tackle is either broken or it isn't. If a defender makes contact but doesn't bring the runner down, it's a broken tackle. Yards after contact shows what a guy does after breaking a tackle. These are values that can be quantified. The subjective part is vision. Looking at the coaches tape on the Indy games gives us a good idea of what Richardson is seeing and that's a whole lot of bodies in the holes his linemen are supposed to be creating.
If a guy reaches out and brushes a RBs shoulder with his finger as he's running through the hole, is that a broken tackle?

Serious question here. What level of contact is required to count something as a broke tackle? If ANY contact matters, then it's pretty useless because football has plenty of contact that doesn't require "breaking" to get away from. If it's not just any contact, then there is some subjective measure as to whether or not it was a "real" enough tackle to count as a broken tackle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
werdnoynek said:
I posted this in the other thread... but I think it needs to be repeated. People continue to bang the drum for YPC of the other backs for Indy. It's a ridiculous argument.

Right now Chris Ogbonnaya has the best YPC (5.6) in the NFL of all backs who have received half of their teams snaps.

Does that make him better than all of the other backs in the league? Mccoy? Peterson? Bush? Rhetorical questions are fun.

Why does Gerhart have a better YPC than Peterson? Why does Hillman have a better YPC than Moreno? Khiry Robinson vs Sproles? Polk vs McCoy? Felix Jones vs Bell? James vs Gore? Turbin vs Lynch? Greene vs CJ2K?

YPC doesn't really tell us much when it comes to running backs, it get's tossed around way too much when trying to compare players but situations are different... even when it's two backs on the same team. It rarely gives us a full picture of what's really happening.
:goodposting: ONe of the most misleading stats ever

 
And giving the guy kudos for missing a huge wide open cutback lane, running into the pile, and breaking two tackles while getting a yard and a half is pretty dumb.
Agreed. Just because he can run though people doesn't mean he should.

 
By your subjective idea of elusiveness sure. I'm probably more elusive than him too.

But statistically speaking and factoring in missed tackles and yards after contact per attempt, Richardson is elusive.
The problem is: the stat in question is subjective too.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top