Is Richardson the best RB prospect since ADP ? (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

Best RB prospect since AD!

Think you guys laughing need to understand the definition of "prospect".It's how are NFL scouts and GMs perceiving the player's abilities to successfully make the jump to the NFL level COMING OUT OF COLLEGE.It's not necessarily saying Richardson will be a better NFL RB than Peterson. It's saying Richardson is perceived to be on the same level of talent (or even better by some) at this same stage of their career (prior to the NFL Draft)

Saying you scoffed at the noise you participated in creating is dishonest.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Fwiw I think Ingram is going to have a very nice career when it's all said and done.

I'll say Richardson has more fantasy points after week 6 of 2012 in his NFL career than Ingram does with a full season already to his credit. I obviously don't like Ingram and don't see special talent but even on a level to those who think he's fantastic I ask this, when in New Orleans do you see him possibly becoming an elite fantasy producer? With Brees, his WRs, Jimmy Graham getting many redzone looks, Sproles, Thomas, Ivory all on that team. When could he break out?

It depends somewhat on their rolesIngam doesn't stay in the game long enough to accumulate a lot of stats or a rythm

 

[Concept Coop]

I watch lots of SEC football and there is no doubt in my mind Richardson will be better than Ingram. there is also no doubt in my mind Darren McFadden was a better prospect coming out. his big play ability was unmatched

Not that I think you are wrong, but I think Richardson is a safer bet to be an every down back. I remember concerns about McFadden's ability to carry the load.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson. To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level. It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying. It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.Foster was not drafted.On and on.It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

It's not untrue. For one, it is an opinion. Secondly, just realize that you are not claiming a few posters in this thread are way off - you are claiming many scouts to be as well. Again, if you have watched Bama play, you have heard the announcers - often - say that scouts have said Richardson is the 2nd best player in the draft, the best RB since Peterson, some saying better, and the Andrew Luck of RBs.

 

[hines]

I watch lots of SEC football and there is no doubt in my mind Richardson will be better than Ingram. there is also no doubt in my mind Darren McFadden was a better prospect coming out. his big play ability was unmatched

Not that I think you are wrong, but I think Richardson is a safer bet to be an every down back. I remember concerns about McFadden's ability to carry the load.

there were a few but he did it all the way through college in the SEC with basically no injuries and no passing game so they weren't that large. Richardson does have an edge in the grinding out yards category I agree

 

[scrumptrulescent]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

It's not untrue. For one, it is an opinion. Secondly, just realize that you are not claiming a few posters in this thread are way off - you are claiming many scouts to be as well. Again, if you have watched Bama play, you have heard the announcers - often - say that scouts have said Richardson is the 2nd best player in the draft, the best RB since Peterson, some saying better, and the Andrew Luck of RBs.

I've only watched "Bama" play a few times this year, but it's nothing new for announcers to compare college kids to All-Pro athletes in the last 20 years or so. I've lost count at how many times I've heard about how a RB is "Barry Sanders-esque" or a WR is the next Randy Moss, or a QB the next Peyton Manning (Luck). Jonathan Stewart, Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson are a few names of RB's who were going to be the next big thing. I think Cartercanfly makes a lot of really good points. Ingram has a bad year and there are guys flocking to airpunch and say "I told you so" about him vs Richardson. Richardson is having a fantastic year in college on one of the most stacked teams in the college game....probably all 4 and 5 star recruits. So it's pretty easy to right now get all puffed up and tell the world Ingram is and always was nothing special while Richardson is the next Adrian Peterson.

I will be keeping an eye on Richardson but am afraid I won't get him in drafts next year if gurus, scouts, and talking heads are all comparing him to Peterson.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

It's not untrue. For one, it is an opinion. Secondly, just realize that you are not claiming a few posters in this thread are way off - you are claiming many scouts to be as well. Again, if you have watched Bama play, you have heard the announcers - often - say that scouts have said Richardson is the 2nd best player in the draft, the best RB since Peterson, some saying better, and the Andrew Luck of RBs.

I've only watched "Bama" play a few times this year, but it's nothing new for announcers to compare college kids to All-Pro athletes in the last 20 years or so. I've lost count at how many times I've heard about how a RB is "Barry Sanders-esque" or a WR is the next Randy Moss, or a QB the next Peyton Manning (Luck). Jonathan Stewart, Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson are a few names of RB's who were going to be the next big thing. I think Cartercanfly makes a lot of really good points. Ingram has a bad year and there are guys flocking to airpunch and say "I told you so" about him vs Richardson. Richardson is having a fantastic year in college on one of the most stacked teams in the college game....probably all 4 and 5 star recruits. So it's pretty easy to right now get all puffed up and tell the world Ingram is and always was nothing special while Richardson is the next Adrian Peterson.

