Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 62
Like Tree42Likes

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

  1. #46
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,342
    Rep Power
    44

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

    The problem I'd have with Richardson is that he's limited to a 4 year rookie contract at an attractive price. With Jackson in place for 2 years, you are basically limiting him to a backup roll for half his contract. When Jackson is done in 2 years, the Rams will have the Redskins 1st round pick to draft his replacement.

    I know people are predicting the Browns take Blackmon but I think Richardson fits their needs also. They let their RB walk so they should be looking for a true #1. Hardesty doesn't appear to be a 22 carries per game type of back.


  2. #47
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,342
    Rep Power
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GROUND DOG 39 View Post
    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.
    If Richardson is elite (I'd say he is), the problem is that he's only getting on the field when you bench your best player who is also elite. Adding Richardson is a marginal addition for the next 2 years (baring injury which I don't think you can draft for injury). If the Rams were to get a call for Richardson that is full value, that's why I'd take it. Getting FULL value out of the pick is as important as getting a great player.

  3. #48
    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 RebelYell View Post
    If Richardson is elite (I'd say he is), the problem is that he's only getting on the field when you bench your best player who is also elite. Adding Richardson is a marginal addition for the next 2 years (baring injury which I don't think you can draft for injury). If the Rams were to get a call for Richardson that is full value, that's why I'd take it. Getting FULL value out of the pick is as important as getting a great player.
    Yeah, I wouldn't complain about either scenario happening, depending on the trade off being very satisfactory. Jackson's lack of speed is becoming more, and more apparent, with each passing season. So I think their is more than a fair chance Trent Richardson's better play, could lead to more and more playing time, as the season went on. I don't believe Jackson is still an elite back to be honest Rebel. But he is still very, very close. The opposing defenses still respect him, but their far from scared anymore. I think he needs to be complimented more from now on. The Rams wouldn't be doing Jackson any favours, running him in to ground at this point in his career. So the timing is right to pick a successor.
    But if the Bengals feel the need to be generous. It would be a nice problem to have for the Rams FO.
    Last edited by GROUND DOG 39; -03-12-2012 at 04:07 PM.

  4. #49
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

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

    Some of you are acting as though taking TRich would mean either he, or SJax, would be riding the bench. That's not exactly the case.

    Last year, the Rams RBs (in a poor offense that did not have a lot of sustained drives) totaled 428 touches. That averages to just a hair under 27 per game. Even if the touches did not increase (and I think they would), those touches could be split between the two. At Jackson's age, limiting him to 17 touches a game wouldn't be so bad. That leaves TRich 10 (at a minimum), and maybe more if you use him to return kickoffs.

    Ideally, the Rams offense would hold the ball longer, and each player could average 15+ touches per game.

    What's wrong with that?

  5. #50
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,342
    Rep Power
    44

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

    Jackson hasn't shown a history of being happy having his carries cut. He also tends to play better if you give him more reps. Making him a part time player isn't likely to go over well with him.

  6. #51
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,491
    Rep Power
    167

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    Jackson hasn't shown a history of being happy having his carries cut. He also tends to play better if you give him more reps. Making him a part time player isn't likely to go over well with him.
    If the team is winning, he'll get over it.
    cfh128, GROUND DOG 39 and ZiaRam like this.

  7. #52
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GROUND DOG 39 View Post
    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.
    I agree that some teams may not be content with their running back situation, but they don’t try to solve it by throwing big money or a lot of high draft resources at the problem, because the position just isn’t that important. They can find solutions elsewhere.

    For example, how many teams passed on Mark Ingram in the first round last year? New England had the opportunity to draft him, yet traded those rights away and went with two second-day prospects instead. You can’t tell me there was a lack of opportunity there. Teams know they can find running backs in the second or third round of the draft; heck, more of the league’s top runners come from that part of the draft than they do the high first round.

    I don’t think teams are using committees because they’re being forced to due to bad drafting or never having the chance to draft a talented runner. I think teams are using committees because they recognize the value of situational players who can be rotated in and out and, perhaps most importantly, don’t have to be paid like an elite player but can still produce. The Super Bowl champion Giants just resigned Ahmad Bradshaw last August to a very modest deal, because they knew he was capable of performing as part of a committee. It’s odd to think that Brandon Jacobs has two Super Bowl rings as part of a RB committee; Adrian Peterson has zero.

