NFL News: Browns re-sign Josh Cooper, Desmond Bryant practices
October 7, 2013Big Ten’s Jim Delany speaks on pay-to-play NCAA regulations
October 7, 2013I have the feeling that there are more fans of the Trent Richardson trade than detractors at this point in time. That wasn’t the case on the day that the trade occurred, I don’t think. Those who claimed that the Browns were tanking the season (like I did) have been treated to a three game winning streak. Those who liked the trade have been treated to the same winning streak, but also seem to be claiming they are now correct about the Trent Richardson trade due to the fact that the Browns are winning without him right now. Combine that with T-Rich’s continued difficulty running the ball in Indianapolis with Andrew Luck and you have a perfect storm of people jumping to conclusions. I might learn to love the Trent Richardson trade. I’m willing to admit it might be a good move for the Browns, but I’m just not sure yet.
Let’s talk about the three game winning streak. This piece of “evidence” as to why the Trent Richardson trade was good is flimsy at best. The Browns did go on a three game winning streak after the trade of Trent Richardson, but they also switched quarterbacks to Brian Hoyer and got Josh Gordon back. To think that Trent Richardson was somehow holding the team back from winning is silly. Beyond that, is there anyone who thinks Trent Richardson wouldn’t also have benefitted from the return of Josh Gordon and the switch to Brian Hoyer? The bottom line for me is that Trent Richardson – while maybe not good enough for his draft position – clearly makes the Browns roster better than what it is today with McGahee, etc. How much better is up for debate of course, but I think it would be pretty undeniably better.
The Browns did get a first round draft pick for Trent Richardson. On the outside, that seems to be “good value” for a former first round running back with question marks surrounding his ability. I’ll gladly admit that much, but the trade detractors won’t own up to the rest of the facts as obvious potential downsides to the trade.
First of all, the Browns don’t have Richardson playing for them this season for 14 games. Those 14 games of production are worth something while they wait for the draft to use Indianapolis’ pick. I don’t know how well Trent Richardson would be playing for the Browns right now, but I would rather bet on him than Willis McGahee, Bobby Rainey and Chris Ogbonnaya.
Secondly, when the Browns traded Trent Richardson, they didn’t get to trade the cap hits from his signing bonus. The Browns are in a good cap position, so they can seemingly afford to take the hit, but it’s a big one. According to Sportrac.com, Richardson’s “dead money” cap hit for next season is just north of $6.67 million. As you start projecting where Indianapolis’ pick projects to be in the first round as they take care of business against teams like the Seahawks, make sure you think of their pick with all that extra dead money too. I’m guessing Jimmy Haslam and Joe Banner don’t really care that they just wasted Randy Lerner’s cash that went to Trent Richardson for his signing bonus, but it’s another layer to the trade that needs to be considered. Maybe the Browns don’t need any extra financial flexibility next season, but it’s not nothing.
Finally, I don’t like the Trent Richardson trade because it created another hole. I have real concerns about this team and their potential needs next season across the roster. I’m concerned about the fact that Alex Mack will be an unrestricted free agent. I’m concerned that T.J. Ward will be an unrestricted free agent. I’m concerned that the Browns don’t have a plan at offensive guard or at middle linebacker learning under D’Qwell Jackson. The Browns will also need to address the quarterback spot, if you ask me. I’ll save that for another post.
The point is that the Browns now have one extra pick, but they deferred production on the field today and created another need for the list. Maybe they can fill the running back need with a third or fourth rounder in this year’s draft, but there’s an opportunity cost. The rookie cap makes it so the Browns could afford to keep Trent Richardson without it crushing their salary cap. Now, they take a cap hit next year which they’ll survive, but they created another need when this team already had enough needs if you ask me. When the Browns said they could only add so many new players in a single year, I believe in that. Roster turnover stunts growth. Did they really need to turn over the running back position by trading Trent Richardson? It remains to be seen.
Now, the Browns obviously traded a guy they didn’t want and didn’t believe in. They made a bold, brash, aggressive move. I really do hope they get this whole thing right. I’m still very concerned that they didn’t. Right now, I’m still not a fan of the trade, but they can make me a believer. I just need this team to make strides forward and they can start by proving this off-season that trading Richardson wasn’t a step back.
92 Comments
Ben Tate is going to look good in an orange helmet next year. 😉
“[T-Rich] clearly makes the Browns roster better than what it is today with McGahee, etc. How much better is up for debate of course, but I think it would be pretty undeniably better.”
so many qualifiers; painfully wordy.
“The bottom line for me is that Trent Richardson – while maybe not good enough for his draft position – clearly makes the Browns roster better than what it is today with McGahee, etc.”
