Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Richardson Trade Poll: Which team got the better end of the deal? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jewell
- Start date
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I don't see how anyone can rate this trade right now. That's silly.
To me, there are two main components for this trade:
1) Will Richardson become a stud in Indy?
2) Will the Browns be bad enough to get their franchise QB?
The actual pick they got from Indy is almost an afterthought. Kind of a bonus.
If Richardson remains an average to below average RB, then Cleveland pretty much wins by default. If Richardson becomes a stud, then we move to the second part.
If Richardson is a stud but the Browns get their franchise QB, then it's a win for everyone. Franchise QBs are worth more than stud RBs so the Browns make out while the Colts get the stud RB they so desparately need for a pretty low price.
If Richardson becomes a stud and the Browns don't get their franchise QB, then everyone's getting fired in 2-3 years, the fans will leave in droves and the franchise will be set back a decade. Even if they end up with Clowney, that's not good enough IMO.
To me, there are two main components for this trade:
1) Will Richardson become a stud in Indy?
2) Will the Browns be bad enough to get their franchise QB?
The actual pick they got from Indy is almost an afterthought. Kind of a bonus.
If Richardson remains an average to below average RB, then Cleveland pretty much wins by default. If Richardson becomes a stud, then we move to the second part.
If Richardson is a stud but the Browns get their franchise QB, then it's a win for everyone. Franchise QBs are worth more than stud RBs so the Browns make out while the Colts get the stud RB they so desparately need for a pretty low price.
If Richardson becomes a stud and the Browns don't get their franchise QB, then everyone's getting fired in 2-3 years, the fans will leave in droves and the franchise will be set back a decade. Even if they end up with Clowney, that's not good enough IMO.
Why can't it be a win for both teams? Indy still has hopes this year of sliding into the playoffs, but with their schedule I very much doubt it. But still, they have to play for it. Richardson immediately improves the Colts and gives them at least a decent back and perhaps a very good back for several years to come. Cleveland is horrendous. A lock for the #2 pick. Another decent first round pick and they can get something to build on.
Its irrelevant what his original pick was, only matters what his value is today. Plenty of 1st round busts that teams couldn't get a bag of balls for a year and a half later, and rightly so. If Trent's value right now was a #3 pick, someone would be willing to pay a #3 pick for him by definition. No-one is willing to do anything like that.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
i was addressing this paragraph of yours..."You don't build championship teams with moves like this ... look at the Super Bowl champions of the past decade. How many of them had a big free agent signing that ended up as a core member of the winning the big game? I can't find a single one. The Packers, Patriots, Giants, Ravens, and Steelers are all built through draft and develop. None of those teams ever give much in draft picks for players. And when they do? How has Amendola turned out?"
were you not including free agents in the conversation as well as trades?
you missed the part where i agreed with you in general, but was just citing some exceptions...
good organizations are flexible and adaptable, there is more than one way to win...
you said more than one thing... one was that draft picks are gold (so presumably a team should hoard them)... but the giants obtained eli, and two super bowls, by parting with extra picks... did that turn out pretty well by your definition?
you seem to be digging in your heels, and seem to be really certain of your point, so lets explore it some more...
free agent signings "aren't the way to build championships"...
were the broncos closer to a championship with manning, or not...
are the broncos in a better position to win a championship this year (and possibly future years?) BECAUSE of manning...
if you weren't digging in to defend the position that "free agent moves are bad" (sometimes true, sometimes not, incoherent as a blanket generalization and not looking at case by case basis), are you really trying to say acquiring manning as free agent was a bad move... and to support this you use as flimsy evidence the fact that DEN didn't win the super bowl in his first year with the team (and still working through recovery from serious cervical nerve damage)??? calling this laughable is, well, laughable...
you seem to be making a commentary about characteristics of successful organizations, were you not (you also used term, panned out well, which is kind of general - if so, winning the super bowl is not the only criteria)?... maybe i misunderstood you... does SEA meet your critieria of a successfull organization? if so, they thought they had the kind of roster, in terms of breadth and depth of talent, to part with a first for harvin... since the overall personnel decisions in recent years (whether through draft, free agency and trades) have led to a juggernaut which looks unbeatable at home and one of the two or three top teams in league (with SF and DEN), i'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one...
conversations about successful organization hallmarks and templates, don't have to be narrowly delimited to the past... i was just throwing SEA and blockbuster harvin trade out there as a test case to observe in parallel this season and in future, alongside the richardson one which prompted your generalization that big trades and free agent moves "aren't how successful NFL teams do things"... obviously we will have to wait and see on that...
