Link: Trent's gone per Scout
- Thread starter tidegrandpa
- Start date
- Status
Maybe, but the Browns were still on the fence with Trent when they traded him. Had the Colts not offered a first round pick, he would still be a Brown (or cut). He did not stink up the joint at Cleveland, he simply did not live up to their expectations. Also, he steadily gained weight while playing for the Browns (per "reports" - I have no real data to back that up). They were concerned that he had already reached his maximum potential and would only get worse.
Reports of his weight loss this past off-season were encouraging, as were reports out of the Raiders summer camps. But something must have happened because they kept bringing in other RBs - far more than most NFL teams bring in for fall camp.
TRich you need to focus on your football career and stop posting on Tidefans. LOL
Honestly though it is a head scratcher when it comes to Trent and the NFL.
Everyone keeps saying he had a shoddy offensive line in Cleveland, and that was actually their strong point.
They had the fifth best line in the league in 2012. They has two studs (Joe Thomas and Alex Mack), a breakout rookie (Mitchell Schwartz), a solid vet (Greco), and only ONE lineman that graded below average on the year.
I don't think many of the people in this discussion truly follow professional football. You just assume the line was bad because of his numbers, when they actually graded out fifth.
Their preseason ranking was 14th, so they were even better than advertised.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
They had the fifth best line in the league in 2012. They has two studs (Joe Thomas and Alex Mack), a breakout rookie (Mitchell Schwartz), a solid vet (Greco), and only ONE lineman that graded below average on the year.
I don't think many of the people in this discussion truly follow professional football. You just assume the line was bad because of his numbers, when they actually graded out fifth.
Their preseason ranking was 14th, so they were even better than advertised.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Ok but would you rather have a runningback that started in nearly 16 games that had 150+ attempts with 500 yards and some change, or a rb that played in 4 or 5 games with 70 attempts and 400 yards. Those are roughly tr vs dan Herron's stats for the colts last year. Same team.
Also why are you so hard on the notion abou the browns getting rid of him. You are talking about a team with a horrible qb, an average oline, and that throws it close to 50% of the time trading a guy to a team that has an elite qb, a little below average oline, and throws it 80 to 90% of the time. That makes the browns a moot point. He went into a far better situation with the colts so really why does the browns situation even matter. Tr was in the position knowshawn Moreno was when Peyton came to Denver. Moreno finally hit 1k. Plus many here have outlined why the browns traded him and how his yards per carry really make his decline seem clear. It's not this big Glenn beck conspiracy. Blount has been with as many, if not more, teams than Trent but is still welcomed with open arms. Why??? Maybe ypc are better stats than total yards and Tds
I'm not emotional about Trent being let go. I'm emotional because obviously I cannot explain this simple -- SIMPLE TO ME ANYWAY -- premise adequately.
If I'm driving at 55 mph down A street and an externally-invoked event (deer runs into the path of your car) occurs which affects my car and I am no longer going 55 mph after the event and I turn down B and C streets and still cannot reach 55 mph again, I do not say, "My car failed. The event obviously was not to blame because I have driven down three different streets and still my car won't accelerate back to 55 mph.
"The car was driving fine until this event, but if you drive down three different streets and cannot resume 55 mph, something is wrong with the car and the event that affected my car and preceded this degradation in performance must not be at fault because the car was driving fine before the event and other cars have driven by at 55 mph and while they have not been impacted by the same event as my car, since they are working fine, the fault must lie with my car."
CAR(property: condition: fine) --> EVENT(DEER runs into CAR) --> CAR (property: condition: degraded) --> ACTION(CAR changes STREET) ---> CAR (property: condition: degraded) --> ACTION (CAR changes STREET) --> CAR(property: condition: no longer working)
YOUR ANALYSIS: CAR is at FAULT, DEER is not at FAULT because CAR(property: condition: fine) on STREET A before DEER, CAR(property: condition: degraded) ON STREET A after DEER, CAR (property: condition: degraded) on STREET B after DEER, CAR(property: condition: degraded) on STREET C after DEER
Can anyone see why I get frustrated?
So the Cleveland Browns trading Trent Richardson is the sole reason he had worse stats than other RBs? That's what I took from your scenario.
Oh boy, they GRADED OUT fifth.
How was Trent Richardson GRADED OUT? I look at three seasons (2011, 2012, 2013) and I see a 4-11 team that became a 5-11 team and then became a 4-12 team. The little hump in the middle was when Trent Richardson was playing. The Browns offense was ranked 30th in NY/A passing and 31st in Y/A rushing in 2011. They were ranked 25th in NY/A passing and 21st in Y/A rushing in 2012 and then they were ranked 27th in NY/A passing and 23rd in Y/A rushing in 2013. So, this great offensive line just decided to take a break in 2011 and 2013, but were knocking open holes left and right for Trent in 2012?
There are many factors that determine the outcome of a season, but there is NOTHING statistical that infers that the Cleveland Browns were anything but a better offense when Trent Richardson was playing. It doesn't prove that he is the reason for the improvement, but the statistics all show a decreased offensive output before and after his time there. The belief that he was the problem instead of other factors is not supported at all by the statistics, but instead the opposite. Mark Ingram and Eddie Lacy both were successful at their initial programs and it would be hard to argue that Trent wasn't the best of the three. So I am supposed to believe that other UA running backs successfully made the transition to the NFL, the appearance of Trent Richardson on the Cleveland Browns roster and his high rate of utilization really was not the factor that created a single season improvement in offensive statistics, but it was instead the offensive line and it is just coincidence that the offensive numbers degrade after Richardson is traded, and that Trent's deteriorating performance after being traded proves that he was not a good running back because he had his only one good year before the trade and that the trade had no effect on his psyche?
