Trent Richardson TRADED

[The Human Q-Tip]

McGahee's production didn't look much different than Trent's so far this season. McGahee has missed camp and still hit a 9 yard run that matches Trent's best run this season. As he gets into game shape he'll give us the exact same production Trent was.

Yeah, and on his other seven runs he netted zero total yards.

In two games with the Browns this year, Trent avg. 3.5 ypc, with 7 receptions. In one game the Browns, McGahee averaged 1.1 ypc, with zero catches. That is not comparable production. Heck, AP is averaging 4.1, which means that Trant is a hell of a lot closer to being AP than McGahee is to being Trent.

That's not saying that Trent is good. It's just a comment on how bad McGahee is.

 

[Soda]

Yeah, and on his other seven runs he netted zero total yards.

In two games with the Browns this year, Trent avg. 3.5 ypc, with 7 receptions. In one game the Browns, McGahee averaged 1.1 ypc, with zero catches. That is not comparable production. Heck, AP is averaging 4.1, which means that Trant is a hell of a lot closer to being AP than McGahee is to being Trent.

That's not saying that Trent is good. It's just a comment on how bad McGahee is.

Hold on though. McGahee was just brought in off the street on, what, Wednesday? Just as it will take time for Trent to assimilate to the playbook in Indianapolis, it will take time for Willis to assimilate into the Browns' playbook. I'm not at all saying that McGahee will be some kind of stud once he figures it out, but I think it is reasonable to expect his production to increase some.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Hold on though. McGahee was just brought in off the street on, what, Wednesday? Just as it will take time for Trent to assimilate to the playbook in Indianapolis, it will take time for Willis to assimilate into the Browns' playbook. I'm not at all saying that McGahee will be some kind of stud once he figures it out, but I think it is reasonable to expect his production to increase some.

It's also a slightly different situation because McGahee has not been on a team roster practicing with a team. Trent has. I'm also not saying McGahee will be anything other than an average running back, but he's also replacing an average running back, so if he gets to that level we won't be missing much.

 

[The Oi]

Willis McGahee sucks. WGAF though?

I don't even understand why there's a debate as to who's better between the two. If I had to choose between the two of them, I'd pick Trent 10/10 times because he's younger and has less mileage on him. Not because of the way he runs, because of his track record or because of his character, etc. Between the two, Richardson is the greater asset and it's not real close. Neither are really very good at the moment.

But that's completely 100% not the point.

The point is...given the the way Chud's offense is supposed to work, the vision for the franchise, etc...the real question is whether Trent Richardson is of greater value than the player the Browns could take with the Colts pick. Basically...can you replace Trent's production with one of the Browns picks in the next draft and can you take a player that can contribute more at a position of need? I think the answer is absolutely yes.

If I was to evaluate that based on what Trent Richardson is NOW, at this moment...the answer is a LOL'er. A 1st round draft pick in the 20's is of FAR greater value than Trent Richardson the 3.6ypc player that's currently looking like a bust. Now that takes a leap of faith that the Browns FO is going to make the right pick, but frankly...we have no reason to believe that they won't at this point.

Bottom line: the McGahee vs Richardson debate is stupid. Richardson is obviously the better option if one was forced to choose between the two for the long haul.

But that debate takes away from the main point that a 1st rounder is of greater value than current Richardson without a doubt.

Stop this madness.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Bottom line: the McGahee vs Richardson debate is stupid. Richardson is obviously the better option if one was forced to choose between the two for the long haul.

I don't think the debate is so much about whether or not McGahee is better, but more about whether or not he can be an adequate short-term replacement for Richardson. I think he can be once he gets back into game shape. Obviously Richardson is younger and a more valuable asset. I don't think anyone is questioning that. But if McGahee can come in and be an average back, we didn't really lose much production and we gained a valuable first-round pick in the process.

That, to me, is the point here. Richardson's production can be easily replaced, either by McGahee (or one of our other backs) in the short term or a mid-round pick in the long-term. Any time you can get a first-round pick for a guy whose production can be easily replaced, you made a solid deal.

 

[Prime 1978]

Those were poor examples. I pointed out why and showed the holes not there when Richardson picked up the ball. once again when a running back hits the left seem that hash mark etween the TE and end lineman will open up every time. I also showed from the pictures concepts like traps and and illustrated what would of happened to that gaping hole had richardson ran to the right.

el capitain then showed the example of an actual by read and I thanked it. I speak objectively since I have no bias towards Trent Richardson. The Author made a mistake its plain and simple and misread the play himself. not only that reading the point the author never claimed it was a giant hole only thats where the play was designed for and trent might of had better luck hitting that hole or got gobbled up for a loss before even getting to that hole that wasnt there when trent got the ball.

I dont need to justify those images. they misrepresent the play period. Watch your NFL highlight of the barry sanders , gale sayers and emmit smiths, walter paytons. youll see them hit one side and the other side open up.. why because the defense is reacting to where the ball is. also you can see players run to those holes and get plastered.

the steelers formation pics is just a poor example


Bradshaw had his best performance of the year sharing carries with Trent. far more effective was the running game overall than with vick ballard.

As a 49er fan I can tell you, Bradshaw has killed us the last 3 times we've played against him. In the NFC championship, last year in the regular season, and again with the Colts. Sharing carries with Trent had absolutely nothing to do with that.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

Also, if it's true that the Browns like Ben Tate, they spend money on Tate and he more than replaces Richardson. So you use cap space on a replacement for an average running back, and you have an extra first rounder.

There is really no situation that the Browns made a bad move here, unless Richardson becomes a top 5-10 RB who can break games open with his play making ability. And from what I've seen, that's a long shot right now.

 

[The Oi]

Agree.

The Tate signing seems like a no-brainer. He's wasting his career splitting carries with Foster, and I see no reason he can't be made to fit in the Browns offense.