I will be keeping an eye on Richardson but am afraid I won't get him in drafts next year if gurus, scouts, and talking heads are all comparing him to Peterson.

Good posing thanks.Announcers always speak in hyperbole.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Best RB prospect since AD!

Think you guys laughing need to understand the definition of "prospect".It's how are NFL scouts and GMs perceiving the player's abilities to successfully make the jump to the NFL level COMING OUT OF COLLEGE.It's not necessarily saying Richardson will be a better NFL RB than Peterson. It's saying Richardson is perceived to be on the same level of talent (or even better by some) at this same stage of their career (prior to the NFL Draft)

Saying you scoffed at the noise you participated in creating is dishonest.

Put it in context and you'll see why that is funny.

 

[Concept Coop]

I've only watched "Bama" play a few times this year, but it's nothing new for announcers to compare college kids to All-Pro athletes in the last 20 years or so. I've lost count at how many times I've heard about how a RB is "Barry Sanders-esque" or a WR is the next Randy Moss, or a QB the next Peyton Manning (Luck). Jonathan Stewart, Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, Cedric Benson are a few names of RB's who were going to be the next big thing. I think Cartercanfly makes a lot of really good points. Ingram has a bad year and there are guys flocking to airpunch and say "I told you so" about him vs Richardson. Richardson is having a fantastic year in college on one of the most stacked teams in the college game....probably all 4 and 5 star recruits. So it's pretty easy to right now get all puffed up and tell the world Ingram is and always was nothing special while Richardson is the next Adrian Peterson.I will be keeping an eye on Richardson but am afraid I won't get him in drafts next year if gurus, scouts, and talking heads are all comparing him to Peterson.

I think you misread what I wrote. I am not talking about announcers making statements, I am talking about announcers being told by scouts, that Richardson is X,Y,Z.

 

[cvnpoka]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

you realize ingram slid to the end of the first bc he wasnt considered a great prospect? i know, yall will blame the knee thing, but even prior to that he was only projected a mid round pick. richardson is considered a candidate for top 5. hes a better prospect, ie, prior to their respective draft's, richardson is better touted.

 

[cstu]

Way better than Peterson.

LOL

This way better than Peterson stuff is insanity. Might he be better than Peterson? Possibly. Is it even close to rational to say right now that he will be way better than Peterson? Not a chance.

I never said he will have a better career than Peterson. I'm comparing them coming out of college. Richardson is just more advanced and well-rounded at this point in his career. And its very rational. If Peterson had Richardson's hands and pass pro skills, then it would be pretty even. He also had fumbling problems.

If Peterson had better hands and pass pro coming out of college then they'd be pretty even? So you're saying that Richardson is a better NFL prospect than Peterson was? I guess I'm not in agreement.Personally, I guess Peterson the slight edge but think they're pretty even in that Richardson may be more advanced in pass pro and receiving than Peterson was coming out of college (and is likely more advanced than Peterson is even today), but he isn't nearly as dynamic as Peterson was. Also, to the best of my knowlege, Peterson didn't have fumbling issues coming out of college. That issue reared its ugly head for a short while once he was in the league.Regardless, the fact that Peterson "slipped" to #7 when he had concerns relating to injuries, pass pro, and receiving speaks volumes to the type of prospect he was. I like the Ray Rice comparison for Richardson. An extremely well rounded 3-down back that isn't quite the threat that Peterson is on every touch to take one the distance, yet can be a true workhorse for whatever team takes him.

Peterson was nearly the perfect pure running back. There were concerns about his upside as a receiver and he did break his collarbone but I don't remember anyone having doubts to his ability as a runner. Richardson is not as a good of a runner as Peterson but the overall package is close.

 

[sharptongued1]

If he's so good, why couldn't he wrestle the job from Ingram, especially considering that Ingram was apparently a middling talent according to all the experts in here.

There's no shame in splitting time with another elite NFL prospect. Andre Johnson sat behind Santana Moss and Reggie Wayne. Rashard Mendenhall split carries with Pierre Thomas. Marshawn Lynch split carries with JJ Arrington. This sort of thing happens all the time. A lot of college coaches value seniority. You generally don't bench a massively productive player for a younger backup, even if the backup appears more talented. Heck, Andrew Luck was redshirted in favor of a guy named Tavita Pritchard. By your "logic" he must not be very good.

