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

[CalBear]

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 .

Minnesota made the playoffs last year for one reason and one reason only, and he doesn't play QB.

 

[Spaces Lines and Laces]

Teams are still using first round picks on RBs.

Doug Martin and David Wilson were both also first rounders last year.

I can certainly appreciate the "don't waste your #3 overall pick" on a running back. But getting towards the end of the first round, teams are still going to think about the elite running backs in the draft.

The Colts got their Starting QB and their starting RB for the next 6-8 years. They have the #1 and #3 picks in last year's draft. He gives their offense a MAJOR upgrade. He gives them a legit power running game. He can catch it out of the backfield. It seemed that a lot of the fantasy community had high hopes for him on a depressing Brown's offense this year. Pair him with Luck, and he should be in for a huge season this year and for years to come.

Maybe they suck, and this winds up as a top 10 pick. But, with Richardson on the team, I think you're looking at a pick in the 20's at worst.

 

[Biabreakable]

Mike Holmgren didn't believe it when his daughter told him on the phone. The Cleveland Browns had traded Trent Richardson?

The former Browns president wasn't convinced until he saw it for himself on his computer. Holmgren had moved up aggressively in the 2012 NFL Draft to nab Richardson. Now just two games into the running back's sophomore season, he was gone.


"I struggled with it," Holmgren told Seattle's KJR-AM on Thursday, via The Plain Dealer. "Philosophically, if I'm the coach and someone came in anywhere and did that, I'd say 'OK, fire me, or I'm going to quit. Or we're going to both go into the owner and talk about this and then we'll see who's still standing.' "

"How do you make your team better by trading your best player?" he added. "He's the best offensive player. He's a valuable, valuable guy."

Holmgren was fired at the end of last season by owner Jimmy Haslam and CEO Joe Banner. Sources told The Plain Dealer the "general feeling" was that Holmgren and former general manager Tom Heckert had "botched" the top picks in the 2012 draft, a group that included Richardson, quarterback Brandon Weeden and right tackle Mitchell Schwartz.

According to The Plain Dealer, Banner and general manager Mike Lombardi wouldn't have drafted Josh Gordon with a supplemental pick in 2012. That decision wiped away Cleveland's second-round choice in this year's draft.

Holmgren believes Richardson is a future star. He never would be on board with sending that promise elsewhere.

"I'd shake hands and walk. I would," he said. "Because if I disagreed with it vehemently, and I couldn't buy in, I mean, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying that's what I would do, because you have to be true to yourself in this business."

"You can't tell me some of those players aren't asking some of the questions you and I are asking," he said. "They were friends with (Richardson). It's too wild. This sort of thing doesn't happen, and it happened, so asking questions about it would be natural."

It should be said that Holmgren was a failure in Cleveland who very much earned his ticket out of town over three seasons. That said, he's not a voice in the wilderness here. His exasperation speaks for many.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000247444/article/mike-holmgren-rips-browns-trent-richardson-trade

Owner Jim Irsay's legendarily chaotic tweeting paid off for the Indianapolis Colts this week. When Irsay sent out word that his general manager was itching to wheel-and-deal for a running back, it didn't take long for the Cleveland Browns to come calling with an intriguing offer.

It was the Browns -- not the Colts -- who initiated Trent Richardson trade talks, The Plain Dealer's Mary Kay Cabot reported Thursday, citing several league sources.


The overhauled Browns front office saw an opportunity to unload a player who has yet to live up to the lofty expectations of the previous regime, which surrendered four draft picks for the rights to Richardson.

Taking advantage of the honeymoon year in Cleveland, the newBrowns brass threw in the towel on the No. 3 overall pick in the2012 NFL Draft, conceded that the No. 22 overall pick in the same draft might lose his job to vagabond Brian Hoyer anddemoted the No. 59 overall pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, Greg Little, out of the starting lineup.

The day's events had to leave the team's fan base wondering if the virtuous circle of stability ever will carry the day, or if fans simply are doomed to a vicious cycle of the excuse-making and responsibility-shifting that naturally accompanies one rebuilding effort after another.

It's fair to infer that the Browns questioned Richardson's long-term durability after considering his two knee surgeries, broken ribs, ankle sprain and shin injury in just over a year with the team.

It's also fair to point out that Colts general manager Ryan Grigson pulled off a heist, as long as Richardson isn't damaged goods at age 22. Now that the Browns already have paid the entirety of Richardson's $13.34 million bonus, Indy is only on the hook for reasonable base salaries averaging $2.25 million over the next three years.

Although Richardson is averaging a troublesome 1.6 yards after contact in his young career, it's worth noting that his overall production through 17 games is eerily similar to that of Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson and Ricky Williams at the same stage.

Between the injuries, Browns fans rarely had a chance to see Richardson at the peak form that led pundits to laud him as, not only the most complete player in last year's draft, but also the best running back prospect to enter the league since Adrian Peterson.

Grigson, who cut his teeth as a longtime scout before landing the Colts job, is confident that Richardson still passes the eye test as a "special" talent.

The videos below from Weeks 2 and 5 of the 2012 season -- before Richardson played through multiple cracked ribs -- back up Grigson's analysis. (see link for videos)

There's a reason why Ravens players are thanking Colts coach Chuck Pagano for removing Richardson from their annual schedule.

Get excited, Colts fans. Your new bell cow expects to "play and play a lot" at San Francisco onSunday.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000247278/article/trent-richardson-trade-reportedly-initiated-by-browns-not-colts

So my thinking on this is that Lombardi is not so smart.

Tanking the 2013 season will make all of their picks higher in each round of 2014. Teams should be asking Mike about the cost to trade for Gordon and Joe Thomas now.

I do think the league is trending towards more passing each passing year, and that does mean QB is even more of a premium position than even before. It has always been the highest priority. That is why teams go decades without a good QB, all of the other teams are trying to get one too (besides the few teams who actually have one).

