Richardson Trade Poll: Which team got the better end of the deal? (1 Viewer)

[pollardsvision]

Looking at the entire 1st round, you have to go back to 2000-01 to find 1st rounders drafted that had a huge positive influence on the organization (outside of AP). Reggie Bush was arguably the best other 1st round RB pick in that span, and very few would call that a great draft pick. Most were useless. Some ended up in committees. The most successful tended to end up holding that "best offensive weapon on a bad team" tag indefinitely.

This is true for every position. If you look at players drafted in the first round, most of them did nothing, some of them were minor contributors, and a few became stars. At every position, there are players drafted later in the draft who performed better than the first-rounders. This is precisely the reason why productive players are more valuable than draft picks.

Maybe, but the problem is, for RBs, even if you do hit on a 1st round pick, it doesn't seem to have the overall impact that it does at other positions.

Even though the pick might bust, using it on another position is still more valuable than 2.8 more years of Richardson on his rookie contract.

Bad teams tend to stay bad. Good teams tend to stay good. A single starter, on average, accounts for something less than 4.5% of his team's value. QBs account for more than any other position. Does RB really account for less than WR, or strong safety, or left guard? Do you have any data which supports that idea?

it's an interesting question.

I'd put RB in the bottom half of importance among starting positions. Not sure exactly where, and no I don't have any data to support that.

 

[Biabreakable]

If you looked just at snaps, I think you will find that offensive linemen, QB some TE/WR and some defensive players play more snaps than most other positions. Therefore they offer more value because they play more.

Then you have a lot of players who do not play in as many snaps but play in a rotation with other players. This is especially true for defensive players, because the NFL has specialized the roles of defensive players and will rotate them to keep them fresh. The hurry up is a way to combat that advantage, so teams may be looking for more well rounded defensive players who can play in more down/distance situations than they have been recently, but for now many of the defensive players are drafted to play certain roles, and are not always counted on to play every down of defense. The ones who can are more valuable than the ones who are more situational.

Then back to the offensive side of the ball. WR and TE will rotate with each other based on play call, down and distance much like defensive players do. RB as well will rotate with each other.

So just looking at it from this perspective, a player who can play all downs is more valuable than a player who is situational.

The RB position in recent years has become more of a rotational position than it was for a period of time that the NFL had many do it all RB. So the RB position has less value.

However Trent Richardson is one of those few do it all RB, and so he has more value than a typical RB does.

Another factor that goes into the value of a player is the players expected career longevity. For QBs and some offensive linemen this expectation is 15+ years. This expected longevity is less at other positions. The position that lasts the least amount of time, and sees more turnover than the others is the RB position. This is the main factor in my opinion driving the value of RB in the NFL down. Because teams do not expect them to last very long (3 years) at peak level of performance.

Richardson has not reached that peak yet. He will be doing so for the Colts now instead of the Browns. The Browns did not consider themselves in a good position to take advantage of that peak performance, and they have not invested in the supporting elements that can get the most out of a franchise RB.

Instead they want to build towards what all of the other teams in the league are doing. Spread em out passing game that favors RB for their blocking and receiving abilities more so than their ability to run. With this plan a feature RB is not necessary, and likely considered over-costed compared to a lot of RB who can at least block and catch the ball.

 

[CalBear]

Looking at the entire 1st round, you have to go back to 2000-01 to find 1st rounders drafted that had a huge positive influence on the organization (outside of AP). Reggie Bush was arguably the best other 1st round RB pick in that span, and very few would call that a great draft pick. Most were useless. Some ended up in committees. The most successful tended to end up holding that "best offensive weapon on a bad team" tag indefinitely.

This is true for every position. If you look at players drafted in the first round, most of them did nothing, some of them were minor contributors, and a few became stars. At every position, there are players drafted later in the draft who performed better than the first-rounders. This is precisely the reason why productive players are more valuable than draft picks.

Maybe, but the problem is, for RBs, even if you do hit on a 1st round pick, it doesn't seem to have the overall impact that it does at other positions.

Even though the pick might bust, using it on another position is still more valuable than 2.8 more years of Richardson on his rookie contract.