* on this last point, if we don't assume harvin won't overcome hip issue and it is a temporary setback, do you think it was a good move or not?
it seems you have painted yourself into a corner and are committed to the negative side if you are to be consistent with above...
to say yes contradicts everything you said above...so than the onus is on you to answer... if SEA wanted a proven commodity, game breaking, explosive WR and ST weapon, why would engineering a "big trade" be an intrinsically flawed path or route to what they wanted? were they guaranteed of a rookie WR as talented as harvin (obviously they couldn't get one as proven by that means, that is an impossible comparison)? sometimes going the free agent route is misguided when rebuilding teams acquire older players that will be used up and worthless by the time the franchise rights the ship... but SEA isn't a rebuilding team (different rules may apply?)... and at 25 years old, harvin isn't a older player, they could reap the dividends of the trade for a half decade or more... so i don't get what possible problem somebody could have with the trade... strictly in terms of having a conversation about what is wisest choice of possible resource allocation, draft or free agent route (some may think harvin is problematic in terms of intangibles, but that is a separate conversation... for arguments sake, assume carroll looked into that angle, vetted him, and is comfortable with that part of equation - just looking at his talent and possible impact vs. what they could have gotten with the draft choice they gave to MIN).
** TB would seem to fit your criteria... they won super bowl after acquiring keyshawn johnson for two firsts...
"Johnson was traded on April 12, 2000 to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for two first round draft choices (12th Shaun Ellis and 27th Anthony Becht overall) in the 2000 NFL Draft.[3] Soon after Johnson arrived in Tampa Bay, they signed him to a 8-year, $56 million contract extension with the Buccaneers that made him the highest-paid wide receiver in the NFL.[4] At that time he was joining a team that had fallen one game short of the Super Bowl the previous season. In 2002 Johnson went on to win a Super Bowl with the Buccaneers after the arrival of new head coach Jon Gruden, who succeeded Tony Dungy. Johnson had 76 catches for 1,088 yards and five touchdowns; in the playoffs he had eight catches for 125 yards and a touchdown against the Eagles, then had six grabs for 69 yards in the Super Bowl."
*** if we are going back 15 years, lets include marshall faulk... second and fifth fairly significant trade... was it a bad move for STL to get faulk? they lucked into warner, and bruce and holt were among the best WR duos in league history, but faulk was the focal point of the GSOT, by any definition an integral part of a super bowl win and near second win... now it worked out eventually for the colts, hard to compare peterson and scioli to faulk... they used their own pick (fourth overall) on edge, otherwise they may have made different use of picks they got from rams (?)... interestingly, if they had kept faulk, they likely wouldn't have used fourth overall on edge (though saints used lower first on deuce mccalister after already having ricky williams - who went right after edge in that draft)... the next two picks after edge and williams, seemingly redundant if they keep faulk, were torry holt and champ bailey... so if the rams HADN'T pulled the trigger on that trade, colts might have had faulk AND holt (or bailey would have been pretty good get), two key cogs in the GSOT machine... and perhaps the rams would have had edgerrin james? one part of equation you are leaving out is the that, while free agency has cap ramifications, you can acquire players without parting with valuable draft pick capital... while on the subject of the rams, are the rams better, more competitive in division and closer to playoffs WITH jake long and jared cook, or WITHOUT?
"Faulk was traded to the St. Louis Rams the following season due to problems he referred to as "misunderstandings."[citation needed] Faulk had missed practices and was considered holding out for a new contract. Colts president Bill Polian did not want his young team's chemistry damaged, so he traded Faulk for second- and fifth-round picks in the upcoming draft (used to draft LB Mike Peterson and DE Brad Scioli)."
Last edited by a moderator:
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
Agreed, they could easily go 1QB, 2WR, and since they have two picks in the 2nd round they could grab a really good rb or maybe the 3rd. They could be some serious talent coming out next maybe more than we've seen in years.
kegger
Footballguy
It's all relavent to the needs of the team.
Cleveland is not in good shape and needs more players to fill the roster to compete, draft picks work for them.
(BUT, who knows what they'll get with the pick from Indy and will it be better than T Rich)
The Colts have an better team than Clevaland and could use a good back, T Rich certainly could be that guy.
