Big John Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Here is something for people to chew on. There's no denying how great a RB Adrian Peterson is but with him the Vikings are 49-49 (reg. season), have just three winning seasons and ZERO playoff wins. They won a playoff game in 2009 with him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 They won a playoff game in 2009 with him. I stand corrected...I saw Lost, Lost & Lost and missed the 2009 loss was a Conf. Championship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) So...pairing your first round QB next year with a 23 year old RB is a bad thing? Probably has as much to do with how Lombardi felt about TRich too. Edited September 19, 2013 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 No one is saying this is bad for the Colts...I see it as a Win-Win deal for each team I just don't see how there wasn't another team out there willing to give up more. A first and a fourth? A first and a third? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 I understand the thinking, but the Browns would have had a high first rounder to use on a QB anyway, and TRich had already proven he didn't suck. That's a lot in the NFL. Now their rookie QB will have to play with a rookie RB who may or may not pan out. Seems like it makes it harder on their franchise rookie QB to me, but I guess we will all have to wait and see. Was surprised when I saw this but to date TRich has 2 runs of 20 or more yards....as for Rooks at QB/RB, while not the norm, it worked out well for the Skins...and this is the most important part, RBs just aren't that valuable in today's NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 I just don't see how there wasn't another team out there willing to give up more. A first and a fourth? A first and a third? For all we know the Browns had tried to shop him and couldn't get a 1st. The Colts losing Ballard and having a risky Bradshaw made them a prime target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonsoxandy Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Can't say I agree with the logic of trading away a great piece just because you can't win with him as the focal point. I guess if they can say with absolute confidence that a late first rounder for the draft will land them a future Pro Bowl caliber QB, then fine. But they can't have even modest confidence on that statement right around now. I just don't get it -- what is that late first rounder really going to bring them that is better than TRich?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 So...pairing your first round QB next year with a 23 year old RB is a bad thing? I agree, but Lombardi was pretty dismissive of Richardson last year when he was covering the draft with NFL Network. He was critical of the Browns letting Washington to jump them for RGIII stressing the need to get the QB first. Now he gets to use the 1st rounder on a S or OL, get a franchise QB, draft Silas Redd, Carlos Hyde, Seastrunk, or one of a dozen other nice looking prospects in the mid rounds (Bernard, Ball, Lacy, Pierce, Lamar Miller) and plug them in. Plus, if you don't trade him now, you might win a few games and donkey up getting the 1st pick to trade for a King's Ransom to someone wanting Clowney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 I tweeted this a few minutes ago: Not exactly apples2apples but DAL was 17-35 w/Herschel. Traded him after 5 games & finished 1-15, next 6yrs went 70-26 w/3 SB wins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 I agree, but Lombardi was pretty dismissive of Richardson last year when he was covering the draft with NFL Network. He was critical of the Browns letting Washington to jump them for RGIII stressing the need to get the QB first. Now he gets to use the 1st rounder on a S or OL, get a franchise QB, draft Silas Redd, Carlos Hyde, Seastrunk, or one of a dozen other nice looking prospects in the mid rounds (Bernard, Ball, Lacy, Pierce, Lamar Miller) and plug them in. Plus, if you don't trade him now, you might win a few games and donkey up getting the 1st pick to trade for a King's Ransom to someone wanting Clowney. now in all caps WINNER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Maybe the #1 from IND is not going to be all that high, but you can package that with the other #1 or even a #2 and move up in the first round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) Maybe the #1 from IND is not going to be all that high, but you can package that with the other #1 or even a #2 and move up in the first round Yep, and I think I posted this earlier but they now have 5 picks in the 1st three rounds (2-1st, 1-2nd & 2-3rds) Edited September 19, 2013 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I tweeted this a few minutes ago: Not exactly apples2apples but DAL was 17-35 w/Herschel. Traded him after 5 games & finished 1-15, next 6yrs went 70-26 w/3 SB wins Yeah, but apparently Indy isn't nearly as stupid as the Vikings were to give up a bevy of picks for one player. I don't see the long lasting effects of getting one more pick in the first round for the Browns being parlayed into that kind of success Dallas had. But like you said, it isn't exactly apples to apples there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Yeah I think it's funny that everyone assumes the Colts are again a lock for 10+ wins and the playoffs. A lot of balls fell their way last year that might not this year. IMO they are on paper at least about a .500 team. Also, playing devil's advocate, but Richardson has not proven himself an elite RB yet. Course it's hard to say given what a totally different team he was with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pete-prisco/23719714/colts-trade-for-richardson-is-a-bold-but-bad-move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/23717233/photo-browns-jersey-illustrates-clevelands-qb-problem-over-the-years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtdickens Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Its the same story for the Browns. Always five years away and rebuilding. I quit following them a few years ago. Sure they have a bunch of picks and all these grand plans. They will blow it on something stupid, or make a huge error in judgment. People want to call TRich a bust because of where he was selected. At this point what does it matter? He was the best offensive weapon on a team that didn't have a QB, a right side of the line or a legit receiving core. Sure in hindsight it would have been nice to get kaepernick or Russell, but at that point in the draft the best option was TRich. This was the third non bust pick in the last 15 years. Get rid of your best offensive player and start over. Personally I have a problem with them tanking the season from a competition standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I tweeted this a few minutes ago: Not exactly apples2apples but DAL was 17-35 w/Herschel. Traded him after 5 games & finished 1-15, next 6yrs went 70-26 w/3 SB wins But the Browns only get one pick, a late first rounder. The Cowboys got a full ride scholarship. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I can imagine that the Colts were able to close the deal with the Browns. "Look at us. We had a 2-14 season and ended up with the #1 pick. Things turned out ok for us now didn't they?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Look at the Vikings, they have the best RB in the NFL and yet suck. RB should be the last piece a team needs when rebuilding, especially with their shelf-life. Cleveland has no QB and has so many holes, keeping Richardson wasn't going to affect their W/L record at all. I'm saying that trading him wasn't a bad idea, but I would have to assume they could of got maybe a little more than just a first. They do however have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds of this year's draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Look at the Vikings, they have the best RB in the NFL and yet suck. RB should be the last piece a team needs when rebuilding, especially with their shelf-life. Cleveland has no QB and has so many holes, keeping Richardson wasn't going to affect their W/L record at all. I'm saying that trading him wasn't a bad idea, but I would have to assume they could of got maybe a little more than just a first. They do however have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds of this year's draft. I don't think the Vikes will suck all that much this year. They might miss out on the playoffs but they might not. But that is a good argument. RBs have a shorter shelf life that is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I don't think the Vikes will suck all that much this year. They might miss out on the playoffs but they might not. But that is a good argument. RBs have a shorter shelf life that is true. I don't think the Vikes will suck all that much this year. They might miss out on the playoffs but they might not. But that is a good argument. RBs have a shorter shelf life that is true. your biased, they're bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coordi88 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Yep, and I think I posted this earlier but they now have 5 picks in the 1st three rounds (2-1st, 1-2nd & 2-3rds) This also caps them at the 10 max picks before the draft, so they couldn't have gotten much more for richardson anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 This also caps them at the 10 max picks before the draft, so they couldn't have gotten much more for richardson anyways. huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 huh? you can only have 10 draft picks before the draft starts, what didn't you understand? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.