Bad teams tend to stay bad. Good teams tend to stay good. A single starter, on average, accounts for something less than 4.5% of his team's value. QBs account for more than any other position. Does RB really account for less than WR, or strong safety, or left guard? Do you have any data which supports that idea?

it's an interesting question.

I'd put RB in the bottom half of importance among starting positions. Not sure exactly where, and no I don't have any data to support that.

OK, here's a positional breakdown of players taken in the first round since 2000:

DE: 43 (2)

DB: 42 (2*)

WR: 35 (2)

DT: 31 (1.5*)

OT: 30 (2)

QB: 27

LB: 27 (3.5*)

RB: 24

G: 10 (2)

CB: 10 (2)

G: 10 (2)

TE: 9 (2)

*OL: 7

C: 6

Numbers in parentheses are the number of starters per team at the position. PFR has apparently changed its position listings as of 2011, so some things like "FS" only exist for the last couple of years; I shoved those in with "DB" but I'm not really sure what's included with that classification.

But in any case, adjusting for positional scarcity (teams have 2+ starting WRs but only one starting QB and RB), it looks like NFL GMs view the starting RB position as second in importance to QB in terms of what they've invested, on a par with DE and DB, and maybe DT which I didn't adjust for the number of teams playing 3-4 vs. 4-3.

 

[pollardsvision]

Looking at the entire 1st round, you have to go back to 2000-01 to find 1st rounders drafted that had a huge positive influence on the organization (outside of AP). Reggie Bush was arguably the best other 1st round RB pick in that span, and very few would call that a great draft pick. Most were useless. Some ended up in committees. The most successful tended to end up holding that "best offensive weapon on a bad team" tag indefinitely.

This is true for every position. If you look at players drafted in the first round, most of them did nothing, some of them were minor contributors, and a few became stars. At every position, there are players drafted later in the draft who performed better than the first-rounders. This is precisely the reason why productive players are more valuable than draft picks.

Maybe, but the problem is, for RBs, even if you do hit on a 1st round pick, it doesn't seem to have the overall impact that it does at other positions.

Even though the pick might bust, using it on another position is still more valuable than 2.8 more years of Richardson on his rookie contract.

Bad teams tend to stay bad. Good teams tend to stay good. A single starter, on average, accounts for something less than 4.5% of his team's value. QBs account for more than any other position. Does RB really account for less than WR, or strong safety, or left guard? Do you have any data which supports that idea?

it's an interesting question.

I'd put RB in the bottom half of importance among starting positions. Not sure exactly where, and no I don't have any data to support that.

OK, here's a positional breakdown of players taken in the first round since 2000:

DE: 43 (2)

DB: 42 (2*)

WR: 35 (2)

DT: 31 (1.5*)

OT: 30 (2)

QB: 27

LB: 27 (3.5*)

RB: 24

G: 10 (2)

CB: 10 (2)

G: 10 (2)

TE: 9 (2)

*OL: 7

C: 6

Numbers in parentheses are the number of starters per team at the position. PFR has apparently changed its position listings as of 2011, so some things like "FS" only exist for the last couple of years; I shoved those in with "DB" but I'm not really sure what's included with that classification.

But in any case, adjusting for positional scarcity (teams have 2+ starting WRs but only one starting QB and RB), it looks like NFL GMs view the starting RB position as second in importance to QB in terms of what they've invested, on a par with DE and DB, and maybe DT which I didn't adjust for the number of teams playing 3-4 vs. 4-3.

Ah, I wondered what was going on with PFR's listing of safeties.

A good place to find some more detailed data would be nice. It's very interesting.

Certainly, NFL GM's tend to place a high value on RBs.

Without looking at the data, that trend seems to be diminishing, and the career length of RBs, I'm sure, plays a role in this. Teams are likely to need RBs more often than, say a G or S. Certainly more often than a QB or WR (in an ideal world for teams, of course).

The number of RBs teams use is a factor too, though generally RBs taken in the 1st round will be more likely to be thought of as a "3 down back", I'd think.

 

[CalBear]

Ah, I wondered what was going on with PFR's listing of safeties.A good place to find some more detailed data would be nice. It's very interesting.

