Skip to content

TRich Trade part duex

The Browns Board
44 18 2.0k
  • 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.

  • @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"

    @d-bone said:

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

    Unhm....its "gleam".

  • 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.

    @mld-woody said:

    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.

    No, they are great because they played for Ohio St. or they suck because they played for Michigan.

    I mean, that is why Braylon Edwards was such a failure....he was a Wolverine!

    (What's that you say....what about Brian Robiskie? Quit disturbing my delusion with facts will you?)

  • 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 ...

    Please stop...

  • @d-bone said:

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

    Unhm....its "gleam".

    @the-gipper said:

    Unhm....its "gleam".

    Yes, I know. It was a stab at humor, that bounced off your Kevlar chest............

  • We all freaked out after the Trent Richardson trade, but so far it seems to be working out for us (As long as Indy doesn't win the SB). I wouldn't be so quick to judge what is going on with the coaching staff and how this is going to play out either. i personally like what we have been doing "Not Accepting Failure". Haslem is changing the Browns for the better by saying enough is enough, we want wins and if that means firing a coach that was in more games this year then we've been in since 2007 then fire his ass. Lerner would have let this snowball into a bigger mess then it already is. I didn't see a great HC in Chud anyway, we need a winner who doesn't accept failure just like our owner

    Agree... YPC is valid and more than backed up in this case by the eye test.

    @browns616 said:

    ... if that means firing a coach that was in more games this year then we've been in since 2007 then fire his ass.

    Look at what you wrote. You are happy we fired the guy that had the team in more games? Brilliant!

    @spectralcow said:

    To be clear, I'm not saying that it WON'T turn out better...

    Take a fucking stand will you?

    @poeticg said:

    Dumb, Dumb, Dumb trade. Trent tied Jim Browns rookie rushing record with 9 TD's last season.

    Sorry to see you've relapsed...

  • Agree... YPC is valid and more than backed up in this case by the eye test.

    @browns616 said:

    ... if that means firing a coach that was in more games this year then we've been in since 2007 then fire his ass.

    Look at what you wrote. You are happy we fired the guy that had the team in more games? Brilliant!

    @spectralcow said:

    To be clear, I'm not saying that it WON'T turn out better...

    Take a fucking stand will you?

    @poeticg said:

    Dumb, Dumb, Dumb trade. Trent tied Jim Browns rookie rushing record with 9 TD's last season.

    Sorry to see you've relapsed...

    @tour2ma said:

    Sorry to see you've relapsed...

    I think after seeing POG posts from Sunday night saying there's no way Chud would be fired, I've figured him out. He just wants to be different and take the opposing opinion no matter how crazy.

    Think about it...we all said Colt was gone before this season, PoG strongly disagrees. Everyone says that Trent isn't very good, PoG strongly backs his boy even though the stats and highlights say differently. Then Sunday night it's reported everywhere in the world that Chud is out and PoG is still here saying it won't happen. So of course it happened.

    So my question is...Can you please say that I'll never win the lottery because then I have a chance.

  • Tour2ma, I don't take a stand on how the Colts pick will turn out because there's no way to know. I think it's a little overly optimistic to assume that it will definitely result in a strong addition to the team. Looking back over some past drafts league-wide, it appears that the majority of first round picks do turn out to be players who contribute to their teams in a positive way at some point. That being said, the Browns have certainly had a number of 1st round picks who were not at all helpful to the team. It could be argued that the current regime didn't have a hand in those erroneous picks, but, as people have pointed out, Lombardi doesn't really have a great draft history either.

    So, no, I won't take a stand on whether the pick we got from the Colts will be good or not, because I don't see any reason to feel confident that it will or that it won't yet.

  • 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.

    @poeticg said:

    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.

    Some of the dumbest shit I have read here. 2.9 ypc and 1 lost fumble. Highlight material at it's best. Yep

  • 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.

    @poeticg said:

    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.

    Disagree on every possible level. I think Trent is nothing but a bum. A one or two yard back at best and will never ever be any better. Not sure how the excuse train keeps rolling for this guy but Edwin baker was able to come off a practice squad to a team whose offense he didn't know at all and put up better numbers than your superhero. News flash: Trent doesn't need time to learn the system. He'll never know the system. He's dumb as a stump.

  • T-Rich had two carries of 15 yards or more in 16 games ... 188 carries.

    Edwin Baker had two carries of 15 yards or more in 3 games ...43 carries.

    Baker was picked off the street in December. We aquired a first round pick for T-Rich.

    Zombo

  • That's awesome! Baker is great, then! Why didn't we get him earlier?

  • So we all fucking agree Trent was not what he was suppose to be. We traded him for a 1st round pick. good for us. Please lets's get of Trent's cock!! He is gone and and we were not any worse or better without him.

    Have a good day!

  • I was all for drafting Richardson but was sadly disappointed with his performance; quite frankly odd demeanor. That said I wish him nothing but the best in Indyl; really hope we capitalize on the second pick of the first round

  • *Sigh* Richardson should not have been picked #3 overall. I didn't think so then, and I don't think so now. Is the first round pick we got for him way better than having him? We'll see when we see what that pick becomes. In my opinion, the running game this year was not what it was last year. If your opinion is that this had nothing to do with the Richardson trade, that's fine, I'm done arguing that. But I think the running game was not as good this year (for whatever reason your prefer) and that it was a negative factor for this year's team (low total rushing yardage, 4 total rushing TDs, decreased time of possession [especially when leading], etc.).