TRich Trade part duex
-
Dumb, Dumb, Dumb trade. Trent tied Jim Browns rookie rushing record with 9 TD's last season. What the fuck ever, spin it however you want, whatever makes you sleep better at night. The Browns sucked running the ball this year, not only did they suck but they were mad boring to watch try and run the ball. Obi, McGayhee, Wickerbasket and all the other crap that toted the ball were boring...
At least Richardson showed highlight material and was exciting to watch. Had they not traded Trent and instead just replaced Weeden with Hoyer before fucking everything up, we would probably have two more Probowlers in Richardson and Hoyer.
Dumb, Dumb, Dumb trade. Trent tied Jim Browns rookie rushing record with 9 TD's last season. What the fuck ever, spin it however you want, whatever makes you sleep better at night. The Browns sucked running the ball this year, not only did they suck but they were mad boring to watch try and run the ball. Obi, McGayhee, Wickerbasket and all the other crap that toted the ball were boring...
At least Richardson showed highlight material and was exciting to watch. Had they not traded Trent and instead just replaced Weeden with Hoyer before fucking everything up, we would probably have two more Probowlers in Richardson and Hoyer.
Just because they were boring to watch doesn't mean it was a bad trade. I didn't like the running game either this year, but it wouldn't have looked any better with TRich. It's called coaching and offensive game planning something we didn't have this year
-
There are two parts to the trade. The first part we won big time. We got way more for an over rated RB then we had any right to get. If the trade happened today, we could not get a first day pick for him. End of story no matter how much PG loves him.
The second part of the trade has yet to be written. If we get a flop, then it wasn't a good trade. If we get just a solid NFL starter, then it's a steal. If we get a pro bowl caliber player, then it's a rape.
-
Baker had some nice runs
-
There are two parts to the trade. The first part we won big time. We got way more for an over rated RB then we had any right to get. If the trade happened today, we could not get a first day pick for him. End of story no matter how much PG loves him.
The second part of the trade has yet to be written. If we get a flop, then it wasn't a good trade. If we get just a solid NFL starter, then it's a steal. If we get a pro bowl caliber player, then it's a rape.
If we get a flop, then it wasn't a good trade. If we get just a solid NFL starter, then it's a steal. If we get a pro bowl caliber player, then it's a rape.
100% agree we still need to see, but we have the ammo for a QB or any talented player on the board. The rape comparison made me lol for about 2 min. good post
-
the browns pick of a running back that high goes against everything that has been gleened from HOF coaches throughout history. you just don't do it (unless they are of a different caliber.....like an AP or a jamal charles etc.).
RBs are a dime a dozen and the fact that a guy coming off a practice squad or let go from another team can come in here and produce the same #'s as a guy we had to trade a pick away to move up in the draft to get him is proof enough.
and btw way, i wonder how TR and mark ingram looked so great in college and look so shitty in the NFL. COULD IT MAYBE BE THE OFFENSIVE LINE OF ALABAMA??
-
the browns pick of a running back that high goes against everything that has been gleened from HOF coaches throughout history. you just don't do it (unless they are of a different caliber.....like an AP or a jamal charles etc.).
RBs are a dime a dozen and the fact that a guy coming off a practice squad or let go from another team can come in here and produce the same #'s as a guy we had to trade a pick away to move up in the draft to get him is proof enough.
and btw way, i wonder how TR and mark ingram looked so great in college and look so shitty in the NFL. COULD IT MAYBE BE THE OFFENSIVE LINE OF ALABAMA??
and btw way, i wonder how TR and mark ingram looked so great in college and look so shitty in the NFL. COULD IT MAYBE BE THE OFFENSIVE LINE OF ALABAMA??
No...It couldn't be. Richardson would've been a pro bowler if we had kept him and he apparently just needs time to adjust to the Colts offense to turn into the 2nd coming of AP. Who the fuck knows about Ingram but he's very average as well.
Edwin Baker proved in the last two games that running backs are growing on trees out there and you just don't draft them high.
-
the browns pick of a running back that high goes against everything that has been gleened from HOF coaches throughout history. you just don't do it (unless they are of a different caliber.....like an AP or a jamal charles etc.).
RBs are a dime a dozen and the fact that a guy coming off a practice squad or let go from another team can come in here and produce the same #'s as a guy we had to trade a pick away to move up in the draft to get him is proof enough.
and btw way, i wonder how TR and mark ingram looked so great in college and look so shitty in the NFL. COULD IT MAYBE BE THE OFFENSIVE LINE OF ALABAMA??
-
I don't think I've ever heard people reference YPC as much as I have since the Richardson trade. In fact, I used to be one of the biggest fans of quoting this stat (during the Emmitt Smith/Barry Sanders years, and again during the Bettis era), and everyone told me that it didn't matter then. Not that fantasy football is a gauge for measuring real football, but some of us (myself included) used to think it was important enough to use as a fantasy stat. Eventually, though, more and more people disagreed, and it got phased out of the vast majority of leagues. If you bring up Trent Richardson, though, that's the first thing everyone wants to point to.
So, let's look at it. Here's an article that compares Richardson's rookie YPC to that of some other past backs:
http://www.footballperspective.com/why-trent-richardsons-3-6-ypc-average-does-not-matter/
As a short preview, it pretty much points out that a number of major running backs (LaDanian Tomlinson, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, etc.) had very similar low YPC years (Bettis actually had one year that was WAY lower), especially those who were thrust into the relatively unique situation that Richardson was in last year.
