NFL '13 SEASON THREAD

[Sport]

Yeah, the more I think about this myself, the more I don't think the trade is bad as much as it was the pick was bad (admittedly, the work of a prior regime). Just look at last year's draft class again. Trent Richardson went #3. Alfred Morris went, like, #199. Productive running backs can be byproduct's of offensive systems and lines as much as their own physical abilities. The need to take a running back so high simply doesn't exist anymore.

It makes some sense from a football perspective, but on the PR side of things this is a horrible move.

They're telling the fans that they're giving up on this season and they're only two games in so it feels rash. This tells the fans they're giving up on the rebuild they were already in which the fans were promised by the last regime would be the end of the losing. Giving up and starting over yet again means it'll be another 3 to 4 years until they're competitive again if everything goes right, and there's no reason for them to be optimistic that things go right. On top of that these people are in their 13th crappy season (out of 15) since the team came back so they're a little impatient.

And if they made no move, it would still be 3-4 years because they do not have a QB! That is why I like this trade. In life, you have to take risks.

I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above. Trent Richardson's WAR probably wouldn't add any wins to this Browns team so they'd still draft in the top 3. That's where they get their QB of the future, don't further incite the fanbase, and then after that you trade Trent Richardson for an early 2nd round pick after the season.

The difference between the 20th pick in the draft and the 36th is negligible.

[vmd9]

Lombardi wants draft picks to rebuild.

So far, they will have 2 in the 1st round, 1 in the 2nd, and 2 in the 3rd in 2014.

YOU DON'T TRADE YOUR 2012 #3 OVERALL PICK IN 2013 FOR A PICK IN THE 20S WHEN YOU'RE REBUILDING

SERIOUSLY WHAT THE IS HE GOING TO DO AT 25 THAT'S BETTER THAN TRENT RICHARDSON?

WE'VE BEEN REBUILDING FOR 10 GODDAMN YEARS NOW IT'D BE NICE TO SEE THE TEAM ACTUALLY :censored:ING TRY TO WIN EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE

Sunk. Costs. You also don't draft an RB #3 overall in today's NFL regardless of his pedigree and potential because they get hurt too easily. So the issue is more "Mike Holmgren is a dumbarse" than Lombardi.

Ultimately though, the Browns were either going to get Bridgewater or Manziel (who I guess Lombardi's high on?)

The 2014 Draft Class will have others as draft eligible:

CLEM-Taj Boyd (whom Chudzinski has seen a lot at Clemson when he worked for the Panthers)

UCLA- Brett Hundley (works in the Pistol and is 6'3")

ALA- AJ McCarron (still knows how to play and win under pressure)

ORE- Marcus Mariota (The Ducks are passing more this year)

MIA- Stephen Morris (big time arm)

H#ll, they could also use a lower pick on Washington's Keith Price as a future alternative.

It depends on what Chudzinski and Norv (if he last to year #2) want to put in place. What we do know is that RBs have a low shelf life and now less importance in the 2013 NFL.

Browns will look through all the QB's available and find the worst one of the bunch. Draft him or her, then act like they are the next coming of Otto Graham. That QB will suck horribly and we will be having this same conversation again after they get traded away for more draft picks.

This has been the cycle since 1999. I expect nothing different.

[dfwabel]

Yeah, the more I think about this myself, the more I don't think the trade is bad as much as it was the pick was bad (admittedly, the work of a prior regime). Just look at last year's draft class again. Trent Richardson went #3. Alfred Morris went, like, #199. Productive running backs can be byproduct's of offensive systems and lines as much as their own physical abilities. The need to take a running back so high simply doesn't exist anymore.

It makes some sense from a football perspective, but on the PR side of things this is a horrible move.

They're telling the fans that they're giving up on this season and they're only two games in so it feels rash. This tells the fans they're giving up on the rebuild they were already in which the fans were promised by the last regime would be the end of the losing. Giving up and starting over yet again means it'll be another 3 to 4 years until they're competitive again if everything goes right, and there's no reason for them to be optimistic that things go right. On top of that these people are in their 13th crappy season (out of 15) since the team came back so they're a little impatient.

And if they made no move, it would still be 3-4 years because they do not have a QB! That is why I like this trade. In life, you have to take risks.

I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above. Trent Richardson's WAR probably wouldn't add any wins to this Browns team so they'd still draft in the top 3. That's where they get their QB of the future, don't further incite the fanbase, and then after that you trade Trent Richardson for an early 2nd round pick after the season.

