The Trent Richardson Thread (13 Viewers)

[Hankmoody]

600K is still 600K they didn't need to spend, no one was going to give him that money, no one was in competition for his services.

So you're the one screening his agent's calls? If they were interested in seeing what he had it was worth $600k to get him in now. If he's got no reason to sign, he'd be better waiting until August and some other desperate team loses a couple RB to injury.

They are way behind the required spending pace. This doesn't even register.

 

[cstu]

600K is still 600K they didn't need to spend, no one was going to give him that money, no one was in competition for his services.

So you're the one screening his agent's calls? If they were interested in seeing what he had it was worth $600k to get him in now. If he's got no reason to sign, he'd be better waiting until August and some other desperate team loses a couple RB to injury.

They are way behind the required spending pace. This doesn't even register.

My feelings on Richardson are well known, but 600k is nothing to test him out between now and the start of the season.

 

[Hankmoody]

600K is still 600K they didn't need to spend, no one was going to give him that money, no one was in competition for his services.

So you're the one screening his agent's calls? If they were interested in seeing what he had it was worth $600k to get him in now. If he's got no reason to sign, he'd be better waiting until August and some other desperate team loses a couple RB to injury.

They are way behind the required spending pace. This doesn't even register.

My feelings on Richardson are well known, but 600k is nothing to test him out between now and the start of the season.

Exactly my point. It's not like the team is tight on cap space and needs to be selective with who they bring in.

 

[Bayhawks]

This bumps Latavius Murray in my book. T-rich is clearly there as a body filler and depth reasons, so that only boosts Murray's value in the sense it doesn't look like they will draft a guy this year. He doesn't compete with Murray or Helu in regards to what they can do so the way I'm reading into this signing is that Murray is the guy to own, while Helu is a nice handcuff/3rd down back.

Hard to see this...after seeing the contract. You have to really hate TR if you see this as bumping Murray. Oh yeah...most people here do see him through anger colored glasses.

Numbers don't lie. One of the worst RBs ever man.

Yeah, he has been thus far, but that doesn't mean he can't change.As noted, RBs like T Jones, Lynch dissappointed early, then revived their career later (after changing teams). Another example would be J. Bettis. He had a good rookie year, then sucked in years 2 & 3 (3.3 YPC in his 2nd & 3rd years). He went to Pittsburgh, and had 6 very good years, than hung around for 4 more to get to #6 on the all-time rushing list.

Being one of the worst RBs ever for your 1st few years isn't good, but It can (and has) been overcome.

If Richardson is free (WW pickup), it can't hurt to give him a shot, depending on who you'd have to drop for him.

Does this go for every rb who sucks right now??

I don't like to make blanket statements, but I'll say yes. A high-draft RB who is going to a team where he might have a chance to start/get PT, who you can pick up (FF-speaking) for basically nothing is almost always going to be worth a speculative add.

 

[menobrown]

Jesus. People really need to stop talking about his total numbers from his rookie year like they mean something.

He got a million touches. He was not very good that year. Most any RB in the nfl could just get the ball and run straight ahead with their eyes closed and get the same yards on that many touches.

The knee scope and ribs are just excuses to try and argue he would have been better had those things not happened, yet he played even worse when healthy.

Nope, not going to stop talking about his rookie season because it happened and I think it's relevant. Just like I thought Lynch's early production was relevant when people were leaving him for dead. It's part of the picture because for whatever the reason(s) he was a worse player in Indy. I thought Trent played well his first season,not great but well, and not just for fantasy either. The knee scope and ribs I absolutely felt impaired his performance but unlike his time with the Colts he had some good games and looked the part.

At the end of his rookie season I heard no one saying he sucked or was one of the worst RB's in the league. Several people did not consider him elite and based on what he showed his rookie season I would not have said that either but the main issue people had with Trent at the time was durability concerns, not that he sucked. Two years later we've seen nothing but a sorry player. So again I say it's relevant to factor in that rookie season to try and determine if he's just plain sorry like we've seen the past two seasons or if something else went wrong such as mentally losing confidence or handling his conditioning differently which caused him to be a worse player despite reportedly being healthier.