    You know what I’ve read from Jets fans when they talk about their offseason needs? More of them list wide receiver as a priority over running back, because they need another legitimate starter to pair with Santonio Holmes. Running back is listed as a consideration, but never a priority from the fan posts I’ve read. I don’t think they’d turn their nose at Richardson if he fell to them, but they’re certainly not going to trade up for him.

    The idea isn’t to waste time with average players, but to put your resources where they’re most needed. And so long as teams can find capable runners on Day Two of the draft, or plug situational guys into a committee approach and get productive numbers from their running game, then they’re not going to prioritize the position. Guys like Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice, Frank Gore… no one is wasting time with these guys, but simply understanding that quality runners don’t always rise to the top the way that franchise quarterbacks do.


    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    The problem I'd have with Richardson is that he's limited to a 4 year rookie contract at an attractive price. With Jackson in place for 2 years, you are basically limiting him to a backup roll for half his contract. When Jackson is done in 2 years, the Rams will have the Redskins 1st round pick to draft his replacement.

    I know people are predicting the Browns take Blackmon but I think Richardson fits their needs also. They let their RB walk so they should be looking for a true #1. Hardesty doesn't appear to be a 22 carries per game type of back.
    I agree completely, the Browns are a possibility for Richardson. Their second pick in the first round would be a nice place to go after a WR like Kendall Wright.

    The Bucs are as well, though I expect they’d pick Claiborne between the two.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  8. #53
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,342
    Rep Power
    44

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I agree completely, the Browns are a possibility for Richardson. Their second pick in the first round would be a nice place to go after a WR like Kendall Wright.

    The Bucs are as well, though I expect they’d pick Claiborne between the two.
    Yeah know, for all the talk about teams not valuing RBs like they used to, people ignore that the same thing is true about WRs. A lot of teams think they can get quality in the 2nd and 3rd rounds instead of drafting high.

    Look at the Giants.
    Cruz = undrafted
    Nicks was a late first rounder #29
    Manningham 3rd round

  9. #54
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    Yeah know, for all the talk about teams not valuing RBs like they used to, people ignore that the same thing is true about WRs. A lot of teams think they can get quality in the 2nd and 3rd rounds instead of drafting high.

    Look at the Giants.
    Cruz = undrafted
    Nicks was a late first rounder #29
    Manningham 3rd round
    That's a fair point, though after watching two receivers come off the board in the Top Six last year, I'd still put them above running backs in the grand scheme of things. Still, I do believe this 2012 draft class features a number of intriguing, quality receivers projected to come off the board in Rounds 2-4 that may cause some teams to look elsewhere in Round One.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #55
    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=Nick;419439]I agree that some teams may not be content with their running back situation, but they don’t try to solve it by throwing big money or a lot of high draft resources at the problem, because the position just isn’t that important. They can find solutions elsewhere.

    For example, how many teams passed on Mark Ingram in the first round last year? New England had the opportunity to draft him, yet traded those rights away and went with two second-day prospects instead. You can’t tell me there was a lack of opportunity there. Teams know they can find running backs in the second or third round of the draft; heck, more of the league’s top runners come from that part of the draft than they do the high first round.

    I don’t think teams are using committees because they’re being forced to due to bad drafting or never having the chance to draft a talented runner. I think teams are using committees because they recognize the value of situational players who can be rotated in and out and, perhaps most importantly, don’t have to be paid like an elite player but can still produce. The Super Bowl champion Giants just resigned Ahmad Bradshaw last August to a very modest deal, because they knew he was capable of performing as part of a committee. It’s odd to think that Brandon Jacobs has two Super Bowl rings as part of a RB committee; Adrian Peterson has zero.

    You know what I’ve read from Jets fans when they talk about their offseason needs? More of them list wide receiver as a priority over running back, because they need another legitimate starter to pair with Santonio Holmes. Running back is listed as a consideration, but never a priority from the fan posts I’ve read. I don’t think they’d turn their nose at Richardson if he fell to them, but they’re certainly not going to trade up for him.