A RB of Richardson's caliber however will always be a 1st round pick, and likely a high 1st, which he was.

One thing I agree with Lombardi on however is that the RB should be one of the final pieces to acquire for ones offense. Just as I think one should not prioritize the position in dynasty FF until you have all of your other pieces in place to contend for a championship.

Qb is the 1st priority but what really helps a Qb is having a good offensive line and receivers to work with. Preferably veteran WR who can help accelerate a young QBs development. A good QB coach is important as well.

Based on the article above Lombardi would not have given the 2nd round pick for Gordon. He is one strike away from a year suspension as well. So it may be hard to trade him away for value. Whoever the Browns do get as their QB in 2014 is going to need some receivers to work with. That is an area I think they should be using the rest of the season to figure out. It will only make the QBs job harder if that QB has green receivers to work with early on in his career.

I became a bit of a fan of the Browns due to the Richardson pick and also due to them looking like their plan was to be an old school football team that relies on a strong running game and defense to win. I still think this is a very viable strategy to win in the NFL.

It has additional advantages because most of the other teams are not trying to do the same thing. Much like the Steelers used to be able to draft late LB that fit their defense, because most other teams during that time frame were playing 4-3 not 3-4, this gave the Steelers an advantage because they were doing something different than most of the rest of the league. I see a team that builds around the running game having a similar advantage in todays NFL that is more focused on spreading the ball out and the passing game.

Part of the advantage comes from defenses around the league being geared so much towards stopping the pass. A lot of teams are built more for their nickle packages than base defense. This allows a team who focuses more on the run to be at an advantage against defenses who's main goal is focused on something else.

Another advantage comes from personnel. Full Back is a position that teams do not value much anymore for example. A team building for a run oriented offense can get multiple FB/HB/TE type players somewhat cheaply much like how the Steelers used to be able to get LBers. Teams will prioritize pass blocking offensive linemen, so good run blocking linemen may come at a discount.

Hats off to Browns fans. Some of the best fans in the league in my opinion. You all deserve much better. Hopefully the team will stick to a plan for longer than just a couple seasons from now on. This must be frustrating seeing your team repeatedly blown up, long term planning set aside. Without Richardson and a plan to be a throwback running team I just won't be excited about the Browns copying every other spread em out pass offense in the league right now.

 

[Short Corner]

Teams are still using first round picks on RBs.

Doug Martin and David Wilson were both also first rounders last year.

I can certainly appreciate the "don't waste your #3 overall pick" on a running back. But getting towards the end of the first round, teams are still going to think about the elite running backs in the draft.

The Colts got their Starting QB and their starting RB for the next 6-8 years. They have the #1 and #3 picks in last year's draft. He gives their offense a MAJOR upgrade. He gives them a legit power running game. He can catch it out of the backfield. It seemed that a lot of the fantasy community had high hopes for him on a depressing Brown's offense this year. Pair him with Luck, and he should be in for a huge season this year and for years to come.

Maybe they suck, and this winds up as a top 10 pick. But, with Richardson on the team, I think you're looking at a pick in the 20's at worst.

INDY still isn't making the playoffs unless, somehow, 9-7 wins that division. I think KC, MIA, and maybe even SD finish ahead of them for the WC. That schedule is brutal.

 

[HittinHard]

Colts benefitted big time and Browns need to make their picks count next year.

 

[Tanner9919]

This poll should be 100% Colts.

Disagree 100%

Rb's aren't worth a first round pick. They have zero shelf life and you can find good ones on the cheap and late. I understand AP is the exception to the rule but that's just it...he's the exception to the rule.

Anytime you can get a first round pick in return for a running back, you've won the trade. When that running back already has a year or more of service? It's highway robbery.

And I'm already on the record as to my opinion of Richardson as a player....overrated as all hell. It doesn't mean he won't put up good fantasy numbers but if we're having this conversation from a REAL LIFE perspective, the Browns won the trade.

I'm a fins fan before anyone goes thinking I have some sort of bias against either the Colts or the Browns. My honest opinion.

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.

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.

this is a great posting!

Browns FLEECED the Colts..with Indy's schedule, it's hard to imagine them coming in any better than 6-10 or 7-9..it's optimistic to think they'll go 8-8..they're 'thisclose' to being 0-2, Raiders nearly beat them..they're staring at a 2-5 record at the bye with this next couple of games being as tough as they are..

that 2014 first rounder should come in around pick #6-8 in a talent rich draft class..Browns have had Trich hanging around for 1.5 years now, they see him every day, in the lockerroom,training room, on the field and in film study classes..Norv Turner is a good OC and probably had his say in this as well - and he knows RBs.

they saw a desperate team in Indy and traded him away for a king's ransom. did Indy ever call Houston to ask about Ben Tate, or Seattle and Robert Turbin?

 

[pizzatyme]

I can't wait to see how awesome the Browns become with their plethora of picks.

 

[The Duff Man]

Could be a win/win, definitely a win for the Browns now.

Colts will look bad by the end of the year, but it could be a good move to set themselves up for future playoff runs.

 

[cstu]

This poll should be 100% Colts.

Disagree 100%

Rb's aren't worth a first round pick. They have zero shelf life and you can find good ones on the cheap and late. I understand AP is the exception to the rule but that's just it...he's the exception to the rule.

Anytime you can get a first round pick in return for a running back, you've won the trade. When that running back already has a year or more of service? It's highway robbery.

And I'm already on the record as to my opinion of Richardson as a player....overrated as all hell. It doesn't mean he won't put up good fantasy numbers but if we're having this conversation from a REAL LIFE perspective, the Browns won the trade.

I'm a fins fan before anyone goes thinking I have some sort of bias against either the Colts or the Browns. My honest opinion.