(if they kept the pick would they of got a player better for there team than T Rich)
To Me the Jury is still out on T Rich, if he is better than the average NFL running back, then not knowing what
Cleveland gets with the pick and thinking T Rich is a very good player for now I see Indy winning this one, But
Cleveland probably made a good move in there situation as well.
I have no problem trading 1st round picks if you believe in the player your getting in return is a good NFL player.
Each draft pick is pretty much a crap shoot as to how well they'll translate to the NFL, if you believe your trading
a pick for a player you feel has high potentiel for Your team an the player is still Young it's like an Draft Pick Plus.
So yah I like the trade for both teams, see it working for Indy as I believe in T Rich's future, an picks for Cleveland.
(I voted for Indy as I see no other way to vote for now till we see what Cleveland gets, an feel T Rich is a good RB)
.
Cleveland is not in good shape and needs more players to fill the roster to compete, draft picks work for them.
(BUT, who knows what they'll get with the pick from Indy and will it be better than T Rich)
The Colts have an better team than Clevaland and could use a good back, T Rich certainly could be that guy.
(if they kept the pick would they of got a player better for there team than T Rich)
To Me the Jury is still out on T Rich, if he is better than the average NFL running back, then not knowing what
Cleveland gets with the pick and thinking T Rich is a very good player for now I see Indy winning this one, But
Cleveland probably made a good move in there situation as well.
I have no problem trading 1st round picks if you believe in the player your getting in return is a good NFL player.
Each draft pick is pretty much a crap shoot as to how well they'll translate to the NFL, if you believe your trading
a pick for a player you feel has high potentiel for Your team an the player is still Young it's like an Draft Pick Plus.
So yah I like the trade for both teams, see it working for Indy as I believe in T Rich's future, an picks for Cleveland.
(I voted for Indy as I see no other way to vote for now till we see what Cleveland gets, an feel T Rich is a good RB)
.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
I don't think anybody acts like that. In fact, 70% here think IND made out better here.
Of those that think CLE did, nobody's expecting the Browns to get elite talent with that pick. But as you illustrate above, you can get some very good players and important building blocks at that point in the draft. That makes more sense for the Browns than Richardson.
If the pick ends up being the reason they are able to move up and get a franchise QB, even better.
Braktastic
Footballguy
Jewell
Footballguy
It can and probably is. I just wanted to see what people thought of they were forced to pick a side.
Jewell
Footballguy
True. As with all trades -- only time will tell.
cstu
Footballguy
I don't understand why it's a big deal to trade a 1st for a player when their contract is as low as Richardson's. The Colts needed a RB and may have used their 1st on one next year and despite him not living up to expectations so far he's still likely better than who they could get with their 1st.
I was very much against the Harvin trade since not only did the Seahawks give up a 1st they are also paying him $10M a year. Richardson is getting paid $1.17M for the rest of 2013, $2.2M for 2014 and $3.2M for 2015.
shader
Footballguy
Maybe it will be. At this point you are banking on an unknown player in the future. Cleveland fans would probably like to win some games. Just 2 weeks ago they probably thought they had a chance at 8-8 and a decent season. Now they are staring another re-build in the face.
shader
Footballguy
What I think a lot of people aren't understanding is that Richardson is thought of as a stud. Just look at the AFC North teams and their response. They are all glad he's gone. Last year one of the Ravens defenders said he was the hardest man in the NFL to tackle. When that is the ONLY weapon you really have, as they showed last week, the defense can absolutely key in on him, which they did.
The Colts gave up a first rounder for a 22 year old stud rb who they likely feel is far more talented than any of the rb's in the upcoming draft.
PLUS, they gave up the draft pick for NEXT YEAR'S DRAFT and get to use Trent for 14 games THIS YEAR.
I've seen very few people, in the media or elsewhere, factor this into the mix.
Now obviously the trade can still work either way. Trent could tear his ACL Sunday, could get re-injured next year and then the Browns could use that pick to land a QB that helps them win 5 super bowls.