The difference between the 20th pick in the draft and the 36th is negligible.

Because draft picks and salaries are slotted, the need to acquire assets is more important and both Banner and Lombardi are from the school in which draft pick have more value than others.

Using the same GM-speak of "Four to Five Year Plan" which people have heard since 1983 is no longer viable in today's NFL. Take risks to get good quickly and then in this regime's case, the new TV money will kick in after 2015.

[infrared41]

McCarthy said: I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above.

Over the years, I've managed to learn to speak a little dfwabel-ese. What he's saying is that by trading Trent Richardson, the CNF is sending a message to Ohio High School football teams. That message is telling them that the days of run oriented offenses are over. As a result, it is in the best interest of Ohio High School football teams to adjust their offenses accordingly because Nebraska hired Bill Callahan.

I know, now it makes perfect sense, right?

[Sport]

Yeah, the more I think about this myself, the more I don't think the trade is bad as much as it was the pick was bad (admittedly, the work of a prior regime). Just look at last year's draft class again. Trent Richardson went #3. Alfred Morris went, like, #199. Productive running backs can be byproduct's of offensive systems and lines as much as their own physical abilities. The need to take a running back so high simply doesn't exist anymore.

It makes some sense from a football perspective, but on the PR side of things this is a horrible move.

They're telling the fans that they're giving up on this season and they're only two games in so it feels rash. This tells the fans they're giving up on the rebuild they were already in which the fans were promised by the last regime would be the end of the losing. Giving up and starting over yet again means it'll be another 3 to 4 years until they're competitive again if everything goes right, and there's no reason for them to be optimistic that things go right. On top of that these people are in their 13th crappy season (out of 15) since the team came back so they're a little impatient.

And if they made no move, it would still be 3-4 years because they do not have a QB! That is why I like this trade. In life, you have to take risks.

I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above. Trent Richardson's WAR probably wouldn't add any wins to this Browns team so they'd still draft in the top 3. That's where they get their QB of the future, don't further incite the fanbase, and then after that you trade Trent Richardson for an early 2nd round pick after the season.

The difference between the 20th pick in the draft and the 36th is negligible.

Because draft picks and salaries are slotted, the need to acquire assets is more important and both Banner and Lombardi are from the school in which draft pick have more value than others.

I addressed that. The Colts' pick you're getting won't be that good of a pick and I think there's more value in getting a 2nd round pick for Richardson after the season and not angering your already impatient fanbase than there is in getting a pick in the low 20's.

[Lights Out]

Can someone explain to me why everyone's overreacting to the Browns trading an injury-prone running back who only put up 3.4 YPA in Cleveland behind a better O-line than what he'll have in Indy? If anything, I think the Colts overpaid. He'd better start living up to his draft position quickly or this trade will haunt the Colts for a long time.

[dfwabel]

Yeah, the more I think about this myself, the more I don't think the trade is bad as much as it was the pick was bad (admittedly, the work of a prior regime). Just look at last year's draft class again. Trent Richardson went #3. Alfred Morris went, like, #199. Productive running backs can be byproduct's of offensive systems and lines as much as their own physical abilities. The need to take a running back so high simply doesn't exist anymore.

It makes some sense from a football perspective, but on the PR side of things this is a horrible move.

They're telling the fans that they're giving up on this season and they're only two games in so it feels rash. This tells the fans they're giving up on the rebuild they were already in which the fans were promised by the last regime would be the end of the losing. Giving up and starting over yet again means it'll be another 3 to 4 years until they're competitive again if everything goes right, and there's no reason for them to be optimistic that things go right. On top of that these people are in their 13th crappy season (out of 15) since the team came back so they're a little impatient.

And if they made no move, it would still be 3-4 years because they do not have a QB! That is why I like this trade. In life, you have to take risks.

I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above. Trent Richardson's WAR probably wouldn't add any wins to this Browns team so they'd still draft in the top 3. That's where they get their QB of the future, don't further incite the fanbase, and then after that you trade Trent Richardson for an early 2nd round pick after the season.

The difference between the 20th pick in the draft and the 36th is negligible.

Because draft picks and salaries are slotted, the need to acquire assets is more important and both Banner and Lombardi are from the school in which draft pick have more value than others.

