Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62
Like Tree42Likes

Thread: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

  1. #31
    Tampa_Ram's Avatar
    Tampa_Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Bat Yam, Israel
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,958
    Rep Power
    30

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    At first, i hated the idea of drafting Richardson with the #6 if the others were already gone(Blackmon,Claiborne). But the past few days ive read more about him, the pro's and con's, etc. And it brings me back to a draft long ago.

    We drafted Jackson in 2004 when Faulk was still very serviceable. He did have injuries here and there, just like Jackson did. Jackson played sparingly behind Faulk his first year in the league.

    I could easily seeing us take Richardson at #6 because he would be our workhorse back for the next 10 years. He'd learn behind Jackson his first year(or more) but would eventually become our main power back that would carry the load.

    Now i know lots of people say you can draft a rb later, and i agree, but can you draft a 10 year long rb as easily in those later rounds? Its a bit harder to draft a long term rb in the later rounds in my opinion.

    Jackson was the first rb takin in 2004. Richardson will be the first takin this year.

    Taking Richardson would ensure us another great running back for the next 10 years.

    So if Blackmon and Claiborne are gone at #6, we could either take Richardson, trade back and take a WR/BPA, trade back and still maybe land Richardson.

    If we stay at #6, i'd have no problem with taking Richardson who woul take over for Jackson one day and be a fixture on our team for many years just as Jackson has done.


    ZiaRam likes this.



  2. #32
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    1,036
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZiaRam View Post
    Check this out guys
    The more I find out about this kid the more I like him as an option. I love SJ but if this kid can be something special you don't pass on it. 50% of his yards after 1st contact - I'll take that. I read somewhere that his strength coach won't let him go heavier so we don't really know how freakishly strong this kid actually is.

  3. #33
    codeman123's Avatar
    codeman123 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    canada
    Age
    24
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    IF the Rams think Richardson is the next AP or is even better than Jackson, then he would clearly be head and shoulders above the other prospects. In that case he would have to be the pick. If the Rams end up taking him I will assume this to be the truth. He's clearly a great prospect, although I would still rather have either Claiborne or Blackmon.

    Looking at the best offenses in the league, a running game is important, but running backs become a dime a dozen. Personally, having someone like Michael Turner (Doug Martin) or Jahvid Best (David Wilson) would be great pieces for this offense. Adrian Peterson would be awesome, but running backs are not vital to offensive success.

  4. #34
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,957
    Rep Power
    95

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman123
    Adrian Peterson would be awesome, but running backs are not vital to offensive success.


    Depending on what type of system you run. Given, this is a passing league for the most part, but can you name me a more run-oriented tandem in the NFL than Jeff Fisher and Brian Schottenheimer? I'm struggling to think of one.

    Point is, for some teams RBs are dime-a-dozen. For our team, I don't know if I agree.
    Rammed, GROUND DOG 39 and ZiaRam like this.

  5. #35
    ZiaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,530
    Rep Power
    21

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    [/b]

    Depending on what type of system you run. Given, this is a passing league for the most part, but can you name me a more run-oriented tandem in the NFL than Jeff Fisher and Brian Schottenheimer? I'm struggling to think of one.

    Point is, for some teams RBs are dime-a-dozen. For our team, I don't know if I agree.
    Wow that's a good point... only one I can half way think of is maybe Minnesota with AP??

  6. #36
    jerseyramsfan's Avatar
    jerseyramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    419
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Richardson at 6 if Blackmon & Claiborne are gone... You gotta love it.... Thank you Skins...

  7. #37
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,957
    Rep Power
    95

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZiaRam View Post
    Wow that's a good point... only one I can half way think of is maybe Minnesota with AP??
    Right. It's typically teams that stress defensive pressure and a running game. It looks like we're becoming one of those at least for the time being.

    The year the Jets, with Schotty as the OC, drafted Sanchez, they went out and got Thomas Jones and Shonn Greene to take the pressure off him. When Jones left, LT became the change-of-pace guy while Sanchez was still learning the system. I wholeheartedly expect the Rams to take a similar approach in Sam's first couple of years in a new system. By the time he's ready to make this a passing team, Jackson's contract will be up.

    Needless to say, I'll be lobbying for Richardson if he's there at #6. I don't know whether I put him ahead of Blackmon or Claiborne (in fact I don't think that I do), but I'd be just as happy with him at #6 overall.
    ZiaRam likes this.

  8. #38
    codeman123's Avatar
    codeman123 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    canada
    Age
    24
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    The year the Jets, with Schotty as the OC, drafted Sanchez, they went out and got Thomas Jones and Shonn Greene to take the pressure off him. When Jones left, LT became the change-of-pace guy while Sanchez was still learning the system. I wholeheartedly expect the Rams to take a similar approach in Sam's first couple of years in a new system. By the time he's ready to make this a passing team, Jackson's contract will be up.
    They also traded for Braylon Edwards and Santonio Holmes (and signed Burress last year to replace Edwards). They didn't just upgrade running backs.

