Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. The Browns Board
  3. TRich Trade part duex

TRich Trade part duex

The Browns Board
44 18 2.0k

  • Baker had better runs in his two games than Richardson had in his two games this year with the Browns.

    👍

  • Dion Lewis and Baker are better than Trent in every single way. Trent will be out of the NFL before the start of what should be his 6th season.

  • D BoneD D Bone

    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.

    @d-bone said:

    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??

    Mark OM D BoneD 2 Replies
  • miktoxicM miktoxic

    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??

    @miktoxic said:

    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.

  • miktoxicM miktoxic

    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??

    @miktoxic said:

    the browns pick of a running back that high goes against everything that has been gleened from HOF coaches throughout history.

    "There's a gleen men, there's a gleen....Let's get the gleen"

    The GipperT 1 Reply

  • 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.

    miktoxicM Tour2maT 2 Replies
  • S Spectralcow

    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.

    @spectralcow said:

    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.

  • Trent sucks. He lacks vision and dances behind the line of scrimmage because of it. I don't care what his shitty YPC is. He is awful.

  • 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.

    I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
    👍

  • 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!
    The GipperT 1 Reply

  • 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.

  • Another useless Trent thread. He's gone and hopefully we'll be better for it after the draft.

  • Based on that logic, I guess all the Chud threads are similarly useless.

  • S Spectralcow

    Based on that logic, I guess all the Chud threads are similarly useless.

    @spectralcow said:

    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.

  • mangini.

    heard it again?

    her's what i posted in the other TR thread earlier.........

    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??

  • Are we seriously still going on about Richardson? He will be a serviceable back behind a good line, and will get his fair share of touchdowns - he did in his first season, after all. But, does that make him a first round pick? No, you can find guys like that later on in the draft.

    He was better than any RB we had healthy this season (although Baker might be close), but that's not saying much given the crock that we had to put up with. So yes, our run game suffered because of him. But we'll be better off as a team with the first round pick than with him, assuming it's used well.

  • Baker looked better than Richardson.

Log in to reply