I addressed that. The Colts' pick you're getting won't be that good of a pick and I think there's more value in getting a 2nd round pick for Richardson after the season and not angering your already impatient fanbase than there is in getting a pick in the low 20's.

Not if you poll your pick and the IND pick to get either #1 or #2 overall.

And of you are poor enough to get either #1 or #2 on your 2013 record, you can use the IND pick to get help on the OL or DL. Look at how many OL went in Round 1 in the 2013 Draft who are now starting.

You do not like risk, I get that. However, as 'LightsOut' and 'SeeRed' have stated with me earlier, RBs have less and less value.

[Sport]

Yeah, the more I think about this myself, the more I don't think the trade is bad as much as it was the pick was bad (admittedly, the work of a prior regime). Just look at last year's draft class again. Trent Richardson went #3. Alfred Morris went, like, #199. Productive running backs can be byproduct's of offensive systems and lines as much as their own physical abilities. The need to take a running back so high simply doesn't exist anymore.

It makes some sense from a football perspective, but on the PR side of things this is a horrible move.

They're telling the fans that they're giving up on this season and they're only two games in so it feels rash. This tells the fans they're giving up on the rebuild they were already in which the fans were promised by the last regime would be the end of the losing. Giving up and starting over yet again means it'll be another 3 to 4 years until they're competitive again if everything goes right, and there's no reason for them to be optimistic that things go right. On top of that these people are in their 13th crappy season (out of 15) since the team came back so they're a little impatient.

And if they made no move, it would still be 3-4 years because they do not have a QB! That is why I like this trade. In life, you have to take risks.

I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above. Trent Richardson's WAR probably wouldn't add any wins to this Browns team so they'd still draft in the top 3. That's where they get their QB of the future, don't further incite the fanbase, and then after that you trade Trent Richardson for an early 2nd round pick after the season.

The difference between the 20th pick in the draft and the 36th is negligible.

Because draft picks and salaries are slotted, the need to acquire assets is more important and both Banner and Lombardi are from the school in which draft pick have more value than others.

I addressed that. The Colts' pick you're getting won't be that good of a pick and I think there's more value in getting a 2nd round pick for Richardson after the season and not angering your already impatient fanbase than there is in getting a pick in the low 20's.

Not if you poll your pick and the IND pick to get either #1 or #2 overall.

And of you are poor enough to get either #1 or #2 on your 2013 record, you can use the IND pick to get help on the OL or DL. Look at how many OL went in Round 1 in the 2013 Draft who are now starting.

You do not like risk, I get that. However, as 'LightsOut' and 'SeeRed' have stated with me earlier, RBs have less and less value.

Nobody is trading their #1 pick since the rookie pay scale. That doesn't happen anymore. Besides, the Browns might get the #1 anyways and with as bad as they were they may have gotten it with Trent Richardson on the team.

I'm saying the difference between the Indy pick and a hypothetical second round pick for Richardson after the season so as not to further anger an already damaged fanbase are almost negligible.

I understand RB's have less value. I have never said anything to the contrary. I don't know what you're talking about in regards to risk. I don't see any real risk in this deal from the Browns point of view other than being a terrible public relations move.

[Sport]

McCarthy said: I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above.

Over the years, I've managed to learn to speak a little dfwabel-ese. What he's saying is that by trading Trent Richardson, the CNF is sending a message to Ohio High School football teams. That message is telling them that the days of run oriented offenses are over. As a result, it is in the best interest of Ohio High School football teams to adjust their offenses accordingly because Nebraska hired Bill Callahan.

I know, now it makes perfect sense, right?

I'll tell my cousins' high school coach at Hilliard Davidson that despite winning two of the last 5 D1 state championships to stop running the single-wing formation because running backs have less value in the NFL now.

[CS85]

Can someone explain to me why everyone's overreacting to the Browns trading an injury-prone running back who only put up 3.4 YPA in Cleveland behind a better O-line than what he'll have in Indy? If anything, I think the Colts overpaid.

The issue is not is Trent Richardson, it's trading a 3rd overall pick (that you traded up to acquire) so quickly.

Oddly enough the primary reason they traded Richardson wasn't that they didn't believe he could be a great runner, it was because Brandon Weeden is clearly not the answer. From what I've seen of Weeden he's got a few intangibles that are really positive but whatever it is, he doesn't have it.