Exactly.Why didn't Tebow beat out Chris Leak at Florida?There are numerous other examples at huge college football programs.The "argument" that Richardson can't be as good as advertised because he couldn't beat out a Heisman-trophy winning starter borders on absurd.

Barry Sanders wasn't very good because he couldn't beat out Thurman Thomas at Okie St.

 

[Hoosier16]

I don't think many of the people who take Richardson with a top 10 dynasty pick or the 1.01 rookie pick will be upset if he becomes the kind of NFL RB Jonathan Stewart is.

I don't think anyone who uses those picks for Richardson will be happy if he ends up like Stewart - part of a RBBC for the first 4-6 years of his career. Most expect more than a RB2 when spending those high picks on a RB. Only a Carolina fan would be happy.

 

[Hendo]

I love Richardson... but theres so much that goes into his projections for next year (what team he goes to/time share) to even consider where i would go in a fantasy draft and who i would take over him. You have so many elite type WR's that are entering these drafts of late that to me they seem like the better value now and going forward since the longevity of an elite WR far exceeds a elite RB shelf life. When you have guys like Andre/Fitz/Calvin/Dez/AJ&Julio in the past 5 seasons coming out why would you even target a RB with how many questions come with them?

 

[AmosMoses]

If he's so good, why couldn't he wrestle the job from Ingram, especially considering that Ingram was apparently a middling talent according to all the experts in here.

You really know your stuff.

 

[Multiple Scores]

If he's so good, why couldn't he wrestle the job from Ingram, especially considering that Ingram was apparently a middling talent according to all the experts in here.

You really know your stuff.

lol. He gets an A+ for knowledge.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Way better than Peterson.

No

 

[Concept Coop]

I love Richardson... but theres so much that goes into his projections for next year (what team he goes to/time share) to even consider where i would go in a fantasy draft and who i would take over him. You have so many elite type WR's that are entering these drafts of late that to me they seem like the better value now and going forward since the longevity of an elite WR far exceeds a elite RB shelf life. When you have guys like Andre/Fitz/Calvin/Dez/AJ&Julio in the past 5 seasons coming out why would you even target a RB with how many questions come with them?

This is a question for another thread, and there have been plenty. But, in short, the principles of VORP still apply. Meaning, 5 years of RB1 production is worth more than 7 years of WR production or 10 years of QB1 production. I don't have the exact numbers, but, you don't compare the career expectancy of a QB or WR to a RB, in most formats. Flex spots create the need for comparision, but VORP still stands. A 23 year old RB like McCoy (21 for Richardson, if he pans out) gets a much bigger bump for age than a guy like Calvin or Rodgers, even though their careers might be as long, from today moving forward.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

No. McFadden was going to step in and be a top 3 big play RB coming out of college. Stewart ran a 4.35 at 235 pounds and only went outside the top 10 due to injury concerns. People have short memories. Richardson is top of his class and could go top 10, but he doesn't have an an uber- elite trait that puts him in the stratosphere of the two I mentioned and ADP. He surely can compete with any other RB prospect since.

 

[Abraham]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

you realize ingram slid to the end of the first bc he wasnt considered a great prospect? i know, yall will blame the knee thing, but even prior to that he was only projected a mid round pick. richardson is considered a candidate for top 5. hes a better prospect, ie, prior to their respective draft's, richardson is better touted.

Uh, no.

 

[EBF]

He has a better body type than Peterson and McFadden. McFadden is explosive, but (IMO) does not have the body type needed to withstand the rigors of a full workload in the NFL. His talent doesn't do you a lot of good when he's in the shop nursing injuries.

In terms of Richardson's elite traits, I would point towards balance and strength. Pound for pound, he is probably one of the strongest players in the country. His low center of gravity, strength, and wide base make him very hard to knock off his feet.

In terms of style, I think he's more like Ray Rice than he is Peterson or McFadden. He will not break as many jaw-dropping sprints to the end zone as the latter two, but at the end of the day the yardage he compiles on the ground and in the air will win FF teams a lot of games. I liked Ray quite a bit when he was coming out of Rutgers and I think Richardson is a better version of the same player. Compact, strong, and able to cut on a dime. I don't put a lot of stock in ESPN's Sports Science, but this is still a good clip to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_9Q-5GAEws

 

[Concept Coop]

No. McFadden was going to step in and be a top 3 big play RB coming out of college. Stewart ran a 4.35 at 235 pounds and only went outside the top 10 due to injury concerns. People have short memories. Richardson is top of his class and could go top 10, but he doesn't have an an uber- elite trait that puts him in the stratosphere of the two I mentioned and ADP. He surely can compete with any other RB prospect since.