This is not really relevant to his rookie season but something I had forgot about and remembered a few days ago. When I knew the Colts would cut him I kind of assumed his best bet to get signed would be someone with a connection to Saban. Raiders kind of came out of the nowhere but then I remembered the man who drafted Trent and publicly said the Browns made a mistake trading him. That would be Holmgreen and the part I forgot was his connection to McKenzie including advising the team at various points in the last year. I'd be willing to bet it's that connection that got Trent signed in Oakland. Which of course won't do a single thing to help him play better but now I understand the connection.

 

[stbugs]

Jesus. People really need to stop talking about his total numbers from his rookie year like they mean something.

He got a million touches. He was not very good that year. Most any RB in the nfl could just get the ball and run straight ahead with their eyes closed and get the same yards on that many touches.

The knee scope and ribs are just excuses to try and argue he would have been better had those things not happened, yet he played even worse when healthy.

Nope, not going to stop talking about his rookie season because it happened and I think it's relevant. Just like I thought Lynch's early production was relevant when people were leaving him for dead. It's part of the picture because for whatever the reason(s) he was a worse player in Indy. I thought Trent played well his first season,not great but well, and not just for fantasy either. The knee scope and ribs I absolutely felt impaired his performance but unlike his time with the Colts he had some good games and looked the part.

At the end of his rookie season I heard no one saying he sucked or was one of the worst RB's in the league. Several people did not consider him elite and based on what he showed his rookie season I would not have said that either but the main issue people had with Trent at the time was durability concerns, not that he sucked. Two years later we've seen nothing but a sorry player. So again I say it's relevant to factor in that rookie season to try and determine if he's just plain sorry like we've seen the past two seasons or if something else went wrong such as mentally losing confidence or handling his conditioning differently which caused him to be a worse player despite reportedly being healthier.

This is not really relevant to his rookie season but something I had forgot about and remembered a few days ago. When I knew the Colts would cut him I kind of assumed his best bet to get signed would be someone with a connection to Saban. Raiders kind of came out of the nowhere but then I remembered the man who drafted Trent and publicly said the Browns made a mistake trading him. That would be Holmgreen and the part I forgot was his connection to McKenzie including advising the team at various points in the last year. I'd be willing to bet it's that connection that got Trent signed in Oakland. Which of course won't do a single thing to help him play better but now I understand the connection.

Why do we continue to bring up Lynch? Left for dead is a huge exaggeration. He had 2 1000 yard seasons with 4.0 and 4.1 ypc and a pro-bowl in his rookie/2nd years. Even in year 3, he got hurt and had 120 carries yet he still had a rush that was longer than every one of TRich's 727 career touches. He also had 3.8 ypc, again better than all 3 of TRich's years.

Anyway, I think Lynch has no reason to be brought into this discussion. He was never left for dead like TRich was after the Colts cut him and Lynch showed more potential, results and explosiveness in the first 3 years that TRich ever did. Just because he had a rough first year (3.5 ypc - only 12 games with Seattle, not 16) with Seattle doesn't mean you can point to Lynch as an example for TRich coming back. In fact, one could point to Lynch's year 1 playoff game of 19-131-1TD and Lynch's year 2 with Seattle to show how TRich and Lynch are nothing alike.

 

[menobrown]

Jesus. People really need to stop talking about his total numbers from his rookie year like they mean something.

He got a million touches. He was not very good that year. Most any RB in the nfl could just get the ball and run straight ahead with their eyes closed and get the same yards on that many touches.

The knee scope and ribs are just excuses to try and argue he would have been better had those things not happened, yet he played even worse when healthy.

Nope, not going to stop talking about his rookie season because it happened and I think it's relevant. Just like I thought Lynch's early production was relevant when people were leaving him for dead. It's part of the picture because for whatever the reason(s) he was a worse player in Indy. I thought Trent played well his first season,not great but well, and not just for fantasy either. The knee scope and ribs I absolutely felt impaired his performance but unlike his time with the Colts he had some good games and looked the part.

