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

[ThePittbully]

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.

I just traded him for Mike Wallace, Mike Turbin and a high 2nd in a 16 team leaguer. I had been shopping him since the Indy trade, that's by far the best offer I ever got

 

[Concept Coop]

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.

What dictates a broken tackle? Being touched? With one hand? Two? An arm? A broken tackle IS subjective. Yards after contact stats are no more sound than YPC; they both have their value, but need context.

If Richardson is breaking tackles but can't run away from the crowd after doing so - is he really elusive? If Trent is breaking tackles because he didn't see the best lane - is he really elusive? If Trent is breaking tackles because he isn't fast enough to outrun them - is he really elusive?

 

[cstu]

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.

When I get some time I'll watch his more recent games, but earlier in the season when I watched his plays he was missing a lot of holes that would have got him at least a few yards more.

IMO he needs to learn how to take what's there instead of waiting for a big hole which is rarely going to be there in the NFL. Alfred Morris is not the athlete Richardson is but he sees a hole and goes. That results in him getting 5 YPC compared to Trent's 3.

 

[werdnoynek]

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.

I'd consider that an avoided tackle which is part of the Missed Tackles value that PFF uses. This value isn't just used on Richardson, it's used for every other RB in the NFL.

 

[werdnoynek]

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.

If we put together his attempts and yards after contact this year in Cleveland and Indy, he has 106 attempts and 226 yards after contact. Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt. That would put him tied for 12th with Gio, Foster, Lacy, Woodhead, Powell, and Bush (among guys who have had at least 50% of the snaps for their respective teams).

ETA: I'd say that's pretty damn impressive considering the lack of blocking he's getting.

 

[turkishkamel]

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.

Based on the formula it seems to be the only explanation for him being ranked 6th

 

[werdnoynek]

Look, elusiveness is a weird thing to try to quantify and I don't even know if it's possible. To me you can't even put speed into the equation. Some guys have the ability to run circles around the line and never give the defender a chance to attempt a tackle or make contact. Richardson isn't one of those guys. I agree with Coop that speed would be a major factor in who even registers a missed tackle, etc... all I'm saying is that when it comes to missed tackles and yards after contact per attempt, Richardson isn't the major bust that people are making him out to be.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

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.

If we put together his attempts and yards after contact this year in Cleveland and Indy, he has 106 attempts and 226 yards after contact. Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt. That would put him tied for 12th with Gio, Foster, Lacy, Woodhead, Powell, and Bush (among guys who have had at least 50% of the snaps for their respective teams).

ETA: I'd say that's pretty damn impressive considering the lack of blocking he's getting.

And I'd say you're grasping at straws to find any reason to like the guy, but YMMV.

 

[cstu]

Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt.

This is a nice stat but doesn't tell the whole story. We know that when he gets touched he's tough to bring down, but what is his average yards BEFORE contact? I have to believe it's very low compared to other backs.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

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.

Based on the formula it seems to be the only explanation for him being ranked 6th

IMO there's no logical explanation for ranking Richardson 6th best on any list for anything this year. He might turn it around, but to this point, he has been hot garbage in 2013.

 

[werdnoynek]

And I'd say you're grasping at straws to find any reason to like the guy, but YMMV.

Touche, you were doing the same re: Blount last season IIRC.

But his YPC is 4.5!!!

 

[werdnoynek]

Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt.

This is a nice stat but doesn't tell the whole story. We know that when he gets touched he's tough to bring down, but what is his average yards BEFORE contact? I have to believe it's very low compared to other backs.

Yeah because there's almost always a defender in the backfield. Great point.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And I'd say you're grasping at straws to find any reason to like the guy, but YMMV.

Touche, you were doing the same re: Blount last season IIRC.

But his YPC is 4.5!!!

I was definitely wrong on Doug Martin. It happens. But the difference here is price to acquire -- I was a big fan of drafting Blount as a very late "what if Martin sucks" flyer. Which I might do again next year too, depending on where he lands as a UFA. Blount is the kind of serviceable unsexy pick that has the potential to offer huge return on a minimal investment if things break right situationally for him. And if not, BFD my 15th round pick busted, on to the next shot in the dark.

What did you pay to get the steaming dog turd named Trent Richardson on your roster this year, or God forbid, in dynasty? Have fun overcoming that eff up, chief.

 

[TheFanatic]

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.

It does when the sample size is big enough.

 

[werdnoynek]

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.

It does when the sample size is big enough.

But does it? It's practically useless when comparing backs on different teams. It's hardly an indicator of skill IMO. It's like looking at a pixel of the whole picture.

When comparing backs on the same team it isn't very useful either, IMO. Some backs are in primarily on passing downs or used primarily in space. I just dont understand the love with YPC.