Certainly, NFL GM's tend to place a high value on RBs.

Without looking at the data, that trend seems to be diminishing, and the career length of RBs, I'm sure, plays a role in this. Teams are likely to need RBs more often than, say a G or S. Certainly more often than a QB or WR (in an ideal world for teams, of course).

The number of RBs teams use is a factor too, though generally RBs taken in the 1st round will be more likely to be thought of as a "3 down back", I'd think.

Good RBs do tend to have shorter careers than good players at other positions, which explains the need to replace them, but if it were possible to reliably replace them cheaply, that's what GMs would do; why would they use a first-round pick if they thought they could get equivalent value with a second-round pick?

In 2012, the five-year rolling average for number of RBs taken in the first round was 3.0. In the past 20 years the rolling average has been as high as 3.4 and as low as 2.6, so that's right in the middle of the range. It does seem that there was an adjustment around 1990; from 1980-1990 there were 9 years (out of 11) where 4 or more RBs were taken in the first round, and 4 years with 6 or 7 taken. Since 1990 there have only been 5 years where 4 or more RBs have been taken, and none where 6 or 7 have been taken. But the last 23 years of data are pretty much flat, until 2013 where no RBs were taken in the first round. (But, there were only 3 WRs and one TE taken, which suggests not a shift to valuing receivers more, but a lack of RB talent in the draft).

 

[ghostguy123]

T-rich hasn't played like a 1st round pick.

And for the people who truly believe that more of the blame for Richardson not doing well has to do with the O-line, QB, WRs, TEs................then for the sake of your argument I will buy that.

Even if that is the case that Richardson truly is one of the most talented back, yet still cant do anything, that is all the more reason to get a 1st round pick out of him (which is generally excellt value for a RB, I have never seen a RB traded for a 1st), and use that pick to add to QB, WR, TE, Oline.........

I mean, if the team is so awful that a top talent RB can't get anything going, then I can see building up everywhere else and a few years down the road adding another top talent RB, cause by then RIchardson's career will be closer to the end that the beginning, and ideally the player we draft with the Colt's pick (or in trade up for a QB) is here a heck of a lot longer and doing way more for the franchise.

However, I am of the belief T-Rich wasnt playing like a top 5 pick at all. Good but not great, and if you are taking a RB in the top 5 he better be GREAT. T-rich isn't great.

So either way the "value" of the move to the Browns makes perfect sense, it just looks really bad. I mean, it looks REALLY bad to give up week 2. I just hope guys like Haden, Mack, Thomas, and some others don't get all ticked and want to leave because of it.

 

[cstu]

T-rich hasn't played like a 1st round pick.

And for the people who truly believe that more of the blame for Richardson not doing well has to do with the O-line, QB, WRs, TEs................then for the sake of your argument I will buy that.

Even if that is the case that Richardson truly is one of the most talented back, yet still cant do anything, that is all the more reason to get a 1st round pick out of him (which is generally excellt value for a RB, I have never seen a RB traded for a 1st), and use that pick to add to QB, WR, TE, Oline.........

I mean, if the team is so awful that a top talent RB can't get anything going, then I can see building up everywhere else and a few years down the road adding another top talent RB, cause by then RIchardson's career will be closer to the end that the beginning, and ideally the player we draft with the Colt's pick (or in trade up for a QB) is here a heck of a lot longer and doing way more for the franchise.

However, I am of the belief T-Rich wasnt playing like a top 5 pick at all. Good but not great, and if you are taking a RB in the top 5 he better be GREAT. T-rich isn't great.

So either way the "value" of the move to the Browns makes perfect sense, it just looks really bad. I mean, it looks REALLY bad to give up week 2. I just hope guys like Haden, Mack, Thomas, and some others don't get all ticked and want to leave because of it.

I think it's obvious TRich hasn't lived up to being a top 5 pick. The biggest negative I've noticed from watching him play is occasional poor decision making. When a guy goes from an OL like Alabama to a team like the Browns it's a huge adjustment. Maybe he's been over-thinking things looking for the big play. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since physically he's as ideal of a RB as you could want. Very interested to see what he can do when he's not the primary focus of defenses now.