I don’t know if this is a slam dunk. Aside from running the ball, RBs have a responsibility in protection when the QB drops back to pass. The coaching staff didn’t think that Richardson was very good in protection, but they are comfortable with McGahee in that role.
Everything you are suggesting here as a reason not to like the richarson trade–EXCEPT the accelerated money which in reality might be better eaten all in 2014 anyway– abstracts from the plain fact that Richardson is not a good or even average running back. He is a bad one. Like definitely bottom 10 in starters in the league. Maybe bottom 5, and honestly I couldn’t very confidently name a worse one. You can either project this by numbers (generally miserable and the worst of a slew of minus backs on either of his 2 teams) or by actually looking at the tape. I’ve gone over about 50% of Richardson’s runs on coaches film, and compared them to an equal or greater number of runs from a grab bag of AP, RR, Mendenhal, Spiller, Green-Ellis, Forte… It’s not that nothing is there. He doesn’t know what a 6 yard seam looks like.
Without changing his game, Richardson simply is not an NFL starter. He does not have an NFL relationship to NFL holes. He stops to deal with each tackler. He is slow where he needs to be fast and fast where he needs to be slow. Obviously the physical measurables are there and he can cut hard and get the extra yard once he’s in the wrestling match. But he doesn’t know how to play the position in the NFL and there won’t be time to learn before his career is on it’s downslope.
This from someone who cheered the pick.
Richardson’s #s in Indy: 51 carries, 151 yds, 3.0 YPC, 2 TDs
Browns’ RB #s past 3 games: 68 carries, 211 yds, 3.1 YPC, 1 TD
If Richardson is putting up those numbers playing with Andrew Luck, Reggie Wayne, TY Hilton, etc., I question the idea that playing with Josh Gordon and Brian Hoyer would have made him more productive in Cleveland. Theoretically, it makes sense, but there’s hard evidence that significantly improving the skill players around him isn’t making a difference. The numbers indicate that the Browns are no worse on the field with him being gone.
From what evidence do you glean the “fact” that Trent Richardson is a better RB this year than McGahee/Rainey/Ogby? Is it in the almost identical YPC they put up compared to when TRich was here? Or maybe that they are actually running better than TRich is in Indy right now?
I thought the argument about not liking the trade was his potential and future production, not this year’s. If anything, all the evidence and film points to the Browns actually being better off without him, both running and pass protection issues considered. Maybe not much better off, but there is no way in hell it’s “undeniable” that the Browns would be better off with him on the roster right now.
It was a bad pick when we made it. Mistake partially undone. Also at least 2 players indicated there was some locker room issues which more than makes getting rid of him worth it.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but the only way you can believe Richardson would “undeniably” make the Browns better than McGahee is if you are neither watching games nor looking at stats. The Browns admittedly-not-impressive committee of running backs has been about equal to the Colts admittedly-maybe-still-learning 2014 first round pick. Richardson may someday prove to be a good RB, but right now, today,there is no evidence or basis to claim that he is “undeniably” better than McGahee+…
Also, saying this trade created another hole is not accurate. As of right now, the Colts have a hole at running back too. Unless something changes, they go into 2014 without a solid RB to bet on, and have to either ride with Richardson, draft another RB, or sign a free agent. Right now, Richardson looks like the third best back on that team.
Bupalos, are you going to be publishing your analysis on Frowns’ site?
“Finally, I don’t like the Trent Richardson trade because it created another hole”
If Trent’s 3.0 YPC was filling the hole, then I would argue that we’ve already filled it. We can find any RB off a practice squad to average 3.0 YPC. Trent was just an average back.
I still think it’s undeniable.
Whatever McGahee puts up in a given week, I assume Trent Richardson would have done more. All I can tell you is how I feel about it.
I truly think that Richardson is looking especially bad in Browns fans’ eyes because of how they’ve performed since Hoyer started and Josh Gordon came off of suspension and how it coincided with the trade.
Plus, I’m still not understanding why TRich couldn’t play third down here ever. He’s pass protected decently for the Colts and anyone who watched the Colts the last few weeks knows that stats don’t necessarily tell the story.
Richardson ran the ball 14 times last week when the Colts already had more than a 20 point lead. This week, I’m not sure what was happening against Seattle, but there were 3 or more defenders on top of him the minute he received the handoff more than a few times.
“Beyond that, is there anyone who thinks Trent Richardson
wouldn’t also have benefitted from the return of Josh Gordon and the
switch to Brian Hoyer?”
Me.