ETA: I find it odd that it's the stat that is primarily thrown around on these forums when talking about running backs. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[5Rings]

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".

Just so you can compare relative value: he was just moved in one of my leagues for DMC / Jennings / late 2nd (dynasty ppr)

 

[CalBear]

I agree that this analysis, and the PFF stats are of minimal value. My eyeball test on Richardson is that he has a pretty impressive set of physical skills (much more so than someone like Thomas Jones), but isn't making good decisions. One part of that is vision, which might be difficult to correct, since it's very intuitive, and some backs are clearly better at it than others. Maybe Richardson will always have limited vision. But the strange part, which might be correctable, is the way he pauses in the middle of plays. He'll set up a linebacker, make a jump cut that makes you go "whoa!", and then kind of stand there waiting to get tackled. If he can just up his level of aggressiveness in that situation he'll be a much better back.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

But does it? It's practically useless when comparing backs on different teams. It's hardly an indicator of skill IMO. It's like looking at a pixel of the whole picture.

When comparing backs on the same team it isn't very useful either, IMO. Some backs are in primarily on passing downs or used primarily in space. I just dont understand the love with YPC.

ETA: I find it odd that it's the stat that is primarily thrown around on these forums when talking about running backs. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think people are generally capable of knowing when the comparisons are valid and not. No one was comparing Mark Ingram's YPC to Darren Sproles'. However, it was perfectly fair to compare his to a guy like Chris Ivory, who was playing the same role on the same team and doing much better.

When someone comes up with a list of excuses for a guy, and there is another guy with those exact same list of obstacles that is performing much better, that is certainly something worth looking at. There were plenty of Ingram backers harping on him not getting a fair shake because he was in on obvious rushing situations, but Chris Ivory faced the exact same thing on the exact same team and did much better. Ingram backers stuck their fingers in their ears and completely ignored it and were left with a bust that should have been pretty dang obvious at that point.

I think it's fair to look at how guys like Bradshaw/Ballard performed compared to Richardson. You can zoom in on YPC or not, but the fact of the matter is that they were much more productive and much better in the same situation. If Richardson isn't performing because the Indy line is terrible, then why were those guys performing with it? They were running the same plays, behind the same line, much better. YPC is just a vehicle to demonstrate it but, YPC or not, I don't think anyone would deny it.

Remember, we started this whole Indy escapade with "Cleveland sucked, now that he's on a good team with a good running game we're going to see the real Trent Richardson". Now we've ended it with "oh Trent is struggling, must be because Indy is a bad team with a bad running game". At this point, I think Richardson could get traded to Denver and people would still blame the team.

If Bradshaw hadn't gotten hurt, I wonder how much (or little) Richardson would be playing right now at all.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

But does it? It's practically useless when comparing backs on different teams. It's hardly an indicator of skill IMO. It's like looking at a pixel of the whole picture.

When comparing backs on the same team it isn't very useful either, IMO. Some backs are in primarily on passing downs or used primarily in space. I just dont understand the love with YPC.

ETA: I find it odd that it's the stat that is primarily thrown around on these forums when talking about running backs. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think people are generally capable of knowing when the comparisons are valid and not. No one was comparing Mark Ingram's YPC to Darren Sproles'. However, it was perfectly fair to compare his to a guy like Chris Ivory, who was playing the same role on the same team and doing much better.

When someone comes up with a list of excuses for a guy, and there is another guy with those exact same list of obstacles that is performing much better, that is certainly something worth looking at. There were plenty of Ingram backers harping on him not getting a fair shake because he was in on obvious rushing situations, but Chris Ivory faced the exact same thing on the exact same team and did much better. Ingram backers stuck their fingers in their ears and completely ignored it and were left with a bust that should have been pretty dang obvious at that point.

I think it's fair to look at how guys like Bradshaw/Ballard performed compared to Richardson. You can zoom in on YPC or not, but the fact of the matter is that they were much more productive and much better in the same situation. If Richardson isn't performing because the Indy line is terrible, then why were those guys performing with it? They were running the same plays, behind the same line, much better. YPC is just a vehicle to demonstrate it but, YPC or not, I don't think anyone would deny it.

Remember, we started this whole Indy escapade with "Cleveland sucked, now that he's on a good team with a good running game we're going to see the real Trent Richardson". Now we've ended it with "oh Trent is struggling, must be because Indy is a bad team with a bad running game". At this point, I think Richardson could get traded to Denver and people would still blame the team.

If Bradshaw hadn't gotten hurt, I wonder how much (or little) Richardson would be playing right now at all.

Vick Ballard is also a very valid comparison, with a valid sample size from both this year and last -- same running down usage, much better results.

 

[cstu]

My eyeball test on Richardson is that he has a pretty impressive set of physical skills (much more so than someone like Thomas Jones), but isn't making good decisions.