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.

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.

He doesn't have to be Peterson to be worth a 1st. The Colts aren't going to get very far relying on Bradshaw and what else was out there - McGahee?

They are getting Richardson on a 3 year/$6.6M deal with an option to pay him the average salary of a top 10 RB in the 4th year. That's extremely cheap.

Frankly, I don't see any RB in the draft next year besides Seastrunk who is better than Richardson and I don't think he lasts until the Colts' pick.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

This poll should be 100% Colts.

Disagree 100%

Rb's aren't worth a first round pick. They have zero shelf life and you can find good ones on the cheap and late. I understand AP is the exception to the rule but that's just it...he's the exception to the rule.

Anytime you can get a first round pick in return for a running back, you've won the trade. When that running back already has a year or more of service? It's highway robbery.

And I'm already on the record as to my opinion of Richardson as a player....overrated as all hell. It doesn't mean he won't put up good fantasy numbers but if we're having this conversation from a REAL LIFE perspective, the Browns won the trade.

I'm a fins fan before anyone goes thinking I have some sort of bias against either the Colts or the Browns. My honest opinion.

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.

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.

He doesn't have to be Peterson to be worth a 1st. The Colts aren't going to get very far relying on Bradshaw and what else was out there - McGahee?

They are getting Richardson on a 3 year/$6.6M deal with an option to pay him the average salary of a top 10 RB in the 4th year. That's extremely cheap.

Frankly, I don't see any RB in the draft next year besides Seastrunk who is better than Richardson and I don't think he lasts until the Colts' pick.

Ohh yeah, I think the trade works for both teams. I never said the Colts did poorly here.

 

[Bills_Fan11]

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 .

Minnesota made the playoffs last year for one reason and one reason only, and he doesn't play QB.

And they've been a real contender exactly once - the year Favre played out of his mind.

 

[nysfl2]

Obvious collusion - the other owners should have vetoed the trade

 

[Kenny Powers]

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 .

Minnesota made the playoffs last year for one reason and one reason only, and he doesn't play QB.

And they've been a real contender exactly once - the year Favre played out of his mind.

'98 Vikings werent a contender? Or the 4 times earlier on when they made the Super Bowl?

 

[Kenny Powers]

Seeing that fat slob Lombardi say little informative on NFLN and know doing this can only make me think at this point the Browns are still bent over for another 5 years.

 

[pollardsvision]

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 .

Minnesota made the playoffs last year for one reason and one reason only, and he doesn't play QB.

And they've been a real contender exactly once - the year Favre played out of his mind.

'98 Vikings werent a contender? Or the 4 times earlier on when they made the Super Bowl?

They are talking about the Peterson era.

 

[BWill]

Colts win..

Being from Cleveland, The browns #### the bed big time!!!
Even if they wouldve kept trent, and didn't trade for what I think will be top 15-25 pick...


THEY STILL WOULD HAVE HAD A SUPERIOR-LOSING RECORD LOW ENOUGH TO DRAFT WHATEVER QB THEY WANTED!!!

In my opinion... Trent Richardson > whoever the hell they take at 15-25 or whatever!!!

With or without him, they would still have lost a LOT of games this year with that Line, and QB.

 

[pollardsvision]

Crazy how much this trade reminds me of the Sixers-Pelicans trade.

When you realize that building around your best player will never make you better than a mid-pack team and someone is willing to overpay for that player, you simply have to pull the trigger.

(Not that Richardson is CLE's best player, but he's the one everyone thinks of as the best player)

Time to move on an go another direction.

Sixers probably got a better return (though maybe not with a one-dimensional, hurt player and a bad pick), but the NBA doesn't have a position so easily replaceable as RB. Given all factors, the return was pretty similar, imo.

You've also got a pair of owners, blessed to land generational talents in 2012, giving up future assets to make a push right now. IMO, both are probably making a mistake, as they really aren't ready for that.

Pretty similar trade.

Jrue and Trent are both good players, but they aren't ever carrying you to a title.

 

[Donnybrook]

I don't think a good running back helps the Browns much without a franchise QB. Their situation reminds me of the Rams circa 2004. The Rams drafted Steven Jackson in the 1st round but they put their trust in Mark Bulger to be their QB. I liked Bulger more than most but he couldn't get them into the playoffs.

I think the Browns have got their priorities straight this time. If Weeden isn't the guy, they need to get a franchise QB first and build around him.

Obviously, the Colts are at the other end of the spectrum. Luck has all the traits of a franchise QB. Just maybe it was a trade that will work out for both teams

 

[Kenny Powers]

Crazy how much this trade reminds me of the Sixers-Pelicans trade.

When you realize that building around your best player will never make you better than a mid-pack team and someone is willing to overpay for that player, you simply have to pull the trigger.

(Not that Richardson is CLE's best player, but he's the one everyone thinks of as the best player)

Time to move on an go another direction.

Sixers probably got a better return (though maybe not with a one-dimensional, hurt player and a bad pick), but the NBA doesn't have a position so easily replaceable as RB. Given all factors, the return was pretty similar, imo.

You've also got a pair of owners, blessed to land generational talents in 2012, giving up future assets to make a push right now. IMO, both are probably making a mistake, as they really aren't ready for that.

Pretty similar trade.

Jrue and Trent are both good players, but they aren't ever carrying you to a title.

When I saw Sixers-Pelicans, I thought you were referring to some Dr. J trade, but there cant be someone named Jrue besides Jrue Holiday, so I had to google to find there is actually an NBA team now called the Pelicans.

Hey, I watch during the playoffs, but this isnt NBG's so I have no clue about that analogy

 

[pollardsvision]

Crazy how much this trade reminds me of the Sixers-Pelicans trade.

When you realize that building around your best player will never make you better than a mid-pack team and someone is willing to overpay for that player, you simply have to pull the trigger.

