Jump to content

NFL 2013 Week 2 - Week 3: Running Back Graveyard


BLU-RAY

Recommended Posts

analysis by BIll Simmons of the RIchardson trade, echoes my thoughts (he even compared what they are doing to what the 76ers just did)

I enjoyed the article quite a bit, but one thing that I didn't read was that the vast majority of first round picks turn out to be only serviceable as players. Trent Richardson already is this, and has the potential to be a lot more. I don't see very many scenarios that the Colts loose on this trade. As long as he stays in the lineup for the next four or five years, It is a win for the Colts.

I understand that conventional wisdom says that the first round is not the place to take a RB. I even argued against the Richardson pick for the Browns because of it, but that when he was completely unproven. Finding a productive player in the first round is all you can ask for of a team, and the Colts have done that with the 2014 draft.

Cleveland get to roll the dice twice next year. I hope for their sake, they come up winners, but for me, I am taking what I have in hand rather than a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finding a productive player in the first round is all you can ask for of a team, and the Colts have done that with the 2014 draft.
No, it really isn't. When you're going first round you're looking for a long term starter with higher upside. You're looking for someone who can start immediately and immediately make an impact at a position of high value. If what you said was true people would be fine picking kickers and punters in the first round.

It's also a matter of demand. Guards, linebackers and RBs don't go in the early rounds as much because they're simply not in as much demand by teams. You don't spend a 1st round pick on a RB because you can get that RB in the second round, most likely. All positions are not remotely created equal.

So by picking a player that high in a position of lower demand, you're basically stating that you think that they're going to be far more than productive - you think they're going to be exceptional. The Colts basically gave their chance up to get a productive OT, Center, DE, CB or QB (the traditionally higher demand positions) in exchange for a productive (and that's questionable at this point) RB. That's not a great move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it really isn't. When you're going first round you're looking for a long term starter with higher upside. You're looking for someone who can start immediately and immediately make an impact at a position of high value. If what you said was true people would be fine picking kickers and punters in the first round.

It's also a matter of demand. Guards, linebackers and RBs don't go in the early rounds as much because they're simply not in as much demand by teams. You don't spend a 1st round pick on a RB because you can get that RB in the second round, most likely. All positions are not remotely created equal.

So by picking a player that high in a position of lower demand, you're basically stating that you think that they're going to be far more than productive - you think they're going to be exceptional. The Colts basically gave their chance up to get a productive OT, Center, DE, CB or QB (the traditionally higher demand positions) in exchange for a productive (and that's questionable at this point) RB. That's not a great move.

I understand that what you are saying is the conventional line of thinking, but how things have turned out, this is is not necessarily the case. I am with you on not drafting a RB in the first round and especially not in the high first round because no matter what you may think about a college player, they are only prospects. (although the last ten years of drafting has shown us that in the RB case, there are far fewer complete busts in the first round than any other round of the draft,) There are better positional prospects out there that will more than likely produce for longer.

The difference here is that we already know what Richardson is in the NFL. He is a productive RB. There is nothing to suggest that will be any different when he joins the Colts. A productive player that has a potential upside is worth more to me than any prospect.

So while I agree with your conventional wisdom about RB's, I don't hold it to to still be the case with a proven commodity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

analysis by BIll Simmons of the RIchardson trade, echoes my thoughts (he even compared what they are doing to what the 76ers just did)

have to comment on the notion that richardson backed up ingram. regardless of who was the starter, richardson was much better than ingram at bama.

"As for "luxury" running backs like Trent Richardson, teams have spent 13 top-16 picks on backs since 2002: Richardson (3), C.J. Spiller (9), Ryan Mathews (12), Knowshon Moreno (12), Jonathan Stewart (13), McFadden (4), Marshawn Lynch (12), Reggie Bush (2), Peterson (7), Ronnie Brown (2), Cedric Benson (4), Cadillac Williams (5), William Green (16). It's a grisly list. Only Peterson and Lynch made it. Bush and McFadden kinda sorta made it. Spiller made it in the "everyone overpaid for him in fantasy this year" sense. And that's it. Leading to …"

what the.....pretty much all of those guys sort made it, or we havent had enough time to tell. i am as much a proponent of the "running backs are fungible" school as anyone, and would not take one in the first round. but that list is not good evidence for that. all of those guys were fine for at least a while or derailed by injuries. except green

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference here is that we already know what Richardson is in the NFL. He is a productive RB. There is nothing to suggest that will be any different when he joins the Colts. A productive player that has a potential upside is worth more to me than any prospect.
By what measure is he a productive RB?

He's averaged 3.5 ypc. He has had one of the worst explosive rates for a RB of any RB in the league - bottom 5 for someone with 200 or more carries. He wasn't a workhorse either; he got injured too.

How is one season with less than 1000 yards rushing, a 3.5 ypc average (again, worse than every Colt RB and Andrew Luck) and a lack of explosiveness combined with injury history 'productive'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By what measure is he a productive RB?

He's averaged 3.5 ypc. He has had one of the worst explosive rates for a RB of any RB in the league - bottom 5 for someone with 200 or more carries. He wasn't a workhorse either; he got injured too.

