Jump to content

Trent richardson traded


panthers_2012

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I just realized the Colts have 4 RBs that can start.

Nicely done, nicely done.

Precisely...that's called certifiable depth.

The Colts made it known back before preseason that they wanted to build not just a running game, but a formidable one, to take some pressure off their young prize investment (Andrew Luck). And why not? A good rushing attack is a QB's best friend. (This is also what led to them carrying an actual fullback on their roster for the first time in some years.) Irsay, who's become quite twitter-happy lately, also made it known they wanted to target a "high-profile" rusher in free agency--most rumors back then centered around Maurice Jones-Drew, but even then (and I can't remember why) I remember Trent Richardson's name coming up in trade discussions. So it really didn't surprise me that he wound up in Indianapolis. And it makes perfect sense...they kinda envision Ahmad Bradshaw (who's pretty much accepted the backup role) as their late-game closer, with the others rotating in and out as needed, to keep them fresh and wear down opposing defenses as games wear down...pretty smart thinking, in my opinion.

Time and games to come will tell if that first-round choice was too much, but the fact that Indy was willing to part with it tells me they believe they have the core pieces in place to build, and remain, a complete team and a perennial contender. And why not? That squad had no business being anywhere near the postseason last year, and yet, there they were...and they overachieved like hell to get there, too, which says something about this team's character and fortitude. (Not to be lost in that is the ordeal they fought through last year with Chuck Pagano's lieukemia diagnosis--never underestimate the intangible spirit something like that can instill in a still-rather-young squad.) And, then there was Sunday--who saw the Colts going out west and straight up dominating the defending NFC champs on their own turf before yesterday? And yet, there they were...and they did primarily with defense, an area they've kinda struggled the first two games.

I know one thing, and not to steal Atlanta's motto from last year, but if they keep rising up like that, and if they can put some complete games together, you might, juuuuuust might, be looking at a sleeper contender-in-the-making to possibly make a deep postseason run.

(And is it me or does it seem that somewhere in the past year or two I've become more of a Colts fan than one of my own Buccaneers? Guess two-plus years of living straightin down the road from Lucas Oil had more of an effect on me than I realized...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, since acquiring Trent Richardson, the Colts are 3-0 with some solid wins. But other than punching the ball in after the other RBs on the roster spent the rest of the drive getting the ball inside the 10, Richardson has done pretty much nothing. I believe he's been a below average running back, likely average at best. His teammates have excelled.

The Colts made the trade before Bradshaw went down, so that can't be a defense of the trade, though now that the injury has occurred, they would need another running back. They wouldn't need to give up a 1st round pick just to get a decent backup, though.

Meanwhile, the Browns are also 3-0 since "giving up" on the season by trading their "best player". In fact, the Browns are tied for first in the AFC North.

This trade was great for the Browns. Even if Richardson becomes good (I just can't see him being great), it was still a great trade to get a first round pick. Now, they still need to draft wisely with the pick, but they're in great shape entering the draft.

We'll find out how good the Browns scout and analyze players for the draft. But as of now it seems their new regime knows what's it's doing with players already in the league.

The Colts may have a good enough roster that they can make this mistake and not ever need to regret it (though I don't think they're as good as their record and resume currently suggests), but it does seem to be a trade they rushed into and one that will leave them without the opportunity to fill a hole with a first round draft pick next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since acquiring Trent Richardson, the Colts are 3-0 with some solid wins. But other than punching the ball in after the other RBs on the roster spent the rest of the drive getting the ball inside the 10, Richardson has done pretty much nothing. I believe he's been a below average running back, likely average at best. His teammates have excelled.

The Colts made the trade before Bradshaw went down, so that can't be a defense of the trade, though now that the injury has occurred, they would need another running back. They wouldn't need to give up a 1st round pick just to get a decent backup, though.

Meanwhile, the Browns are also 3-0 since "giving up" on the season by trading their "best player". In fact, the Browns are tied for first in the AFC North.

This trade was great for the Browns. Even if Richardson becomes good (I just can't see him being great), it was still a great trade to get a first round pick. Now, they still need to draft wisely with the pick, but they're in great shape entering the draft.

We'll find out how good the Browns scout and analyze players for the draft. But as of now it seems their new regime knows what's it's doing with players already in the league.

The Colts may have a good enough roster that they can make this mistake and not ever need to regret it (though I don't think they're as good as their record and resume currently suggests), but it does seem to be a trade they rushed into and one that will leave them without the opportunity to fill a hole with a first round draft pick next season.

Can't say I agree that the deal was a mistake for the Colts. I thought it was a pretty shrewd move actually. My guess is the Colts figured they would be picking in the 15-25 range in the draft. They took a look at the board and, based on the personnel they have and their slot in the draft, decided that there really wasn't anyone in that range that jumped off the board at them. The probaby figured the talent level in the late first round wasn't significantly better than anyone they could get in round two. I don't think they brought Richardson in to be their number one RB. My guess is they thought he'd be a nice compliment to the RBs they already have. This may be one of those rare deal where both teams will benefit equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your reasoning and it's possible, but I really think what you laid out defines a bad move.

I think there's just a couple running backs in the league worth a first round draft pick. It's not a running league any more. So to trade a first round pick—ANY first round pick—for a depth running back?

It may not ever haunt the Colts, but I don't think that's the least bit shrewd. I think it's a reach.