But it's a no-brainer for the Colts. Probably one of the best trades I've ever seen a franchise pull off.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
you are talking about different things...
they were both high first round picks...
cost is relevant, because this is a richardson thread, and some are saying IND paid too much (i don't necessarily agree, we need to see how he does with colts)...
a more interesting question, if the seahawks "knew" lynch wouldn't be suspended for the next few years (recall at the time he had multiple off field issues, otherwise he might have commanded a higher pick), would he be worth a first? based on how well he has done in SEA, clearly he has outplayed his fourth round cost... was he worth a second? higher? though i would say, if the year he was acquired involved a pick for the year all pro FS earl thomas came out, thomas is, imo, a more integral part of the team's future...
sometimes it can present some thorny issues trying to delineate the relative merits of a trade, would a team have been better served with rookie target than vet...
if CLE pick from IND (possibly packaged in a move up) busts, than this could become a disastrous trade...
some are saying CLE should have waited, and advantage would be maybe they could have gotten bridgewater without trade
(if that is who they wanted)... or if not, better sense of who best prospects were... but what if richardson blows out his ACL? than they get a lot less...
the flip side, if CLE is putting all their eggs in one basket (say bridgewater), what if HE blows out his ACL... they could be all dressed up with nowhere to go...
that said, there do seem to be few intriguing other QB prospects... manziel seems risky for a few reasons, but i was thinking of UCLA QB...
pizzatyme
Footballguy
Because Seattle got Lynch for a 4th, doesn't make Lynch a 4th rd. talent. Lynch is and was a 1st rd. talent drafted in the first round.
If the Viking cut Peterson tomorrow and someone picks him up "off the street" that doesn't mean that's his value. It means the Bills and hypothetically the Vikings screwed up!
If the Viking cut Peterson tomorrow and someone picks him up "off the street" that doesn't mean that's his value. It means the Bills and hypothetically the Vikings screwed up!
My intended implication was more about building a longterm championship caliber team than anything else
RB value is just so deflated anymore. For a team with a lot of holes like the colts 1st round picks should't be given away easily IMO.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
you do see how this question is relevant to the thread, though, right?
it is a natural question to ask, if you can get RB like lynch for fourth, why pay first for richardson?
is he really that much better, or for that matter, better at all...
of course, this doesn't address point that lynch went at bargain bin price because he had multiple run ins with law (and not minor, one involved alleged hit and run, other i think firearm)...
i do think this can be win win for both sides, like richardson in IND, but i can also see where the question is coming from...
pollardsvision
Footballguy
A player's current value is what teams are willing to give for them at the time.
Unless BUF was rejecting 3rd round offers, then Lynch was worth a 4th round pick at the time. Assets will gain and lose value, as Lynch obviously did.
Richardson was probably worth a #3 pick last year, assuming he'd have been snapped up in the Top 5 by someone else. But as with most RB's, the amount of time they stay worth a 1st round pick can be very short (for the tiny % that are ever worth a 1st round pick).
I doubt a single other franchise in the league would've given their 2014 pick for Richardson.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
There is no "winner".
Both sides got what they want.
But just looking at the history of trades for a running back (not counting walker and ricky williams during the draft), has any other RB ever been traded for a 1st round pick?
If RIchardson goes on to have a hall of fame career (though I laugh at that cause NO WAY), but the Browns end up having enough ammo to move up and get a pro bowl QB, then both teams win HUGE.
Both sides got what they want.
But just looking at the history of trades for a running back (not counting walker and ricky williams during the draft), has any other RB ever been traded for a 1st round pick?
If RIchardson goes on to have a hall of fame career (though I laugh at that cause NO WAY), but the Browns end up having enough ammo to move up and get a pro bowl QB, then both teams win HUGE.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I get the point, but how often is a player like Lynch let go for a 4th? Maybe more than i realize?!
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Simple answer, that kind of trade is rarely available. Moss and Welkers for 3rd and 4th rounders dont happen every year.
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I agree with most of your points. I will also say that just because other teams are willing to take risks, doesn't mean the Colts were wrong for doing so. Much like the Seahawks "overpaying" for Harvin. Some teams are willing to take risks.
Just speculating, but maybe the Colts were offering a 2nd and the Browns said, well, let us shop him and get back to you and the Colts didn't want to risk it so, they said we'll do the first.
Also, maybe the Seahawks valued Lynch worthy of a 1st or 2nd, but the Bills were glad to get a 4th?!
We will likely never know.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
The trade can work fine for both teams, and while I wouldn't have done what the Colts did, I don't really think it's a bad trade either.
I don't think other teams would given the first, you're right, there's really no way to know that. It's also not a fair question to even ask, as it's week 3 and teams are in such different situations regarding the RB position.