(Not that Richardson is CLE's best player, but he's the one everyone thinks of as the best player)

Time to move on an go another direction.

Sixers probably got a better return (though maybe not with a one-dimensional, hurt player and a bad pick), but the NBA doesn't have a position so easily replaceable as RB. Given all factors, the return was pretty similar, imo.

You've also got a pair of owners, blessed to land generational talents in 2012, giving up future assets to make a push right now. IMO, both are probably making a mistake, as they really aren't ready for that.

Pretty similar trade.

Jrue and Trent are both good players, but they aren't ever carrying you to a title.

When I saw Sixers-Pelicans, I thought you were referring to some Dr. J trade, but there cant be someone named Jrue besides Jrue Holiday, so I had to google to find there is actually an NBA team now called the Pelicans.

Hey, I watch during the playoffs, but this isnt NBG's so I have no clue about that analogy

Oh, right.

Pelicans (formerly New Orleans Hornets) traded with the Sixers to get Jrue Holiday (young, about the 8th best PG in the league, give or take, but on a trajectory to keep the Sixers a middle of the pack team for years to come, if he remained the best player)

Pelicans got the NBA's version of Luck in 2012 (Anthony Davis). They gave a the #6 overall pick in 2013 (Nerlens Noel) and their 2014 first rounder (probably in the Colts' range) to get Jrue.

Probably an irrelevant analogy, but I'd just finished reading Simmons' article about the possibility of bottoming out becoming a more prevalent NFL strategy if this works, and the similarities between the trades stood out to me (though, I really don't think this trade necessarily equates to tanking or bottoming out for CLE).

 

[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.

 

[Kenny Powers]

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).

 

[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).

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

 

[pizzatyme]

Using this philosophy:

The Raiders should ship McFadden

The Jags- Jones Drew

The Bucs- Martin

The Titans- CJ

The Giants- JPP

The Cowboys- Ware

Etc.

I mean, you're not going to compete for the Superbowl. You're not going to lose THAT many more games. Why not ship one of if not the best player out to gather draft picks for the future?!

You don't do it because coaches and management have a short life span and must win now.

In the case of the Browns, all they've done is bought themselves an extra 1-2 years since they are "rebuilding". They've seemed to be rebuilding for 20 years or more.

I'm confident they could have 20 first rd picks next year and still not make the playoffs.

 

[pollardsvision]

Using this philosophy:

The Raiders should ship McFadden

The Jags- Jones Drew

The Bucs- Martin

The Titans- CJ

The Giants- JPP

The Cowboys- Ware

Etc.

I mean, you're not going to compete for the Superbowl. You're not going to lose THAT many more games. Why not ship one of if not the best player out to gather draft picks for the future?!

You don't do it because coaches and management have a short life span and must win now.

In the case of the Browns, all they've done is bought themselves an extra 1-2 years since they are "rebuilding". They've seemed to be rebuilding for 20 years or more.

I'm confident they could have 20 first rd picks next year and still not make the playoffs.

If the Jags or Raiders could have, at any point in MJD or DMC's career, gotten a 1st rounder in return for them, they should've jumped on it. MJD is a good comp. He's a had a fantastic career. The Jags have never won more than 8 games with MJD as their leading rusher (they won 11 games when Freddy was still there and MJD was given the high-impact touches).

Chris Johnson too, absolutely. Anything to have prevented them from giving him that terrible contract.

The CJ era started off with a 13-3 season spurred by a fantastic defense. After that, see Jags.

Martin? Maybe. Not a bad move if TB could get a 1st. But they can't.

The others aren't RBs, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

You notice how often it's a bad team that would have fans thinking, "wait, we can't get rid of our RB, he's our best (often only) offensive weapon?"

Yeah, that story doesn't typically end well, unless the team comes across an elite QB or a very good defense very quickly.

 

[CalBear]

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 .

Minnesota made the playoffs last year for one reason and one reason only, and he doesn't play QB.

And they've been a real contender exactly once - the year Favre played out of his mind.

Yeah, so? You think that if they'd taken Brady Quinn instead of Adrian Peterson in 2007 they would have done better in 2012? Other QBs available were Kevin Kolb, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, and they actually took Tyler Thigpen later in the draft. Or maybe they should have traded up to the #1 pick to take Jamarcus Russell. Just because someone plays QB doesn't mean he's a better pick than an RB in the first round; Peterson has clearly provided more value to the Vikings than anyone on the above list would have.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think a good running back helps the Browns much without a franchise QB. Their situation reminds me of the Rams circa 2004. The Rams drafted Steven Jackson in the 1st round but they put their trust in Mark Bulger to be their QB. I liked Bulger more than most but he couldn't get them into the playoffs.

I think the Browns have got their priorities straight this time. If Weeden isn't the guy, they need to get a franchise QB first and build around him.

Obviously, the Colts are at the other end of the spectrum. Luck has all the traits of a franchise QB. Just maybe it was a trade that will work out for both teams

This is another fatuous line of reasoning. The Browns' pick is 99% likely to be higher than the Colts' pick, so they don't need the Colts' pick to get a franchise QB.

 

[CalBear]

Using this philosophy:

The Raiders should ship McFadden

The Jags- Jones Drew

The Bucs- Martin

The Titans- CJ

The Giants- JPP

The Cowboys- Ware

Etc.

I mean, you're not going to compete for the Superbowl. You're not going to lose THAT many more games. Why not ship one of if not the best player out to gather draft picks for the future?!

You don't do it because coaches and management have a short life span and must win now.

In the case of the Browns, all they've done is bought themselves an extra 1-2 years since they are "rebuilding". They've seemed to be rebuilding for 20 years or more.

I'm confident they could have 20 first rd picks next year and still not make the playoffs.