Virginia RB Thomas Jones (5-10, 216) was impressive in his workout, running a 4.43 40 yard dash, a 35" vertical and a 10'4" long jump he also benched 225 lbs 24 times. Should easily go in the top ten probably to the Cardinals.

Richardson:

5 ft 9¼ in 228 lb 30¼ in 9½ in 4.48 s 25 reps

 

[Peeps Inc.]

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?

i'm taking thomas jones

 

[Ray_T]

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

• Share by Email

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/

This is a nice article. I do agree.

the Indy O Line was put together to assist in the passing game. This is a remnant of the Peyton Manning era.

Given the nature of the Colts coaching, I'd expect some O linemen to be brought in who can make the run game better, but this is a process that happens over the course of a year or two. Not a week or two.

I fully expect that Richardson will have a better year next season, but do not expect much from him this year.

At least he is in a position now where he knows enough of the playbook to be useful, but at the time of trade I figured it would be at least 3-4 weeks until he has a good game.

I still stand by that comment.

That being said, the Colts O-line is not the best line for running the ball, so I suggest all of you cleveland homies temper your expectations.

It may be fair to say that next year will be a better year for Richardson.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

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?

i'm taking thomas jones

I was thinking more like Anthony Thomas...but upon further review A-Train was a far more productive back than TRich...or at the very least he'll end up with more 1000 yd seasons than Trent.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

how do you copy/paste a 28 page thread?

 

[werdnoynek]

But does it? It's practically useless when comparing backs on different teams. It's hardly an indicator of skill IMO. It's like looking at a pixel of the whole picture.

When comparing backs on the same team it isn't very useful either, IMO. Some backs are in primarily on passing downs or used primarily in space. I just dont understand the love with YPC.

ETA: I find it odd that it's the stat that is primarily thrown around on these forums when talking about running backs. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think people are generally capable of knowing when the comparisons are valid and not. No one was comparing Mark Ingram's YPC to Darren Sproles'. However, it was perfectly fair to compare his to a guy like Chris Ivory, who was playing the same role on the same team and doing much better.

When someone comes up with a list of excuses for a guy, and there is another guy with those exact same list of obstacles that is performing much better, that is certainly something worth looking at. There were plenty of Ingram backers harping on him not getting a fair shake because he was in on obvious rushing situations, but Chris Ivory faced the exact same thing on the exact same team and did much better. Ingram backers stuck their fingers in their ears and completely ignored it and were left with a bust that should have been pretty dang obvious at that point.

I think it's fair to look at how guys like Bradshaw/Ballard performed compared to Richardson. You can zoom in on YPC or not, but the fact of the matter is that they were much more productive and much better in the same situation. If Richardson isn't performing because the Indy line is terrible, then why were those guys performing with it? They were running the same plays, behind the same line, much better. YPC is just a vehicle to demonstrate it but, YPC or not, I don't think anyone would deny it.

Remember, we started this whole Indy escapade with "Cleveland sucked, now that he's on a good team with a good running game we're going to see the real Trent Richardson". Now we've ended it with "oh Trent is struggling, must be because Indy is a bad team with a bad running game". At this point, I think Richardson could get traded to Denver and people would still blame the team.

If Bradshaw hadn't gotten hurt, I wonder how much (or little) Richardson would be playing right now at all.

Vick Ballard is also a very valid comparison, with a valid sample size from both this year and last -- same running down usage, much better results.

I'm not sure how we can currently compare Vick Ballard to Richardson. This team was under a completely different offensive system last season. Not, like this year, trying to play power football with a o-line that's built for pass protection.

These "other backs" of Indy that people keep redundantly referring to have all had about half the amount of carries that Richardson has had. The sample size isn't all that close... Bradshaw ran it 41 times, give him a few loss of yard carries and his YPC would take a spike. Brown has only carried it 33 times and is rarely given a handoff in the power formations that they're force feeding Richardson in.

There's been some solid comments from Sam Monson who wrote the article that OP (and I in the other buried thread) had posted. He said...

People get into trouble a lot with analyzing running backs assuming that they should always simply be expected to cut to where the space seems to be and everything else will take care of itself. The problem is that much of that space is entirely deceiving because of the leverage of blocks. That's why Reggie Bush doesn't gain 2,000 yards every season. He cuts to where he thinks there is space, but often it's just a mirage, and he winds up making no more yardage - less in fact - than had he simply gone where he was supposed to.

The point with Richardson though is that he has shown both good and bad during his short career, and as with any runner with iffy blocking in front of him (overall, rather than on specific plays) there will be plays where they bailed early rather than trusted the blocking.