TRich has looked fairly pedestrian as a Brown (which is arguable, considering the offensive line/scheme/etc) and will probably be awesome as a Colt, but Tony Rizzo made a good point on ESPN radio earlier today: The Browns were going to be 3-13 with or without Richardson, might as well have the draft pick and dive into the pits of football hell for a season. Suck for Luck worked and led to a very quick turnaround for the Colts.

The Browns have obviously been doing this for years but with a new coach who they want to keep around for awhile (and who most people generally like) and a couple keystone pieces on offense and defense, what they need is continuity and a QB to build around that's not pushing 30. They have a TON of problems, obviously, but with a sparkplug QB and a gutsy draft there's a chance. There's a chance. At least...that's what they hope.

I've been trying to gauge the response from around the net and radio stations, and it's almost entirely 50/50.

I can't wait to talk about this tomorrow on the show.

[dfwabel]

Yeah, the more I think about this myself, the more I don't think the trade is bad as much as it was the pick was bad (admittedly, the work of a prior regime). Just look at last year's draft class again. Trent Richardson went #3. Alfred Morris went, like, #199. Productive running backs can be byproduct's of offensive systems and lines as much as their own physical abilities. The need to take a running back so high simply doesn't exist anymore.

It makes some sense from a football perspective, but on the PR side of things this is a horrible move.

They're telling the fans that they're giving up on this season and they're only two games in so it feels rash. This tells the fans they're giving up on the rebuild they were already in which the fans were promised by the last regime would be the end of the losing. Giving up and starting over yet again means it'll be another 3 to 4 years until they're competitive again if everything goes right, and there's no reason for them to be optimistic that things go right. On top of that these people are in their 13th crappy season (out of 15) since the team came back so they're a little impatient.

And if they made no move, it would still be 3-4 years because they do not have a QB! That is why I like this trade. In life, you have to take risks.

I don't know what you're talking about with high school football so I'm just going to address the point above. Trent Richardson's WAR probably wouldn't add any wins to this Browns team so they'd still draft in the top 3. That's where they get their QB of the future, don't further incite the fanbase, and then after that you trade Trent Richardson for an early 2nd round pick after the season.

The difference between the 20th pick in the draft and the 36th is negligible.

Because draft picks and salaries are slotted, the need to acquire assets is more important and both Banner and Lombardi are from the school in which draft pick have more value than others.

I addressed that. The Colts' pick you're getting won't be that good of a pick and I think there's more value in getting a 2nd round pick for Richardson after the season and not angering your already impatient fanbase than there is in getting a pick in the low 20's.

Not if you poll your pick and the IND pick to get either #1 or #2 overall.

And of you are poor enough to get either #1 or #2 on your 2013 record, you can use the IND pick to get help on the OL or DL. Look at how many OL went in Round 1 in the 2013 Draft who are now starting.

You do not like risk, I get that. However, as 'LightsOut' and 'SeeRed' have stated with me earlier, RBs have less and less value.

Nobody is trading their #1 pick since the rookie pay scale. That doesn't happen anymore. Besides, the Browns might get the #1 anyways and with as bad as they were they may have gotten it with Trent Richardson on the team.

I'm saying the difference between the Indy pick and a hypothetical second round pick for Richardson after the season so as not to further anger an already damaged fanbase are almost negligible.

I understand RB's have less value. I have never said anything to the contrary. I don't know what you're talking about in regards to risk. I don't see any real risk in this deal from the Browns point of view other than being a terrible public relations move.

Last year, MIA moved up from 12 to 3 to get Dion Jordan.

In 2012, WAS moved up from 6 to 2 to get RGIII, which is why I stated that having an extra #1 is just gravy if CLE happens to actually finish with pick #1 or #2, but still having so many picks will assist them in the off-season.

In 2011, ATL used #27 overall in a package with CLE for #6 (Julio Jones).

Picks in the first 100 matter greatly especially when CLE has little dead money for 2014 and 2015.

[CS85]

This trade is actually growing on me hour-by-hour, but the ownership and president/etc need to seriously address season ticket holders. There are 7 home games left and to come out in week 2 with an ambigiously-worded mission statement for 2014: The Year We Do Things Maybe Heh Heh, STH's are pretty much sitting on tickets with zero demand.

With a team that's only going to get further dismantled in the coming weeks, at least on offense, why piss on fans who are already drenched in gallons of urine from regimes past? Offer them something, anything to acknowledge the situation and make them feel special for paying them all that money.