At the end of his rookie season I heard no one saying he sucked or was one of the worst RB's in the league. Several people did not consider him elite and based on what he showed his rookie season I would not have said that either but the main issue people had with Trent at the time was durability concerns, not that he sucked. Two years later we've seen nothing but a sorry player. So again I say it's relevant to factor in that rookie season to try and determine if he's just plain sorry like we've seen the past two seasons or if something else went wrong such as mentally losing confidence or handling his conditioning differently which caused him to be a worse player despite reportedly being healthier.

This is not really relevant to his rookie season but something I had forgot about and remembered a few days ago. When I knew the Colts would cut him I kind of assumed his best bet to get signed would be someone with a connection to Saban. Raiders kind of came out of the nowhere but then I remembered the man who drafted Trent and publicly said the Browns made a mistake trading him. That would be Holmgreen and the part I forgot was his connection to McKenzie including advising the team at various points in the last year. I'd be willing to bet it's that connection that got Trent signed in Oakland. Which of course won't do a single thing to help him play better but now I understand the connection.

Why do we continue to bring up Lynch? Left for dead is a huge exaggeration.

In terms of fantasy he was left for dead. I did an FFPC draft in 2010 and after about 20 minutes of deliberating I took him in the middle 10th round. A few people in the league ridiculed the pick with one complaining I wasted 20 minutes of everyone's time so I could make a wasted pick. In other leagues that year I saw him going in the teen rounds. So no I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he was left for dead at least as left for dead was Richardson is now in fantasy which means some people still want to roster him but not at much of a cost.

Similar to Richardson we would see Lynch get outshined by the backup RB until the backup eventually became the starter. Fred would come in the game and look like he had wide open lanes to run while Lynch always looked like he was running into a pile. I also think Lynch got a little out of shape at the end of his Bills run, for sure he looked a bit leaner to me in 2011 than the previous season. So despite never being as bad as Richardson I do think there is a lot of similarities in both fantasy and real life NFL football between the two.

 

[beef]

problem with trent is that he lacks in what scouts can't measure. desire, dedication, determination. he was a stud in college, got paid, and never seemed to want to continue to work on his game and improve. contrary to popular belief here, talent does not always prevail.

 

[12punch]

Jesus. People really need to stop talking about his total numbers from his rookie year like they mean something.

He got a million touches. He was not very good that year. Most any RB in the nfl could just get the ball and run straight ahead with their eyes closed and get the same yards on that many touches.

The knee scope and ribs are just excuses to try and argue he would have been better had those things not happened, yet he played even worse when healthy.

Nope, not going to stop talking about his rookie season because it happened and I think it's relevant. Just like I thought Lynch's early production was relevant when people were leaving him for dead. It's part of the picture because for whatever the reason(s) he was a worse player in Indy. I thought Trent played well his first season,not great but well, and not just for fantasy either. The knee scope and ribs I absolutely felt impaired his performance but unlike his time with the Colts he had some good games and looked the part.

At the end of his rookie season I heard no one saying he sucked or was one of the worst RB's in the league. Several people did not consider him elite and based on what he showed his rookie season I would not have said that either but the main issue people had with Trent at the time was durability concerns, not that he sucked. Two years later we've seen nothing but a sorry player. So again I say it's relevant to factor in that rookie season to try and determine if he's just plain sorry like we've seen the past two seasons or if something else went wrong such as mentally losing confidence or handling his conditioning differently which caused him to be a worse player despite reportedly being healthier.

This is not really relevant to his rookie season but something I had forgot about and remembered a few days ago. When I knew the Colts would cut him I kind of assumed his best bet to get signed would be someone with a connection to Saban. Raiders kind of came out of the nowhere but then I remembered the man who drafted Trent and publicly said the Browns made a mistake trading him. That would be Holmgreen and the part I forgot was his connection to McKenzie including advising the team at various points in the last year. I'd be willing to bet it's that connection that got Trent signed in Oakland. Which of course won't do a single thing to help him play better but now I understand the connection.

Why do we continue to bring up Lynch? Left for dead is a huge exaggeration.

In terms of fantasy he was left for dead. I did an FFPC draft in 2010 and after about 20 minutes of deliberating I took him in the middle 10th round. A few people in the league ridiculed the pick with one complaining I wasted 20 minutes of everyone's time so I could make a wasted pick. In other leagues that year I saw him going in the teen rounds. So no I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he was left for dead at least as left for dead was Richardson is now in fantasy which means some people still want to roster him but not at much of a cost.