Luck > Hoyer
Wayne, Hilton, Heyward-Bey > Gordon, Bess, Little
Still not producing like an above average NFL back.
So what you are saying is that Willis McGahee’s 2.6 yards per carry and Bobby Rainey’s 2.8 yards per carry means they are not better than Richardson?
Blasphemy!
“I don’t know how well Trent Richardson would be playing for the Browns right now, but I would rather bet on him than Willis McGahee, Bobby Rainey and Chris Ogbonnaya.”
Explain what we’ve lost production wise by replacing him with that platoon, because it sounds like you’re referring to the 2.9 yards per carry and zero runs of 20 yards or more.
Agree with Bup wholeheartedly. Craig, your whole arguments rests on the ASSUMPTION that T-Rich is good at his position. You have provided no evidence to support your position, and everyone here has provided evidence to the contrary. You need to do some analysis to make headway here.
The thing on which I disagree with you most: you say the trade created another “hole.” Given that T-Rich has shown no signs of being a productive NFL RB, we had a “hole” at RB with or without T-Rich. Now we have an additional pick to fill that hole.
I will add that I have been ripping the T-Rich pick since last year. T-Rich’s production even last year made him a much bigger bust than Weeden in my eyes (given how high he was selected).
Lastly, it’s worth noting that “T-Rich is not good at NFL football” is a narrative that is gaining legs nationally. It is not just a “homer” argument. This article is a good example.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trent-richardson-trade-was-genius-move-for-browns-2013-10
pretty undeniably wordy.
Trent Richardson has done a pretty good job in pass protection for the Colts. I’ve watched much of the last three weeks against San Fran, Jacksonville, and Seattle.
Slightly wordy. Subtract the word “pretty” and it is fine. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
I’m really not trying to be argumentative. I’m glad to admit what I don’t know. BUT, let’s think about this for a second. Indy has had games against San Fran, Seattle and a HUGE blowout against Jacksonville where they knew he’d be running. Stop trying to make things so simple.
All I’m doing is being honest with you about my feelings about the trade right now.
What I find amazing about your trade analysis, Craig, is that omits the fears heard everywhere less than a month ago: its success depends upon the skill of Mike Lombardi in evaluating college players. Kokinis/Mangini might have obtained great draft slots for the #5 overall but what they did with it – compared with what they could have done – rendered it infamous. Has the benefit of doubt pendulum swung so quickly to Lombardi/Banner after the hysterics about his hire?
“I’m guessing Jimmy Haslam and Joe Banner don’t really care that they
just wasted Randy Lerner’s cash that went to Trent Richardson for his
signing bonus, but it’s another layer to the trade that needs to be
considered. Maybe the Browns don’t need any extra financial flexibility
next season, but it’s not nothing.”
This I don’t get. If they don’t need this additional flexibility because of their cap situation and it’s someone else’s sunk cost, it’s the definition of nothing. Unless you disagree with your own premise.
It is hard to engage with this argument: “T-Rich is better than McGahee because I FEEL he is.” OK. Not sure there is a point in debating someone’s feelings.
They have a lot of cap space, but without knowing their plans in free agency and signing their own potential free agents, it’s impossible for me to know if they could use the extra that they’re wasting on a dead signing bonus.
I didn’t watch this week’s game close enough to notice how he did in pass protection, unfortunately. If you say he looked good and you don’t know why Chud and Norv didn’t want him in pass protection, then I’ll take your word for it. What I did see was a running back who failed to accelerate and burst through the hole when given the opportunity. I saw a guy who breaks tackles, but takes so long to make a decision and then accelerate that it isn’t a big advantage. I saw the same guy I watched here in Cleveland.
Why? You “feel” that the 31-year-old journeyman with tons of miles on him who was available for any team to sign two weeks into the year is better than the guy that just garnered a first round pick from the Colts.
Craig –
I don’t think anyone is saying T-Rich is bad because of the last three games. They are saying he is bad because of the last 21 games. He had the 40th best YPC last year, despite playing behind a solid offensive line. He has been equally ineffective this year, despite playing on two different teams against a wide variety of defenses. Further, the RBs on his team have consistently outperformed in both in Indy and in Cleveland.
The evidence is fairly deep at this point. There is a chance that he turns it around, but that chance is small given how consistently ineffective he has been over such a long sample size (350+ carries).
on your 3 points:
1 – Im not sure how much he makes the Browns better right now. Granted, he is picking up a new offense in Indy, but it is a much better team and he looks like the same player he was here. Further, the Browns RBC is producing at the same level TRich was and is.