    I would be happy with Richardson. He is a great talent. I just don't see how an elite running back upgrades this team. SJax was a top 3 RB in the league for 4 of the worst offensive seasons I've ever seen. The top teams in the league have committees of less talented RBs and I don't remember the last team to even get to a Superbowl with a bellcow elite RB (maybe Seattle with Alexander). The Patriots have a good running game with the law firm, Giants with Bradshaw and they just released Jacobs, Atlanta with Turner. From a resource standpoint, its smarter to put top resources (money and first round picks) into other positions. Its the way the league is.

    The only thing that's different in this case is that the Rams have 2 second round picks, and 2 first round picks in 2013 and 2014 so hypothetically they have a luxury to pick RB that high that they usually wouldn't.

    I've said it all throughout, if he's AP then you take him in a heartbeat. He has to be special to take him, special beyond any of the RBs taken in the first round in the last 4 years. If he's not, its a luxury this team can't afford.
    Last edited by codeman123; -03-11-2012 at 10:37 PM.
    punahou likes this.

  9. #39
    md8
    md8 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    207
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    At first I didn't really want Richardson, but I'm starting to come around. Instead of taking another player who might be good. I think Richardson is a sure thing and the next AP. Yeah it's a passing league and you can sometimes get good rbs later. But just in case Bradford isn't a future stud QB, we would have Richardson to build around. And I think worse case Bradford is a smart slightly above average QB.

  10. #40
    Bing69's Avatar
    Bing69 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    788
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Personally if there was 1 player in this draft i would love to get it would be Richardson, the guy just oozes quality. With S-Jax getting older and nobody knows how long he will be able to continue, or suffer a serious injury im all for the idea of going for Richardson. Hopefully we can bring in a few receivers in FA, or pick up a nice one at the top of round 2...

  11. #41
    Tampa_Ram's Avatar
    Tampa_Ram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Bat Yam, Israel
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,958
    Rep Power
    30

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Another thing we need to look at is this: Fisher and Snead are building for the future, trying to get pieces in place for the long haul. Of course they want to win right away, every team and coach does, but if they draft Richardson it will show that there building a long term team(im sure if they dont they are still trying to build long term success), not a win now/all or nothing team like the Jets.

    Richardson would be the perfect piece to start the new regime off and that'd be the easiest piece to get for the long haul.

    We'll find out next month i guess.
    ZiaRam likes this.


  12. #42
    GROUND DOG 39's Avatar
    GROUND DOG 39 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MANCHESTER, U.K.
    Posts
    1,483
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman123 View Post
    They also traded for Braylon Edwards and Santonio Holmes (and signed Burress last year to replace Edwards). They didn't just upgrade running backs.

    I would be happy with Richardson. He is a great talent. I just don't see how an elite running back upgrades this team. SJax was a top 3 RB in the league for 4 of the worst offensive seasons I've ever seen. The top teams in the league have committees of less talented RBs and I don't remember the last team to even get to a Superbowl with a bellcow elite RB (maybe Seattle with Alexander). The Patriots have a good running game with the law firm, Giants with Bradshaw and they just released Jacobs, Atlanta with Turner. From a resource standpoint, its smarter to put top resources (money and first round picks) into other positions. Its the way the league is.

    The only thing that's different in this case is that the Rams have 2 second round picks, and 2 first round picks in 2013 and 2014 so hypothetically they have a luxury to pick RB that high that they usually wouldn't.

    I've said it all throughout, if he's AP then you take him in a heartbeat. He has to be special to take him, special beyond any of the RBs taken in the first round in the last 4 years. If he's not, its a luxury this team can't afford.
    I dont agree with your above statement, although I do see where your coming from. Of course an elite back will improve our team. SJ39 being a top three player at his position, in those awful losing season's, isn't the best example of a RB's worth to an offense. The point Im making is Jackson held up to his end of the bargain. If the team cant block, or the defense can't stop people, and the QB struggles to complete simple tasks. Then on the whole, its bound to effect the offense's production in the key areas. This is in no way Jackson's fault, the Rams offense struggled in those seasons. Imagine how bad those offense's would have been, without a stud back in the line-up.
    IF Sam Bradford can start playing up to his potential, you will then realize just how much better it is to have an elite back, over some of the average joe's you see teams utilizing.?

  13. #43
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Bar-bq, thank you in advance for providing a response that allows me to bloviate on my day off work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bar-bq View Post
    Depending on what type of system you run. Given, this is a passing league for the most part, but can you name me a more run-oriented tandem in the NFL than Jeff Fisher and Brian Schottenheimer? I'm struggling to think of one.

    Point is, for some teams RBs are dime-a-dozen. For our team, I don't know if I agree.
    Yet in your New York example, Schottenheimer's run-oriented offense was led by two free agents and a third round pick. It's still a matter of where can you find these players. Run-oriented teams can still find players to occupy their backfield without spending these top resources; look at Houston this year.