The second I saw that I though to myself, perfect signing.

 

[AZ_]

Willis McGahee sucks. WGAF though?

I don't even understand why there's a debate as to who's better between the two. If I had to choose between the two of them, I'd pick Trent 10/10 times because he's younger and has less mileage on him. Not because of the way he runs, because of his track record or because of his character, etc. Between the two, Richardson is the greater asset and it's not real close. Neither are really very good at the moment.

But that's completely 100% not the point.

The point is...given the the way Chud's offense is supposed to work, the vision for the franchise, etc...the real question is whether Trent Richardson is of greater value than the player the Browns could take with the Colts pick. Basically...can you replace Trent's production with one of the Browns picks in the next draft and can you take a player that can contribute more at a position of need? I think the answer is absolutely yes.

If I was to evaluate that based on what Trent Richardson is NOW, at this moment...the answer is a LOL'er. A 1st round draft pick in the 20's is of FAR greater value than Trent Richardson the 3.6ypc player that's currently looking like a bust. Now that takes a leap of faith that the Browns FO is going to make the right pick, but frankly...we have no reason to believe that they won't at this point.

Bottom line: the McGahee vs Richardson debate is stupid. Richardson is obviously the better option if one was forced to choose between the two for the long haul.

But that debate takes away from the main point that a 1st rounder is of greater value than current Richardson without a doubt.

Stop this madness.

Not that I don't wholly agree with this, his argument doesn't seem predicated on the future.

The argument seems to be that regardless of the fact Trent isn't good, he shouldn't be traded because it compromises the sanctity of the 2013 Browns season.

Also, I can't begin to express the stupidity of judging McGahee based on his first game since being pulled off the free agent market with no training camp. But hey, that's a different story all together.

The arguments he's been making have just been wholly ridiculous all around.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The point is...given the the way Chud's offense is supposed to work, the vision for the franchise, etc...the real question is whether Trent Richardson is of greater value than the player the Browns could take with the Colts pick.

I agree with that if your position is that this season does not matter. If you still care about this season, then it's not. That's the only point on which you and I differ.

I don't think Ben Tate is a realistic option, though. This is a decision Banner made, and the one constant from Banner seems to be that he assigns as much (or more) value to the position a player plays rather than just the talent of the player. RB is a position he devalues, and I can't see him spending the kind of money in FA it would take to sign Tate. To me, he'd be much more likely to draft some RB in the 3rd or 4th rounds. If Lewis is healthy next year, that makes is easier.

And, of course, any money we'd spend on Tate would be money we couldn't spend on an FA in another area of need, like OG, CB, etc..

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The arguments he's been making have just been wholly ridiculous all around.

No need to be a complete prick about it.

My argument with Anel is that I don't think this team is/was as bad as he thinks it is, and I want to still win games this year.

My argument with you is that McGahee is as good as Richardson, which he isn't.

 

[The Oi]

I agree with that if your position is that this season does not matter.

It matters in that I want them to suck badly enough to get a very good to great Quarterback out of this draft.

But I also don't really believe, that given Chud/Norv's offense, that Richardson would have made much of a difference in terms of wins versus what McGahee/Rainey/Obi will give. I just don't see any reason to believe Richardson would have carried them to any more wins than Hoyer will be forced to by throwing the ball.

On the surface, it seemed like a tank-ish type of move, but the more I've thought about it the more I've realized Richardson wasn't going to be winning them games anyways.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

Well, here's the thing. I do not think the Browns are against the idea of paying a running back. In fact, look at Shady in Philly, they paid him *although granted, they didn't pay Westbrook, although he was very much done by the time he left.* and I think RB is a big part of the Chud offense.

So I don't think it's a position the Browns don't value. I think they just don't think Richardson was worth keeping if you could obtain another first round pick, which could easily be used on another CB or a Guard.

It's all about asset management and getting the most out of their cap. Instead of paying Richardson the money, use that money on another first rounder and use the money on whatever you wish. The Browns, if they use the pick correctly, have managed to increase the talent potential of the team while keeping the cap amount as roughly the same.

I'm not sure if that makes sense by what I said here, but it makes sense in my brain. lol...that was a bad rambling.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But I also don't really believe, that given Chud/Norv's offense, that Richardson would have made much of a difference in terms of wins versus what McGahee/Rainey/Obi will give. I just don't see any reason to believe Richardson would have carried them to any more wins than Hoyer will be forced to by throwing the ball.

On the surface, it seemed like a tank-ish type of move, but the more I've thought about it the more I've realized Richardson wasn't going to be winning them games anyways.

Depends on how you define "tank". I don't think they decided they want to lose games, but they aren't putting a priority on winning games. Their priority is assets for next year.

Depending on the situation, Richardson might have resulted in us winning an extra game or two. In a close game, his pass-catching and blocking could have made the difference on a couple of drives versus what I think we get with McGahee. Obviously, we'll never know, though.

I'd have been more on board with the trade if 1) I thought there really was a clear franchise QB in this draft, and 2) that we are going to be bad enough to get the top pick, or the Colts would be bad enough to give us another top 10 pick. But I don't think either is true, so I think we're going to end up using the Colts pick on some guy in the 20's who likely won't be an impact player. That's just not enough for me to give up on a season.

 

[AZ_]

No need to be a complete prick about it.

My argument with Anel is that I don't think this team is/was as bad as he thinks it is, and I want to still win games this year.

My argument with you is that McGahee is as good as Richardson, which he isn't.

No, he's not...But from a production standpoint we won't see much difference.

You keep bringing up pass blocking and catching, like McGahee doesn't excel at both of those things.

Richardson isn't an elite pass-protector, either. Pretending that's going to win them a game is just disingenuous.