Could be one of those moves that works out great despite being bad asset management, though. I'm switching sports, but that's what happened when the St. Louis Cardinals traded Colby Rasmus to Toronto. Horrible asset management, but it did the job they needed just enough for that season, and they had enough depth to never have to worry about it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was strange to see Richardson traded. But most of all I HATE the fact that they traded for a draft pick. I don't care if it's a first or seventh round. Also couldn't care less if we have 2 first round picks or 0. It doesn't help the team this year. Unless the Browns change the NFL rules and the draft is held in October, what good does it do? Building for the future you say? Pretty sure I've heard that every year since 99. To make matters worse, they want to trade Josh Gordon for yet another draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was strange to see Richardson traded. But most of all I HATE the fact that they traded for a draft pick. I don't care if it's a first or seventh round. Also couldn't care less if we have 2 first round picks or 0. It doesn't help the team this year. Unless the Browns change the NFL rules and the draft is held in October, what good does it do? Building for the future you say? Pretty sure I've heard that every year since 99. To make matters worse, they want to trade Josh Gordon for yet another draft pick.

Successful teams build through the draft. Pretending it doesn't matter or just regularly screwing things up gets you the Rams of the 2000s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was strange to see Richardson traded. But most of all I HATE the fact that they traded for a draft pick. I don't care if it's a first or seventh round. Also couldn't care less if we have 2 first round picks or 0. It doesn't help the team this year. Unless the Browns change the NFL rules and the draft is held in October, what good does it do? Building for the future you say? Pretty sure I've heard that every year since 99. To make matters worse, they want to trade Josh Gordon for yet another draft pick.

Successful teams build through the draft. Pretending it doesn't matter or just regularly screwing things up gets you the Rams of the 2000s.

Building through the draft gets you the Browns of 1999-now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was strange to see Richardson traded. But most of all I HATE the fact that they traded for a draft pick. I don't care if it's a first or seventh round. Also couldn't care less if we have 2 first round picks or 0. It doesn't help the team this year. Unless the Browns change the NFL rules and the draft is held in October, what good does it do? Building for the future you say? Pretty sure I've heard that every year since 99. To make matters worse, they want to trade Josh Gordon for yet another draft pick.

Successful teams build through the draft. Pretending it doesn't matter or just regularly screwing things up gets you the Rams of the 2000s.

Building through the draft gets you the Browns of 1999-now...

Yeah, the Cowboys sucked after trading away one of the best RBs in the game for a few draft picks back in the day. They'd have been much better off with Herschel Walker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was strange to see Richardson traded. But most of all I HATE the fact that they traded for a draft pick. I don't care if it's a first or seventh round. Also couldn't care less if we have 2 first round picks or 0. It doesn't help the team this year. Unless the Browns change the NFL rules and the draft is held in October, what good does it do? Building for the future you say? Pretty sure I've heard that every year since 99. To make matters worse, they want to trade Josh Gordon for yet another draft pick.

Successful teams build through the draft. Pretending it doesn't matter or just regularly screwing things up gets you the Rams of the 2000s.

Building through the draft gets you the Browns of 1999-now...

See the "regularly screwing things up" qualifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the Ravens, Steelers, and Packers. Look how quiet they are in free agency. And look at all the smart moves they make in the draft, they pick the prospects that they like, if none are available, they'll move down and stockpile picks. That's how you build an NFL team. Teams like the Browns and Jaguars will suck and always will suck until they can change the way they draft. FA signings only get you so much, the draft provides so much more, depth, prosperity, a future. And teams like the Jags and Browns consistently throw that away each year by making idiotic picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

With the news that Trent Richardson may finally live up to his predicted fame, even if it is the Kim Kardashian route, I thought maybe we could re-visit this.

More and more the consensus seems to be that this was a bad to awful trade for the Colts, and a nice job by the Browns new regime of salvaging something from an awful mistake by the old regime.

Granted, everyone will give you the caveat that Richardson is still only midway through his second full season and has still only played 7 games with his new time, and behind a line that has proven to be increasingly poor and lacking in depth. It'd be silly to completely write the guy off forever.

But I can't imagine the Colts will feel very good next April when they have no first round pick for which to prepare.

Personally, I think the Colts have the backs to have a solid running game in Ballard and Brown. (Bradshaw is solid too, but I don't imagine the Colts will bring him back.) And you can always find a pretty good back in the mid-to-late rounds of the draft. You just have to try a few. One usually will pan out.

At 4-5 (4-3 since the trade), the Browns remain within striking distance of winning their mediocre division. At 6-3, the Colts will most likely hang on to win there's. But if the Colts can't make a deep run, it's hard to imagine them not feeling pretty bleak about the trade. They, of course, can hope that Richardson pans out at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was strange to see Richardson traded. But most of all I HATE the fact that they traded for a draft pick. I don't care if it's a first or seventh round. Also couldn't care less if we have 2 first round picks or 0. It doesn't help the team this year. Unless the Browns change the NFL rules and the draft is held in October, what good does it do? Building for the future you say? Pretty sure I've heard that every year since 99. To make matters worse, they want to trade Josh Gordon for yet another draft pick.

Successful teams build through the draft. Pretending it doesn't matter or just regularly screwing things up gets you the Rams of the 2000s.

Building through the draft gets you the Browns of 1999-now...

Yeah, the Cowboys sucked after trading away one of the best RBs in the game for a few draft picks back in the day. They'd have been much better off with Herschel Walker.

ive always wondered what would happened if the cowboys didn't do that trade and stuck with Herschel Walker. Would they have had the same amount of success? What would have Walker's numbers looked like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.