Watching the press conference with Banner and Chud, Banner comes off as kind of a turd. I like Chud, but they need to keep Joe Banner away from the microhone. His wheezy cackles in between media questions are really condescending. For an 0-2 team that is begging to go 0-16, he should act like he's attending a funeral, not buying a lottery ticket.

[infrared41]

This trade is actually growing on me hour-by-hour, but the ownership and president/etc need to seriously address season ticket holders. There are 7 home games left and to come out in week 2 with an ambigiously-worded mission statement for 2014: The Year We Do Things Maybe Heh Heh, STH's are pretty much sitting on tickets with zero demand.

With a team that's only going to get further dismantled in the coming weeks, at least on offense, why piss on fans who are already drenched in gallons of urine from regimes past? Offer them something, anything to acknowledge the situation and make them feel special for paying them all that money.

Watching the press conference with Banner and Chud, Banner comes off as kind of a turd. I like Chud, but they need to keep Joe Banner away from the microhone. His wheezy cackles in between media questions are really condescending. For an 0-2 team that is begging to go 0-16, he should act like he's attending a funeral, not buying a lottery ticket.

As a pure football deal, it's a good trade. It's the timing that's the problem. They couldn't have done this deal in the offseason or preseason even? Hell, Richardson probably had more value then. If you're in rebuild mode, don't wait until week three to say so. That's my biggest problem with the deal.

[dfwabel]

This trade is actually growing on me hour-by-hour, but the ownership and president/etc need to seriously address season ticket holders. There are 7 home games left and to come out in week 2 with an ambigiously-worded mission statement for 2014: The Year We Do Things Maybe Heh Heh, STH's are pretty much sitting on tickets with zero demand.

With a team that's only going to get further dismantled in the coming weeks, at least on offense, why piss on fans who are already drenched in gallons of urine from regimes past? Offer them something, anything to acknowledge the situation and make them feel special for paying them all that money.

Watching the press conference with Banner and Chud, Banner comes off as kind of a turd. I like Chud, but they need to keep Joe Banner away from the microhone. His wheezy cackles in between media questions are really condescending. For an 0-2 team that is begging to go 0-16, he should act like he's attending a funeral, not buying a lottery ticket.

As a pure football deal, it's a good trade. It's the timing that's the problem. They couldn't have done this deal in the offseason or preseason even? Hell, Richardson probably had more value then. If you're in rebuild mode, don't wait until week three to say so. That's my biggest problem with the deal.

However he (Richardson) was injured prior to Week 8, he would not have the value he has now. That's the front office risk they had to take.

[CS85]

Obviously the timing is weird, but it's not like they can control the timing of a good offer. I don't think they expected to get a 1st rounder back for him, and with the Colts saying "this is as good as it'll get"/#DrunkJimIrsay," might as well make the move.

I'm not defending the Browns by any means - I personally wouldn't have made the trade - but this is only, ONLY worth it if it results in them getting a true franchise quarterback. If they don't have that player by next year then this is all for naught.

If I'm a Browns fan, I'm restless until the conclusion of the 2014 offseason. They have the talent on defense to be a damn good team, but the offense needs heart surgery. It can be done in a single offseason, whether or not this regime has the competency to execute it remains to be seen.

What irks me is the swagger of their GM. Reminds me of Jerry Angelo, and in no way is that complimentary.

[Greg_Fryman]

I think one of the facts that people are over looking is the exponential difference in the passing games while Richardson was in Cleveland defenses could focus almost solely on him due to there extinct passing game. Now in Indy with Luck running the show I believe he will shine and prove how incredibly stupid this trade was for Cleveland (a team that is supposed to be rebuilding). And my regards to any packers fans out there....... WHO DEY!!!!!!!!!!!

[ESTONES6]

Personally, I think the Colts wayyy overpaid for Richardson... and I am a big Richardson supporter/fan. By stats alone, he has been a complete disapointment. That being said, when you actually look at the film, its hard to take stuff away from Richardson when he gets hit in the backfield 50% of his touches, and the O-Line gets pushed back in to him on 25% of the rest of the carries...

The Colts see Richardson as a much better back than anything they have on their current roster. They see a back who can pass protect and catch the ball out of the backfield, which will be a tremendous weapon for Luck and the Colts' offense.