At this stage the Colts blocking simply isn't of a standard high enough to evaluate any running back, so swapping between Brown, Richardson or anyone else they want to trot out there is just skirting around the issue.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

These "other backs" of Indy that people keep redundantly referring to have all had about half the amount of carries that Richardson has had. The sample size isn't all that close... Bradshaw ran it 41 times, give him a few loss of yard carries and his YPC would take a spike. Brown has only carried it 33 times and is rarely given a handoff in the power formations that they're force feeding Richardson in.

They've had more carries than Richardson. 87 vs 75. The idea that you have to split them up and compare them all individually is, at best, a loophole.

The idea that the line has magically been great for the other guy's 87 carries and magically been terrible for Richardson's 75 is a bit tough to swallow.

Additionally, if other guys are getting used in ways that Richardson isn't, isn't it about time we start putting some of that on him? He's less dynamic than them, and has struggled in the passing game and in pass protection. The "he just got traded" excuse is gone. At this point he's been there longer than Bradshaw had when Bradshaw looked fine in the passing game.

 

[werdnoynek]

These "other backs" of Indy that people keep redundantly referring to have all had about half the amount of carries that Richardson has had. The sample size isn't all that close... Bradshaw ran it 41 times, give him a few loss of yard carries and his YPC would take a spike. Brown has only carried it 33 times and is rarely given a handoff in the power formations that they're force feeding Richardson in.

They've had more carries than Richardson. 87 vs 75. The idea that you have to split them up and compare them all individually is, at best, a bad loophole you're trying to exploit.

The idea that the line has magically been great for the other guy's 87 carries and magically been terrible for Richardson's 75.

Additionally, if other guys are getting used in ways that Richardson isn't, isn't it about time we start putting some of that on him? He's less dynamic than them, and has struggled in the passing game and in pass protection. The "he just got traded" excuse is gone. At this point he's been there longer than Bradshaw had when Bradshaw looked fine in the passing game.

How can you just lump two different players together and compare them to a single player? Speaking of bad loopholes.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

the Indy O Line was put together to assist in the passing game. This is a remnant of the Peyton Manning era.

Given the nature of the Colts coaching, I'd expect some O linemen to be brought in who can make the run game better, but this is a process that happens over the course of a year or two. Not a week or two.

I fully expect that Richardson will have a better year next season, but do not expect much from him this year.

At least he is in a position now where he knows enough of the playbook to be useful, but at the time of trade I figured it would be at least 3-4 weeks until he has a good game.

I still stand by that comment.

That being said, the Colts O-line is not the best line for running the ball, so I suggest all of you cleveland homies temper your expectations.

It may be fair to say that next year will be a better year for Richardson.

0% of the Colts OL starters have blocked for Peyton Manning, that increases to 0% if you add the TE.

Also, the Colts are pretty good at run blocking. They are 5th in the league in rushing yards and average 4.55 y/a which is .02 better than the Seahawks.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i'm not that familiar with the intricacies of PFFs stats, either, but just trying to understand something.

it was alluded to above.

if we were to compare one running play by richardson, and one by mccoy, in broken tackle stat, as follows.

1 - richardson runs two yards, breaks a tackle, gets one more yard, than is tackled.

2 - mccoy fakes 11 defenders out of their jocks, isn't touched, and scores an 80 yard TD (or is tackled a yard shy of a TD - without breaking a tackle).

richardson has one broken tackle, mccoy has none.

by that stat, in a vacuum, one might conclude richardson did a better job.

but maybe i'm missing something on how they figure broken tackle stats?

 

[werdnoynek]

i'm not that familiar with the intricacies of PFFs stats, either, but just trying to understand something.

it was alluded to above.

if we were to compare one running play by richardson, and one by mccoy, in broken tackle stat, as follows.

1 - richardson runs two yards, breaks a tackle, gets one more yard, than is tackled.

2 - mccoy fakes 11 defenders out of their jocks, isn't touched, and scores an 80 yard TD (or is tackled a yard shy of a TD - without breaking a tackle).

richardson has one broken tackle, mccoy has none.

by that stat, in a vacuum, one might conclude richardson did a better job.

but maybe i'm missing something on how they figure broken tackle stats?

PFF won't reveal how they arrive at the numbers (I've previously asked). No one, except for the NFL teams that use their stats and the people at PFF, know what specifically they use to arrive at the Missed Tackles number - they just say "broken" or "avoided" tackles.

IMO, running by defenders and actually having someone attempt to tackle you and breaking it or avoiding it are two different things. From my understanding of the stat, someone has to attempt to tackle you to, by definition, avoid a tackler. What you're saying above (#2) is avoiding a defender... they may be attempting a tackle shortly but in most cases guys like McCoy are avoiding the defender, not a tackler because they've already run past them before they can even attempt to tackle.