Doesn't have an uber-elite trait? Pick one. If size/speed combo is your criteria, then sure, Richardson is not up there with Stewart and DMC. If strength/quickness is your criteria - who's better?

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

you realize ingram slid to the end of the first bc he wasnt considered a great prospect? i know, yall will blame the knee thing, but even prior to that he was only projected a mid round pick. richardson is considered a candidate for top 5. hes a better prospect, ie, prior to their respective draft's, richardson is better touted.

Uh, no.

I am pretty sure he meant mid-first round pick, which is accurate.

 

[squistion]

I don't think many of the people who take Richardson with a top 10 dynasty pick or the 1.01 rookie pick will be upset if he becomes the kind of NFL RB Jonathan Stewart is.

I don't think anyone who uses those picks for Richardson will be happy if he ends up like Stewart - part of a RBBC for the first 4-6 years of his career. Most expect more than a RB2 when spending those high picks on a RB. Only a Carolina fan would be happy.

Most Stewart owners I know who used a 1.01 on him or a 1st round draft pick in a start up draft don't feel they have gotten a particularly good return on their investment - 4 seasons later and they are still waiting for the big payoff. In theory, talent is always supposed to win out over opportunity, but a player still has to get the opportunity - which is why declaring any player who has yet to play a down in the NFL a mortal lock may come back to bite you.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Where do people see Richardson getting drafted? What team will take him?

 

[Multiple Scores]

Cleveland, Tampa are the first two that come to mind.

 

[Abraham]

Where do people see Richardson getting drafted? What team will take him?

Browns at 8 would be the low point I think.

 

[duaneok66]

Cle needs a QB - they may take RG3.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Cle needs a QB - they may take RG3.

Or sign Flynn to compete with McCoy. Holmgren is connected to that same WCO coaching tree that has been grooming Flynn. And Holmgren doesn't like to take a QB high. He's always developed QB's from outside the 1st round. And with the offensive talent available in the 1st this year, I could imagine them signing Flynn, and drafting Richardson and Floyd.

 

[wildbill]

Where do people see Richardson getting drafted? What team will take him?

I saw a mock draft today that had him going to the Jets.

 

[encaitar]

The hyperbole in this forum is just nuts sometimes.

"McFadden will be better than Peterson!!!"

"Stewart is just like Peterson only faster!!!!!"

"Beanie is built just like Peterson!"

"Richardson will be as good as Peterson"

None of these guys, or anyone drafted in the last 4 years was anywhere near the prospect of Peterson coming out and comparing them to him is just over the top. Will Richardson be a good pro. Yeah, he might be a great pro. He isn't the prospect Adrian was though. To truly understand how big of a prospect Peterson was, he started only 14 games his final two years at OU, yet still was drafted 7th. Had he been healthy in college he would've been a top 3 pick and maybe a No. 1 overall pick. No one doubted his talent, only his durability was in question.

 

[duaneok66]

The hyperbole in this forum is just nuts sometimes. "McFadden will be better than Peterson!!!""Stewart is just like Peterson only faster!!!!!""Beanie is built just like Peterson!""Richardson will be as good as Peterson"None of these guys, or anyone drafted in the last 4 years was anywhere near the prospect of Peterson coming out and comparing them to him is just over the top. Will Richardson be a good pro. Yeah, he might be a great pro. He isn't the prospect Adrian was though. To truly understand how big of a prospect Peterson was, he started only 14 games his final two years at OU, yet still was drafted 7th. Had he been healthy in college he would've been a top 3 pick and maybe a No. 1 overall pick. No one doubted his talent, only his durability was in question.

outstanding post.

 

[EBF]

The hyperbole in this forum is just nuts sometimes.

Ironic, considering how hyperbolic your post was. I don't recall anyone saying Beanie was as good as Peterson. The fact that he nearly slipped out of the first round means he doesn't even belong in this discussion.

McFadden is closer. He had LOTS of fans, but I remember there being quite a few detractors as well. He went 1.01 in all of my rookie drafts that year, so there was definitely a lot of hype, but I feel like opinion was more mixed on him.

Stewart? Nice prospect with freak measurables, but nobody put him in a class with Bush and Peterson when he was coming out. He wasn't even the unanimous top RB in his own draft class.