I do find it funny that Richardson is gone but Weeden is still there. Had the Browns not made the stupid pick of Weeden and take Wilson instead Richardson would still be there.

 

[pollardsvision]

Ah, I wondered what was going on with PFR's listing of safeties.

A good place to find some more detailed data would be nice. It's very interesting.

Certainly, NFL GM's tend to place a high value on RBs.

Without looking at the data, that trend seems to be diminishing, and the career length of RBs, I'm sure, plays a role in this. Teams are likely to need RBs more often than, say a G or S. Certainly more often than a QB or WR (in an ideal world for teams, of course).

The number of RBs teams use is a factor too, though generally RBs taken in the 1st round will be more likely to be thought of as a "3 down back", I'd think.

Good RBs do tend to have shorter careers than good players at other positions, which explains the need to replace them, but if it were possible to reliably replace them cheaply, that's what GMs would do; why would they use a first-round pick if they thought they could get equivalent value with a second-round pick?

In 2012, the five-year rolling average for number of RBs taken in the first round was 3.0. In the past 20 years the rolling average has been as high as 3.4 and as low as 2.6, so that's right in the middle of the range. It does seem that there was an adjustment around 1990; from 1980-1990 there were 9 years (out of 11) where 4 or more RBs were taken in the first round, and 4 years with 6 or 7 taken. Since 1990 there have only been 5 years where 4 or more RBs have been taken, and none where 6 or 7 have been taken. But the last 23 years of data are pretty much flat, until 2013 where no RBs were taken in the first round. (But, there were only 3 WRs and one TE taken, which suggests not a shift to valuing receivers more, but a lack of RB talent in the draft).

Thanks. Good stuff.

So, no evidence there to support the assumption that I pulled out of my butt.

I could see 2013 certainly being more of a product of a lack of "1st round talent" at RB than a shifting focus by GMs (though, I think Gio's better than most 1st round RBs in other years).

Also, not helping my cause is looking at the teams that drafted 1st round RBs. It's a pretty even mix of both "smart" and "dumb" organizations. Bills, Panthers, Lions, Browns, and Bucs have all done it twice since '01, but so have the Saints and Colts (though, we could debate just where the those 2 teams rank in terms of smartest front offices over the last decade). If counting '01, make that SDX2 and NOX3.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I do find it funny that Richardson is gone but Weeden is still there. Had the Browns not made the stupid pick of Weeden and take Wilson instead Richardson would still be there.

So you wanted the Browns to take Richardson and Wilson?

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Pretty sure the Browns got the better end of this deal.

Preseason, Vegas had the Colts as an 8 win team and I don't see what projection would go up so far this year. The Colts are probably equally likely to pick high in the first as late.

Richardson wasn't more productive than the other backs on Cleveland's roster last season. Though 2 weeks this year, he is putting up the same level of production.

Cleveland got what projects to be around the 15th overall pick for a RB who hasn't been better than replacement level.

Because the current Browns blow, and he was banged up a lot of last year (future injuries remain to be seen).

[1]So why keep him if there are other guys on the roster who will perform comparably, if not better? [2]CLE management has seen much more of him than anyone.

[1] The other guys in CLE last year didn't perform better than Richardson. They were all equally unproductive.

[2] Richardson is the youngest and perhaps they see more potential for growth. That said, I'd think RB may be the least likely position for development.

 

[top dog]

Schefter tweeted that the Browns are trying to land Ben Tate. If they can end up with him AND keep Indy's 1st rounder.. I'd say it was a steal for them.

 

[Short Corner]

Pretty sure the Browns got the better end of this deal.

Preseason, Vegas had the Colts as an 8 win team and I don't see what projection would go up so far this year. The Colts are probably equally likely to pick high in the first as late.

Richardson wasn't more productive than the other backs on Cleveland's roster last season. Though 2 weeks this year, he is putting up the same level of production.

Cleveland got what projects to be around the 15th overall pick for a RB who hasn't been better than replacement level.

Because the current Browns blow, and he was banged up a lot of last year (future injuries remain to be seen).

[1]So why keep him if there are other guys on the roster who will perform comparably, if not better? [2]CLE management has seen much more of him than anyone.