Similar to Richardson we would see Lynch get outshined by the backup RB until the backup eventually became the starter. Fred would come in the game and look like he had wide open lanes to run while Lynch always looked like he was running into a pile. I also think Lynch got a little out of shape at the end of his Bills run, for sure he looked a bit leaner to me in 2011 than the previous season. So despite never being as bad as Richardson I do think there is a lot of similarities in both fantasy and real life NFL football between the two

if you think lynch is anything comparable to richardson you should probably quit ff

 

[Zdravko]

problem with trent is that he lacks in what scouts can't measure. desire, dedication, determination. he was a stud in college, got paid, and never seemed to want to continue to work on his game and improve. contrary to popular belief here, talent does not always prevail.

Hehe, that's almost word-for-word what they said about Lynch after Buffalo dumped him. Got paid = got lazy, does not care about his craft + smokes too much pot.

Not saying it's a comparable case that will turn out the same way - just pointing out the similarities!

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess if you want to say Lynch was underperforming and had questions at one point then fine.

But richardson is like a cartoon hilarity version of what lyncb was.

 

[ChuckLiddell]

I guess if you want to say Lynch was underperforming and had questions at one point then fine.

But richardson is like a cartoon hilarity version of what lyncb was.

I get this. All of the bashing. I think in all extreme likelihood, the bashing is all right. However, regarding Richardson/Lynch - Richardson was considered by a lot of smart people to be a generational talent when he came out of school. Nobody that I am aware of put Lynch in that category. There are similarities between the 2 early on with regard to perceived work ethic, although Lynch was not nearly as bad on the field as Trent. However, those using Lynch as a beacon of hope do have a point. He turned it around with a perceived lesser base of talent than Trent is/was perceived to have.

 

[Silver & Black]

Let's face it, the bashing is justified. I recall first hearing Oakland signing him and not being happy. At all. With time, you start thinking about the positives and potential upside etc. But the bottom line is, he has to prove himself all over again if he can. Some guys like Sanders, Emmitt, Payton etc just seemed to have "it" and could step onto the field and run amok at any time. Richardson clearly is not cut from that same mold. If he is going to have any chance to succeed and save his career, he is going to have to work his but off, both on and off the field. While not thrilled with the signing, I don't hate it either. If he does what he should, he has potential. If he doesn't, we haven't lost all that much. To me, it was worth a shot. The real news for me is that by signing Richardson, it seems the team has finally settled on giving Murray a shot at being the main guy. I like Helu as a compliment and they can grab a RB later in the draft, but don't need to find a starter. I like that.

 

[cstu]

problem with trent is that he lacks in what scouts can't measure. desire, dedication, determination. he was a stud in college, got paid, and never seemed to want to continue to work on his game and improve. contrary to popular belief here, talent does not always prevail.

Hehe, that's almost word-for-word what they said about Lynch after Buffalo dumped him. Got paid = got lazy, does not care about his craft + smokes too much pot.

Not saying it's a comparable case that will turn out the same way - just pointing out the similarities!

Why are people under the impression that Lynch played poorly in Buffalo? He averaged 4.0 YPC in his time there.

 

[JohnnyU]

Let's face it, the bashing is justified. I recall first hearing Oakland signing him and not being happy. At all. With time, you start thinking about the positives and potential upside etc. But the bottom line is, he has to prove himself all over again for the first time if he can. Some guys like Sanders, Emmitt, Payton etc just seemed to have "it" and could step onto the field and run amok at any time. Richardson clearly is not cut from that same mold. If he is going to have any chance to succeed and save his career, he is going to have to work his but off, both on and off the field. While not thrilled with the signing, I don't hate it either. If he does what he should, he has potential. If he doesn't, we haven't lost all that much. To me, it was worth a shot. The real news for me is that by signing Richardson, it seems the team has finally settled on giving Murray a shot at being the main guy. I like Helu as a compliment and they can grab a RB later in the draft, but don't need to find a starter. I like that.

fixed.