Richardson is a cut above your typical first round RB like Mathews, Mendenhall, and Ingram. The hype surrounding him is not some kind of message board creation. Every scouting source I've read has lavished him with praise. I don't recall ever reading things like this about Ingram, Wells, Stewart, or even McFadden:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-10/nfl-mock-draft/story/trent-richardson-second-only-to-andrew-luck-in-scouts-eyes

Trent Richardson (5-10, 225 pounds), junior, RB, (Alabama)

The 2011 season was a chance to see how Richardson would play as the Crimson Tide’s No. 1 tailback with Mark Ingram moving to the NFL. Richardson continues to play better and better, especially over the past month.

As a result, many scouts view him as the best player not named Andrew Luck who could be in the 2012 Draft. That assumes both players will enter the draft; Luck also is a junior and has said he would leave Stanford to turn pro.

Richardson is a well-built back who shows strength, balance and competitiveness. He runs through grab tackles to gain yards after contact.

What makes him so special is that for such a physical runner, he has rare foot quickness and agility to change directions in a flash. That allows him to make an explosive jump-cut to get to backside holes with remarkable ease.

When you add in Richardson’s ability as a receiver out of the backfield and hise violence and competitiveness in pass protection, you have the complete back.

Whether he wins the Heisman Trophy or not, you can be sure the if Richardson comes out early he will be a top-five pick. Numerous NFL scouts have told us he is the best running back they have ever evaluated. PROJECTED: Top-five overall

 

[Abraham]

I promised my thoughts in the first post, so it's only fair that I follow through...

Richardson actually reminds me a lot of two guys that haven't yet been mentioned: Frank Gore and Marion Barber.

Gore: I'm not talking about the injuries that placed Gore lower in the draft, obviously, but their styles and skill-sets (when healthy) are remarkably similar to me. While I think that comparing Richardson to Ricky or Edge is also apt, Gore's vision and agility are close to TR in my opinion. For starters, both runners show excellent footwork in the backfield. This footwork sets up great balance and path to the hole in front of them. From there, both runners show similar speed/acceleration combos that get them through the line of scrimmage with a full head of steam and a good forward lean. Neither of them has great breakaway speed compared to players like Chris Johnson or Lesean McCoy, but both appear to excel at breaking initial LB contact with strong legs and strong balance. Whereas Cadillac Williams and Kevin Jones utlized balance and agility in the 5-7 yard range, Gore and Richardson appear to utilize leg power COMBINED with the kind of balance that takes in to account not only their own bodies but the the bodies being slammed in to them.

Barber: Richardson's "forward lean" contains a bit of power that was not evident in Mark INgram but reminds me a great deal of Barber. There are certain players (Cedric Benson being one of them, FWIW) that manage to muscle forward for an extra half-to-full yard once they are in the grasp of an LB. This sounds minimal, but for a workhorse that is 10 extra yards per game and the difference between a 3.5 and 4.0 ypc. The former is a role player, the latter is a starter. Richardson's quickness is not so much agility but rather a power-burst like Barber that meets contact head on and - very suddenly - drives it up and back. Marion Barber had this ability when he entered the NFL.

Furthermore, Richardson has emerged as not only a competent pass-catcher but as a true threat in the recieiving game. While he isn't likely to ever be confused for Marshall Faulk and lined up as split end, he has the ability to run crisp routes and shows good hands. As a result, when Richardson gets the ball on the run as a receiver he is often able to make things happen after first contact and creates a matchup nightmare for the nickel corner stuck spying him out of the backfield. Richardson's receiving prowess - like that of Gore - will require some work in his first few years in the league. But he has shown a clear understanding and ability with regard to crisp routes, setting up blockers, and getting the ball on the run that isn't present in many strength-based rushers.

My expectation of Richardson does not fall in line with Ricky or Peterson, but rather with Gore and to a lesser extent E. James. I think he can be a 300 carry, 50 reception back for years to come. In the right situation (St. Louis, Tampa, even Cleveland) then he can do great things for fantasy owners.

 

[bucksoh]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

It's not untrue. For one, it is an opinion. Secondly, just realize that you are not claiming a few posters in this thread are way off - you are claiming many scouts to be as well. Again, if you have watched Bama play, you have heard the announcers - often - say that scouts have said Richardson is the 2nd best player in the draft, the best RB since Peterson, some saying better, and the Andrew Luck of RBs.

I hope you do realize announcers say this every year about insert top prospects "name", being the next Peterson or better than Petterson. It happens every year. Doesn't mean the announcers are right. IMO I wouldn't even compare Ingram and Richardson to Peterson cause it isn't close. Just like the people who took Ingram #1 overall made a mistake, same will be said of Richardson IMO.