2 – I suppose this is a legitimate gripe, but how much does a $6M cap hit matter? I don’t know the answer, but my guess is that it isn’t that big of a hit. That’s like what, a 1 year rental of a good player?
3 – Does it create a hole? Perhaps it creates an immediate hole THIS SEASON (which was subsequently filled by Ol’ Man Willy). But going forward, operating under the assumption that RBs are a dime-a-dozen, I don’t think this is a hole.
Even if I were to agree that TR makes this team better than *insert RB name here*, it’s still a question of how much. How many points better? 70? 50? 21? 7? Based on the past few weeks and last season, I don’t think all that many. So accepting that, how could you not take the 1st round pick and dumping the contract?
I’ll also second those saying it’s hard to argue something when it’s just how someone feels about a player. I think the stats paint a picture of TR’s performance and how the Browns have done without him. Three games isn’t much of a sample size, but it’s all we have. And that empirical data shows TR to be as average as his replacements.
I am undecided about Richardson, but I must admit that the numbers are slowly gathering in support of the trade. However, tp play devil’s advocate, let me throw out one statistic I find in TRich’s favor.
Last year, he demonstrated elite skill around the goal line and scored 11 touchdowns, which put him in the top 5 in the league (http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingTouchdowns/year/2012). Furthermore, he did this while injured, and with nearly 100 less carries than other backs in the top 5. The 2013 Browns are clearly inferior in the red zone, as evidenced by 1 rushing touchdown thus far this season (and a painstaking one at that).
Therefore, the trade measurably weakened our potential to score TD’s instead of FG’s, which is the signature strategy for winning in the modern NFL.
Right. I was reacting to “but it’s not nothing.” My point, again: if an anal Cap Man like Banner did this with his plan in mind (whatever it is) it may in fact be nothing to his plan. As in “Jimmy, we’re good with the cap, it doesn’t touch our plan.” And that’s exactly why he was trying to make this deal. And it’s only a “waste” if philosophically you’re allergic to the concept of money for vanished players. That’s different from football.
Nailed it. In fact, the best arguments at the current moment against the trade are both ones Craig didn’t make:
1) That Trent will improve drastically once he familiarizes himself with the IND playbook and O-line, etc.
2) That the pick we get at 25 or whatever will be less valuable than Trent (especially once he accomplishes #1).
I think most people’s argument is that TRich and the Brown’s RBC are presently producing at comparable levels.
How many opportunities did TR have to score around the goal line compared to other RBs? Quantity doesn’t really prove quality here without some context.
here I agree with you, Craig. It’s too early to compare Browns RBs and Richardson, since we’ve had barely 1 full game with Weeden back under center and no opportunity for the Bills on a short week to game plan that. Norv Turner can far more easily hide the absence of effective running against the Bills and their depleted secondary than he will in upcoming weeks. Not a defense of Richardson, but just saying our running game might go south real quick with Weeden and his 5-Mississippi throws back.
5-Mississippi throws! Ha!
Rush defenses that Trent has faced this year (NFL rank/yds per carry allowed) and his performance against that team.
Miami (18th/4.0 ypc) – Trent: 3.6
Baltimore (5th/3.4 ypc) – Trent: 3.4
SF (9th / 3.7 ypc) – Trent: 3.1
Jacksonville (29th / 4.9 ypc) – Trent 3.0
Seattle (20th / 4.0) – Trent: 3.1
Appreciate that all Browns fans (including me) have been telling ourselves that Trent is a beast for the better part of 18 months, and it’s hard to go back and look at it objectively.. but he’s 20 games into a career. It’s far more likely that he is what the numbers show than his becoming an elite rb with breakaway potential. if we waited 14 games to make this trade, I think the yield would have looked different.
As far as I can see, Bryan has stuck with statistics and numbers.
I don’t think we need to worry about that. T-Rich played 16 games for the Browns last year, and Montario Hardesty had a substantially higher YPC throughout the whole season. The Browns have never experienced a drop-off in their RB production when T-Rich rested or took series off. So why would we expect to see a drop-off now?
All of the pro T-Rich arguments depend on convoluted logic about how, despite having terrible production, T-Rich is actually very good – his low production is not his fault, it is the fault of the scheme/the defense/the matchup/the QB/Josh Gorden, etc. Well, maybe that convoluted logic will pan out, but the probability it does is quite low, given the large sample size we have on T-Rich.
If you come here for the writing, prepare to be disappointed. They are just fans with quality insight.