    I've argued for a while this offseason that running backs are not highly valued in this league. And I truly believe it. When you look at the Super Bowl contenders of the last half decade, I believe only one team of ten has fielded a runner with over 220 carries. For as talented as Adrian Peterson is, his team has a losing record since he was drafted and they only became Super Bowl contenders when they paired a talented quarterback with a talented receiver.

    So having said that, I don't think the best argument for Richardson is the offensive system or his value to a team's championship dreams. I think the best argument for Richardson is his value as a prospect when compared to other available prospects. When it comes to the Rams picking at the sixth spot, he may be the last of the "elite" prospects in this class. The two quarterbacks will be gone, and it's possible the top OT, WR, and CB will all be gone. If that's the case, you could make the argument that, while Richardson plays at a less vital position, his grade is high enough to warrant select over other lesser prospects.

    The only two other positions I think you could make an argument for at that point is OT and DT. So you're looking at Riley Reiff or either Brockers/Poe/Cox. Are these guys on the same level as Richardson as a prospect? Are they close enough that you give them the edge due to their position?

    At this point, I don't know if I can, and if the Rams don't, I think they'll go Richardson. He might not play a vital position, but he still could be the best option available on the board.

  14. #44
    Bing69's Avatar
    Bing69 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    788
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    I really want Richardson. S-Jax and Richardson in the backfield, yes please.

    Im hoping we for a big name receiver in FA, or there should be a nice option at the top of round 2.....

  15. #45
    GROUND DOG 39's Avatar
    GROUND DOG 39 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MANCHESTER, U.K.
    Posts
    1,483
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Trent Richardson to the Rams could make a lot of sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Bar-bq, thank you in advance for providing a response that allows me to bloviate on my day off work.




    Yet in your New York example, Schottenheimer's run-oriented offense was led by two free agents and a third round pick. It's still a matter of where can you find these players. Run-oriented teams can still find players to occupy their backfield without spending these top resources; look at Houston this year.

    I've argued for a while this offseason that running backs are not highly valued in this league. And I truly believe it. When you look at the Super Bowl contenders of the last half decade, I believe only one team of ten has fielded a runner with over 220 carries. For as talented as Adrian Peterson is, his team has a losing record since he was drafted and they only became Super Bowl contenders when they paired a talented quarterback with a talented receiver.

    So having said that, I don't think the best argument for Richardson is the offensive system or his value to a team's championship dreams. I think the best argument for Richardson is his value as a prospect when compared to other available prospects. When it comes to the Rams picking at the sixth spot, he may be the last of the "elite" prospects in this class. The two quarterbacks will be gone, and it's possible the top OT, WR, and CB will all be gone. If that's the case, you could make the argument that, while Richardson plays at a less vital position, his grade is high enough to warrant select over other lesser prospects.

    The only two other positions I think you could make an argument for at that point is OT and DT. So you're looking at Riley Reiff or either Brockers/Poe/Cox. Are these guys on the same level as Richardson as a prospect? Are they close enough that you give them the edge due to their position?

    At this point, I don't know if I can, and if the Rams don't, I think they'll go Richardson. He might not play a vital position, but he still could be the best option available on the board.
    That doesn't mean to say the contending teams, were content with their running back situation. Elite backs have been very thin on the ground over the last decade. A lot of these teams are forced to go to with multiple backs, because of bad drafting, or they simply have never had the right opportunity to snag an elite prospect.? I bet if you asked the Jets fans, they would all say the team needs to improve its quality in the RB position. So if a team has the opportunity to remedy this problem for the next ten years with ONE player. I think you would be a fool to overlook such an opportunity. If you prefer to see the Rams *****ing around with average joes for the next decade, and wasting even more time, and precious draft picks in the process. Well, that is your opinion. I believe if you ever get the opportunity to draft a stud player in a crapshoot like the NFL draft, then its not best to gamble in my opinion.

    Big players, make big plays in big games. A 1-2-3 punch of mediocre backs isnt quite the same. So I believe my point about having an elite player in a big game, is a good one. Which begs the question, IS Trent Richardson elite. The guy has still not run a forty time yet. Id like to see him break 4.50 Nick.
    Last edited by GROUND DOG 39; -03-12-2012 at 02:12 PM.
    ZiaRam likes this.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The odds of Trent Richardson over Blackmon?
    By BarronWade in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: -02-23-2012, 12:00 AM
  2. Pay Close Attention to Trent Richardson in Today's Game
    By mde8352gorams in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: -01-12-2012, 12:45 AM
  3. Someone help me make sense of the Dorsey pick
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: -02-06-2008, 03:08 AM
  4. Free Agent signings that make sense
    By RamsFan16 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: -01-18-2007, 04:55 AM
  5. Does trading down make more sense?
    By txramsfan in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -04-27-2006, 03:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •