Well Luck is going to help out Trent and vice versa I imagine. Going to be harder to stack the box against the Colts when you have Luck to throw the ball. Makes them a better team unless Trent Richardson just plain sucks like all of their other RBs.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>I don't know enough about football but this is a good trade in concept for the Browns MT <a href="https://twitter.com/mtgworth">@mtgworth</a>: Thoughts on Browns trade, <a href="https://twitter.com/dmorey">@dmorey</a>?</p>— Daryl Morey (@dmorey) <a href="https://twitter.com/dmorey/statuses/380480219301154816">September 18, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> If Morey says it is a good trade, then it is a good trade
Wanna bet? Here are 2 HOF (one potentially HOF) running backs that had even LOWER ypc than Trent in their rookie season. Spoiler 1. LaDanian Tomlinson 2. Emmitt Smith Now who's to say he doesn't become one of those type of backs. At the same time he could be another Bama Bust. Only time will tell and a change of sceneray may accelerate that process. But AP could be one of the few exception to that rule as he did nearly break the RB total yards in a single season, but the only reason I brought him into the comparison was because you said (which without a doubt is true) Adrian Peterson says hello. This could go either way but I would almost always out my money against teams like Cleveland and Sacramento when it comes to talent development. Oh btw there are plenty of people that could have told you Weeden would be a 30 year old bust, why do you think he wasn't the one traded for a first round pick? If anything thia guy will be cut, a back up, or completely out of the league within the next 3 years. It sucks that he was traded within our division as I am one of those that believe he can become one of the best in the league. Obviously unlike you.
Don't get how trading Trent Richardson positions them to drafting a QB in the 1st rd it's not like not trading him would keep them from doing so.
It is a very common tendency for people to overrate players who have not yet reached potential, but their names have become so ingrained in their minds as stud players by the ESPN hype machine. Commonly referred to as Reggie Bush Syndrome.
Huh? Emmitt Smith averaged 3.9 YPC as a rookie and 9.5 per catch. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitEm00.htm Tomlinson (at 3.6), I suppose, is one counter example to hundreds the other way. Except this trade wasn't made merely after one year. Cleveland has watched Richardson all offseason, all preseason and the first two games of the regular season. Tomlinson took an enormous leap forward in his second year. 1,683 total rushing yards, 4.5 YPC, 14 TDs. He was clearly one of the elite backs in the league. Richardson? An even lower YPC this year (3.4) and no touchdowns against a pair of probably mediocre defenses. More injury concerns. After a year of just three runs over 15 yards, he now has zero runs over 10 yards. Trent Richardson in 2013 is not LaDainian Tomlinson circa 2002. There's nothing inherently wrong with Cleveland. If they bring in a competent staff, there's no reason to believe they can't build a good team. The staff that got them in the mess they're in now (also, the same one that drafted Weeden and Richardson)? They're gone. The new regime is in place and analyzed Richardson based on his first season and what they've seen from him the last few months. They decided a 2014 first rounder is more valuable. I think it's a perfectly defensible decision.
well, jim irsay demanded protection for luck. what better way to protect luck than with a strong running game of 3 yards per carry. They want to run the ball more. I like that. Less chances that hilton takes a 7 yard dinker for 83 yards.
Trent Richardson is Irsay hubris. He thinks the Colts are a RB away from being elite? You need a couple more solid drafts to mold that out, now you have a luxury instead of a neccessity.
Ok. I'll give you the 0.03 yards on Emmitt. Ricky Williams actually averaged less as a rookie than Trent Richardson. At a whopping 3.49 (lol) we can split hairs all day long but this Browns regime along with the last 10-15 years of attempt after attempt of rebuilding the team is horribly starting off on the wrong foot. And they haven't been watching Trent for an entire season for the past two years. Last year Norv was making hia best desperate attempt at saving his head coaching job and Rob was busy manning the reigns to one of the worst offenses in football with the exception of two players. Like I said it could really go both ways with Trent in Indy. I mean that line isn't much greater than Clevelands. But lucky him that he's falling into a high powered offense with potential to put up serious points.
Excellent deal for both teams. Colts still pegged as a team likely to regress based on history - could be a good pick for Cleveland. I don't buy into the Richardson hate, The Cat - you're being harsh. He can play. They need an oline though.
Doesn't help the Texans any. But he has not been all that thus far. Maybe different on a better team.
So, does this mean Ben Tate could command a 1st rd pick? Richardson may have more potential Tate is definitely a better back, right now.
Spot on. I hear a lot of people acting as if the Browns hurt themselves here, but I haven't heard a good explanation of HOW they are hurting themselves. Richardson isn't good enough to overcome a poor O-Line, so he was likely going to have even less success. With or without him, the Browns are a bottom 2-3 team in the league. Moving him now doesn't change that, but it saves money that might as well be piled up and burnt. Saying that "they could just make the trade after the season" is assuming that he won't have any significant injuries over the next 14 games, and that a year averaging 3.5 yards per carry wouldn't decrease his value in the eyes of another team. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have Lache Seastrunk on a fresh rookie contract, less per year, & an improved line blocking for him, than Richardson with 2 years left on a more expensive deal.
Probably not. They clearly weren't making that trade based on NFL production. You could even argue that getting Ben Tate production from Richardson is best case scenario for Indy. They traded for Crimson Tide hype imo. Not that Richardson isn't going to be a good back, but after a year & 2 games of evaluation, I wouldn't give up a 1st rounder for him
The Browns royally messed up drafting Richardson at #3 last year. I never thought he had a high NFL upside. They made a good decision here to admit their mistake and cut bait while they could still get a 1st rounder for him. By the end of the season, he wouldn't have been worth as much. This might work OK for the Colts this year and next if he stays healthy. We'll see. If you forget where Richardson was drafted when analyzing this trade, it's advantage Browns. He's not worth a 1st round pick.
So they acquire another pick. Draft picks are only good if they're used well. That said we're talking about Cleveland here. An organization that has NO idea how to use a pick.
