This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I'm far from a Michael fanboi -- but there's a pretty vast gulf between Richardson being handed a job in two seperate situations and face-planting in both, and Michael still waiting for an opportunity. Michael might actually be pretty good (although it's hugely unlikely he's an elite talent given the almost total lack of use). We've seen enough of Richardson to know what he is at this point.
I hate rehashing these arguments, but how does 1000 4.0+ ypc seasons and one pro-bowl in his first two seasons equal disappointing early? Lynch isn't even in the same equation as TRich in terms of early results. Also, Bettis was a 250 pound bruiser, of course his ypc is going to be on the lower side. Even so, 1429 yards and 4.9 ypc for Bettis his rookie year is hardly disappointing.
You don't think getting outplayed by a 29 year old UDFA from Coe College, to the point that he was traded mid-season (in his 4th season) qualifies as "disappointed early" in his career? I do.
"The NFL" hasn't seen enough? More like one team with an extremely bare cupboard at RB took a low risk flyer -- after he cleared waivers despite still being on an affordable (albeit guaranteed) rookie contract. He got a smaller contract than the same team gave journeyman role-player Roy Helu, and also less than aging DeAngelo Williams got to be a straight backup to LeVeon Bell.
Trent had a good rookie year, in FF, based on sheer volume and a ridiculously and unsustainably high percentage of his team's TDs. In NFL terms he was decidedly below average. And then he was historically abysmal for two years in Indy. Way worse than Benson / Jones / early Bettis / etc levels of bad -- he was "worst RB in the entire NFL" style bad. And this in a good offense that provided room for every other crappy RB on the roster to find success.
If T-Rich was a 3rd, 4th or beyond draft pick.....he would be unemployed.
Just like most people are assuming that Oakland has no real risk, I am assuming they gave him a decent contract because he had other suitors or other options. The speculation after being cut was he would be a league minimum contract and probably close to camp time. Instead he landed with a 2-year contract with decent incentives a week or so after getting waived. Seems like Oakland was acting with some level of urgency.
Some do. Among the top 75% qualifiers he's been a top 10 on PFF in their elusive rating for the past two seasons. Oddly enough he was worse in his rookie season, finishing 16th.
Nothing announced, but I assume it's little. Even if he makes the team it's a cheap salary in today's NFL - for example, a 32 year old DeAngelo Williams got $1.1M guaranteed and will earn $2M if he makes the Steelers roster.
You and I have different definitions of "below average," I guess.
I didn't mean Helu "sucks." Journeyman means a decent experienced player to me. Not great, not exciting, but a solid pro.
While that is true, you have to realize you are producing two examples in the entirety of all RBs. I'm sure there's more out there but the point is, for every RB that has the talent AND the desire to bounce back, AND doesn't get to an age before they turn it around to where teams just say "forget about this 26-27 year old, he'll be too old before he helps us", AND falls into a really good RB opportunity, there are hundreds of guys that had talent that was out of the league before being in it for three or four years.
Receptions and receiving yards are volume #s based on usage and may or may not be a reflection of ability. Reception % -- come on now. That's digging pretty deep as far as a metric for RB performance; it's hugely dependent on a whole slew of other factors related to system and usage. Either way, if you want to say that Richardson was above average as a receiver as a rookie, have at it. He was definitely below average as a runner, which is his primary function, and he's definitely not close to a (+) blocker. Given Helu's presence, his receiving ability is probably not super relevant to any projections moving forward in Oakland anyway.
Yes and no. A lot of leagues don't have the luxury of being able to hold a roster spot for a RB that MIGHT get you decent points one or two times a year IF the guys in front of him are hurt or IF bye weeks fall a certain way, etc.
There are also probably hundreds of guys who hung around for a few years and put up RB3/bye-week fill in FF numbers. Which is all I'm suggesting here. The examples I produced were just to demonstrate that a RB can climb from really bad to really good. If that's possible, then it isn't a stretch to climb from really bad to average. And average would be an improvement for Richardson. Maybe you get lucky, and he doesn't just become average; that's a bonus. Maybe he doesn't improve and stays really bad. You haven't lost anything, IF you don't give up much to get him.
Well based on that logic, rushing yards must also be considered volume #s based on usage, and you've already discounted his TD numbers. What stats do count, in your estimation? Is the only stat that matters to you YPC? Because if that is your argument, then you are absolutely right, Richardson was a below average NFL RB in his rookie year.
This doesn't appear to be going anywhere. My position is that he's been the same guy all along: awful runner due to terrible vision and burst, although he is powerful and really hard to tackle, solid receiver, subpar blocker. These attributes were masked in FF due to volume in his rookie year -- that Cleveland regime had gone all in on the guy and needed to justify the huge price of trading up. That volume is unlikely to materialize again because at the end of the day he just can't run the ball effectively. The stats and my own eyeball test agree on this, as do the Colts, evidently.
The PFF elusiveness rankings always seemed wonky to me. During Ray Rice's prime he was always at the bottom of the list, while anyone with eyes could see that he was at worst above average in elusiveness based on the most fluid hips I've seen on a RB. There are countless other examples as to why I ignore that stats every time its quoted on these message boards and the "lie" you are correctly pointing out if probably the biggest brick in the wall of why it's such a useless stat.
What have I suggested investing? A WW pick up? A throw in on a trade? A last round draft pick. Those aren't investments; they are lottery tickets. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere because you seem to want me to agree with you and say "he sucks, he has always sucked, and he always will suck." All I'm saying is he might not suck as much in the future, and if he sucks a little less, he can present some FF value.
well, I think you're confusing the title of an index figure with an actual word in the english language
Good deal for trich. That's 30+ years of salary at McDonalds. Which he may not be talented enough to suceed at either.
Ultra Limited Platinum Hawk Edition
For totally different reasons.
I can bash Trent Richardson with the rest of you. But are we really arguing about $600K? That's like squabbling over what to tip the waitress at Chilis. Puhleaase!
when running behind joe thomas, he'll get you 3-4 yards. trent would take those 3-4 yards but only manage to get 1-2 out of it.