CalBear
Footballguy
This kind of thinking is wrong-headed. You cannot tie the evaluation of a decision to an unrelated outcome. If you sold a house at the bottom of the market, and it turned out to be worth $50K more three months later, but then it burned down, you can't say "cool, I made a good choice to sell when I did."Whether Richardson gets hurt, and whether the pick the Browns make works out or not, are competely irrelevant to the evaluation of the trade.
The major relevant factor which we can't yet evaluate is, how good is Richardson, really? If he goes to the Colts and becomes a top-10 NFL RB within the next couple of years, it's clearly a good trade for the Colts, because getting a top-10 NFL RB with the pick they're likely to have is at best a 50-50 proposition (and probably more like 20-80). If it turns out that Richardson was overrated all along and never does much more than in his rookie season, it's probably a good trade for the Browns.
Last edited by a moderator:
pizzatyme
Footballguy
I'd also contend that there are only about 10 teams with a front office I'd care to hear an opinion from on this trade. All the others suck and have sucked for years! I mean, if the Jags wouldn't do it, who cares?! Etc etc etc
Grigson and crew have turned the Colts roster over, gotten them to the playoffs after going 2-14, and have them contending for playoffs again this year. I'll give this crew the benefit of the doubt here.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
The value of a player in trade in today's NFL isn't only a function of his talent, it's also a function of his contract status. Richardson is on his rookie contract which means he's cheap. Lynch was near the end of a big contract which means he's expensive and would want a new deal. Similarly with Moss and Welker; players who are currently expensive, or are nearing free agent status, will not command much value in a trade.
cstu
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
which is why i think the school of thought that teams don't win by making big trades may be misguided...ghostguy123 said:
the sample is small because they don't happen often, so a self fulfilling prophecy...
i was about to respond to pizzatyme with moss changing hands for fourth as another example of talented player like lynch, you are right it is rare... moss also traded at a discount, coming off a lackluster, underwhelming stint at OAK where many assumed he was done, and didn't see the second wind in his career coming...
Also if you want Richardson for a 4th you have to wiat until he gets arrested a couple of times, suspended and is on the brink of getting suspended again. Throw in a little 'not trying very hard on the field' and voila....4th round pick
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
another possibility is other teams that would never have even considered parting with first for richardson (at least one front office said they wished they had a chance to trade a RB to IND, but i'm guessing lot of teams didn't know richardson was avail)... would have been better off if they had...pizzatyme said:
for all we know, in some parallel universe, an upper echelon team in need of a RB upgrade, like DEN or ATL, traded for richardson (instead of drafting, say, desmond trufant or sylvester williams), and ran off three super bowl wins in a row...
like you said, some of these scenarios, we just will never know (unless we obtain the technology in the future for one of those dimensional-hopping instruments like in the jet li movie the one
)...
twistd
Footballguy
I think the salary is a terrific point. If the Colts had gone after a RB in the first round they would have paid a signing bonus and that player probably would have cost them more over the next three years than T-Rich. They know what they are getting in T-Rich whereas any player drafted is something of an unknown commodity.cstu said:
From the Browns point of view, they still have to replace T-Rich in this next draft. So that means they have to use a draft pick to do that, unless they sign a free agent. If they sign a free agent they won't pay in a draft pick, but the salary demands will probably exceed what T-Rich would have cost by a lot. If they draft a back, say they use a third round pick to draft a runner, then that has to be factored in to this equation. That is another part of the price they have to pay to replace T-Rich. With a draft pick you still take the risk that the player drafted doesn't pan out.
The more I look at this the more I think that Cleveland made a mistake.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
Where do you rank Richardson as a RB?Chuck Pagano is getting phone calls from Ravens players thanking him for getting Trent out of the division.
As I've said before, this could work out ok for Browns...if a bunch of things go right.
But it also could go down as one of the worst trades in NFL history.
shader
Footballguy
I've been conflicted. I mean, I'm a Bama fan, and I totally whiffed on my evaluation of Ingram. I think it's fair to say that I may have problems being objective about Bama players when they leave the program. When you consider how good Bama is, especially on the Oline, it's easy to see why mistakes can be made.Where do you rank Richardson as a RB?Chuck Pagano is getting phone calls from Ravens players thanking him for getting Trent out of the division.
As I've said before, this could work out ok for Browns...if a bunch of things go right.
But it also could go down as one of the worst trades in NFL history.
