@poeticg said:

No negativity towards him.....the Browns got a first round pick for him and hopefully we will actually get a good player with that pick. For that, we are thankful to him.

@osiris said:

True, but if you read that article you'll see even when the colts do open huge holes for him he makes the wrong choice, running into his linemen instead of the hole. He doesn't see holes of opportunity, ones that aren't where the play was designed to go.

The fact is, he's an average back with above average strength and below average vision who just happened to play behind an above average pffensive line.

There's a reason Ingram was touted as the next big thing in college, then TR, then Lacy, yet all prove to be mediocre after a year (excluding Lacy...so far).

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

"What he had in college" was an offensive line that was significantly better than every defensive line they faced.

So yeah, he did lose that,

Bama is a system offense. That system happens to be "dominate the trenches, have a QB who minimizes mistakes".

@osiris said:

Every NFL playbook has halfback dives, off tackle runs, and draw plays that are essentially the same. His problem isn't the playbook, it's his field vision.

In the pic below, Richardson took the yellow line.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/529f47106da811464e489190-960/trent-richardson-run.jpg

Source:http://www.businessinsider.com/trent-richardson-screenshot-2013-12

Here is a great post showing how he lost what he had in college.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1823324-the-deep-post-why-is-trent-richardson-struggling-so-mightily-with-the-colts

"What he had in college" was an offensive line that was significantly better than every defensive line they faced.

So yeah, he did lose that,

Bama is a system offense. That system happens to be "dominate the trenches, have a QB who minimizes mistakes".

@poeticg said:

Negativity towards Richardson is just plain dumb. He's a talented athlete that represented Cleveland and embraced playing here. His rookie year he was the lone bright spot on the offensive side of the ball. He would probably been more effective if not for the broken ribs he played through all season. Well, that and the fact that his carries were limited from taking him off the field during key moments. I seem to remember a number of games that we were leading at the half and then Shurmur for whatever reason stopped running the ball. Or would call a FB dive with a TE instead of letting the beast plough through the middle. I swear that was some of the worst play-calling in the history of offensive game-plans.I still think BAMFTR will be good in Indy. Despite what some people think, it's not that easy to learn an NFL offensive playbook, then the next year study a brand new playbook and before your 4th game find yourself having to learn an entirely different offensive playbook. He'll learn the system and terminology and he'll come out swinging in 2014 and if Cleveland can't manage to field a better product in the running game and/or the player taken at 26 then I feel we will have made a mistake. Now, if after this off-season Trent can't hack it in Indy with Andrew Luck then I'll say you were right. Until then...

In the pic below, Richardson took the yellow line.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/529f47106da811464e489190-960/trent-richardson-run.jpg

Source:http://www.businessinsider.com/trent-richardson-screenshot-2013-12

Here is a great post showing how he lost what he had in college.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1823324-the-deep-post-why-is-trent-richardson-struggling-so-mightily-with-the-colts

I once saw Frank Gore lick a pinecone and he's going to probably be a HOFer.

I still think BAMFTR will be good in Indy. Despite what some people think, it's not that easy to learn an NFL offensive playbook, then the next year study a brand new playbook and before your 4th game find yourself having to learn an entirely different offensive playbook. He'll learn the system and terminology and he'll come out swinging in 2014 and if Cleveland can't manage to field a better product in the running game and/or the player taken at 26 then I feel we will have made a mistake. Now, if after this off-season Trent can't hack it in Indy with Andrew Luck then I'll say you were right. Until then...

@mike-h said:

How is it possible that this thread could have gotten more pages than the Hot Cheerleaders section?

wow, you got too much time on your hands.

@mike-h said:

All??? While I favored other options at #4 (led by a trade down), I'll admit that early there was a period when I was also "open to" TR at #4. The quote below is from one of my later posts on his possible selection...

I have no idea who Rufio is... no idea of his credentials. I was looking for anything to rebut all the crap (PoG was) citing and up he popped in a Google. But he laid out logical, rational, unemotional case against drafting TR that rang true for me.

(The Rufalo article: http://www.dawgsbyna...not-draft-trent )

When we traded up to take TR, I went ballastic. We could have made the same mistake at #4...