I'm willing to admit that Richardson is most likely not ever going to be the caliber of one of those backs. However, maybe we could ease up a little on suddenly treating YPC like it is the end-all-and-be-all of rushing statistics when we talk about Richardson (or any other back, really). Some other RBs have had poor YPC seasons and ended up doing pretty well for themselves.
-
I don't think I've ever heard people reference YPC as much as I have since the Richardson trade. In fact, I used to be one of the biggest fans of quoting this stat (during the Emmitt Smith/Barry Sanders years, and again during the Bettis era), and everyone told me that it didn't matter then. Not that fantasy football is a gauge for measuring real football, but some of us (myself included) used to think it was important enough to use as a fantasy stat. Eventually, though, more and more people disagreed, and it got phased out of the vast majority of leagues. If you bring up Trent Richardson, though, that's the first thing everyone wants to point to.
So, let's look at it. Here's an article that compares Richardson's rookie YPC to that of some other past backs:
http://www.footballperspective.com/why-trent-richardsons-3-6-ypc-average-does-not-matter/
As a short preview, it pretty much points out that a number of major running backs (LaDanian Tomlinson, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, etc.) had very similar low YPC years (Bettis actually had one year that was WAY lower), especially those who were thrust into the relatively unique situation that Richardson was in last year.
I'm willing to admit that Richardson is most likely not ever going to be the caliber of one of those backs. However, maybe we could ease up a little on suddenly treating YPC like it is the end-all-and-be-all of rushing statistics when we talk about Richardson (or any other back, really). Some other RBs have had poor YPC seasons and ended up doing pretty well for themselves.
I don't think I've ever heard people reference YPC as much as I have since the Richardson trade. In fact, I used to be one of the biggest fans of quoting this stat (during the Emmitt Smith/Barry Sanders years, and again during the Bettis era), and everyone told me that it didn't matter then. Not that fantasy football is a gauge for measuring real football, but some of us (myself included) used to think it was important enough to use as a fantasy stat. Eventually, though, more and more people disagreed, and it got phased out of the vast majority of leagues. If you bring up Trent Richardson, though, that's the first thing everyone wants to point to.
So, let's look at it. Here's an article that compares Richardson's rookie YPC to that of some other past backs:
http://www.footballperspective.com/why-trent-richardsons-3-6-ypc-average-does-not-matter/
As a short preview, it pretty much points out that a number of major running backs (LaDanian Tomlinson, Emmitt Smith, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, etc.) had very similar low YPC years (Bettis actually had one year that was WAY lower), especially those who were thrust into the relatively unique situation that Richardson was in last year.
I'm willing to admit that Richardson is most likely not ever going to be the caliber of one of those backs. However, maybe we could ease up a little on suddenly treating YPC like it is the end-all-and-be-all of rushing statistics when we talk about Richardson (or any other back, really). Some other RBs have had poor YPC seasons and ended up doing pretty well for themselves.
i for one do not consider those YPC #'s at all when looking at a RB.
it's what you gain from a hand-off. period.
-
What should we look at, then? What stats should Trent hang his hat on? His 458 yards on the season? His 3 TD's?
Should he hang his hat on his demotion?
I don't see why people are defending him. He just hasn't produced so far. He's, at the moment, just another Alabama runningback that benefitted from playing behind a fantastic line in college.
-
In the other thread I gave you both numbers. Total yards and yards per carry. He had basically the same number of yards rushing this season as McGahee/Fozzie Bear and also basically the same YPC.
The guy is very average and goddammit I hope the Chiefs beat the hell out of the Colts so we can get a higher pick.
-
Every player discussed on this board is either great and cuz they play for the browns, or they suck cuz they don't play for the browns (or are on the Brown's and have fallen out in the fans eyes). It doesn't seem like there is much grey area.
I'm surprised Trent didn't tear it up for the colts. It looks like it was a good trade for us, but it was never that good of a draft pick to begin with.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I don't know, I'd say that being the first Browns rookie to run for over 100 yards while scoring rushing and receiving TDs in the same game is kind of an accomplishment (since no other Browns rookie RB had). I think tying Jim Brown's franchise record for rushing TDs by a rookie was at least noteworthy. But honestly, neither of those things matter as much as just admitting that the Browns lost something when they let him go. Show me the Browns RB that ran for 950 yards and 9 TDs this year. No one? How about all together? No. How about twice the number of rushing TDs the Browns had this year; is that 9? Still no? Okay, then what does it hurt to say that yeah, the Browns rushing game was at least a little better off when Richardson was on the team? I don't understand why people are so unwilling to admit that. Instead, they get all defensive and yell, "His YPC sucks!"
I'm not saying that the guy is great, or even good. But to say that the team didn't lose anything by letting him go seems like it is going a little bit far. When the trade happened, people were convinced that any other RB could replace him and do a better job. Maybe Baker does turn out to be better, but we have to admit that Trent was not as immediately replaceable as people claimed. The organization was not able to just slide anyone into his place as soon as he left and reproduce his results.
Listen, you can say that Richardson isn't any good. You can say that he'll never be any good. But to say that the Cleveland running game didn't lose anything between last year and this year is just denial.
-
Based on that logic, I guess all the Chud threads are similarly useless.
-
Based on that logic, I guess all the Chud threads are similarly useless.
Based on that logic, I guess all the Chud threads are similarly useless.
The only difference is that Chud was just fired last night and Richardson has been gone since mid-September.
-
Right. I'll expect not to hear Chud's name after March, then. Oddly, I think I heard Mangini mentioned today... and Hoyer...
We were discussing the season that just ended and the events that occurred during that time. I didn't realize discussion of the Richardson trade that happened during the season being discussed and the future pick in which it resulted would be considered obsolete.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login