But my opinions of Trent WERE that he was the best all-around RB to come into the league since Peterson, (although in no way do I think he compares to Peterson. Peterson could potentially be the greatest of all-time).
So what has happened to change my opinion? I can't see anything. He broke ribs and toughed it out for an entire season. He played on pathetic offenses with zero ingenuity and nothing around him. His QB is Brandon Weeden, who is just a horrible QB. So not a person on Cleveland worries any defensive coordinators, especially this year without Gordon.
Also, you are seeing players from around the league weigh in with nothing but positive thoughts about Trent. If the Saints cut Ingram tomorrow, would anyone say anything? I don't think so. Supposedly Patrick Willis has been looking at the tape of Trent and has no idea what the Browns were doing.
So what do I think of Trent? I think he's currently a top-five back with the potential to be the second best RB in the league, behind AP.
CalBear
Footballguy
Here's a way to think about the value of this trade. I'm going to look at RBs taken in the first round between picks 10 and 20 over the past 10 years. My assertion is that if Richardson is more valuable than half of this population, that the trade is a good one for Indianapolis, as they're getting above median value for an RB taken with the pick they're likely to have.
Here's the population:
Ryan Mathews
Knowshon Moreno
Johnathan Stewart
Marshawn Lynch
William Green
TJ Duckett
OK, of that population, Richardson is clearly better than four of six (Mathews, Moreno, Green, Duckett). I'll call Stewart a wash. Lynch, today, is better.
Some of the backs on the edges of the sample were:
CJ Spiller (pick 9)
Donald Brown (pick 26--IND)
Felix Jones (pick 22)
Rashard Mendenhall (pick 23)
Chris Johnson (pick 24)
Adrian Peterson (pick 7)
Laurence Maroney (pick 21)
Steven Jackson (pick 24)
Chris Perry (pick 26)
Willis McGahee (pick 23)
Again, Richardson appears to compare favorably to this group, with only Peterson and Jackson clearly ahead, and possibly Johnson. Even if you call Mendenhall and McGahee pushes, that's five guys that Richardson is clearly better than.
So, even given only the level of production so far, Richardson is an above-average RB for the mid-first-round, and he could wind up better than that.
Here's the population:
Ryan Mathews
Knowshon Moreno
Johnathan Stewart
Marshawn Lynch
William Green
TJ Duckett
OK, of that population, Richardson is clearly better than four of six (Mathews, Moreno, Green, Duckett). I'll call Stewart a wash. Lynch, today, is better.
Some of the backs on the edges of the sample were:
CJ Spiller (pick 9)
Donald Brown (pick 26--IND)
Felix Jones (pick 22)
Rashard Mendenhall (pick 23)
Chris Johnson (pick 24)
Adrian Peterson (pick 7)
Laurence Maroney (pick 21)
Steven Jackson (pick 24)
Chris Perry (pick 26)
Willis McGahee (pick 23)
Again, Richardson appears to compare favorably to this group, with only Peterson and Jackson clearly ahead, and possibly Johnson. Even if you call Mendenhall and McGahee pushes, that's five guys that Richardson is clearly better than.
So, even given only the level of production so far, Richardson is an above-average RB for the mid-first-round, and he could wind up better than that.
pollardsvision
Footballguy
While funny, if true, it's hardly very meaningful. Current NFL players don't typically make great GM's and will pretty much always see a talented player currently in the NFL as a lot more valuable than a future pick.Chuck Pagano is getting phone calls from Ravens players thanking him for getting Trent out of the division.
As I've said before, this could work out ok for Browns...if a bunch of things go right.
But it also could go down as one of the worst trades in NFL history.
It's more likely a couple Ravens are trying to funny as they congratulate their old coach on trading for a player without giving up a player yet. I highly doubt many Ravens defenders stayed up at night worrying about the Richardson match-up. They beat him 3 times. He ran for 47, 58, and 105 yards against them (on 25 carries with no TD's) in the 3 losses.
If we're polling Ravens, I'd find Ozzie Newsome's opinion to be more meaningful (if there was any way to get him to say what he really thought of the deal).
Last edited by a moderator:
pollardsvision
Footballguy
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
I think Browns came out ahead in this trade. That FO recognized T-Rich is not carrying them to the promised land, and if their philosophy is not to spend a ton of cap space on a RB when T-Rich needs to re-sign, then may as well get a pick right now. Makes perfect sense.
Tbone
Shrinkage
I agree with Ace.
