cmd34(work)

Draft Pick
Messages
4,342
Reaction score
0
They just traded the 2012 3rd overall pick for a 2014 pick in the late 20's.

They also just crapped all over their fans and season ticket holders for the rest of this year.
 

Cowboysrule122

Draft Pick
Messages
3,728
Reaction score
0
They just traded the 2012 3rd overall pick for a 2014 pick in the late 20's.

They also just crapped all over their fans and season ticket holders for the rest of this year.

Yep, what about all those fans with the Trent Richardson jerseys. LOL
 
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
0
Browns suck dude. A RB isn't going to do them any good. Another first is a huge get. RBs are a dime a dozen.

Nice...with this retarded logic teams should move down in the first for no compensation at all. It's not like they dealt a dud either...Richardson is good.
 

GloryDaysRBack

Quality Starter
Messages
5,080
Reaction score
0
Oh. So bc he was drafted 3rd that means that pick was worth it.

WRONG. you don't draft RBs top 5...FUUUUUUCK NO

He hasn't even shown shit. They made a mistake drafting him. They did their best job to fix it. Team needs a QB MUUUUUUCH more than it needs Richardson. Now they have plenty of amo to work with.
 
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
0
They aren't the only team that needs a QB. The value of the pick they used is not what they got back. They would be in position to take a QB regardless.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Richardson was a top 10 RB last year as a rookie on a shitty team. They would have been able to draft a QB with their 1st. The Colts 1st wasn't necessary to do that.
 

LAZARUS_LOGAN

Pro Bowler
Messages
14,639
Reaction score
207
Oh. So bc he was drafted 3rd that means that pick was worth it.

WRONG. you don't draft RBs top 5...FUUUUUUCK NO

He hasn't even shown shit. They made a mistake drafting him. They did their best job to fix it. Team needs a QB MUUUUUUCH more than it needs Richardson. Now they have plenty of amo to work with.


I totally agree. As far as I;m concerned, you don't draft RBs in the 1st period. Not anymore.
 

Genghis Khan

Cheerleader
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
In a year or two people will look back on this trade as a steal for the Browns. People are way overrating Richardson. I don't care that he was a top 5 pick a year ago. You can usually tell right away with RBs. Richardson is simply not that good. Averaged about 3.6 ypc last year and even less so far this year at 3.4. I'm shocked that they got a first in return for him at this point and smart of the Browns for trading him while he's still worth anything at all. I know it's early to give up on a top 5 pick but he will clearly never live up to that.

As far as the pick being in the 20s...it's better than keeping him and getting a subpar player with nothing else to show for it. His value will only go down over time. And, assuming the pick is in the 20s, that's still extremely valuable. We got Frederick at 31, we got Dez in the 20s, Vince Wolfork went in the 20s, Aaron Rodgers went in the 20s, and on and on. You can get a much better player than Richardson turned out to be in the 20s.

Great trade for the Browns. This is the sort of thing we should have done with Martellus Bennett when Cincinnati wanted him a few years back but we weren't smart enough to do it.
 

Genghis Khan

Cheerleader
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Richardson was a top 10 RB last year as a rookie on a shitty team. They would have been able to draft a QB with their 1st. The Colts 1st wasn't necessary to do that.

By what measure was Richardson a top 10 RB last season? He didn't produce like a top 10 RB or anywhere close to it. Not rushing yards, not rushing attempts, not yards from scrimmage, not yards per carry. The only category I see where he placed top 10 is rushing TDs which would be a strange criterion by which to rank overall running back performance, particularly given it would include Richardson, Ridley, Leshoure, and Turner.
 

GloryDaysRBack

Quality Starter
Messages
5,080
Reaction score
0
So all of the guys who think the colts made out like bandits would have also madr this trade for the cowboys 1st rounder? Lolol.
 
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
0
Completely different scenario. The Colts are set up with youth at the skill positions now.

Also...the Browns not only used a top 5 pick, but a 4, 5, and 7 to draft Richardson. Way to maximize.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
By what measure was Richardson a top 10 RB last season? He didn't produce like a top 10 RB or anywhere close to it. Not rushing yards, not rushing attempts, not yards from scrimmage, not yards per carry. The only category I see where he placed top 10 is rushing TDs which would be a strange criterion by which to rank overall running back performance, particularly given it would include Richardson, Ridley, Leshoure, and Turner.
He was 11th in attempts, 5th in TDs, and 50 yards short of 1,000 yards on a team that went 5-11. Looking at the overall picture, I think he was top 10. Ridley was top 10 too. If you want to discount their seasons because Leshoure and Turner were also top 10 in TDs be my guest.
 
Messages
10,636
Reaction score
0
Btw: joe adai, Donald Brown, aNd now Trent Richardson . Learn the game colts.

Look at the panthers stuck with Stewart and deangelo Williams.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
In a year or two people will look back on this trade as a steal for the Browns. People are way overrating Richardson. I don't care that he was a top 5 pick a year ago. You can usually tell right away with RBs. Richardson is simply not that good. Averaged about 3.6 ypc last year and even less so far this year at 3.4. I'm shocked that they got a first in return for him at this point and smart of the Browns for trading him while he's still worth anything at all. I know it's early to give up on a top 5 pick but he will clearly never live up to that.

As far as the pick being in the 20s...it's better than keeping him and getting a subpar player with nothing else to show for it. His value will only go down over time. And, assuming the pick is in the 20s, that's still extremely valuable. We got Frederick at 31, we got Dez in the 20s, Vince Wolfork went in the 20s, Aaron Rodgers went in the 20s, and on and on. You can get a much better player than Richardson turned out to be in the 20s.

Great trade for the Browns. This is the sort of thing we should have done with Martellus Bennett when Cincinnati wanted him a few years back but we weren't smart enough to do it.
Not that good? Compared to what?

He may not have been worth the 3rd pick in the draft, but he's certainly more valuable than a pick in the 20s. They had someone who was a proven performer, and he was easily the best player on their offense. Now they have to hope they hit on a pick in the 20s, which is no sure thing by a long shot. Sure you can list some players who have panned out who were picked in the 20s, but there are just as many busts in the 20s.

They could have kept him and still got their QB with their pick in Round 1. As it is, now when they pick a QB next year, he's either going to have to carry the load or they're going to have to draft another RB. Sounds like a great idea huh... Let's pick Bridgewater and make him have to throw it 50 times a game as a rookie.

To compare this to what we should have done with Martellus Bennet is ridiculous. He was a backup TE to a hall of famer, and was never going to see many passes here. Richardson was Cleveland's whole offense.
 

Genghis Khan

Cheerleader
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
He was 11th in attempts, 5th in TDs, and 50 yards short of 1,000 yards on a team that went 5-11. Looking at the overall picture, I think he was top 10. Ridley was top 10 too. If you want to discount their seasons because Leshoure and Turner were also top 10 in TDs be my guest.

Attempts is a measure of quantity, not quality. TDs is very circumstantial. It takes a mere 62 yards per game to get 1000 yards and despite being 11th in attempts he couldn't even do that.

In other words, not a top 10 back. For christs sake, he averaged 3.6 yards per carry. Not only is that not a top 10 back, that's downright terrible.

Yes he was on a 5-11 team. And part of the reason they were 5-11 was because he wasn't particularly good.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
So Richardson was a "subpar" player... I doubt any GM in the NFL would have said that last year.

The other side of the trade is the Colts, who have made a lot of good moves the last couple of years. So they're just that dumb?

And edit, just saw that... Richardson was a substantial contributing factor to their going 5-11? Like he held them back? Awesome.
 
Top Bottom