Yep...used RBs not worth 1st round picks. Hell..arguments are being made that fresh RBs out of college are no longer worth first round picks. Cleveland won this trade, handily.
This is the first year for the GM. What does the team's draft history matter? If anything, the new GM getting picks that were made by his predecessors back only strengthens the argument that it was a good move on their part.
I was out of the loop today and just saw this an hour ago on the front page of the board... I literally had to do a double-take. It's so rare in the NFL to see something like this, a young, big name offensive player traded mid-season. I think it has the potential to be good for both sides. I'm a big believer in tanking... if you know you suck, then suck hard and stockpile picks. Looks like Cleveland is going to get their shot to build through the draft.
Thanks to the new CBA, this could be the trade that marks the begining of a new era. Gone are the days where first round rookies will make or break a roster with their massive contracts. The NFL trade deadline may become a much more exciting date than we're used to over the next year or so.
browns shouldve gotten more for Trent who was the 3rd pick overall..wow...especially if the colts were in the market...1st and future 3rd/4th rounder wouldve been decent...or a 1st and a 4th/ or 5th wouldve worked tooo
i think of what the browns could do with those picks but then i remember they are the browns.. the team that drafted a 28 year old qb in the first round and just gave up on a rb they took in the top 5 admitting that it was a failure.. now people seem extremely hyped over this as if the colts just landed peterson.. a coupe days ago i was listening to the radio and caught a cleveland caller, they were discussing richardson and how the browns missed this one.. the caller said he just didnt see what you want to see from a rb that was taken in his slot.. now for the colts, he could be good, we dont know, right now its just a big name tied to a high draft number..
more than anything...the issue is more of the Colts being able to have a legit ground game with a big RB...And after having lost Ballard for the rest of the season, this move is huge for this team...I dont how much it makes them better, but Trent was a beast at Bama
Should also mention to all the people that feel Cleveland got the better of the trade because they will now "be in a better position to draft a QB". Find out who will be doing the drafting for Cleveland. Oh yes, Mike Lombardi. Who was the last QB he drafted? Jamarcus Russell? Well I guess now he has more than enough picks to use on two QBs next year. Oh yeah, the Browns already had MORE THAN ENOUGH picks in next years draft.
I'm weak man. I don't understand the rationale some people have on this topic. Not saying the Colts are clear winners in this trade but the Browns were already going to get a top 5 pick in next years 1st round anyway (A QB filled draft). Why not hold onto Richardson, give him another year to develop (while drafting a RB with one of their multiple picks in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rd since we know it doesn't make much sense right now to draft a RB in the 1st), and draft whichever QB fits their fancy and falls to them in the top 5 picks(McCarron, Manziel, Bridgewater, Boyd, etc). Pair the QB with Richardson and if Richardson still shows no improvement next season, he loses his position to the RB drafted in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rd. The Colts came out slightly better in this trade(although missing out on a blue chip 1st rd OL to help out is not a good move) and the Browns not so much imo.
I think the Browns ripped off the Colts hard here. That Richardson was picked 3rd overall is irrelevant. The fact is that 1. Good running backs are easy to find 2. Arian Foster was undrafted, for instance 3. If you're going to spend a 1st rounder on a RB, he better be a complete game changer a la Adrian Peterson 4. Trent Richardson is not even close. Only 3 career runs > 20 yards. 3.5 YPC. Visual evidence shows he doesn't have lateral quickness or burst that changes games. His production is entirely from sheer volume. This reeks of desperation by Indy. Cleveland could easily replace Trent with a 3rd or 4th round pick and get equal production.
Well hopefully their new GM can do better than this: '99 Tim Couch '00 Courtney Brown '01 Gerard Warren '02 William Green '03 Jeff Faine '04 Kellen Winslow Jr '05 Braylon Edwards '06 Kamerion Wimbley '07 Joe Thomas '07 Brady Quinn '08 no 1st/2nd/3rd rd picks '09 Alex Mack '10 Joe Haden '11 Phil Taylor '12 Trent Richardson '12 Brandon Weedon '13 Barkevious Mingo
4. Maybe that had something to do with Cleveland having no threat of a passing game and teams loading up in the box to shut down Richardson. Things will be different for him in Indy because with Luck they have the ability to pick teams apart in the passing game and possess weapons like Wayne, Hilton and Fleener to do so. Richardson is going to line up there and after his first few carriers be surprised to see what life is like without 8 in the box.
As a colts fan I don't like this trade we need olineman and I heard he's injury prone by next year we will be back on top of the afc south
Have you considered that if Luck breaks an ankle or blows out a knee that Indy could fall like a rock and that pick wind up a top 6 pick?
QBs are easy to find, Tony Romo was undrafted for instance. RB success is largely tied to OL and the offense being ran. There are rare guys that can succeed either way. Workhorse RBs who can also catch the ball have plenty of value. I think he's a very similar player to Marshawn Lynch.
1.) Why is Cleveland's history relevant at all? It's an entirely new regime. That'd be like using Carroll Dawson and the Cato/Moochie/Taylor contracts as a guide for what Daryl Morey might do. Seems a bit silly, don't you think? 2.) If Cleveland doesn't or didn't know how to use draft picks, then why should we just assume that Trent Richardson is good? His stats certainly don't show it.