Speed becomes part of the equation. As Coop brought up previously, elusive, by definition, should probably include speed as a variable. And there may be a way to include it in these numbers as well as running by defenders... but how, I have no idea. They could have probably thought of another name of the rating... such as the missed tackle rating, but the elusive rating is an interesting number to look at nonetheless.

ETA: They include a little explanation of the Elusive Rating saying it "Attempts to distill the impact of a runner with the ball independently of the blocking in front of him by looking at how hard he was to bring down. The formula: (Missed Tackles Forced) / (Carries + Receptions) * (Yards After Contact Per Attempt * 100) - I think people are looking at the word elusive and thinking of something completely different than what the number is actually showing us. Again, a name change might be a good idea.

 

[werdnoynek]

the Indy O Line was put together to assist in the passing game. This is a remnant of the Peyton Manning era.

Given the nature of the Colts coaching, I'd expect some O linemen to be brought in who can make the run game better, but this is a process that happens over the course of a year or two. Not a week or two.

I fully expect that Richardson will have a better year next season, but do not expect much from him this year.

At least he is in a position now where he knows enough of the playbook to be useful, but at the time of trade I figured it would be at least 3-4 weeks until he has a good game.

I still stand by that comment.

That being said, the Colts O-line is not the best line for running the ball, so I suggest all of you cleveland homies temper your expectations.

It may be fair to say that next year will be a better year for Richardson.

0% of the Colts OL starters have blocked for Peyton Manning, that increases to 0% if you add the TE.

Also, the Colts are pretty good at run blocking. They are 5th in the league in rushing yards and average 4.55 y/a which is .02 better than the Seahawks.

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

 

[GroveDiesel]

the Indy O Line was put together to assist in the passing game. This is a remnant of the Peyton Manning era.

Given the nature of the Colts coaching, I'd expect some O linemen to be brought in who can make the run game better, but this is a process that happens over the course of a year or two. Not a week or two.

I fully expect that Richardson will have a better year next season, but do not expect much from him this year.

At least he is in a position now where he knows enough of the playbook to be useful, but at the time of trade I figured it would be at least 3-4 weeks until he has a good game.

I still stand by that comment.

That being said, the Colts O-line is not the best line for running the ball, so I suggest all of you cleveland homies temper your expectations.

It may be fair to say that next year will be a better year for Richardson.

0% of the Colts OL starters have blocked for Peyton Manning, that increases to 0% if you add the TE.

Also, the Colts are pretty good at run blocking. They are 5th in the league in rushing yards and average 4.55 y/a which is .02 better than the Seahawks.

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

No, they don't. But somehow the Indy line comes out in 7th place right now for run blocking by FootballOutsiders' method. So they must be doing something right. Statistics and rankings don't always tell the full story, but at some point, I think, when all the statistics seem to be saying the same thing, it's time to admit that there might be something behind them.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

[Tanner9919]

Why do we have to make excuses for players? He's had - what 24 games to show his worth?

first, it was 'Weeden sucks, that's what is holding back TRich'.

then it was the Cleveland o-line.

then the Cleveland franchise as a whole.

now it's the Indy o-line.

and 8-man fronts..

but hey, at least he's breaking tackles!!

quoting profootballfocus, in 2012, Richardson saw 219 carries where there was 7 men in the box, and just 48 carries with 8 men in the box..or 17.98% of the time..that ranks a low 25th among the 42 Rb's they've listed.

in other words, only 17 out of 42 RB's listed, saw less 8-man fronts than Richardson.

now he plays for the Colts - I highly doubt he's seeing more 8-man fronts against a QB like Luck , than he did in Cleveland with Weeden.. how is it possible that he is averaging a full .6 yard LESS in Indy than he did in Cleveland in 2012?

.4 yard less that Cleveland in 2013..he's roughly 1/2 yard less with Andrew Luck at the helm???? How can that be?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Next Mark Ingram. People will overvalue him for the next 2 years until they realize he is a scrub livin off what he did in college football.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

the Indy O Line was put together to assist in the passing game. This is a remnant of the Peyton Manning era.

Given the nature of the Colts coaching, I'd expect some O linemen to be brought in who can make the run game better, but this is a process that happens over the course of a year or two. Not a week or two.

I fully expect that Richardson will have a better year next season, but do not expect much from him this year.

At least he is in a position now where he knows enough of the playbook to be useful, but at the time of trade I figured it would be at least 3-4 weeks until he has a good game.

I still stand by that comment.

That being said, the Colts O-line is not the best line for running the ball, so I suggest all of you cleveland homies temper your expectations.

It may be fair to say that next year will be a better year for Richardson.

0% of the Colts OL starters have blocked for Peyton Manning, that increases to 0% if you add the TE.

Also, the Colts are pretty good at run blocking. They are 5th in the league in rushing yards and average 4.55 y/a which is .02 better than the Seahawks.