If the Jags or Raiders could have, at any point in MJD or DMC's career, gotten a 1st rounder in return for them, they should've jumped on it. MJD is a good comp. He's a had a fantastic career. The Jags have never won more than 8 games with MJD as their leading rusher (they won 11 games when Freddy was still there and MJD was given the high-impact touches).

Chris Johnson too, absolutely. Anything to have prevented them from giving him that terrible contract.

The CJ era started off with a 13-3 season spurred by a fantastic defense. After that, see Jags.

Martin? Maybe. Not a bad move if TB could get a 1st. But they can't.

The others aren't RBs, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

You notice how often it's a bad team that would have fans thinking, "wait, we can't get rid of our RB, he's our best (often only) offensive weapon?"

Yeah, that story doesn't typically end well, unless the team comes across an elite QB or a very good defense very quickly.

So the 6-10 Niners should have gotten rid of Frank Gore?

And of course the Buffalo Bills were smart to get rid of Marshawn Lynch, and the Seahawks were foolish to give him a big contract. Bills were 6-10 in Lynch's last full season; they've gone 4-12, 6-10, 6-10 since. The Seahawks went from 5-11 the year before, to the playoffs including winning a playoff game on one of the best single runs ever, then to 11-5 last year and a Super Bowl contender. Maybe the Hawks would have been better off if they traded for Ryan Fitzpatrick?

 

[pollardsvision]

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 .

Minnesota made the playoffs last year for one reason and one reason only, and he doesn't play QB.

And they've been a real contender exactly once - the year Favre played out of his mind.

Yeah, so? You think that if they'd taken Brady Quinn instead of Adrian Peterson in 2007 they would have done better in 2012? Other QBs available were Kevin Kolb, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, and they actually took Tyler Thigpen later in the draft. Or maybe they should have traded up to the #1 pick to take Jamarcus Russell. Just because someone plays QB doesn't mean he's a better pick than an RB in the first round; Peterson has clearly provided more value to the Vikings than anyone on the above list would have.

Nobody's saying it does any good to draft a bad QB.

One new factor in all of this is the rookie salary structure. It's always been important to find a great QB, and burning a 1st rounder on one was often a great idea.

Now, it makes sense to gamble even more on a QB in the 1st round (especially in combination of rules changes). In the past, missing on a top QB was a disaster for years to come. Now it's not.

There now a million reasons to draft a QB in 1st round, even if it's a gamble. The reasons for drafting a RB in the first round keep falling away.

IMO, an X% chance of getting a franchise QB is more valuable than a RB with 1st round talent.

We can debate about what X is, but having a 2nd 1st round pick increases CLE's chances of getting one. Maybe they trade up. Maybe it gives them the freedom to gamble because they can still get solid player at another position later in the 1st round.

 

[pollardsvision]

Using this philosophy:

The Raiders should ship McFadden

The Jags- Jones Drew

The Bucs- Martin

The Titans- CJ

The Giants- JPP

The Cowboys- Ware

Etc.

I mean, you're not going to compete for the Superbowl. You're not going to lose THAT many more games. Why not ship one of if not the best player out to gather draft picks for the future?!

You don't do it because coaches and management have a short life span and must win now.

In the case of the Browns, all they've done is bought themselves an extra 1-2 years since they are "rebuilding". They've seemed to be rebuilding for 20 years or more.

I'm confident they could have 20 first rd picks next year and still not make the playoffs.

If the Jags or Raiders could have, at any point in MJD or DMC's career, gotten a 1st rounder in return for them, they should've jumped on it. MJD is a good comp. He's a had a fantastic career. The Jags have never won more than 8 games with MJD as their leading rusher (they won 11 games when Freddy was still there and MJD was given the high-impact touches).

Chris Johnson too, absolutely. Anything to have prevented them from giving him that terrible contract.

The CJ era started off with a 13-3 season spurred by a fantastic defense. After that, see Jags.

Martin? Maybe. Not a bad move if TB could get a 1st. But they can't.

The others aren't RBs, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.

You notice how often it's a bad team that would have fans thinking, "wait, we can't get rid of our RB, he's our best (often only) offensive weapon?"

Yeah, that story doesn't typically end well, unless the team comes across an elite QB or a very good defense very quickly.

So the 6-10 Niners should have gotten rid of Frank Gore?

And of course the Buffalo Bills were smart to get rid of Marshawn Lynch, and the Seahawks were foolish to give him a big contract. Bills were 6-10 in Lynch's last full season; they've gone 4-12, 6-10, 6-10 since. The Seahawks went from 5-11 the year before, to the playoffs including winning a playoff game on one of the best single runs ever, then to 11-5 last year and a Super Bowl contender. Maybe the Hawks would have been better off if they traded for Ryan Fitzpatrick?

Seahawks used a very reasonable 4th pick for Lynch. They went 7-9 for 2 seasons with him. They turned the corner when they got a Top 5 (then Top 1) defense and a good QB.

Same story with Gore, it just took a lot longer (6 seasons with Gore before a winning season).

Here, we're talking about teams that used 3rd and 4th round picks on these RBs, and it's almost a certainty that they never could've gotten a 1st rounder for them, had they decided to trade them. Let's also hold off on assuming Richardson can have the same impact Gore/Lynch did. Maybe he will, but those guys have a great track record.

Would it have been smart, had the option been available?

I'd say yes, though, again, I can't imagine it was ever a real option. Trading a RB for a 1st seems like a great way to expedite the process of finding your QB and building your defense.

To the matter at hand, is it better for the Browns to do what they did or see if they can pull a 49ers?

That's an interesting question, but I'd say what they did. The chance of pulling a 49ers seems pretty low, and I'd rather have the extra pick to try to expedite finding the other pieces.

 

[pollardsvision]

Looked at another way, the 49ers and Seahawks are such a great example. They are the absolute best case scenarios for bad teams hanging on to a good RB until things turned around. They are fantastic RBs (yet again, likely never could've garnered a 1st round pick).