Nothing against T.Rich it's just the smart move for Cleveland. They aren't playing fantasy football so no It's not the shark move to take an RB with your first round pick in the NFL. T.Rich is a good back, but no way should he have been taken with there first round pick. They blundered, but now they're off the hook. The Browns now have two first-round picks, two third-round picks and two fourth-round picks, plus all their normal picks in every other round. I'd be very shocked if they took an RB with their first pick this time around.
If the pick is Bridgewater nearly zero chance he would do that. Being a Louisville homer that is about as far from who he is as a person as possible. He is like the anti Johnny football. As to the question at hand I think its a win for Cleveland. They werent going to win with him, know that he is overrated as a RB, and got a first round pick for him.Buckna said:
I heard an interesting interview on the radio today. The guy runs what sounds like a rather sophisticated computer program which picks games both straight up and against the spread with percentage likelihood of the results. His computer gave the Colts an 11% chance of making the playoffs before the trade and only a 10% chance of making it after the trade. His take on it was that although Richardson IS an upgrade at rb for the Colts, they would now be running the ball more and thus utilizing Luck and the passing game less making them LESS likely to make the playoffs in the process. Not sure I agree that to be the case but it was interesting nonetheless.
Lastly the question wasnt asked but I think the BIG LOSER in all this are the Cleveland fans, whose ownership just threw in the towel 2 games into the season and are now signing people off the streets and starting 3rd string QBs in an effort to tank the season. If I were a Browns season ticket holder I would be more than pissed and probably asking for my money back.
twistd
Footballguy
I think when you consider that replacing T-Rich is going to take a lot of money to sign a free agent, or you will have to use a pick to replace T-Rich. They probably won't use a first, but if they have to use a third that has to figure in to the cost. If they spend the money on a free agent are you certain that Ben Tate or any of the RBs they might get in free agency are going to be better than T-Rich?
Then you have to figure the success rate of third or fourth round running backs, if they draft a RB with one of those picks. The chance of getting a starter are pretty low. Over the last ten years 56 RBs have been drafted in the third or fourth rounds, and there are two solid starters, Charles and Gore. There are a few guys that had some impact or been solid contributors like Shonn Greene, Darren Sproles, and Brandon Jacobs, but your chances of getting a real solid starter are very small.
Then you consider that T-Rich's salary is pretty small for the next three years. Small compared to what they would have to pay a free agent. T-Rich's signing bonus is already paid.
You have created a lot of anger in your fan base. Their team might not have won many games with T-Rich. But I can guarantee you that fans are going to blame this trade for a big factor in why their team stinks.
Mix all this together and I think it looks, to me, like the Browns made a mistake.
Gandalf
Footballguy
You are over thinking it. This pick will be late, possibly the last pick of the first round. They way undersold Richardson. I would bet anything that they could have gotten more. And great RBs are something special. Ask the Vikings. Unless you think TRich busts and it is way too early to assume that, the Colts got the better of the Browns. Again because the Browns could have gotten more for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf
Footballguy
I am so sick of the 'they aren't playing fantasy football' argument. Duh. They are playing real football. Like this season for example. It's the second game. They are so ready to throw in the towel. That is nothing short of pathetic. Sorry. They still have to sign a RB and who the heck knows if they can get Bridgewater. This move definitely makes them worse for this year and most likely if they keep the colts pick they will get a guy who is less valuable than Richardson.
MoveToSkypager
Footballguy
You are underthinking it. There is no guarantee the Colts are a playoff team. There isn't even a guarantee they go .500 this season. They play the 49ers, Seahawks, Broncos, AT and host Houston, AT Bengals, AT Chargers which isn't a gimme as people once thought, AT Chiefs, Rams, and AT Cardinals. Many of those are likely losses, and none of them are likely wins. These guys lost to Miami at home which probably isn't a playoff team either.
Some people don't think Richardson is as good as you want him to be. That's OK. He isn't a great RB. He shouldn't even be compared to Peterson at this point. Maybe with luck he'll be in the same zipcode as Peterson but right now he's not.
What is there record with TRich? Not very good and even this year 0-2. This is a QB Passing league and if you dont have a QB then you are already playing for next year. Unless you think Jacksonville is just going to turn it around. How about Minny they have the best RB in the league and a solid team, but suck at QB they may make the playoffs but most think they will not. So yes it sucks that they traded away a average player (may be good in future) at this time .
