First off, I never tried to compare the weapons. Peyton has arguably the best set of weapons in the NFL.
Secondly, how do you gauge that Moreno is a better receiving option than Woodhead?
REAL FOOTBALL Thread
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
First off, I never tried to compare the weapons. Peyton has arguably the best set of weapons in the NFL.
Secondly, how do you gauge that Moreno is a better receiving option than Woodhead?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well I guess the latter isn't fair because Moreno could be bolstered by better weapons aroudn him, but Moreno has a high YPR, their catch rates are about equal and with a very healthy DVOA advantage I'd presume Knowshon has converted more first downs or failed to convert less 3rd downs. And this isn't a one year wonder thing either. His receiving DVOA before this year. 25.3%, 44.3%, and 29.4%. Guy is a heck of a talent out of the backfield
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
My very first post said something like "the browns trading richardson for a 1st rounder was smart because taking RBs in the 1st round is dumb." And you MORE than proved that by posting the last 4 years of 1st round RBs. Care to go back 5-10 years and look at the amount of RBs taken high? In 2008, 5 RBs went in the first. 2 in 2007. 4 in 2006. The last three years, as you posted, contained 4! total 1st round RBs. Go back further, and pretty much any 3-year span (even the two-year span of 09 and 10) will contain more than 4 RBs. The 3-year span I posted contained 11. In 2005, 3 RBs went in the top 5! That will not happen again. Because teams are realizing that run games are not as important as pass games, and RB turnover is very high.
My point was/is that the new Browns GM realized Richardson is not a top-tier RB, therefore not as valuable as a 1st rounder, and made that deal. ZERO RBs went in the first round last year. A few years ago, Montee Ball would have been a first rounder. There will be 1st round RBs again, but there won't be a lot, and certainly not many in the top 10. I think most would recognize at this point that there were much better picks to be made at #3 than Richardson. And that's the point. Taking RBs high is not a good strategy. Very few of them end up being worth it.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
So a rookie who posts arguably top 10 RB stats certainly in the top half is not a top-tier RB?
Cleveland was smart to trade Richardson because they're a team who needs more pieces.
I'll liken this to the Braves. Braves trading Kimbrel as a winning team would be dumb. If the Braves were a .500 team then they would be smart. Same thing with Richardson. Odds are by the time the Browns can be good (they need a QB bad) Richardson will be past his peak. Though never know of course, Richardson may be an Emmitt Smith type who has a long career but I doubt it.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
The Browns need pieces - but one of those pieces isn't a "top-10 RB"? Interesting. Seems like that would be helpful. It's not like they got multiple picks and have another good RB. They got one pick and will need a RB. He averaged 3.6 YPC last year, which is not good. This year? 3.2. #3 pick worthy?
He MIGHT be statistically "top-tier," but he's not dynamic or a stud. He was the #3 overall pick who is not a stud. He's not AP. He's not Lynch. He's not Foster or Shady. Those guys are/were huge difference makers. Richardson is not, therefore not worth the #3 pick. And like I said many times, unless they're AP or the like, they are not worth high picks because this is a passing league and RB turnover is too high to gamble a very high pick on. Look how good a team with a good QB and no RB can be. Look how good a team with no QB and a decent RB (as in, not AD) can be.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
no, because the NFL is won with 22 players not one. With the rare exception of the Vikings last year and a spackling of few other teams, most teams can't win on the ground and pound style of play. Even if Richardson becomes an all-time great, without an amazing D opposite him or a good QB the Browns won't win. Sucking and getting the max picks is the best case for the Browns.
I consider the Richardson for a 1 a good trade for both teams. The COlts got a potential force for their offense (watch how Stanford played and you'll see how Richardson fits long term) and they give up a high pick but likely one in the 20 or so
If they used that similar pick on a RB in the draft they'd get Bishop Sankey, would you rather have Ricahrdson or Sankey? Easy pick for me.
You could hand the ball off a bazillion times to any backup RB in the league and they'd put up the same numbers Richardson did. If you have 1,000 yards on 3.5ypc, you're hurting your team more than helping.
Cleveland was smart to trade Richardson whether they're rebuilding or a super bowl caliber team. The guy just doesn't do anything special. The Colts are dumb for trading a first for Richardson when they already had a better RB starting for them. I would have traded Richardson for a 4th rounder if no one offered anything better.
How is trading Kimbrel the same as trading Richardson? One guy is arguably the best closer in the league and the other is one of the worst starting RB's in the league. You can't replace Kimbrel. The only reason to trade him would be for monetary reasons since you aren't likely going to get a better player than him with a first round pick. Richardson can be replaced by just about anyone and chances are extremely high that you'll get a better player than him in the first round.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Bull****. When you're facing 7+ in the box at all times you're not gonna run too much.
It's gonna be funny when T-Rich is killing it next year. I love how people expect a player to go to a new team and instantly pick up their playbook and get the majority of the touches. Richardson will be killer next year.
Charles, Gore, Martin, Johnson, Jackson, Jones-Drew, and Peterson are all guys I can think of off the top of my head that have torn it up without a passing game or good offensive line.
Give it up man. Trent Richardson = Cedric Benson.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Ok, does Peyton have better weapons, yes.
But some people think he has the worst weapons in football and what he's doing is more impressive than what Peyton is doing now.
I don't think he puts up 6 and 13 points with those weapons, all I'm saying.
But some people think he has the worst weapons in football and what he's doing is more impressive than what Peyton is doing now.
I don't think he puts up 6 and 13 points with those weapons, all I'm saying.
Why didn't you bring up your trusty stats from Football oustsiders? Or is that only when you want to support Ryan?
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb2012
37th
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
I would say you'd be hard pressed to name 5 QB's with a worse WR/TE core than the Pats right now....Even Cleveland has Gordon and Cameron, Jags have Blackmon and Shorts.
Only teams I would say are Oakland and the Rams....other than that I would say the Pats have the worst WR/TE combo in the league, currently.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Edelman leads the league in receptions, and Thompkins is emerging.
And always have a great line/run game which opens up the pass game.
Edelman also leads the league on targets if I remember correctly. That's more a testament to how poor the other options are that Brady has to target Edelman so often. Edelman had dropped his fair share of easy passes as well. And lmao at great running game.
Give it a rest. Everyone is talking about how terrible Brady's weapons are.
Give it a rest. Everyone is talking about how terrible Brady's weapons are.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
And what did they do their rookie years?
Charles 629 Y/Scm 1 TD
Gore 739 y/Scm 3 TD
Martin 1926 y/scm 12 TD
Johnson 1488 y/scm 10 TD
MJD 1377 y/scm 15 TD
Peterson 1609 y/scm 13 TD
None of them were their best as rookies. (except we don't know with Martin since his career just started) Most of them took several years to get to their peak.
As far as being Benson, that's yet to be seen, maybe he will be maybe he'll be much better. I don't consider passing judgment on a player after 1 year on one of the worst teams in the NFL to be wise.