[1] The other guys in CLE last year didn't perform better than Richardson. They were all equally unproductive.

[2] Richardson is the youngest and perhaps they see more potential for growth. That said, I'd think RB may be the least likely position for development.

[1] Equally unproductive. If they are equal then it makes sense to trade the one with the best trade value.

[2] Hard to imagine Cle management believing this if they traded him.

 

[destro]

The bottom line is that virtually all RBs are nowhere near worth a 1st round pick. Almost everything else brought up in this thread is noise. It doesn't matter what you think about the Browns ability to draft, and it doesn't matter if you think the Colts are somehow one good RB away from a SB run (and they aren't). Runningbacks have a terrible shelf life, have a limited impact on the game, and solid, starting-quality examples are far too plentiful for that kind of investment.

No other team in the league would have traded a 1st for Richardson, and for good reason. Even Irsay acknowledged that this was a total gamble. It's a clear win for the Browns, and a questionable gamble for the Colts. The only way the Colts win here is if Richardson becomes Adrian Peterson. We should all agree that the odds right now are against that taking place. Even a big Richardson fan would have to acknowledge that Peterson has been so much more successful in extremely similar circumstances for years. Even if that semi-miraculous transformation occurs, I still wouldn't fault the Browns, and I have no connection whatsoever to either team.

I was surprised at how many are arguing the opposite, but then again, I probably should have expected that.

It's a win for the Colts if Richardson is better than Donald Brown (who they used a first-round pick on).

No one in the world actually believes that statement, including you. The Colts already had at least one RB better than Brown, so...

 

[cstu]

Schefter tweeted that the Browns are trying to land Ben Tate. If they can end up with him AND keep Indy's 1st rounder.. I'd say it was a steal for them.

Tate is going to command a huge deal vs. the Colts getting TRich cheap for 3 years.

 

[cstu]

I do find it funny that Richardson is gone but Weeden is still there. Had the Browns not made the stupid pick of Weeden and take Wilson instead Richardson would still be there.

So you wanted the Browns to take Richardson and Wilson?

I wanted them to take TRich but no, I'm an idiot who thought Weeden would be able to play in the NFL. Taking him 22 was a mistake and I thought they should take DeCastro there. No one was going to take Weeden at 37 anyway.

 

[shader]

Maybe the Browns knew something we didn't. You can't judge Trent by one game only, but he certainly looks hesitant in his first game with Indy.

Hopefully a week of being in the offense and a cupcake opponent will give him a big game.

The Browns have to be feeling good after week one of this trade.

 

[pizzatyme]

Maybe the Browns knew something we didn't. You can't judge Trent by one game only, but he certainly looks hesitant in his first game with Indy.

Hopefully a week of being in the offense and a cupcake opponent will give him a big game.

The Browns have to be feeling good after week one of this trade.

This Colts win makes their compensatory pick that much worse. TRich will do well.

 

[shader]

Maybe the Browns knew something we didn't. You can't judge Trent by one game only, but he certainly looks hesitant in his first game with Indy.

Hopefully a week of being in the offense and a cupcake opponent will give him a big game.

The Browns have to be feeling good after week one of this trade.

This Colts win makes their compensatory pick that much worse. TRich will do well.

I think he will do ok as well. He didn't appear to have a lot of room to run, but at some point you have to actually make something happen.

 

[False Start]

The Colts did get TRich to be their waterboy from the looks of it.

 

[Sabertooth]

Oof.

 

[pollardsvision]

The Colts did get TRich to be their waterboy from the looks of it.

He was taking a team physical on Thursday morning before West Coast road game. I thought he played quite a bit, given the circumstance.

And if Bradshaw keeps running that well, he's going to see plenty of carries after Richardson gets up to speed.

 

[cstu]

The Colts did get TRich to be their waterboy from the looks of it.

He was taking a team physical on Thursday morning before West Coast road game. I thought he played quite a bit, given the circumstance.

And if Bradshaw keeps running that well, he's going to see plenty of carries after Richardson gets up to speed.

Colts fans can't be upset at the running game they have now. Fantasy-wise it will suck for TRich owners until Bradshaw gets hurt but it's great for the team.

