The Colts have traded their 2014 1st-round pick for RB Trent Richardson.
I would type up some analysis, but my heart is in too much pain. Let me sum up:
The Indianapolis Colts are determined to build a power running team despite all evidence pointing to the quarterback and the passing game being the key to winning in the NFL. On top of that, they have now given up a 1st-round pick in a very deep draft for a running back. Compounding the issue, the Colts are missing their starting TE and starting LG and are dealing with numerous other key injuries. It is very likely, given their schedule, that the Colts have a decently-high pick in the 2014 draft (top-15 at least). A team as desperately in need of talent as the Colts just gave up their best chance at getting that young, dynamic talent... for a running back. For a running back.
Stay tuned to Colts Authority. For what? I have no clue. Seriously.
Lol, sorry, but that post is ridiculous, they just got young dynamic talent ahead of time, and a RB that has potential to be the best in the league opens up so much, the reason for having the power running game is to allow the passing game to take over,it is not that we are just trying to run the ball and that be it. BTW Richardson helps the passing game as a WR as well, and draft picks are so iffy, sucks to think you also believe we will have the 15th worst record in the league this year.
I love the Colts. I love some of the new players on our rebooted roster.
However, I am extremely tired of a FO that seems intent on desecrating the grave of the team that had the most successful run in NFL history. It's like Irsay and company are asking what Polian would have done and then do the opposite. Did Irsay learn nothing from all that success?
I love the Colts, but if I am to be honest, I am already looking forward to a regime change. Our teams will probably never fail so badly that we are bottom dwellers because we have a truly elite QB. However, we are not getting into the 12 win club without getting a competent GM. I can't even speak of Pagano's ability because the entire system is so screwed up. I hate what this regime stands for, I hate the style of football they are insistent on playing, I am convinced their style of play is outdated and ineffective, and I fear the problems that are coming.
I love the Colts, but I hate what is happening to them.
Yeah it's gotta be only by a few percent like 55-45 pass-run. And Pep Hamilton is acting like Luck is Christian Ponder and reigning him in, when he's really Peyton Manning and needs to be let loose.
I don't mind them improving the run game as long as it isn't at the expense of their best player and best chance to win. It's a PASSING league, and we have Luck. Satele and McMarshmallow aren't going to transform into power run blockers. Meanwhile, I guess this will hinge on how Pep Hamilton uses his new toy and how he calls the plays. So far, we're still passing more than we run, but it's still early....
Yeah but this could also be the "power run" offense that Pep wants. I really hope he doesn't try to keep this crap going on for to long..........its kinda annoying. WE ARE NOT A POWER RUN TEAM!!!! WE DON'T HAVE THE 49ERS LINE!!!! It's infuriating. Let 12 run the game.
I looked up TR's success rate from last year because I was curious, and because I think that's the most telling number for a running back's reliability... it's not good (40%) and then I started looking at some of his other numbers (WPA, EPA, EPA/P, etc.) and they aren't good either (they're all negative) but then it got me thinking because his rookie numbers reminded me of another back's rookie number... LaDainian Tomlinson
Now, by no means am I trying to insinuate that this is some sort of 'crystal ball' information indicating that he will become anywhere near the type of back Tomlinson ended up being, just simply sharing the coincidence I stumbled upon, because their rookie numbers are shockingly similar...
Both had negative WPA, EPA and EPA/P for their rookie season
Both had a success rate of 40%
Both averaged 3.6 yards per carry
TR had 11 rushing TDs, while LT had 10
TR had 51 receptions, while LT had 59
TR had exactly 367 receiving yards, while LT also had exactly 367
Also similar in size from their combine numbers (5-10, 223 v. 5-9¼ , 228)
Again, I'm absolutely NOT saying Richardson is (or will be) anywhere near as good as Tomlinson, but you'd be hard pressed to find a back with rookie numbers more similar to Richardson's than Tomlinson so I thought I'd pass it along.
Another way to look at this is that we traded a mid-round first round pick for a top 3 pick. I don't like the massive emphasis we seem to place on the run, but if we're determined to run it, T-Rich is a damn good back to have. I know there are other areas of more concern, but it's not as if we could run with just Ahmad and Kerwynn Williams for the rest of the year, as that's a sure recipe to end up with Kerwynn as the only healthy RB on the roster. Maybe I'm biased because I love watching T-Rich, but I like the trade. Not going to let anyone put a damper on this for me, until I see that it doesn't make us a better team.
I just read Nate Dunlevy´s twitter feed, and despaired for the future of Colts fans. Some people are seriously saying this year´s team was a Super Bowl contender. They think the team just acquired Edgerrin James v2.0. Just mind-boggling.