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

I know why you can't explain that statement.

 

[werdnoynek]

the Indy O Line was put together to assist in the passing game. This is a remnant of the Peyton Manning era.

Given the nature of the Colts coaching, I'd expect some O linemen to be brought in who can make the run game better, but this is a process that happens over the course of a year or two. Not a week or two.

I fully expect that Richardson will have a better year next season, but do not expect much from him this year.

At least he is in a position now where he knows enough of the playbook to be useful, but at the time of trade I figured it would be at least 3-4 weeks until he has a good game.

I still stand by that comment.

That being said, the Colts O-line is not the best line for running the ball, so I suggest all of you cleveland homies temper your expectations.

It may be fair to say that next year will be a better year for Richardson.

0% of the Colts OL starters have blocked for Peyton Manning, that increases to 0% if you add the TE.

Also, the Colts are pretty good at run blocking. They are 5th in the league in rushing yards and average 4.55 y/a which is .02 better than the Seahawks.

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

I know why you can't explain that statement.

Great! Feel free to share...

 

[MoveToSkypager]

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".

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?

This is untrue. It's because he decelerates into the hole, no matter what the blocking is like. Increasing the time you spend around the LOS increases the chance a defender engages you. This has been his problem since he entered the NFL.

 

[werdnoynek]

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".

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?

This is untrue. It's because he decelerates into the hole, no matter what the blocking is like. Increasing the time you spend around the LOS increases the chance a defender engages you. This has been his problem since he entered the NFL.

He decelerates because the "hole" isn't actually being created and there's nothing there when he gets there. It's precisely what the article that OP posted was saying. I'm curious if you actually read it.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Occam's Razor, people. Trent looks, walks, talks, smells, eats, drinks, and ####s like a duck at this point.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

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".

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?

This is untrue. It's because he decelerates into the hole, no matter what the blocking is like. Increasing the time you spend around the LOS increases the chance a defender engages you. This has been his problem since he entered the NFL.

He decelerates because the "hole" isn't actually being created and there's nothing there when he gets there. It's precisely what the article that OP posted was saying. I'm curious if you actually read it.

No. He decelerates into the hole no matter what the blocking is like. This has been his problem since he entered the NFL. I think I said this before. I've read your Richardson thread posts and it's as if you are trying to be as wrong as possible. You want to keep pretending that Richardson is one of the most elusive RBs in the league, that the Colts OL is terrible, that all these unsupportable claims you want to make to support Richardsons excuses, that's great. I want to read more. I hope next you'll write about how being fast is actually a disadvantage.

 

[werdnoynek]

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

No, they don't. But somehow the Indy line comes out in 7th place right now for run blocking by FootballOutsiders' method. So they must be doing something right. Statistics and rankings don't always tell the full story, but at some point, I think, when all the statistics seem to be saying the same thing, it's time to admit that there might be something behind them.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

These OL stats show pretty much exactly what we've been saying. Watching the games actually explain some of the numbers. Unfortunately, I know most fantasy owners just look at the stats each week and make their decisions and opinions based on the box score.

TRich has been high in Missed Tackles, as discussed ad nauseam above. The high stuffed ranking is a product of him making people getting to him first miss. The other rankings are quite low, Power Success, 2nd level rank, and Open Field Yards... which, as discussed above isn't helping him much.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

No, they don't. But somehow the Indy line comes out in 7th place right now for run blocking by FootballOutsiders' method. So they must be doing something right. Statistics and rankings don't always tell the full story, but at some point, I think, when all the statistics seem to be saying the same thing, it's time to admit that there might be something behind them.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

These OL stats show pretty much exactly what we've been saying. Watching the games actually explain some of the numbers. Unfortunately, I know most fantasy owners just look at the stats each week and make their decisions and opinions based on the box score.

TRich has been high in Missed Tackles, as discussed ad nauseam above. The high stuffed ranking is a product of him making people getting to him first miss. The other rankings are quite low, Power Success, 2nd level rank, and Open Field Yards... which, as discussed above isn't helping him much.

So what's really happening here is, when those other backs carried the ball in Indy, the blocking was so awesome that they just walked 5 yards and fell over on first contact every time. Meanwhile, whenever Richardson gets the ball the blocking is so awful that he should be averaging 0.0ypc, but he's just so out of this world elusive that he manages to bring that awful blocking UP to 3ypc.

I've watched enough Indy games to see that the reality isn't that the line was blocking 5ypc better for Bradshaw/Ballard and Trent's clear superiority closed that gap to only 1.8ypc difference. The reality is that Richardson isn't finding the holes that those guys were (even though the same ones were there), he's too tentative to the line which is allowing the holes that are there to close, and he's not making any chunk yardage when he does get into space and have a chance for a big play (see the play that was diagrammed earlier where his 1on1 with the safety in space led him to lower his head for an extra 3 yards instead of accelerate to the outside for an extra 30).