 

[pizzatyme]

The Colts did get TRich to be their waterboy from the looks of it.

He was taking a team physical on Thursday morning before West Coast road game. I thought he played quite a bit, given the circumstance.

And if Bradshaw keeps running that well, he's going to see plenty of carries after Richardson gets up to speed.

Colts fans can't be upset at the running game they have now. Fantasy-wise it will suck for TRich owners until Bradshaw gets hurt but it's great for the team.

Perfectly happy!

 

[pollardsvision]

The Colts did get TRich to be their waterboy from the looks of it.

He was taking a team physical on Thursday morning before West Coast road game. I thought he played quite a bit, given the circumstance.

And if Bradshaw keeps running that well, he's going to see plenty of carries after Richardson gets up to speed.

Colts fans can't be upset at the running game they have now. Fantasy-wise it will suck for TRich owners until Bradshaw gets hurt but it's great for the team.

Yeah, for fantasy it could be problematic. Giving up carries isn't a problem, but I could certainly see a scenario where he could lose a ton of the receptions that helped his value last year.

Bradshaw's been effective out of the backfield for years, and although it's unfair to judge based on this game, Richardson better show some better hands than he did today.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

And Bradshaw was beastin.

I loved how the announcers always had to point out "Richardson is coming in!".

Great, who cares?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Schefter tweeted that the Browns are trying to land Ben Tate. If they can end up with him AND keep Indy's 1st rounder.. I'd say it was a steal for them.

agreed...

is this an example of tampering (to talk about player under contract), or is it OK when schefter says it?

 

[ghostguy123]

Schefter tweeted that the Browns are trying to land Ben Tate. If they can end up with him AND keep Indy's 1st rounder.. I'd say it was a steal for them.

agreed...

is this an example of tampering (to talk about player under contract), or is it OK when schefter says it?

Pretty sure Schefter can say whatever he wants. Wouldnt be the first time the media tried to take credit for making something happen that we all knew was gonna happen anyway.

Just read a few comments of people talking about Richardson not doing well today. You guys are on crack. I think instead of Luck calling the play, he would walk up and tell Richardson "run slightly to the left tackle side" or "block towards my right".

Also, I am gonna go out on a limb and say Richardson has good hands, but when you have a million things goin on in your head like "am I going the right way?......oh crap, was it to the left or to the right?......Crap is this a pass play or run play?..............Where is my luggage??......Where do I live now???"...........and other random stuff, I an understand dropping a pass for the first time in a while.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Schefter tweeted that the Browns are trying to land Ben Tate. If they can end up with him AND keep Indy's 1st rounder.. I'd say it was a steal for them.

agreed...

is this an example of tampering (to talk about player under contract), or is it OK when schefter says it?

Pretty sure Schefter can say whatever he wants. Wouldnt be the first time the media tried to take credit for making something happen that we all knew was gonna happen anyway.

Just read a few comments of people talking about Richardson not doing well today. You guys are on crack. I think instead of Luck calling the play, he would walk up and tell Richardson "run slightly to the left tackle side" or "block towards my right".

Also, I am gonna go out on a limb and say Richardson has good hands, but when you have a million things goin on in your head like "am I going the right way?......oh crap, was it to the left or to the right?......Crap is this a pass play or run play?..............Where is my luggage??......Where do I live now???"...........and other random stuff, I an understand dropping a pass for the first time in a while.

I heard that you can make a bunch of ####ty excuses, squish them together to make one good excuse but I've never seen it done. You might need more raw material for it to work.

 

[Jayrok]

Not very good for FFB owners, but that is going to be a very nice two headed running game for the Colts. Keep both of them fresh and bring in D. Brown on occasion. Luck, and Colts fans, should be thrilled.

 

[Rove!]

beginning to think that maye TRich isn't that good...

 

[pollardsvision]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

I think we agree that this was great trade for the Browns, and maybe not so much for the Colts, but it's awfully hard to base much on yesterday.

Just as I was assuming T-Rich running well combined with CLE stinking would serve to solidify the notion that the Browns messed up for many this week doesn't mean much.