It's all so obvious. I don't see why I didn't figure it out earlier. :biggrin:
That is possible. To think that that premise is impossible is to ascribe athletic success completely to physical attributes. Do you think that the public emasculation of a proud athlete would improve his performance?
They were actually better with Hardesty honestly. Trent just got WAY more carries.
I love Trent, but the truth is he's done worse than his peers when in the exact same situation.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I love Trent, but the truth is he's done worse than his peers when in the exact same situation.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
That didn't start until he started playing bad. It's not like people were bashing him before he got a NFL carry. People started bashing him when his production was bad.
He was a highly drafted running back that was only given one year with the team that, traditionally in the NFL, was a kind of alma mater -- the team that drafted you. Why did Mark Ingram improve over time by being at the same program, but it is so hard to believe that Trent would have also? The Browns CHOSE him, I assume with the intentions of creating an environment in which he could prosper, preventing any other team -- one of which might have better utilized him -- from having the opportunity to use him. I believe that carries some implicit responsibility to not just heave a guy after one year in order to gain a good draft pick. If Shaun Alexander, Mark Ingram, and Eddie Lacy hadn't been retained by the teams that originally drafted them and been successful, then it would be a more plausible scenario to say that Trent was just not cut for the NFL and that trading him had no effect on him. We have four players, three which were successful and one who was not. The three that were successful were NOT traded after their first year and the one that was not successful was traded after his first year. In college, they all faced SEC defenses which are the closest thing to NFL defenses and the one that was not successful in the NFL was the most successful in his final season in college and was a Heisman finalist and the Doak Walker Award winner. Which of these is not like the other?
I personally thought Trent was about as sure a pick as there ever was going into the NFL, but he never seemed to be able to get a solid footing after he was traded by Cleveland. I heard he was having trouble dealing with the people around him. It may have been his girlfriend or it may have been other people, but it seemed everyone wanted a piece of his big NFL payday. This situation appears to be similar to many other players who had trouble managing their money. I hope Trent comes back, gets his degree and goes into coaching.
I'm done with it. I have supported my assertions with statistics, differences in outcomes, comparisons, et. al. If you want to assign complete culpability to Trent Richardson for his too-short career and completely absolve the Browns of any blame whatsoever, fine. Stats are overrated unless they support your conclusions apparently.
I remember there was an interview with a prominent person that worked in the Browns GM office that gave some info on why the Browns traded him so soon. He stated that the Browns were trying to make him use better mechanics and see the field better in order to stay healthy and be productive past his rookie year, but they said Trent was either too slow to catch on or too hard headed to change. So instead of getting stuck with another Peyton Hillis situation the Browns were looking for a team that was desperate for a running back and would pay big to get what seemed to be a good one that was on the rise.
I think its time to say Trent is another Ron Dayne story in which he was great in college but a bust in the pros. I loved watching Trent at Alabama and hate to see his career turn out like this, but it seems like it isn't meant to be
Wow, you retorted yourself. That's TRULY AMAZING. So even before they traded him and while he was still -- allegedly -- their running back AND on the rise, they had decided that he was going to be a failure because someone else before him had been. I wonder what else those two people had in common? We know that they both had great offensive lines in front of them.
That's the way I like to run my business. I like tarot cards and Oujia for making key personnel decisions also.
When that "Fat Eddie Lacy" photo came out, the Browns told the Packers, "He'll never last. He's just too big."
Last edited:
TideFan in AU
Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by 81usaf92
I remember there was an interview with a prominent person that worked in the Browns GM office that gave some info on why the Browns traded him so soon. He stated that the Browns were trying to make him use better mechanics and see the field better in order to stay healthy and be productive past his rookie year, but they said Trent was either too slow to catch on or too hard headed to change. So instead of getting stuck with another Peyton Hillis situation the Browns were looking for a team that was desperate for a running back and would pay big to get what seemed to be a good one that was on the rise.
I think its time to say Trent is another Ron Dayne story in which he was great in college but a bust in the pros. I loved watching Trent at Alabama and hate to see his career turn out like this, but it seems like it isn't meant to be
Wow, you retorted yourself. That's TRULY AMAZING. So even before they traded him and while he was still -- allegedly -- their running back AND on the rise, they had decided that he was going to be a failure because someone else before him had been. I wonder what else those two people had in common? We know that they both had great offensive lines in front of them.
That's the way I like to run my business. I like tarot cards and Oujia for making key personnel decisions also.
When that "Fat Eddie Lacy" photo came out, the Browns told the Packers, "He'll never last. He's just too big."
I know you're passionate about this, but even if I believed the Browns were at fault (I don't, BTW) Trent has had 3 years to get over it. Some of the best players in NFL history have been traded, waived, and cut numerous times early in their careers.
The bottom line is that playing football is Trent's job, and for whatever reason, has hasn't been good at his job. That is a undeniable FACT. No one here is immune to that, and neither should Trent be.
- Status
Trending content
-
Thread 'Good luck dealing with a pandemic, depending on this administration...'- TIDE-HSV
Replies: 8K -
-
-
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Ranking the top receivers in college football: Jer...- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
The monetary difference between equal and fair. Which do you prefer?- Started by Bamabuzzard
- Replies: 2
-
ESPN: Hocutt on Sorsby situation: 'No perfect answer'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Big 12 preview: Can anyone catch up to surging Tex...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