 

[cstu]

Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt.

This is a nice stat but doesn't tell the whole story. We know that when he gets touched he's tough to bring down, but what is his average yards BEFORE contact? I have to believe it's very low compared to other backs.

Yeah because there's almost always a defender in the backfield. Great point.

And when there's not he runs right at one.

 

[werdnoynek]

As they say, correlation does not imply causation. The Colt's rushing statistics doesn't give us the whole picture when it comes to run blocking.

No, they don't. But somehow the Indy line comes out in 7th place right now for run blocking by FootballOutsiders' method. So they must be doing something right. Statistics and rankings don't always tell the full story, but at some point, I think, when all the statistics seem to be saying the same thing, it's time to admit that there might be something behind them.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

These OL stats show pretty much exactly what we've been saying. Watching the games actually explain some of the numbers. Unfortunately, I know most fantasy owners just look at the stats each week and make their decisions and opinions based on the box score.

TRich has been high in Missed Tackles, as discussed ad nauseam above. The high stuffed ranking is a product of him making people getting to him first miss. The other rankings are quite low, Power Success, 2nd level rank, and Open Field Yards... which, as discussed above isn't helping him much.

So what's really happening here is, when those other backs carried the ball in Indy, the blocking was so awesome that they just walked 5 yards and fell over on first contact every time. Meanwhile, whenever Richardson gets the ball the blocking is so awful that he should be averaging 0.0ypc, but he's just so out of this world elusive that he manages to bring that awful blocking UP to 3ypc.

I've watched enough Indy games to see that the reality isn't that the line was blocking 5ypc better for Bradshaw/Ballard and Trent's clear superiority closed that gap to only 1.8ypc difference. The reality is that Richardson isn't finding the holes that those guys were (even though the same ones were there), he's too tentative to the line which is allowing the holes that are there to close, and he's not making any chunk yardage when he does get into space and have a chance for a big play (see the play that was diagrammed earlier where his 1on1 with the safety in space led him to lower his head for an extra 3 yards instead of accelerate to the outside for an extra 30).

If Brown was actually getting the carries that Richardson was we could compare them, but we can't because he's had half the carries that Richardson has. Brown's YPC would come down given more carries in this pathetic attempt at a power running offense.

Look at the Denver game for instance where they had similar amounts of carries

Richardson: 14 att 37 yds - 2.6 ypc. He had 25 YAC, 5 Missed Tackles.

Brown: 11 att 23 yds - 2.1 ypc. He had 12 YAC, 0 Missed Tackles.

Who had the better game rushing?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt.

This is a nice stat but doesn't tell the whole story. We know that when he gets touched he's tough to bring down, but what is his average yards BEFORE contact? I have to believe it's very low compared to other backs.

Yeah because there's almost always a defender in the backfield. Great point.

And when there's not he runs right at one.

Sorry if I have you confused with someone else, but weren't you relentlessly pimping Trent about a month ago? Calling him the missing piece that puts the Colts over the top to win the Super Bowl and blasting the Browns for trading him?

 

[cstu]

Which would give him 2.1 yards after contact per attempt.

This is a nice stat but doesn't tell the whole story. We know that when he gets touched he's tough to bring down, but what is his average yards BEFORE contact? I have to believe it's very low compared to other backs.

Yeah because there's almost always a defender in the backfield. Great point.

And when there's not he runs right at one.

Sorry if I have you confused with someone else, but weren't you relentlessly pimping Trent about a month ago? Calling him the missing piece that puts the Colts over the top to win the Super Bowl and blasting the Browns for trading him?

I thought he would do a lot better in the Colts offense than he has and that it was a good trade for them. I still believe they needed to get a RB if they were going to do anything in the playoffs and a late 1st isn't that bad for a young back with his talent.

Trent's decision making at the LOS is poor, something I discounted when he was with the Browns because teams were able to stack the box against him. It's not a talent issue though, put Emmitt Smith in his body and he'd be putting up 2000 yards.

I still believe he can develop into a solid yearly RB1 but gone is the idea that he's consistent top 5 back material.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If Brown was actually getting the carries that Richardson was we could compare them, but we can't because he's had half the carries that Richardson has. Brown's YPC would come down given more carries in this pathetic attempt at a power running offense.

Look at the Denver game for instance where they had similar amounts of carries

Richardson: 14 att 37 yds - 2.6 ypc. He had 25 YAC, 5 Missed Tackles.

Brown: 11 att 23 yds - 2.1 ypc. He had 12 YAC, 0 Missed Tackles.

Who had the better game rushing?