Just curious, how would you adjust your expectations for those teams without those RBs for the rest of the season and beyond?

 

[CalBear]

Yeah, so? You think that if they'd taken Brady Quinn instead of Adrian Peterson in 2007 they would have done better in 2012? Other QBs available were Kevin Kolb, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, and they actually took Tyler Thigpen later in the draft. Or maybe they should have traded up to the #1 pick to take Jamarcus Russell. Just because someone plays QB doesn't mean he's a better pick than an RB in the first round; Peterson has clearly provided more value to the Vikings than anyone on the above list would have.

Nobody's saying it does any good to draft a bad QB.

One new factor in all of this is the rookie salary structure. It's always been important to find a great QB, and burning a 1st rounder on one was often a great idea.

Now, it makes sense to gamble even more on a QB in the 1st round (especially in combination of rules changes). In the past, missing on a top QB was a disaster for years to come. Now it's not.

There now a million reasons to draft a QB in 1st round, even if it's a gamble. The reasons for drafting a RB in the first round keep falling away.

IMO, an X% chance of getting a franchise QB is more valuable than a RB with 1st round talent.

We can debate about what X is, but having a 2nd 1st round pick increases CLE's chances of getting one. Maybe they trade up. Maybe it gives them the freedom to gamble because they can still get solid player at another position later in the 1st round.

The teams that took Brady Quinn, Trent Edwards, Kevin Kolb, oh and I missed John Beck, are all worse-off than the Vikings. Are you suggesting the Browns should take two QBs in the first round to give them a better chance of getting a franchise QB? Because it's pretty dang likely that the second pick they have in the first round is going to yield a poorer QB prospect than the first pick.

 

[pollardsvision]

Yeah, so? You think that if they'd taken Brady Quinn instead of Adrian Peterson in 2007 they would have done better in 2012? Other QBs available were Kevin Kolb, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, and they actually took Tyler Thigpen later in the draft. Or maybe they should have traded up to the #1 pick to take Jamarcus Russell. Just because someone plays QB doesn't mean he's a better pick than an RB in the first round; Peterson has clearly provided more value to the Vikings than anyone on the above list would have.

Nobody's saying it does any good to draft a bad QB.

One new factor in all of this is the rookie salary structure. It's always been important to find a great QB, and burning a 1st rounder on one was often a great idea.

Now, it makes sense to gamble even more on a QB in the 1st round (especially in combination of rules changes). In the past, missing on a top QB was a disaster for years to come. Now it's not.

There now a million reasons to draft a QB in 1st round, even if it's a gamble. The reasons for drafting a RB in the first round keep falling away.

IMO, an X% chance of getting a franchise QB is more valuable than a RB with 1st round talent.

We can debate about what X is, but having a 2nd 1st round pick increases CLE's chances of getting one. Maybe they trade up. Maybe it gives them the freedom to gamble because they can still get solid player at another position later in the 1st round.

The teams that took Brady Quinn, Trent Edwards, Kevin Kolb, oh and I missed John Beck, are all worse-off than the Vikings. Are you suggesting the Browns should take two QBs in the first round to give them a better chance of getting a franchise QB? Because it's pretty dang likely that the second pick they have in the first round is going to yield a poorer QB prospect than the first pick.

Not, I'm not saying they should take 2.

If that pick helps land a QB, it'll likely be from a trade up or a gamble with the 1st made easier because they can still get a good player with the 2nd.

Or because the Colts are a team with a lot of holes playing a brutal schedule.

Even using that 2nd pick on a QB is a fine option.

You list the busts, there are plenty. They could get a stud defensive player/OL/WR and use one of the later picks on a Wilson, Kaepernick, Flacco, Rodgers, Dalton, Brees, or Brady.

More 1st round picks= more versatility and more chances of getting it right. For a bad team, you take that over a talented RB.

Speaking of the Vikings being better off than others.....we're talking about, possibly, the greatest RB in NFL history. He's now 28, and very likely will never win a playoff game where a rental HOF QB wasn't on the field. They also had a great defense for some of those years.

Again, best possible scenario. Vikings franchise probably isn't in any better shape than those other teams.

 

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

The Colts needed a running back for the future. Ballard isn't anything special and Bradshaw was only signed for one year. Who's to say that the Colts weren't already saying to themselves, "Okay, we're going to draft a legit running back next year."

I don't watch a lick of college football so I honestly don't have a clue what running backs coming out of college strike you as clear cut first round, franchise backs. So to all the college heads, I legitimately ask is there anyone coming out next year that you would take over Trent Richardson?

I'm guessing the Colts do not.

 

[CalBear]

To the matter at hand, is it better for the Browns to do what they did or see if they can pull a 49ers?That's an interesting question, but I'd say what they did. The chance of pulling a 49ers seems pretty low, and I'd rather have the extra pick to try to expedite finding the other pieces.

Because the Browns have such a great history of finding talented players with first-round picks. Here are the Browns' first-round picks over the past 10 years:

Trent Richardson

Brandon Weeden (already assumed to not be the solution, 2 years in)

Phil Taylor (not much)

Joe Haden (juiced)

Alex Mack (Go Bears!)

Joe Thomas (Pro Bowl)

Brady Quinn (bust)

Kamerion Wimbley (traded for 3rd rounder)

Braylon Edwards (traded third and fifth)

Kellen Winslow Jr. (traded for second and fifth)

Jeff Faine (cut)

And so on.

So, Trent Richardson is either the best or second best first-round pick the Browns have made in the past 10 years, and you think it's a good idea for them to trade him for another first-round pick? Seems like pretty bad odds to me.

 

[CalBear]

More 1st round picks= more versatility and more chances of getting it right. For a bad team, you take that over a talented RB.