I think it's a reasonable trade--a proven, young, good RB with just one year of wear on his tires has much lower risk than ANY draft pick.
The problems I have is that (A) is he really what we needed to make the team better?; (B) would we have picked a RB in round one next year? (doubtful); and (C) speaking of next year, what the hell do we do with three starter-quality guys? Maybe trade one....
I do think that having Luck, Ballard, and Richardson in the backfield for a handful of years could be quite wonderful--we are kinda set at receiver for a couple years at least between aging but still solid Reggie, TY, the two TEs, and a couple other guys (DHB, Griff, etc).
I'm not enthused about the "we're building a power running team" aspect of it, but I'm not sure that's really the message. I think a pretty unique opportunity came along that benefits us and probably doesn't hurt us (what is the opportunity cost of missing out on pick #12 or whatever next year? We'll see....). For me, the needle points slightly upward in the long run, and even more upward for the 2013 season.
I am shocked people are questioning this trade in any manner. It is an absolutely wonderful deal. The draft is no guarantee whatsoever, even "if it's deep". Richardson is an all pro RB and even if not for this yr, our future offense is ridiculous! We now have the #1 and #3 pick from the 2012 draft and you're complaining about it? Your perspective on this matter is offbase which is odd because usually it is decent in past commentary.
I tell you what, Browns fans absolutely HATE it from what I've seen. I'm hoping this guy can be a big help to the ever-important passing game. He can definitely draw safeties into the box, and if he can help execute a good play action (and if Pep will use the play action) this offense could be a lot more fun to watch
Wow, I thought this was the blog with writers that have a little objectivity. This trade will give the offense balance. Anyone who thinks Richardson won't help Luck's passing game doesn't know football (please, spare me the PFF nonsense). Anyone who thinks Luck's ability to throw the ball won't make Richardson a more productive RB doesn't know football. That's a plain and simple fact. A defense plays coverage and we'll cram the ball down their throat. They cheat up a safety, Luck goes over the top. That's not to mention what play action will do freezing the linebackers for Luck to kill em in the middle of the field. In case anyone isn't noticing, were running the ball for a pretty good average with RB by committee. defensive coordinators now hafta game plan for Richardson....let's give it at least a month or so before we start crying in our Wheeties and grabbing the pitchforks and torches. Oh and Greg, I think Brad has a writing position open for ya (talk about knee jerk and narrow minded reaction...WOW!!!)
Cautiously optimistic! A power running back can only make Luck better, right? If the opponent sees the ground attack as a threat, Luck will kill 'em!
you ever think they may use both him and bradshaw in the back field.. for example a play action to trent (which the defense can't ignore deffently in short yard situations) while they try to guard wayne, t.y., and fleener... and if those do work just dump it off to bradshaw on a curl... or break a huge play with a wheel route... i think you looking at this the wrong... you have to think about what the other team has to account for and if luck, wayne, coby, t.y., bradshaw, and trent were on the field... i would have a headache trying to make sure i stopped them from making that first down
@paulcareyjr The Colts have not used RBs has receiving options.
Given their desire to continue to run the same system after major players get hurt, I have not seen anything that makes me feel they will change their system based on their talent, and NEITHER HAVE YOU.
Your assertion that he will help the passing game is based on your hopes and wishes, not actually watching the Colts and understanding what they want to do.
Further, a running back isn't all that necessary to win in the NFL. In fact, on the lists of things needed to win in the NFL, a "young, dynamic" running back might be on page 2.
Additionally, the Colts are not a Super Bowl-contending team. If I'm just now breaking this to you, I'm sorry. Giving up a 1st-round draft pick when you still have considerable holes for a fungible position is bad team building, plain and simple.
Finally, I am getting a hearty chuckle. Draft picks are iffy? Okay. The last GM got run out of town for having an above-average draft record despite having the latest-average draft position in the league for the past decade. But now that Grigson is lighting draft picks on fire, the draft is iffy?
I'm lovin' it.
@mattshedd I think this is a little premature. They did make the playoffs last year with a ton of rookies.
@Goéland Not to mention, Edge would not be as important in the NFL today as he was 13 years ago.
@BigBlackRichard It's not Richardson. It's the value we gave up for an overrated position.
@BigBlackRichard Good grief. Yes, spare you the advanced metrics. Can't be bothered with facts. You know football, that is all we need to know.
Nobody is saying that a good RB will not help the passing game. A better offensive line would help both the passing and running games. The problem is the value. A good RB is not worth a first rounder. That point is easily supported. If TR gets 4.8ypc, so what? The best defenses are more interested in stopping the pass anyways. They are the teams to beat. They don't bite on that BS. If we waste time trying to run the ball while the defense is giving up huge points, then we have to turn around and pass. That is difficult with a poor OL. Get a good defense and a good OL then we can talk about a good RB if there are coins in the jar.