Just like it won't mean much next week when IND curbstomps JAX with T-Rich running for 150 and 2 TDs while CLE gets blown out by CIN.

This isn't a trade to judge based on week to week results in 2013. If it is, it'll just end up being fuel for those on the IND side of it.

Because the Browns will lose most of the time when they aren't playing Christian Ponder, and the Colts are going to do some winning and provide some nice opps for T-Rich to put up some big numbers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

Unpossible.

 

[ImTheScientist]

beginning to think that maye TRich isn't that good...

I have thought that for awhile. His name and college achievments keep him relevant..... he has yet to do anything special in the NFL.

 

[CalBear]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

This is the Cleveland Browns we're talking about. One winning season in the past 10 years. Three in the past 20.

 

[B-Deep]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

This is the Cleveland Browns we're talking about. One winning season in the past 10 years. Three in the past 20.

you have to admit

TRich is no William Green

or Reuben Droughns

or Travis Prentice

or Peyton Hillis

or Jerome Harrison

i mean, this team knows a thing or two about bad running backs

 

[MoveToSkypager]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

This is the Cleveland Browns we're talking about. One winning season in the past 10 years. Three in the past 20.

What I want to know is how is Lombardi still hanging onto that job after 20 years? Why hasn't Banner fired him yet? Why is Banner still employed anyway? Haslem can't just accept losing year after year for 2 decades like this.

 

[cstu]

beginning to think that maye TRich isn't that good...

I have thought that for awhile. His name and college achievments keep him relevant..... he has yet to do anything special in the NFL.

Other than to put up nearly identical rookie stats as Emmitt Smith.

 

[TobiasFunke]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

This is the Cleveland Browns we're talking about. One winning season in the past 10 years. Three in the past 20.

Very few of the people I just described, if any, made the decisions that led to those 17 losing seasons.

I don't know if Richardson will always be a mediocre RB. And I don't know if the people with the Browns now will turn that team around. I just know those people know a heck of a lot more about Richardson than anyone here or anyone in front of a camera at ESPN. This isn't an 8 year vet with a proven track record we're talking about, and it's not a sport like baseball where the stats give us 90% of the information about a player's value. Nobody here or at ESPN has any more than the slightest inkling of Richardson's value and what he does to help his team win.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

I think we agree that this was great trade for the Browns, and maybe not so much for the Colts, but it's awfully hard to base much on yesterday.

Just as I was assuming T-Rich running well combined with CLE stinking would serve to solidify the notion that the Browns messed up for many this week doesn't mean much.

Just like it won't mean much next week when IND curbstomps JAX with T-Rich running for 150 and 2 TDs while CLE gets blown out by CIN.

This isn't a trade to judge based on week to week results in 2013. If it is, it'll just end up being fuel for those on the IND side of it.

Because the Browns will lose most of the time when they aren't playing Christian Ponder, and the Colts are going to do some winning and provide some nice opps for T-Rich to put up some big numbers.

Getting the excuses ready early, I see.

 

[B-Deep]

T-Rich had 35 yards on 13 carries today (2.7 ypc)

How will the Browns ever replace that kind of talent?

Just throwing this out there- is it possible that an organization that watches every single thing a player does in practice, in the training facilities and in the locker room, and has a full complement of coaches watch every single snap over and over again, knows more about that player's true value than a bunch of fans on the internet who watch maybe 100 Browns offensive snaps a year on the Red Zone Channel?

This is the Cleveland Browns we're talking about. One winning season in the past 10 years. Three in the past 20.

What I want to know is how is Lombardi still hanging onto that job after 20 years? Why hasn't Banner fired him yet? Why is Banner still employed anyway? Haslem can't just accept losing year after year for 2 decades like this.

i see

sarcasm

they just fired the 1 GM who made those 20 years of mistakes so obviously they won;t make any more!

 

[B-Deep]

What about the part where Lomardi (pre draft) praised Ricahrdson, doesn't that give you pause on his ability to evaluate RB talent if Richardson is such a hack? I think he called him the safest pick in the draft after Luck and RG3.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What about the part where Lomardi (pre draft) praised Ricahrdson, doesn't that give you pause on his ability to evaluate RB talent if Richardson is such a hack? I think he called him the safest pick in the draft after Luck and RG3.