 

[Silver & Black]

Let's face it, the bashing is justified. I recall first hearing Oakland signing him and not being happy. At all. With time, you start thinking about the positives and potential upside etc. But the bottom line is, he has to prove himself all over again for the first time if he can. Some guys like Sanders, Emmitt, Payton etc just seemed to have "it" and could step onto the field and run amok at any time. Richardson clearly is not cut from that same mold. If he is going to have any chance to succeed and save his career, he is going to have to work his but off, both on and off the field. While not thrilled with the signing, I don't hate it either. If he does what he should, he has potential. If he doesn't, we haven't lost all that much. To me, it was worth a shot. The real news for me is that by signing Richardson, it seems the team has finally settled on giving Murray a shot at being the main guy. I like Helu as a compliment and they can grab a RB later in the draft, but don't need to find a starter. I like that.

fixed.

In the NFL, agreed. I was referring to college and coming into the league. He was a #3 overall pick and most pundits liked his skill set and future with the NFL.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The comparison to Lynch is nuts, there was a trade market for Lynch. It's documented that other teams were surprised whe he went to the Hawks because they had offered more or willing to, and even so the Hawks offered two decent picks IIRC. The Colts would not have been able to fetch a future conditional 7th for TR.

 

[menobrown]

Jesus. People really need to stop talking about his total numbers from his rookie year like they mean something.

He got a million touches. He was not very good that year. Most any RB in the nfl could just get the ball and run straight ahead with their eyes closed and get the same yards on that many touches.

The knee scope and ribs are just excuses to try and argue he would have been better had those things not happened, yet he played even worse when healthy.

Nope, not going to stop talking about his rookie season because it happened and I think it's relevant. Just like I thought Lynch's early production was relevant when people were leaving him for dead. It's part of the picture because for whatever the reason(s) he was a worse player in Indy. I thought Trent played well his first season,not great but well, and not just for fantasy either. The knee scope and ribs I absolutely felt impaired his performance but unlike his time with the Colts he had some good games and looked the part.

At the end of his rookie season I heard no one saying he sucked or was one of the worst RB's in the league. Several people did not consider him elite and based on what he showed his rookie season I would not have said that either but the main issue people had with Trent at the time was durability concerns, not that he sucked. Two years later we've seen nothing but a sorry player. So again I say it's relevant to factor in that rookie season to try and determine if he's just plain sorry like we've seen the past two seasons or if something else went wrong such as mentally losing confidence or handling his conditioning differently which caused him to be a worse player despite reportedly being healthier.

This is not really relevant to his rookie season but something I had forgot about and remembered a few days ago. When I knew the Colts would cut him I kind of assumed his best bet to get signed would be someone with a connection to Saban. Raiders kind of came out of the nowhere but then I remembered the man who drafted Trent and publicly said the Browns made a mistake trading him. That would be Holmgreen and the part I forgot was his connection to McKenzie including advising the team at various points in the last year. I'd be willing to bet it's that connection that got Trent signed in Oakland. Which of course won't do a single thing to help him play better but now I understand the connection.

Why do we continue to bring up Lynch? Left for dead is a huge exaggeration.

In terms of fantasy he was left for dead. I did an FFPC draft in 2010 and after about 20 minutes of deliberating I took him in the middle 10th round. A few people in the league ridiculed the pick with one complaining I wasted 20 minutes of everyone's time so I could make a wasted pick. In other leagues that year I saw him going in the teen rounds. So no I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he was left for dead at least as left for dead was Richardson is now in fantasy which means some people still want to roster him but not at much of a cost.

Similar to Richardson we would see Lynch get outshined by the backup RB until the backup eventually became the starter. Fred would come in the game and look like he had wide open lanes to run while Lynch always looked like he was running into a pile. I also think Lynch got a little out of shape at the end of his Bills run, for sure he looked a bit leaner to me in 2011 than the previous season. So despite never being as bad as Richardson I do think there is a lot of similarities in both fantasy and real life NFL football between the two

if you think lynch is anything comparable to richardson you should probably quit ff

I'm sure that's how you felt in 2010. And thanks but I do just fine in FF.