If you're the Cleveland Browns, you do. That's why you're the Cleveland Browns.

 

[pollardsvision]

To the matter at hand, is it better for the Browns to do what they did or see if they can pull a 49ers?

That's an interesting question, but I'd say what they did. The chance of pulling a 49ers seems pretty low, and I'd rather have the extra pick to try to expedite finding the other pieces.

Because the Browns have such a great history of finding talented players with first-round picks. Here are the Browns' first-round picks over the past 10 years:

Trent Richardson

Brandon Weeden (already assumed to not be the solution, 2 years in)

Phil Taylor (not much)

Joe Haden (juiced)

Alex Mack (Go Bears!)

Joe Thomas (Pro Bowl)

Brady Quinn (bust)

Kamerion Wimbley (traded for 3rd rounder)

Braylon Edwards (traded third and fifth)

Kellen Winslow Jr. (traded for second and fifth)

Jeff Faine (cut)

And so on.

So, Trent Richardson is either the best or second best first-round pick the Browns have made in the past 10 years, and you think it's a good idea for them to trade him for another first-round pick? Seems like pretty bad odds to me.

Again, their poor history of drafting shouldn't influence the opinion of this decision.

Teams have to build through the draft and 1st rounders are gold. Maybe they miss, but that doesn't change the fact that they need them.

We'll just have to disagree on how well the Browns spent their 1st pick in 2012 (not in relation to their other years' picks because they've obviously been terrible). It might've been their 3rd best pick in recent memory, but it was still a pretty bad pick (and god-awful trade to get it).

 

[CalBear]

To the matter at hand, is it better for the Browns to do what they did or see if they can pull a 49ers?

That's an interesting question, but I'd say what they did. The chance of pulling a 49ers seems pretty low, and I'd rather have the extra pick to try to expedite finding the other pieces.

Because the Browns have such a great history of finding talented players with first-round picks. Here are the Browns' first-round picks over the past 10 years:

Trent Richardson

Brandon Weeden (already assumed to not be the solution, 2 years in)

Phil Taylor (not much)

Joe Haden (juiced)

Alex Mack (Go Bears!)

Joe Thomas (Pro Bowl)

Brady Quinn (bust)

Kamerion Wimbley (traded for 3rd rounder)

Braylon Edwards (traded third and fifth)

Kellen Winslow Jr. (traded for second and fifth)

Jeff Faine (cut)

And so on.

So, Trent Richardson is either the best or second best first-round pick the Browns have made in the past 10 years, and you think it's a good idea for them to trade him for another first-round pick? Seems like pretty bad odds to me.

Again, their poor history of drafting shouldn't influence the opinion of this decision.

Teams have to build through the draft and 1st rounders are gold. Maybe they miss, but that doesn't change the fact that they need them.

We'll just have to disagree on how well the Browns spent their 1st pick in 2012 (not in relation to their other years' picks because they've obviously been terrible). It might've been their 3rd best pick in recent memory, but it was still a pretty bad pick (and god-awful trade to get it).

It's not only the Browns' poor history of drafting. It's that an actual productive player is worth more than a draft pick. Most first-round draft picks at all positions bust.

How about this: Can you name a single example of a bad team that traded a key player away for a next-year first-round draft pick, and subsequently became a good team?

 

[pollardsvision]

To the matter at hand, is it better for the Browns to do what they did or see if they can pull a 49ers?

That's an interesting question, but I'd say what they did. The chance of pulling a 49ers seems pretty low, and I'd rather have the extra pick to try to expedite finding the other pieces.

Because the Browns have such a great history of finding talented players with first-round picks. Here are the Browns' first-round picks over the past 10 years:

Trent Richardson

Brandon Weeden (already assumed to not be the solution, 2 years in)

Phil Taylor (not much)

Joe Haden (juiced)

Alex Mack (Go Bears!)

Joe Thomas (Pro Bowl)

Brady Quinn (bust)

Kamerion Wimbley (traded for 3rd rounder)

Braylon Edwards (traded third and fifth)

Kellen Winslow Jr. (traded for second and fifth)

Jeff Faine (cut)

And so on.

So, Trent Richardson is either the best or second best first-round pick the Browns have made in the past 10 years, and you think it's a good idea for them to trade him for another first-round pick? Seems like pretty bad odds to me.

Again, their poor history of drafting shouldn't influence the opinion of this decision.

Teams have to build through the draft and 1st rounders are gold. Maybe they miss, but that doesn't change the fact that they need them.

We'll just have to disagree on how well the Browns spent their 1st pick in 2012 (not in relation to their other years' picks because they've obviously been terrible). It might've been their 3rd best pick in recent memory, but it was still a pretty bad pick (and god-awful trade to get it).

It's not only the Browns' poor history of drafting. It's that an actual productive player is worth more than a draft pick. Most first-round draft picks at all positions bust.

How about this: Can you name a single example of a bad team that traded a key player away for a next-year first-round draft pick, and subsequently became a good team?

You mind helping me out? I'm sure it's happened, but I can't think of too many bad teams smart enough to trade players for 1st round picks.

Bengals were 4-12 the year before they traded away their starting QB for picks. Obviously, that's a special case because the Raiders so obviously overpaid. Trading with the Raiders probably doesn't count.

A RB example would be great, but bad teams never seem to find the courage to trade them away (or good teams aren't offering).

The only RB examples I can think of are unfair.

They are very old and from a different era (though trading for a RB now is an even worse idea), and most were past their prime or close to it.

Colts didn't even get a 1st for Faulk 14 years ago (though it seems they could've if Polian wanted to let him go to an AFC team). Anyway, they only got a 2nd rounder for a 25 YO Faulk. They survived it.