I think if fans look at it strictly from a football perspective, there wouldn't be as much anger/hate/disgust etc. But in Cleveland, we aren't logical, we are passionate. The fan base sees that we traded a RB that everyone loved, that everyone thought had a high cieling. They see we benched one of our starting WRs, and now our starting QB and starting RB (Willis McGehee pending a physical) for Week 3 will be unsigned free agents.

The fan base, as passionate/dumb as they are, was already growing upset with the Browns organization. We finally thought there would be stability in the franchise. Its one of those things that you cant really explain to fans here because we have been hearing "rebuilding" for the last 13 years. The same idea rings true for why starting Hoyer makes more sense than Campbell. But fans dont want to hear it. They just hear that Lombardi liked Hoyer, so Lombardi made the decision from his Berea Office.

[NJTank]

I dont think the Colts overpaid at all, this is a hell of a deal for them. Now if they did not already have a franchise QB it would not be as good, but with Luck and T.Y. Hilton they now have triplets with the addition of Trent RIchardson. I predict the Colts will win a Super Bowl with in the next five years. The Browns meanwhile will still be the Browns. They draft Quarterbacks and get rid of them quickly and giving up on a 3rd overall pick a 22 year old back is just a sign this team has no plan. Their new owner may be going to club fed, and they scrap their team every three years. New coach new GM etc etc. This is why this is a bad deal for the Browns, because you can not give them benefit of the doubt that this time they will get it right. I mean come on third overall Ryan Tannehill was there, Russell WIlson was there. Wilson was even there at #22 where they drafted Weeden. There is another thing Brandon Weeden, he was 28 years old, why did they think he could be the solution at Quarterback? Kirk Cousins would have been a better pick there, or Wilson of course. How many times have the Browns drafted a franchise QB in the first round and given up on him after less than two years. That is the issue that is why this team is always rebuilding.

Sure Running Backs come and go these days but you picked him #3, and you were going to pick in the top 10 any way, why do this now? I just don't get the Browns plans at all.

[ESTONES6]

I dont think the Colts overpaid at all, this is a hell of a deal for them. Now if they did not already have a franchise QB it would not be as good, but with Luck and T.Y. Hilton they now have triplets with the addition of Trent RIchardson. I predict the Colts will win a Super Bowl with in the next five years. The Browns meanwhile will still be the Browns. They draft Quarterbacks and get rid of them quickly and giving up on a 3rd overall pick a 22 year old back is just a sign this team has no plan. Their new owner may be going to club fed, and they scrap their team every three years. New coach new GM etc etc. This is why this is a bad deal for the Browns, because you can not give them benefit of the doubt that this time they will get it right. I mean come on third overall Ryan Tannehill was there, Russell WIlson was there. Wilson was even there at #22 where they drafted Weeden. There is another thing Brandon Weeden, he was 28 years old, why did they think he could be the solution at Quarterback? Kirk Cousins would have been a better pick there, or Wilson of course. How many times have the Browns drafted a franchise QB in the first round and given up on him after less than two years. That is the issue that is why this team is always rebuilding.

Sure Running Backs come and go these days but you picked him #3, and you were going to pick in the top 10 any way, why do this now? I just don't get the Browns plans at all.

But Banner/Lombardi et al DIDN'T pick Richardson nor did they pick Weeden. That was a knee jerk reaction by the last regime who saw a new owner and President coming to town and where making a last ditch effort to save their jobs.

To say that they didn't overpay for Richardson is almost a foolish statement. Sure they have a tremndous pedigree at the skill positions now, but last time I checked, their O-Line is terrible and their defense is in the bottome half of nearly every statistical category. You can't tell me that a pick in the 20-25 range would not have upgraded their team.

Most starters garner 3rd round picks when traded, even when they have more production than Richardson. Richardson has had production, but 1,000 yards in 17 games? That's hardly enough to puff your chest out. He has had 3-4 injuries and he has barely played one season in the NFL. Believe me, I like the guy and I'd rather have him on the field than traded, but to give up a first round pick - regardless if he was a 3rd over all pick or not - on a guy who has had limited production is not a steal for the Colts.

Now, if you want to say that they didn't overpay for him because they were depleated at running back. Or because even with a healthy group of RBs, Richardson would still be the best on the roster, then sure. Then you can say they didnt over pay, because they were filling a need, a desperate need - even though the need could have been filled later on in the draft.

[Burkell007]

To all who say Richardson will flourish with the colts, just rembemer this: if they can't protect luck, how are they gonna open holes for the running game??