    The idea isn’t to waste time with average players, but to put your resources where they’re most needed. And so long as teams can find capable runners on Day Two of the draft, or plug situational guys into a committee approach and get productive numbers from their running game, then they’re not going to prioritize the position. Guys like Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice, Frank Gore… no one is wasting time with these guys, but simply understanding that quality runners don’t always rise to the top the way that franchise quarterbacks do.

    I can understand why New England passed on Ingram. Theyre a team that is famous for riding their QB. How Tom Brady goes is how the Patriots go. The running game in their offense isnt valued anything like the pass. The Rams with Fisher and Schotty Id imagine, are going to run the ball a hell of a lot more than most teams. So an elite back is worth the extra money for me. The RB position is valued in St>Louis, so whoever they draft, they will definately be earning their coin in the Lou. Quality over quantity isnt always feasible in the NFL, but Id like to think the new Rams FO will value quality in their players, a bit more than the old regime did anyway. Especailly in the players deemed important to our offense. It doesnt matter how other teams value their RB position. As its just one of a thousand ways of skinning a cat in this league.
    I know the draft is overrated at the top, and the drop off isnt that significant to the last round. But in special circumstances a player is worth it, be it a kicker or a RB. Im hoping this guy is Mr Richardson for the Rams. If it was just the usual standard RB, I wouldn't fight the RB's corner so hard Nick.
    As for the money aspect of keeping a star player, if it is that big of a finacial drain, the Rams could trade him in for picks or a player. I can think of much bigger problems to have a star player on your roster. Superstars don't grow on trees at any position, its a fact.
    Last edited by GROUND DOG 39; -03-12-2012 at 05:50 PM.
    ZiaRam likes this.

  11. #56
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ground dog 39 View Post
    I can understand why new england passed on ingram. Theyre a team that is famous for riding their qb. How tom brady goes is how the patriots go. The running game in their offense isnt valued anything like the pass. The rams with fisher and schotty id imagine, are going to run the ball a hell of a lot more than most teams. So an elite back is worth the extra money for me. The rb position is valued in st>louis, so whoever they draft, they will definately be earning their coin in the lou. Quality over quantity isnt always feasible in the nfl, but id like to think the new rams fo will value quality in their players, a bit more than the old regime did anyway. Especailly in the players deemed important to our offense. It doesnt matter how other teams value their rb position. As its just one of a thousand ways of skinning a cat in this league.
    I know the draft is overrated at the top, and the drop off isnt that significant to the last round. But in special circumstances a player is worth it, be it a kicker or a rb. Im hoping this guy is mr richardson for the rams. If it was just the usual standard rb, i wouldn't fight the rb's corner so hard nick.
    The argument falls apart though, because a number of teams that do put an emphasis on running the ball find their running backs elsewhere (Houston, San Fran, Miami, etc). Just because you value a running game doesn't mean you have to go out and spend a lot of money or top draft picks to equip it. Teams simply do not need elite running backs to win championships in today's NFL. They're nice to have, and the Rams may decide that taking Richardson is their best option when their pick rolls around, but when you look around today's NFL, elite bell-cow running backs are not among the important components of a championship team. For years now, organizations have found success with lesser yet still effective players, allowing them to spend more important resources on more important positions.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  12. #57
    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
    The argument falls apart though, because a number of teams that do put an emphasis on running the ball find their running backs elsewhere (Houston, San Fran, Miami, etc). Just because you value a running game doesn't mean you have to go out and spend a lot of money or top draft picks to equip it. Teams simply do not need elite running backs to win championships in today's NFL. They're nice to have, and the Rams may decide that taking Richardson is their best option when their pick rolls around, but when you look around today's NFL, elite bell-cow running backs are not among the important components of a championship team. For years now, organizations have found success with lesser yet still effective players, allowing them to spend more important resources on more important positions.
    I believe you could say this about any position on the team. Teams find players all over the place, and always will find and develop players furthur down the draft, in all positions. It doesn't mean for a second because team X found value in the draft at RB, it's all of a sudden the given formula for the whole league. I believe you know better than anyone about the unpredictability of these kids. The consistency of each team's draft is all over the place every year. So I think its better to not overthink things and take the BPA when viable, even if it is a RB. Of course the Rams would rather get any player on the cheap, and every team likes to look after its resources. But a lot of times end up shooting themselves in the foot, trying to be too cute.
    Im more about trying to keep the mistakes to a minimum on draft day. I think the main reason were disagreeing here, is I dont see the value in the top 10 the same way as you view it. But in this case Ive fell for Richardson. I realize Im not the best at getting my point across, so I hope I dont come across as indifferent. As Im doing my level best to keep up.
    Last edited by GROUND DOG 39; -03-12-2012 at 07:27 PM.