 

[menobrown]

The comparison to Lynch is nuts, there was a trade market for Lynch. It's documented that other teams were surprised whe he went to the Hawks because they had offered more or willing to, and even so the Hawks offered two decent picks IIRC. The Colts would not have been able to fetch a future conditional 7th for TR.

Richardson got traded for a first at one point so if we are using trade market to gauge how good a player is that's kind of a moot point. But if you want to use trade value that goes back to what anyone who still thinks Richardson has a chance is saying, that after year one he was good enough to get a first round pick back in a trade so to some people he showed something that year. Something he's not shown since.

And you got your story wrong. Other teams did not offer more for Lynch but it was reported that they would have if they knew he was on the block.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

there are probably people still waiting on the jamarcus russell comeback

 

[beef]

problem with trent is that he lacks in what scouts can't measure. desire, dedication, determination. he was a stud in college, got paid, and never seemed to want to continue to work on his game and improve. contrary to popular belief here, talent does not always prevail.

Hehe, that's almost word-for-word what they said about Lynch after Buffalo dumped him. Got paid = got lazy, does not care about his craft + smokes too much pot.

Not saying it's a comparable case that will turn out the same way - just pointing out the similarities!

Why are people under the impression that Lynch played poorly in Buffalo? He averaged 4.0 YPC in his time there.

Agreed. Lynch played well in Buf and showed all the signs of what we've seen him do in Seattle.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess if you want to say Lynch was underperforming and had questions at one point then fine.

But richardson is like a cartoon hilarity version of what lyncb was.

I get this. All of the bashing. I think in all extreme likelihood, the bashing is all right. However, regarding Richardson/Lynch - Richardson was considered by a lot of smart people to be a generational talent when he came out of school. Nobody that I am aware of put Lynch in that category. There are similarities between the 2 early on with regard to perceived work ethic, although Lynch was not nearly as bad on the field as Trent. However, those using Lynch as a beacon of hope do have a point. He turned it around with a perceived lesser base of talent than Trent is/was perceived to have.

None of the experts "know" how talent will translate to the NFL, hence why busts happen all the time.

Everyone was wrong about Richardson.

They way a guy actually plays on an NFL field trumps any measurable or college performance, especially a prolonged suckiness as awful and horrific as Richardson's has been.

And that is just the on the field stuff. Add in that he seems like a delusional narcissist and whammo, horrid.

I dont compare Richardson to anyone else because it would be a slap in the face to anyone else.

 

[RBM]

I'd love to know if any other team was interested.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Why would they be?

 

[RBM]

Why would they be?

Honestly I thought he'd be out of a job until August and then brought in as a training camp body.

 

[squistion]

I get this. All of the bashing. I think in all extreme likelihood, the bashing is all right. However, regarding Richardson/Lynch - Richardson was considered by a lot of smart people to be a generational talent when he came out of school. Nobody that I am aware of put Lynch in that category. There are similarities between the 2 early on with regard to perceived work ethic, although Lynch was not nearly as bad on the field as Trent. However, those using Lynch as a beacon of hope do have a point. He turned it around with a perceived lesser base of talent than Trent is/was perceived to have.

Everyone was wrong about Richardson.

Particularly, this guy:

Richardson is a mortal lock to become a productive franchise RB in the NFL. He has no flaws.

 

[mr roboto]

I get this. All of the bashing. I think in all extreme likelihood, the bashing is all right. However, regarding Richardson/Lynch - Richardson was considered by a lot of smart people to be a generational talent when he came out of school. Nobody that I am aware of put Lynch in that category. There are similarities between the 2 early on with regard to perceived work ethic, although Lynch was not nearly as bad on the field as Trent. However, those using Lynch as a beacon of hope do have a point. He turned it around with a perceived lesser base of talent than Trent is/was perceived to have.

Everyone was wrong about Richardson.

Particularly, this guy:

Richardson is a mortal lock to become a productive franchise RB in the NFL. He has no flaws.

DRAFT POSITION!!!!!!