@miktoxic said:

if manziel or bortles falls to us a 4 or 5 or wherever we are picking at fine, get the guy. i just don't understand all the hoopla when we got a guy returning from injury that everybody loved last year and now i guess he's just a piece of garbage that we toss into the streets.

I completely agree. I wouldn't trade up to get anyone.

anyhoo, i'm standing pat on my assesment of these QBs in THIS upcoming draft. in most years maybe one or 2 would get picked top ten, but with so many teams in need of a QB everyone of these guy's #'s all of a sudden look so great and hey we need a QB so.............

if the FO is in it for the long haul they should do well to prognosticate and look into the future and look who will be coming out next year. if you take a look at that list you might do some rethinking as to what we do with our first overall pick (hell a lot of mock drafts i've seen on these so-called draftnik sites have us taking carr with our first pick because manziel is already gone and clowney lasting all the way to #7, which goes to show me how much they know about this.....about as much as me or you) and maybe go for the monster DE or the play-making WR.

i'm an advocate of having a huge strong OL. i would prob go after OL with 2nd or 3rd pick and throw a RB in there. you know there are a lot of shortcomings on this team that need to be upgraded or at least given some help with depth.

if manziel or bortles falls to us a 4 or 5 or wherever we are picking at fine, get the guy. i just don't understand all the hoopla when we got a guy returning from injury that everybody loved last year and now i guess he's just a piece of garbage that we toss into the streets.

stay classy cleveland.

@mike-h said:

Hoorta- March 24, 2012

That's right PG. In today's NFL RBs don't mean very much. I've offered you proof- but you're still drinking the Richardson Kool-aid. Best since Peterson- yawn. The Vikes won fewer games than the Browns- got it?

Every top 10 rusher in the F**king NFL last year wasn't drafted as high as you're proposing to waste the #4 pick on. This guy ISN'T Jim Brown, he ISN'T Walter Payton, and if you think he is, you can put your crack pipe down right now. The only way we take Richardson is in a trade down.

Like I've said many times- not hating on Richardson- hating on drafting a RB way high. Recent NFL history says he won't have the immediate impact some people think he will.

The question I would pose is why draft a RB @ #4, when the top rushing list is currently populated by guys drafted far lower than that? If you think the guy is Jim Brown good- OK then. I'm not seeing it though.

MLD Woody- March 24, 2012

Cost analysis of what you would be getting from Richardson makes me think taking him at #4 is way to much to spend on him

Nickers- March 24, 2012

Put the crack pipe down dude...TR's are A DIME A DOZEN!! wait...Are you RGIII to CLE's lil brother...or worse yet...offspring?

Tim Couch Pulls Out- March 14, 2012

He won't be a Brown. He won't be in the league 10 years and he won't have one Pro Bowl, much less 10.

His on the field play isn't anything stellar. Most of his big hits are on defensive backs. He's not going to be half as effective in the NFL as he was in college, and most of his effectiveness in college was due to the fact he was playing for Alabama. He was outshone by his backup a couple times, just as he outshone Mark Ingram. Alabama has a very run-friendly system, RB's are flourishing there.

This is just ridiculous.

Miktoxic- March 14, 2012

you got to be insane to pick a running back at #4. big Fing deal he did this and that. how has peterson led the vikes to the SB?

That took two seconds to look up. I'm sure there were plenty of others.

There were many more TR detractors than there were TR fans pre-draft.

Finding the bright-side in a bad situation after the fact is a lot different than buying into the hype pre-draft.

@mike-h said:

@miktoxic said:

you weren't the only one. i was carrying the claiborne torch as well.

Mike, there were many, many so not on the Richardson bandwagon. Even Dumbtardi said it was stupid. Richadson may go down as the highest non-injury bust since Ryan Leaf.

@cdl15 said:

Yea we should give it back to them. ...... For their 2nd round and next yrs 1st

No let's just give it back plus our #4 for TR. We screwed up big.

@soju said:

26. 25 if San Diego wins tomorrow

@mike-h said:

you weren't the only one. i was carrying the claiborne torch as well.

@mike-h said:

Not me... I wanted Kahlil or Claiborne.