  13. #58
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,963
    Rep Power
    74

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    Some of you are acting as though taking TRich would mean either he, or SJax, would be riding the bench. That's not exactly the case.

    Last year, the Rams RBs (in a poor offense that did not have a lot of sustained drives) totaled 428 touches. That averages to just a hair under 27 per game. Even if the touches did not increase (and I think they would), those touches could be split between the two. At Jackson's age, limiting him to 17 touches a game wouldn't be so bad. That leaves TRich 10 (at a minimum), and maybe more if you use him to return kickoffs.

    Ideally, the Rams offense would hold the ball longer, and each player could average 15+ touches per game.

    What's wrong with that?

    What wrong with that nothings... when most teams have moved to a two back system we are still banking one. If SJAX gets hurt we have a huge drop off... it's time to draft his replacement and having them both at the same time will only help both players. Trent get to have a mentor and SJAX get to take less of the work load.

  14. #59
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,300
    Rep Power
    153

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GROUND DOG 39 View Post
    I believe you could say this about any position on the team. Teams find players all over the place, and always will find and develop players furthur down the draft, in all positions. It doesn't mean for a second because team X found value in the draft at RB, it's all of a sudden the given formula for the whole league.
    You're reducing a very clear strategy by teams to find value at the position outside of the top selections as if it's merely happenstance. Teams have found gems at all positions, you're right. But when you take a close look at RB, it's not just a random gem here or there but an actual trend that teams are adjusting to.

    Look at the Top 10-15 running backs in this league and tell me how many of them were Top Ten picks. Here, I'll help...

    Top Ten
    Adrian Peterson
    Darren McFadden

    First Round (Below 20th)
    Chris Johnson
    Steven Jackson
    Rashard Mendenhall
    DeAngelo Williams

    Second Round
    Maurice Jones-Drew
    Ray Rice
    LeSean McCoy
    Matt Forte

    Third Round or Lower
    Jamaal Charles (3rd)
    Frank Gore (3rd)
    Michael Turner (5th)
    Peyton Hillis (7th)
    Arian Foster (undrafted)

    There are more second or third round running backs on that list than there are guys drafted in the high first round. It's not just one or two guys that teams have stumbled on in the second round, it's a clear pool of talent beyond the Top Ten because the position simply isn't valued that highly and talented players can be had later. It's not like franchise quarterbacks, where teams draft them high in the first round every year and sometimes trip over themselves to get them.

    I'm not disputing the fact that there are running back prospects who are highly rated and deservingly get taken high in the draft. But these bell-cow running backs who are counted on to put up 300+ carries every year are a thing of the past in today's NFL, and elite running backs really don't have a big effect on the championship success of their teams.

    So when teams see they can spend a second round pick on a runner and have a chance to get a Ray Rice, LeSean McCoy, or Matt Forte, then the guy in the high first round has got to be pretty special in order to use that high of a resource on him. Is Richardson that kind of player? If he is, I wouldn't blame the Rams for taking him over lesser options. However, if the team has similar grades on players at more important positions, I expect they'll go that route because they know they have a decent chance of finding and developing a running back elsewhere.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  15. #60
    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.

    Youve made some very valid points here Nick. It actually does look like RB's have been found in all the rounds, with some frequency. I can definitely see a trend here, so I am actually coming round to your view a little more. What does drive me nuts though, is the view a running back isnt worthy of a top ten selection in a draft. Because in some cases, depending on the quality or depth of a particular draft. Its an easy decision, and a safer decision to draft the BPA, even if he is a RB. I firmly believe the same for all the positions on a roster. If the QUALITY is there in abundance, it should far out weigh the percieved value of draft position. Obviously within reason that is.

Page 4 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
  •