Anyone who has listened to Lombardi on any of the programs he appeared on before he was hired by the Browns has plenty of reason to not trust him. But as for this particular trade, I don't understand how you can trash it. An RB who has only been in the league for one year is essentially an unknown quantity for most of us, especially one that played on a college team with enough offensive talent around the RB spot to turn Walt Jr into a Heisman finalist.

 

[B-Deep]

What about the part where Lomardi (pre draft) praised Ricahrdson, doesn't that give you pause on his ability to evaluate RB talent if Richardson is such a hack? I think he called him the safest pick in the draft after Luck and RG3.

Anyone who has listened to Lombardi on any of the programs he appeared on before he was hired by the Browns has plenty of reason to not trust him. But as for this particular trade, I don't understand how you can trash it. An RB who has only been in the league for one year is essentially an unknown quantity for most of us, especially one that played on a college team with enough offensive talent around the RB spot to turn Walt Jr into a Heisman finalist.

so there's ample reason not to trust the team, and we don't know anything about the RB

ok, that's why everyone is expressing opinions!

 

[titusbramble]

surprised at how one sided this poll is. no running back is worth a first round pick

 

[TobiasFunke]

What about the part where Lomardi (pre draft) praised Ricahrdson, doesn't that give you pause on his ability to evaluate RB talent if Richardson is such a hack? I think he called him the safest pick in the draft after Luck and RG3.

Anyone who has listened to Lombardi on any of the programs he appeared on before he was hired by the Browns has plenty of reason to not trust him. But as for this particular trade, I don't understand how you can trash it. An RB who has only been in the league for one year is essentially an unknown quantity for most of us, especially one that played on a college team with enough offensive talent around the RB spot to turn Walt Jr into a Heisman finalist.

so there's ample reason not to trust the team, and we don't know anything about the RB

ok, that's why everyone is expressing opinions!

There's ample reason not to trust the GM. But when it comes to the value of a second year RB, I'd trust Matt Millen over a bunch of message boarders and ESPN talking heads, if Matt Millen had watched him in practice and the training room and the locker room every day and consulted with dozens of other people who were doing the same. That's the point. We know nothing about Richardson. He's not a veteran like McCoy or Forte or a guy who has proven his worth like Peterson or Charles. In a case like Richardson I tend to defer to the people with the info. Especially when they get a first round draft pick for an RB- we have plenty of evidence suggesting that RB is among the more easily filled positions in sports. There's late rounders and undrafted guys all over the RB rankings.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I do find it funny that Richardson is gone but Weeden is still there. Had the Browns not made the stupid pick of Weeden and take Wilson instead Richardson would still be there.

So you wanted the Browns to take Richardson and Wilson?

I wanted them to take TRich but no, I'm an idiot who thought Weeden would be able to play in the NFL. Taking him 22 was a mistake and I thought they should take DeCastro there. No one was going to take Weeden at 37 anyway.

Im pretty sure Skypager thought that you meant you wanted them to take Trent and David Wilson - not Russell Wilson - because all he does is make smart ### comments. However this time, he was so excited to make another smart ### comment he hit the post button before thinking this one through. Pretty unsurprising.

 

[cstu]

What about the part where Lomardi (pre draft) praised Ricahrdson, doesn't that give you pause on his ability to evaluate RB talent if Richardson is such a hack? I think he called him the safest pick in the draft after Luck and RG3.

Anyone who has listened to Lombardi on any of the programs he appeared on before he was hired by the Browns has plenty of reason to not trust him. But as for this particular trade, I don't understand how you can trash it. An RB who has only been in the league for one year is essentially an unknown quantity for most of us, especially one that played on a college team with enough offensive talent around the RB spot to turn Walt Jr into a Heisman finalist.

 

[ghostguy123]

surprised at how one sided this poll is. no running back is worth a first round pick

AP, Mccoy, Charles, and some others very much disagree.

Browns fan here, happy with the move.

 

[CalBear]

surprised at how one sided this poll is. no running back is worth a first round pick

You'll have to tell that to the 24 NFL GMs who have taken running backs with first-round picks in the past decade.