1 – Undeniably better? Maybe, maybe not. But, does undeniably better necessarily mean good? I mean, we’ve been fairly pathetic running the ball this year, with or without Trent. Last year, we weren’t exactly world beaters either. So, I contend that we still had a hole. Maybe it wouldn’t be as bad if our guards were better (a huge issue), but at the end of the day, there is nothing to say that Richardson was a good NFL RB. Even if he is currently a better NFL RB than the rest on our roster.
2 – Even if he is undeniably better, does he help us win more games this year? A year in which our front office (namely Banner and company) have all but said that this was an evaluation year (they already traded Trent…and have pursued other players if rumors are to be believed). They traded picks this past draft for picks in the next draft. They are rebuilding…but they’re not blowing it all up today. Instead, they’re preparing to see what they need tomorrow. We’re winning games when people thought we were tanking…but that’s OK because while we lose draft position, we show that we don’t have as many needs as we thought. Is Trent Richardson really not a hole at HB with his barely 3+ YPC? I don’t know…and I don’t know that he helps us win a few more games.
3 – The cap hit will hurt some, but I thought I’d read somewhere that we have the cap space we have to resign our guys, not necessarily to bring in even more FAs. If Trent is on our team, don’t we still have the same cap hit? Only, in this case, we have a roster spot being occupied as opposed to an open one.
4 – If Trent Richardson truly is “undeniably” better than the RBC we have here…when will we see the results of this? Because what I’ve seen so far with him in Indy is that he’s essentially the same player he was here. A hard nosed (but slow accelerating) runner who doesn’t go down easy, but doesn’t exactly explode on you. What I’m describing there sounds a lot like Willis McGahee.
My two cents……
TRich is never going to be anything but an average NFL back. He was DEFINITELY not worth all that was involved in picking him 3rd…..I cant imagine anyone arguing this point. RB’ with his current skill set are working out in gyms all over the country waiting for a call….
We now have 2 first rd picks. Odds are we will do better than the last time we had 2 picks in the first rd…( Trich and Weedon )….So…we are in a much better position than we would be without the trade.
I truly believe they jumped on this deal quickly and never shopped him because if people really started to study the tape on him for trade purposes it may have quickly become obvious that he was NOT worth a first rd pick in a trade.
So we end up with picks 12, 25 and 44……damn any kind of decent drafting and we can certainly make this true playoff contender…..
I’m not trying to be argumentative either. I almost always appreciate your articles as they tend to generate lots of good discussion, and you’ve apparently hit on a great topic today.
I think we supported Richardson when he was ours, despite opposing evidence, and I think we’ll probably support the trade, despite any opposing evidence. Fans!
There’s also the issue that however TR turns out, this regime clearly did not want him. Square peg, round hole situation. Instead of wasting time to try to see if they could make it work, they traded him while his value was still high.
Which goes to a larger point about Banner/Lombardi- disagree with their plan, at least they are showing urgency in implementing it. For me, this is a refreshing change of pace from Holmgren/Heckert who only started taking chances one their jobs seemed endangered
Absolutely correct, Harv. Ultimately, the trade will be evaluated based on who the Browns get in return, and how well that guy (or guys) plays for them in the future vs. how Richardson impacts the Colts.
my issue with the Trent trade:
They clearly did not believe in Richardson. So, why was Bobby Rainey (picked up Sept) and Ogbonnaya (spent last 2 months playing FB) the ONLY runningbacks on the roster? Picking up a battered McGahee and watching him punch in 1 TD in 7 attempts from inside the Bills 3yd line is NOT good planning by a FO.
again, he had 7 attempts inside the Bills 3yd line. 1 score.
We now have to watch a guy with no 2nd gear try to sniff out holes and be terrible on the goalline (again, because he has no burst) for the rest of the season. It’s painful.
I don’t mind the value we got on the trade. A pick in the 20’s is better than we should have gotten given what Trent has produced and he hasn’t done anything in Indy to suggest he was worth more. However, that doesn’t excuse the lack of secondary options if the FO didn’t trust him to be our RB.
who was the second player? (Fujita and?)
Well, I think the trade of TR was one of opportunity. The Colts had some injuries at RB and all of a sudden became buyers. Not sure that exonerates them for not having more depth.
I’m going to start referring to Banner as “Anal Cap”!!
Craig, don’t overthink it. Despite all the initial misgivings, the early results all indicate that it was a good deal. Be one with it.
D’Qwell Jackson also had a comment that could, I suppose, be read between the lines:
“He is still young,” said Jackson. “To be in this league, you have to go through the ups and downs. A lot of guys’ paths don’t start off as they would like. There’s nothing to say things can’t change and you can’t be that dominant person. Every player in this locker room has a lot of work to do. I have a lot of work to do. That’s not something to say why it’s the reason he got traded.”