 

[Zdravko]

I get this. All of the bashing. I think in all extreme likelihood, the bashing is all right. However, regarding Richardson/Lynch - Richardson was considered by a lot of smart people to be a generational talent when he came out of school. Nobody that I am aware of put Lynch in that category. There are similarities between the 2 early on with regard to perceived work ethic, although Lynch was not nearly as bad on the field as Trent. However, those using Lynch as a beacon of hope do have a point. He turned it around with a perceived lesser base of talent than Trent is/was perceived to have.

Everyone was wrong about Richardson.

Particularly, this guy:

Richardson is a mortal lock to become a productive franchise RB in the NFL. He has no flaws.

Sooooo....where are your posts from Dec 2011 when you predict that debacle?

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

Will Trent be invited to the veterans combine next year?

 

[squistion]

I get this. All of the bashing. I think in all extreme likelihood, the bashing is all right. However, regarding Richardson/Lynch - Richardson was considered by a lot of smart people to be a generational talent when he came out of school. Nobody that I am aware of put Lynch in that category. There are similarities between the 2 early on with regard to perceived work ethic, although Lynch was not nearly as bad on the field as Trent. However, those using Lynch as a beacon of hope do have a point. He turned it around with a perceived lesser base of talent than Trent is/was perceived to have.

Everyone was wrong about Richardson.

Particularly, this guy:

Richardson is a mortal lock to become a productive franchise RB in the NFL. He has no flaws.

Sooooo....where are your posts from Dec 2011 when you predict that debacle?

Unlike the OP, I have never claimed to be able to predict the future or that my opinions are infallible. And I certainly wouldn't be dumb enough to go out on a limb and predict that any player has a 100% probability of success or failure (like the above). Richardson was presented as a no lose, no risk, no downside investment (barring injury). If one is silly enough to talk in absolutes about any player's future, then they have to live with people bumping these foolish predictions when they turn out to be wrong.

For the record, I did repeatedly express skepticism over this, particularly in F&L's dynasty rankings thread (which due to number of pages/comments didn't survive the change to the new board) but the below is taken from the same thread as the fearless prediction.

declaring any player who has yet to play a down in the NFL a mortal lock may come back to bite you.

 

[Zdravko]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

 

[werdnoynek]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

You'll find not many can around here. Most are just like flies on ####... they don't come around until it starts to stink.

 

[cstu]

Trent owner in 7 PPR dynasty leagues! Yessssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Sorry, but

 

[cstu]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

You'll find not many can around here. Most are just like flies on ####... they don't come around until it starts to stink.

I checked my posts from the time of the trade and it was amazing how quickly my opinion changed on him (two weeks). Never imagined he was really that bad and could succeed on the Colts.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

You'll find not many can around here. Most are just like flies on ####... they don't come around until it starts to stink.

My quote from his spotlight thread after his rookie year is pretty spot on IMO. Not everyone was chugging the Kool Aid.

 

[cstu]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

You'll find not many can around here. Most are just like flies on ####... they don't come around until it starts to stink.

My quote from his spotlight thread after his rookie year is pretty spot on IMO. Not everyone was chugging the Kool Aid.

I admit I bought into the broken ribs and being a 21 yo rookie playing for the Browns excuses.

 

[humpback]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

You'll find not many can around here. Most are just like flies on ####... they don't come around until it starts to stink.

On the other side you've got those who can't admit that #### does indeed stink.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

at least we've finally established the right comp for richardson

 

[stbugs]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

You'll find not many can around here. Most are just like flies on ####... they don't come around until it starts to stink.

On the other side you've got those who can't admit that #### does indeed stink.

Yep, some real bitter owners (werd not Zdrav) in here. I remember going back and forth directly with Zdravko before 2014 and disagreeing wholeheartedly with his 1200-1300/8TD projections. I soured on him his rookie year. I didn't even like him enough to draft him in any league his rookie year. After his rookie year, I wasn't impressed at all with his volume and results, so I avoided him in 2013 as well. Maybe I didn't post how I drafted top WRs instead of him that year, but I jumped on the wagon in this thread early in 2013. I started Donald Brown multiple times in 2013 and posted it, so I harbored no illusions of TRich taking away value from Brown. I didn't want to start Brown, injuries forced me, but I knew he had more FF value in 2013.