 

[happy_donut]

I promised my thoughts in the first post, so it's only fair that I follow through...Richardson actually reminds me a lot of two guys that haven't yet been mentioned: Frank Gore and Marion Barber.Gore: I'm not talking about the injuries that placed Gore lower in the draft, obviously, but their styles and skill-sets (when healthy) are remarkably similar to me. While I think that comparing Richardson to Ricky or Edge is also apt, Gore's vision and agility are close to TR in my opinion. For starters, both runners show excellent footwork in the backfield. This footwork sets up great balance and path to the hole in front of them. From there, both runners show similar speed/acceleration combos that get them through the line of scrimmage with a full head of steam and a good forward lean. Neither of them has great breakaway speed compared to players like Chris Johnson or Lesean McCoy, but both appear to excel at breaking initial LB contact with strong legs and strong balance. Whereas Cadillac Williams and Kevin Jones utlized balance and agility in the 5-7 yard range, Gore and Richardson appear to utilize leg power COMBINED with the kind of balance that takes in to account not only their own bodies but the the bodies being slammed in to them. Barber: Richardson's "forward lean" contains a bit of power that was not evident in Mark INgram but reminds me a great deal of Barber. There are certain players (Cedric Benson being one of them, FWIW) that manage to muscle forward for an extra half-to-full yard once they are in the grasp of an LB. This sounds minimal, but for a workhorse that is 10 extra yards per game and the difference between a 3.5 and 4.0 ypc. The former is a role player, the latter is a starter. Richardson's quickness is not so much agility but rather a power-burst like Barber that meets contact head on and - very suddenly - drives it up and back. Marion Barber had this ability when he entered the NFL.Furthermore, Richardson has emerged as not only a competent pass-catcher but as a true threat in the recieiving game. While he isn't likely to ever be confused for Marshall Faulk and lined up as split end, he has the ability to run crisp routes and shows good hands. As a result, when Richardson gets the ball on the run as a receiver he is often able to make things happen after first contact and creates a matchup nightmare for the nickel corner stuck spying him out of the backfield. Richardson's receiving prowess - like that of Gore - will require some work in his first few years in the league. But he has shown a clear understanding and ability with regard to crisp routes, setting up blockers, and getting the ball on the run that isn't present in many strength-based rushers.My expectation of Richardson does not fall in line with Ricky or Peterson, but rather with Gore and to a lesser extent E. James. I think he can be a 300 carry, 50 reception back for years to come. In the right situation (St. Louis, Tampa, even Cleveland) then he can do great things for fantasy owners.

Quality post.

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

It's not untrue. For one, it is an opinion. Secondly, just realize that you are not claiming a few posters in this thread are way off - you are claiming many scouts to be as well. Again, if you have watched Bama play, you have heard the announcers - often - say that scouts have said Richardson is the 2nd best player in the draft, the best RB since Peterson, some saying better, and the Andrew Luck of RBs.

I hope you do realize announcers say this every year about insert top prospects "name", being the next Peterson or better than Petterson. It happens every year. Doesn't mean the announcers are right. IMO I wouldn't even compare Ingram and Richardson to Peterson cause it isn't close. Just like the people who took Ingram #1 overall made a mistake, same will be said of Richardson IMO.

Read it one more time.

 

[Multiple Scores]

I don't doubt that Richardson might be better than Ingram in the NFL. I also don't doubt that there might be other RB's drafted later in the draft who end up being better NFL rb's than both Ingram and Richardson.

To say that Richardson is anything more than a small notch above Ingram was as a prospect is not accurate. Everyone is now evaluating and thinking with a hindsight mentaility after a year where Ingram struggled with his role and through injury at the NFL level.

It is super easy to say Richardson is the better prospect now due to this level of thinking. But had Ingram had a huge year and blown up many here would not be saying what they are saying.

It makes me laugh to think that because Ingram slid to the end of the first round and has had a slow start to his career that those are justifying their eye ball test with an "I told you he is not that great of a prospect." Ingram had an unreal college career, and he was the first RB selected in the NFL draft to a coach and team that moved up to get him and seem to know a thing or two about offence.

Steven Jackson slid to 24th in the NFL draft.

Rodgers slid to 24 in the draft.

Foster was not drafted.

On and on.

It is a tireing exercise where even those who get paid large sums of money miss. So to say Richardson is this much better prospect than Ingram ever was is untrue. Once again I would take Richardson high in a dynasty draft and think he is the goods, but he is no where near in the discussion for the Luck of rb's discussion.