 

[Donnybrook]

I don't think a good running back helps the Browns much without a franchise QB. Their situation reminds me of the Rams circa 2004. The Rams drafted Steven Jackson in the 1st round but they put their trust in Mark Bulger to be their QB. I liked Bulger more than most but he couldn't get them into the playoffs.

I think the Browns have got their priorities straight this time. If Weeden isn't the guy, they need to get a franchise QB first and build around him.

Obviously, the Colts are at the other end of the spectrum. Luck has all the traits of a franchise QB. Just maybe it was a trade that will work out for both teams

This is another fatuous line of reasoning. The Browns' pick is 99% likely to be higher than the Colts' pick, so they don't need the Colts' pick to get a franchise QB.

Who knows where they will be picking? They could have to package both 1st to move up.

 

[CalBear]

You mind helping me out? I'm sure it's happened, but I can't think of too many bad teams smart enough to trade players for 1st round picks.Bengals were 4-12 the year before they traded away their starting QB for picks. Obviously, that's a special case because the Raiders so obviously overpaid. Trading with the Raiders probably doesn't count.

A RB example would be great, but bad teams never seem to find the courage to trade them away (or good teams aren't offering).

I can't think of a case where it's happened, outside of trades like the Herschel Walker trade which involved multiple first-round picks.

I think you need to check your assumption about first-round picks being more valuable than productive players. The Browns don't need picks, they need players, and they had one, who they've now traded for a pick. That pick might turn into a productive player, but it's against the odds. Even the Ricky Williams trade, which involved eight draft picks including two first-rounders, did nothing for the Redskins, who were 10-6 in 1999 and didn't have another winning season until 2005.

 

[pollardsvision]

You mind helping me out? I'm sure it's happened, but I can't think of too many bad teams smart enough to trade players for 1st round picks.

Bengals were 4-12 the year before they traded away their starting QB for picks. Obviously, that's a special case because the Raiders so obviously overpaid. Trading with the Raiders probably doesn't count.

A RB example would be great, but bad teams never seem to find the courage to trade them away (or good teams aren't offering).

I can't think of a case where it's happened, outside of trades like the Herschel Walker trade which involved multiple first-round picks.

I think you need to check your assumption about first-round picks being more valuable than productive players. The Browns don't need picks, they need players, and they had one, who they've now traded for a pick. That pick might turn into a productive player, but it's against the odds. Even the Ricky Williams trade, which involved eight draft picks including two first-rounders, did nothing for the Redskins, who were 10-6 in 1999 and didn't have another winning season until 2005.

Again, I wish we had more examples of RB's being traded for 1st round picks to go from, but we just don't.

We could look at the entire history of trading productive players for 1st round picks, I guess, but that would be pretty muddy. I think history would lean towards the team getting the picks.

I'm fine being wrong though.

Skins traded a draft pick away, not a current player, but it's fine to look at.

No, that didn't work especially well for the 'Skins. Keep in mind though, they traded 5 of those picks to move and get Champ Bailey, who they later turned around and traded for a freaking RB.

I'm not sure exactly what that series of moves taught us, but I think we learned a couple more times that giving up great assets for RBs isn't the path to the promised land.

 

[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.

 

[CalBear]

You mind helping me out? I'm sure it's happened, but I can't think of too many bad teams smart enough to trade players for 1st round picks.

Bengals were 4-12 the year before they traded away their starting QB for picks. Obviously, that's a special case because the Raiders so obviously overpaid. Trading with the Raiders probably doesn't count.

A RB example would be great, but bad teams never seem to find the courage to trade them away (or good teams aren't offering).

I can't think of a case where it's happened, outside of trades like the Herschel Walker trade which involved multiple first-round picks.

I think you need to check your assumption about first-round picks being more valuable than productive players. The Browns don't need picks, they need players, and they had one, who they've now traded for a pick. That pick might turn into a productive player, but it's against the odds. Even the Ricky Williams trade, which involved eight draft picks including two first-rounders, did nothing for the Redskins, who were 10-6 in 1999 and didn't have another winning season until 2005.

Again, I wish we had more examples of RB's being traded for 1st round picks to go from, but we just don't.

We could look at the entire history of trading productive players for 1st round picks, I guess, but that would be pretty muddy. I think history would lean towards the team getting the picks.

I'm fine being wrong though.

Skins traded a draft pick away, not a current player, but it's fine to look at.

No, that didn't work especially well for the 'Skins. Keep in mind though, they traded 5 of those picks to move and get Champ Bailey, who they later turned around and traded for a freaking RB.

I'm not sure exactly what that series of moves taught us, but I think we learned a couple more times that giving up great assets for RBs isn't the path to the promised land.

A single pick has less value than a productive player taken with an equivalent pick; I really don't think there's any other way to look at it. Most picks bust, so a productive player has higher expected value than the equivalent pick.

 

[CalBear]

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).

 

[CalBear]

Since 2000, at least 25 teams have used a first-round pick on a RB (eyeballing the list). So it seems universally believed by NFL GMs that it's worth spending first-round picks on RBs.

 

[pollardsvision]

Since 2000, at least 25 teams have used a first-round pick on a RB (eyeballing the list). So it seems universally believed by NFL GMs that it's worth spending first-round picks on RBs.

I don't see a huge problem with taking a RB late in the 1st round. Those are generally better teams, with fewer other holes that need filling, so a RB there can make sense sometimes.

Now, the league has changed a lot over the last 13 years, and I expect the general trend of fewer 1st round RBs (and especially, really high 1st round RBs) to continue.

Even the late 1st rounders haven't worked out so well over the last several years.

Martin's good. We'll see if he changes the trajectory of the Bucs at all. Same for Wilson.

It's been a total wasteland going back to '08, where the Titans got CJ. The impact on that organization is very debatable.

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.

Many have even been outstanding players (as Trent might turn out to be), but the case can be made that organization would have been better off taking someone else for pretty much all of them (except AP).

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?