Speaking of lacking objectivity. I guess you only want cheerleaders. When someone gives you a well-reasoned opinion that disagrees with your old-school notion of how football is played, you want to call someone narrow-minded. Sure.
@BigBlackRichard I don't think it's the trade, per se, that is causing concern. It is what it signals. Many here, since the days of 18 to 88 have believed that you run when you win, not win to run. This FO seems to belive that you run to win, and has hired and not traded accordingly to that philosophy.
Richardson might be great, and he might be able to help play action passing like Edge once did, but if there is no line to make the play action believable it's worthless. The concern is about prioritizing positions on the field and their relative value to winning versus whether or not a player might be a good player.
Richardson certainly didn't help Cleveland win, but is that his fault or Cleveland's fault? Maybe he makes the Colts O a juggernaut. Maybe he doesn't and the price was improving the O-Line, D-Line, or replacing Reggie Wayne with a future #1 receiver. All things more valuable, right at this moment to the Colts than a RB they could do well enough without.
@AdamGarrison Well, no. If the power back spends all his time getting hit in the backfield, he isn't going to do much, and our interior OL is not remotely adequate.
@JevenStones I think you are vastly overestimating the efficiency of multiple RBs in the backfield. Honestly I'd rather have DHB or Whalen on the field in a 3 WR set than both RBs
@JevenStones It doesn't matter how good your melee weapons are if you don't have armor and your opponent has a gun to simply bypass them Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark style.
Draft picks are iffy, but they´re cheap. RBs are valued less than pass rushers in the NFL (defensive ends have a franchise tag price of $11,175,000 while running backs are at $8,219,000 in 2013, see http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1553248-nfl-franchise-tag-2013-explaining-rules-types-and-values-for-every-position ). So even if Richardson is relatively cheap, for one, he isn´t cheaper than a running back drafted in the lower rounds, and additionally, the elite pass rusher we will not get with the 2014 first-round draft pick will now be much harder to find unless Grigson strikes gold in the lower rounds of the draft, which isn´t easy for that position, or overpays massively.
And if draft picks seem iffy, well, Richardson´s ceiling and performance are iffy too with the evidence available.
@BDiddy @mattshedd They made the playoffs last year because our Offensive Coordinator (who also happened to be the Head Coach most of the year) was insistent on using the transendent Andrew Luck...a lot. We are not that same team with Pep.
Also, I do not believe that we are doomed to the 2-4 win range year after year. Luck is a good enough player to lead us to more than that. However, I see a very clear path the average over the next several years.
@bradicus18 @BigBlackRichard What makes you so sure the Colts definitively have a bad O-Line? Sure, they've given up some sacks early in the year, but every line needs some time to gel and start playing together. Now we got youngster Hugh Thornton in there, maybe he'll work out. Also, we have two bookend Tackles now, and two RB's with strong pass protection skills. Donald Brown was CLEARLY never going to get it done, moreover, he's a liability in pass pro as he showed on Sunday. Your argument about relative value, is, I'm sorry to say, just stupid. We got the value of a #3 overall pick for what will likely be a mid to late rd pick next year. All the elite players are usually gone by then. This is not even to mention how much money we save! We get T-Rich for 6.5 million through 2015! And we didn't even have to pay him a signing bonus. If we draft someone at no. 15, we probs pay him a hefty signing bonus, AND $8-10 million. This was a shrewd move by Grigson to add elite talent on offense, and give Luck the confidence of a strong running game. Also, he is VERY good at catching the ball out of the backfield. 58 receptions since he was drafted. Also, notice that BOTH Super Bowl teams last year have elite RB's. The reason SF lost, was because the refs were fucking BLIND in the end zone on the last play. Awful PI. Not because the running game isn't important. Anyway, I just have no idea where all your skepticism is coming from. You repeat the words "for a running back" solemnly like it's a useless position like a Punter or something. Come on.
@BigBlackRichard Should read "now traded accordingly."
@Payton @AdamGarrison Ouch. I'm ashamed to say I laughed (bitterly) when I first read your post. I think this will work out okay, but your point is well taken. For years our RBs have probably led the league in yards after being hit. Even on three yard runs, that means they gained six yards after contact.
@mattshedd @BDiddy For me the most baffling thing in all of this lies in the question you asked above. Did Irsay learn nothing from all the Polian-led success? He had front-row seats for the most successful run in NFL history, and he seems intent on catapulting himself tweeterily as far away from it as he can. Does.Not.Compute.