It's not untrue. For one, it is an opinion. Secondly, just realize that you are not claiming a few posters in this thread are way off - you are claiming many scouts to be as well. Again, if you have watched Bama play, you have heard the announcers - often - say that scouts have said Richardson is the 2nd best player in the draft, the best RB since Peterson, some saying better, and the Andrew Luck of RBs.

I hope you do realize announcers say this every year about insert top prospects "name", being the next Peterson or better than Petterson. It happens every year. Doesn't mean the announcers are right. IMO I wouldn't even compare Ingram and Richardson to Peterson cause it isn't close. Just like the people who took Ingram #1 overall made a mistake, same will be said of Richardson IMO.

Read it one more time.

You said it clear as day, announcers are relaying what draft scouts are saying. I'm not sure why it is hard to comprehend.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Nice post Abe. I think an 'upgraded' Marion Barber sounds about right. Richardson is probably faster and more agile, but his running style and overall game is pretty similar to Barber's.

 

[ZWK]

Based on each year's pre-draft chatter, I'd put Richardson behind Peterson and McFadden as the third most touted RB since 2007, with Mendenhall and Spiller filling out the top 5.

Why McFadden ahead of Richardson? McFadden was the #3 prospect in the CBS rankings (Richardson's 7th), top 5 according to Walter Football (and 4th & 7th in their two mocks) (Richardson is "top 15" and mocked 6th), and graded out as well as Peterson on Draft Ace at 96 out of 100, though he was only 11th on what I think is the final version of Mayock's list. Yes, there were concerns about McFadden's slim build - he had Oakland speed but not an Oakland booty - but every RB attracts some criticism. Peterson had major injury concerns and, like McFadden, had issues with ball security and running upright.

 

[JAA]

Yes. I would take him as a top 3 RB in a dynasty draft tomorrow. The only backs I'd even consider over him are Rice and McCoy. He's probably more talented than those guys, but they play in friendly systems. Richardson is a mortal lock to become a productive franchise RB in the NFL. He has no flaws. In terms of comparing him to players like Peterson and McFadden, he isn't as fast and he doesn't break as many long runs. I think he will be more like Ray Rice or Edgerrin James in the NFL. Modest YPC, but gifted in the passing game and durable as a rock. I liked Ingram (still do), but he's no Richardson. The difference between the two is that Richardson is more of a physical freak/workout warrior. Ingram had really poor workout numbers. I don't expect the same from Richardson. He might not run a blazing 40, but he'll probably do well in all of the other drills. He isn't as dynamic as ADP, but I think he's more valuable coming out of college than ADP was because he doesn't have the same durability concerns.

Pretty sure you said the same things about Stewart. Is that the same bar you have set for Richardson?

Nope. Stewart was a tentative #1 in my pre-draft rankings that year, but Mendenhall was actually the top RB on my board after the draft. I liked both of those guys, but I didn't rate them quite as highly as Richardson. Richardson is a top 10 dynasty pick.

Thats not how I remember you talking about Stewart. Combination of size and speed, etc. Im almost interested in looking up the posts ...

JAA, do you like Richardson and do you follow college ball? It almost seems like your beef with Richardson is more about you have some issue with EBF.

Not at all. I probably watch more college ball than most. Im in multiple Dynasty leagues with EBF and I love going back and forth with him as he is one of the few who actually puts his opinion out there. EBF hated McFadden, while I loved him.Ive been watching enough college and NFL combines/Drafts to understand the hyperbole.

 

[JAA]

Thats not how I remember you talking about Stewart. Combination of size and speed, etc. Im almost interested in looking up the posts ...

You act like it's a bad thing to be compared to Stewart. Stewart has averaged 4.8 YPC over his NFL career. He's an elite NFL RB. The only reason he isn't an elite FF RB is because he has the misfortune of being stuck on the same team as another elite pro RB. I don't think many of the people who take Richardson with a top 10 dynasty pick or the 1.01 rookie pick will be upset if he becomes the kind of NFL RB Jonathan Stewart is.

RightI include opportunity in the value of my players. Who wants to wait 5 years before their UBER STUD RB can see the field and be a reliable fantasy producer. I mean, we are not drafting NFL teams here, this is the fantasy, you know, the real deal

 

[JAA]

I have been playing dynasty leagues for quite a while now and I can safely say that I've seen several different strategies work. Some teams constantly trade away all of their rookie picks and prospects for immediate proven starters. That can work. Other teams stockpile picks and try to build a perennial winner. That can also work. It's not necessarily "wrong" to draft a rookie high. I took Reggie Bush with the 1.03 pick in a PPR dynasty before his rookie year. He has outperformed and outlasted most of the other players picked in that round. I would gladly take Trent Richardson with a top 10 pick this year in formats that value the RB position. You say he's unproven. IMO, players don't have to have played a down in the NFL to prove that they have elite talent. It's just a formality.