 

[werdnoynek]

He has stunk. You all saw through the façade, congratulations.

I still can't ignore his age, what he did in college, and what he could be. If you still have him, think it'd be silly to get rid of him and you might as well ride him until the wheels fall off. It appears we're riding on spare tires and they're starting to wear out... but I'm happy he gets yet another chance in the NFL and he hasn't gone onto another league in another country.

I will continue to hold out hope he can return to Bama form, but I'm no longer holding my breath.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

He has stunk. You all saw through the façade, congratulations.

I still can't ignore his age, what he did in college, and what he could be. If you still have him, think it'd be silly to get rid of him and you might as well ride him until the wheels fall off. It appears we're riding on spare tires and they're starting to wear out... but I'm happy he gets yet another chance in the NFL and he hasn't gone onto another league in another country.

I will continue to hold out hope he can return to Bama form, but I'm no longer holding my breath.

Personally I see the same guy in the NFL that I saw in college -- he's still a holy terror for defenses when he can hit the 2nd / 3rd level with a ten yard head of steam. The problem is that that just doesn't happen regularly in today's NFL. It's all about subtle lateral movement and finding seams on the cutback as opposed to hitting a particular pre-determined hole balls out style. Richardson might have been a really good RB in the 60s or 70s; today not so much.

 

[DocHolliday]

Richardson has a good chance to make the team. It is not like the Raiders have a bunch of RBs and drafting a RB seems very unlikely. The Raiders have a lot of other holes to fill.

If Richardson ends up starting due to injuries or ineffective performance by Murray or Helu, the Raiders are going to be as awful as ever.

 

[cstu]

Earlier in this thread I nicknamed him "Butcher" after Pagano called him a rolling ball of butcher knives, think it's time to change that to "Butter".

 

[ghostguy123]

Squistion, these are fair points and I don't disagree with you about the mortal lock stuff.

That said, TR did look like a sure thing at the time to practically everyone. I never owned him until he started sucking particularly bad, so I don't feel cheated by drafting him at 1.01, but I really want to see the many who now sarcastically proclaim 'I told you so' back up those claims.

No rookie is a sure thing

But ya know what, no current player is a sure thing either. #### happens.

However, the player we have already seen play in the NFL (whoever it may be) at a studly type level is definitely MORE of a sure thing than any rookie. This would NOT include Richardson because his rookie season was absolutely NOT studly in any way.

 

[ghostguy123]

He has stunk. You all saw through the façade, congratulations.

I still can't ignore his age, what he did in college, and what he could be. If you still have him, think it'd be silly to get rid of him and you might as well ride him until the wheels fall off. It appears we're riding on spare tires and they're starting to wear out... but I'm happy he gets yet another chance in the NFL and he hasn't gone onto another league in another country.

I will continue to hold out hope he can return to Bama form, but I'm no longer holding my breath.

I hope I hit the supper lotto.

I hope Titus Young comes back and leads the league in receiving.

I hope (in my best MOrgan Freeman voice)

 

[Pwingles]

In the latavious thread, someone thinks trich is worth no less than a 2nd...

Whoops, completed trade thread

 

[Dr. Octopus]

In the latavious thread, someone thinks trich is worth no less than a 2nd...

Whoops, completed trade thread

To be fair, that's not exactly what he said.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

He has stunk. You all saw through the façade, congratulations.

I still can't ignore his age, what he did in college, and what he could be. If you still have him, think it'd be silly to get rid of him and you might as well ride him until the wheels fall off. It appears we're riding on spare tires and they're starting to wear out... but I'm happy he gets yet another chance in the NFL and he hasn't gone onto another league in another country.

I will continue to hold out hope he can return to Bama form, but I'm no longer holding my breath.

I hope I hit the supper lotto.

I hope Titus Young comes back and leads the league in receiving.

I hope (in my best MOrgan Freeman voice)

Is that like endless food?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Worst case scenario for the Raiders is Richardson doesn't make the team and becomes a $600k practice squad player (normally $107k).

wat

 

[amnesiac]

Worst case scenario for the Raiders is Richardson doesn't make the team and becomes a $600k practice squad player (normally $107k).

wat

it's the new 4th year player practice squad.