@msteele32 @bradicus18 @BigBlackRichard The Colts have run the ball fairly well...with run-heavy formations. Many times with a fullback and two tight ends on the field. That is how you tell the defense what you are doing. If TR leads to T.Y. Hilton on the field more often than Havili and Jones, great! I doubt it though. And Bradshaw can perform in the same packages.
Two is better than one. Still, you are missing on the value side. Why spend a first rounder to get another good pass protecting RB when you already have one. He also was not in on that play in 4th. He should have been. That was a poor coaching decisions especially coming out of the timeout. No argument for picking up another pass protecting RB.
Yes, most people are saying the value was off. Obviously you do value how the Browns value a draft pick because you used TR as the #3 pick as justification for the trade. Money is not important in this scenario, dude. The improvement in talent is. The improvement in talent at the RB position is not as important as elsewhere. The first round draft pick is more valuable than saving money.
I'm fine with RB by committee. The VALUE is not there for Richardson. He will be an improvement but he won't improve the team more than say...a pass-rushing DE, OLB, or shutdown DB. Coulda got one of those in 2014.
You ARE missing the point. That those teams have elite RBs is irrelevant. The game was deciding through the passing game and defending the passing game. As much as I hate to say it, Flacco had one hell of a playoff run. And Baltimore did just enough to hold down Kaepernick (a better QB than Flacco, IMO). SF did not.
Greg and many others have pointed out that you do not need elite RBs to win in the playoffs.
@msteele32 @bradicus18 @BigBlackRichard Can we be fair and admit that Gore is not the reason that the SF team is elite. In fact, he ran for over 1000 yards in 4 out of 5 seasons in which the SF team was very bad. He was an elite player at his position. His position, however, is just not crucial to wins and losses. It was when the team developed a passing attack and a D that could stop the pass that they became elite.
@bradicus18 @msteele32 @BigBlackRichard The only evidence to support our Oline being good, right now, is that we have run the ball really well. I do think we're pass protecting a little bit better. I know he's been sacked 7 times, but he also has a tendency to hold the ball too long. I'm saying the jury is still out on the O-line. It's def upgraded though with Cherilus.
To answer your question about why have two pass protecting RB's, I'll refer to Joe Dirt. "Why's the sunrise good? Why are boobs good" Because 2 is better than one! Look what happened on 4th down on Sunday when our #2 RB was asked to pass protect.
I could have sworn someone in this thread said it was bad value, but it may have been a different comment. I don't care how the Browns valued a draft pick. Money is not important? Come on, dude. Money may not be important to you, but to the people who have to sign the checks and mind the salary cap, I assure you, it's very important.
Bradshaw is good, yes, but is he an every down back on that surgically repaired foot? No. Is Dammit Donald Brown the guy we really want backing him up? No. Kerwynn Williams? Nope. Willis McGahee? No thank you. He's a stop gap. We now have a stud RB, who can carry the load when he needs to. He takes pressure off Luck, and will keep defenses more honest.
I don't think I'm missing the point on the Balt/SF argument. What I'm saying is that both those teams have elite RB's, and they both represented their conference in the SB, which makes them winning franchises. Who won is irrelevant.
@msteele32 @bradicus18 @BigBlackRichard What evidence is there to support this line being a good OL? Thornton is replacing the only decent OG, not the bad one. We had a good pass protecting RB. Why have two? Value is a stupid argument? It seems you are the only one making that argument. Who cares how the Cleveland Browns valued a draft pick? Why do they pick at the top of the draft every year? Money is not important. On-the-field performance is important and the improvement we might see from Trent Richardson over Ahmad Bradshaw does not warrant a first round pick (likely in the 15-20 range - maybe higher). Bradshaw is good catching passes out of the backfield. You're missing the point on the Baltimore and SF comparison. Running the football well does not correlate with winning. Does it make it easier to move the ball? Yes. But it does not trump improvements in the passing game or defending the pass.
Cool it with the "stupid arguments" nonsense. No need for that.
Hey, Richard, there's nothing wrong with being wrong on football. It's ultimately not very important. I find myself to be wrong on something football-related and not football-related all the time (my wife will tell you that). But you don't need to come on here and suggest that you are the only one who knows what he is talking about and calling people names to make your point.
I don't think you are wrong on pointing out that a good RB can help the passing game. As others have said, the problem is the value. Behind the current line, he probably won't prove to be much better than a Bradshaw/Brown combination.
In the SB, Baltimore ran the ball 35 times for 93 yards. 2.7ypc
Joe Flacco threw 3TDs and had a 124.2 passer rating
SF ran the ball 29 times for 182 yards. 6.3 ypc
Collin Kaepernick threw 1TD and 1 INT and had a 91.7 passer rating