Thats crazy talk and I would love to see that first round. Bush has been a colossal bust. He has instilled ZERO confidence starting him as a RB. Maybe a FLEX in PPR leagues, but up until this season hes been junk.... so , got that first round handy?

 

[JAA]

Anyone comparing Ingram as a prospect to Richardson doesn't follow college football at all.Ingram wasn't considered a top 10 nfl draft pick from any respectable source and would have fell out of the 1st round if NO didn't move up.NE had a chance to take Ingram and they had a clear need at the rb position, yet traded the pick only to pick rb's in round 2 and 3. They obviously wanted to draft a rb, just not Ingram.Trent Richardson is the real deal and has no detractors. Mark Ingram is a fraud and many were proclaiming him a bust for a long time.Richardson is along the lines of peterson as an nfl prospect, although I think peterson was a tiny bit better due to his speed.

WHY ON EARTH DID NFL TEAMS PASS ON RICE AND MCCOY??!?! OMG OMG WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?!?!?!

 

[JAA]

I don't claim to have watched every one of Richardson's games this year, but Ingram was a pretty good RB when he played at Alabama. The Richardson lust in this thread is equal to the Ingram hatred. And now the hype is pushing Richardson equal to Adrian Peterson....with some small evidence of him passing Peterson. Guys are feeding off eachother in this thread and each post seems to be pushing the hype level up a notch.

FTR, any "hype" is not affecting my opinion on Richardson.I'm basing my opinion on actually watching him, and on being an avid college/pro football watcher for many years.I've been more impressed with Richardson than I ever was with Ingram, even during Ingram's Heisman year.I personally haven't seen a better RB prospect since AP (who was the best freshman RB I ever saw, btw).Evidently many share that opinion.

I share your opinion, AP was the best freshman RB I have ever saw. I wish I could have watched Barry as a freshman as I believe he was the best of all time.

 

[JAA]

I don't think many of the people who take Richardson with a top 10 dynasty pick or the 1.01 rookie pick will be upset if he becomes the kind of NFL RB Jonathan Stewart is.

I don't think anyone who uses those picks for Richardson will be happy if he ends up like Stewart - part of a RBBC for the first 4-6 years of his career. Most expect more than a RB2 when spending those high picks on a RB. Only a Carolina fan would be happy.

To be fair, I think some Dynasty players are most interested in proving they can evaluate talent. Production doesnt figure into it

 

[JAA]

I love Richardson... but theres so much that goes into his projections for next year (what team he goes to/time share) to even consider where i would go in a fantasy draft and who i would take over him. You have so many elite type WR's that are entering these drafts of late that to me they seem like the better value now and going forward since the longevity of an elite WR far exceeds a elite RB shelf life. When you have guys like Andre/Fitz/Calvin/Dez/AJ&Julio in the past 5 seasons coming out why would you even target a RB with how many questions come with them?

This is a question for another thread, and there have been plenty. But, in short, the principles of VORP still apply. Meaning, 5 years of RB1 production is worth more than 7 years of WR production or 10 years of QB1 production. I don't have the exact numbers, but, you don't compare the career expectancy of a QB or WR to a RB, in most formats. Flex spots create the need for comparision, but VORP still stands. A 23 year old RB like McCoy (21 for Richardson, if he pans out) gets a much bigger bump for age than a guy like Calvin or Rodgers, even though their careers might be as long, from today moving forward.

I would be very interested in the list of RBs that have produced as RB1's for 5 years. My estimation is that list is quite quite small.

 

[JAA]

No. McFadden was going to step in and be a top 3 big play RB coming out of college. Stewart ran a 4.35 at 235 pounds and only went outside the top 10 due to valid and proven injury concerns. People have short memories. Richardson is top of his class and could go top 10, but he doesn't have an an uber- elite trait that puts him in the stratosphere of the two I mentioned and ADP. He surely can compete with any other RB prospect since.

I made comparisons between Stewart and David Boston. Im not saying Stewart is juicin, Im saying his frame is really too much. Thats all opinion, but I dont think his size should run like he does. His injuries I believe are a factor of that.

 

[JAA]

He has a better body type than Peterson and McFadden. McFadden is explosive, but (IMO) does not have the body type needed to withstand the rigors of a full workload in the NFL. His talent doesn't do you a lot of good when he's in the shop nursing injuries.

But Reggie Bush does?