How is one season with less than 1000 yards rushing, a 3.5 ypc average (again, worse than every Colt RB and Andrew Luck) and a lack of explosiveness combined with injury history 'productive'?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/sortableStats?div=NFL&year=2012&table=yard&state=&Go=Go

Only 22 people produced more offense than him in the entire league. Yes, 1,317 yards isn't mind blowing, nor is his ypc, but you can not argue that he has not been productive...

The one argument you are hitting clearly is his time out due to injury. That is the only thing that I see that could make this a loser for Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Indy is not a contender this year. Richardson has three more years on his contract after this year, correct? So the long-term argument is not one that works out - by the time his current contract is up, he's either mediocre, or he commands a salary on the open market that is considerably more than what he's worth. Considering that Indy has glaring needs at multiple defensive positions and the offensive line (which is a significant portion of any running game), that's why I think Richardson is a problem - a mediocre RB is fine on a Colts team with Andrew Luck and a good line; but Richardson on a Colts team without a good line will help, but not nearly enough. He doesn't make them into a serious Super Bowl contender by himself, and the pick they moved decreases their ability to fix the problems they have, which are more significant than RB.

Fungible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

analysis by BIll Simmons of the RIchardson trade, echoes my thoughts (he even compared what they are doing to what the 76ers just did)

I agree with two parts of what Simmons wrote (and disagree with a lot of the rest):

1) The Browns aren't going to be anything until they get a QB so the trade makes sense on that front. They've been terrible forever because the three first round QBs they've taken since coming back have been Tim Couch, Brady Quinn and Brandon Weeden. You gotta be nearly perfect everywhere else to be a playoff team when you're starting with that and they of course haven't been close to that. Each one has been basically a 5 year setback, so I get why new management is trying to accelerate the process for the 2014 draft and getting the right guy, rather than a guy or a great "value". And 2014 is the year to do it. Bridgewater, Boyd, Mariota and Hundley all look pretty intriguing with Manziel looming as a huge wildcard. If this first rounder allows them to trade up, or more likely if the presence of TR hurt their 2014 draft position, either way if this sets them up to get a franchise QB, I'm on board.

That said, it still underscores how badly they botched the 2012 draft. One year after having two first round picks that could've gotten them a franchise type guy, they, a year later have turned their #4 overall pick into at best a mid first round pick the following year. Generally a future 1st round pick is considered equivalent to a current 2nd round pick - they reversed the calculus on that, but still remains to be seen how badly. And a year later their #22 overall pick would, being generous, fetch at most a 6th round pick. Moreover, it even casts aspersions on their 2011 draft when they got a King's ransom for the #6 pick (Julio Jones), traded back and ended up with Phil Tayor, Greg Little and a future first rounder (Brandon Weeden). Looked like a great haul at the time, but now seeing how it all played out wouldn't you just rather have Julio Jones?

The best way you can spin this trade is that it cuts their losses and stops the bleeding, but these sudden change of directions the Browns have experienced every few years since 1999 exact their own trauma.

2) It is a wildly entertaining trade.What a week 3 gift for those of us who love talking NFL. And it gave us two pretty rich and divisive NFL topics to gnaw over - the value of highly drafted RBs and tanking. Short of the Vikings trading for Tony Romo, there's few things that would inspire as much intense debate as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking at total production instead of something like yards per touch. That's why you think he's productive - because he's compiled a whole bunch of yards. Per carry or per catch? Not nearly that interesting.

So yes, I can argue that he's not been productive because when he's actually gotten the ball, he hasn't produced particularly well. His overall production is more of a factor of Cleveland simply giving him the ball more than anyone despite his lack of production.

Furthermore the RB position is one of those great ones that you don't really need one guy to do it. So sure - he produced the 23rd most production. How was Cleveland at rushing in general? 24th. And the best part? TR was the worst rusher by ypc on his team. So not only was it the case that he wasn't productive, other players on his own team with the same situations were better than he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't the truth be somewhere in between though?

Perhaps Cleveland's shit passing game is a factor in TR's ypc being low. I realize Adrian Peterson gets it done, but he's like the son of Zeus or something.

Rib injuries didn't help last year either. He looked like a beast against the Bengals then had ba rub injuries that game and didn't look the same afterwards.

Additionally, that line isn't as good as people think and the passing game is horrendous. I bet he looks much better with the Colts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Cleveland's passing game was so bad, I would have expected TR to be at least more productive than his backups. He isn't; he has the worst YPC of any back on the Browns. You can argue that's due to small sample size, and that's fair - but I'd still expect TR to do better than his peers or at least be in the middle or something. That he's the lowest at least hints at him not being particularly better than anyone else in Cleveland. And when his peers are Montario Hardesty, that's not a great sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After what the Colts pulled two years ago and what the Browns are obviously intending to do this year, I wonder what the chance is that a draft lottery is implemented for the NFL.

Also, I don't think the Colts are really that good right now, and looking at how the AFC is starting to take shape, I think they miss the playoffs.

Broncos, Bengals, Pats/Fins, Texans, Pats/Fins, Chiefs.

Their line is also pretty bad, and they are only one injury away from being among the worst teams in the league.

Maybe Jim is a drunk like his dad was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...