Hooray, the one game all season where on of Richardson's peers actually performed poorly on this dreg of an offense.

Here's a question. If Richardson really is just getting a bad beat and all these other guys have been playing in much more favorable circumstances, then why does Richardson continue to give up more and more of his carries to a below par runner like Donald Brown? I mean, they're trying to force Donald Brown into some power running situations at this point. Donald Brown, who's both not built for that and not really a good running back in the first place.

Surely the Indy coaches have access to all this film of poor O-line play suddenly rearing its head every time Richardson gets the ball, right? Yet, as Richardson continues to learn more and more of the playbook, he gets less and less playing time.

I think it's safe to say the coaches are just as disappointed in Richardson's performance as everyone else, otherwise they wouldn't be falling back to a guy they'd all but given up on previously.

 

[werdnoynek]

If Brown was actually getting the carries that Richardson was we could compare them, but we can't because he's had half the carries that Richardson has. Brown's YPC would come down given more carries in this pathetic attempt at a power running offense.

Look at the Denver game for instance where they had similar amounts of carries

Richardson: 14 att 37 yds - 2.6 ypc. He had 25 YAC, 5 Missed Tackles.

Brown: 11 att 23 yds - 2.1 ypc. He had 12 YAC, 0 Missed Tackles.

Who had the better game rushing?

Hooray, the one game all season where on of Richardson's peers actually performed poorly on this dreg of an offense.

Here's a question. If Richardson really is just getting a bad beat and all these other guys have been playing in much more favorable circumstances, then why does Richardson continue to give up more and more of his carries to a below par runner like Donald Brown? I mean, they're trying to force Donald Brown into some power running situations at this point. Donald Brown, who's both not built for that and not really a good running back in the first place.

Surely the Indy coaches have access to all this film of poor O-line play suddenly rearing its head every time Richardson gets the ball, right? Yet, as Richardson continues to learn more and more of the playbook, he gets less and less playing time.

I think it's safe to say the coaches are just as disappointed in Richardson's performance as everyone else, otherwise they wouldn't be falling back to a guy they'd all but given up on previously.

Look, Brown has broken off a few long runs and is looking quicker than Richardson. I completely agree. You seem to think he should be the starting running back after 5 years of doing next to nothing in the NFL. That may be why you aren't a head coach in the league. The Colts clearly see what some of us (or perhaps only I from the looks of it) see in Richardson that he can be elite in this league. He's not doing it now but some believe (like the Colts clearly do) that he can realize that potential. The what have you done for me lately fantasy crowd is a fickle one. If you want to bail on Richardson now, fare thee well. But I believe in his talent and the opportunity with the Colts. I think he can turn this around and the numbers we've gone over (and over and over) in this thread should show that. If you want to deny them, fine. I'm clearly not saying this is the year he will break out... not a chance in hell. But I think with an off season and getting to know the tendencies of his line, he should be able to start heading in the elite direction.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Look, Brown has broken off a few long runs and is looking quicker than Richardson. I completely agree. You seem to think he should be the starting running back after 5 years of doing next to nothing in the NFL. That may be why you aren't a head coach in the league. The Colts clearly see what some of us (or perhaps only I from the looks of it) see in Richardson that he can be elite in this league. He's not doing it now but some believe (like the Colts clearly do) that he can realize that potential. The what have you done for me lately fantasy crowd is a fickle one. If you want to bail on Richardson now, fare thee well. But I believe in his talent and the opportunity with the Colts. I think he can turn this around and the numbers we've gone over (and over and over) in this thread should show that. If you want to deny them, fine. I'm clearly not saying this is the year he will break out... not a chance in hell. But I think with an off season and getting to know the tendencies of his line, he should be able to start heading in the elite direction.

This is a much better post than the one you were saying ypc doesn't matter.

 

[werdnoynek]

Look, Brown has broken off a few long runs and is looking quicker than Richardson. I completely agree. You seem to think he should be the starting running back after 5 years of doing next to nothing in the NFL. That may be why you aren't a head coach in the league. The Colts clearly see what some of us (or perhaps only I from the looks of it) see in Richardson that he can be elite in this league. He's not doing it now but some believe (like the Colts clearly do) that he can realize that potential. The what have you done for me lately fantasy crowd is a fickle one. If you want to bail on Richardson now, fare thee well. But I believe in his talent and the opportunity with the Colts. I think he can turn this around and the numbers we've gone over (and over and over) in this thread should show that. If you want to deny them, fine. I'm clearly not saying this is the year he will break out... not a chance in hell. But I think with an off season and getting to know the tendencies of his line, he should be able to start heading in the elite direction.

This is a much better post than the one you were saying ypc doesn't matter.

I still think it's one of the least valuable statistics to use to compare one RB with another.