Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    Time value of money says that a first rounder today is worth more than a first rounder tomorrow. If he can stay healthy, he will probably be better with the Colts.  CLICHE: Time will tell.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    I have no idea whether or not this trade will be good or bad, but I am excited about the prospects.  And before those (there were many) who suggest that teams should not use first round picks on RB's, what are your criteria for what is worth a first round pick?

    And before bashing the colts decision, with this trade, they don't have to pay first round money and bonus to a future potential pick who may not pan out.  Cleveland is left with covering Richardson's bonus as dead money over 2 years.  The colts have a 3 year contract with Richardson at a very manageable salary.  

    Its true that Cleveland's line is better than the colts so it will be interesting to see how Richardson handles that, but effective run blocking is compromised when defenses stack the box because they are not concerned about the passing game - e.g. Cleveland.  That won't be the case with Indy. 

    A few here questioned Indy's front office while also pointing out high indy picks that haven't worked and further suggesting that the browns don't have to be married to Richardson as their front office didn't draft him.  That's no different with Indy.  Their current front office didn't draft those noted failed picks.  Ryan Grigson deserved GM of they year last year and he earned it by not hoarding picks but sheparding a 70% roster turnover into a playoff appearance.  Obviously there was a lot of good fortune in that run, but you also need players with some talent heart and desire.  He found those.  Admittedly there are plenty of holes still left and he's working on those by not simply waiting until the next draft to see what MIGHT work out.  Hoarding picks is a luxury of very successful teams with stacked rosters and those who've given up on their season - the browns.  Let's see if this works before fully judging. 

    Finally, props to Cleveland's front office for not contacting Richardson before the deal hit the airwaves. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    I can't believe that the Colts gave up a #1 for Richardson.  Hey, give them credit for being bold, but is Cleveland so deep in its rebuilding that it wants to get rid of the guy already?  Something doesn't seem right.  I think the Browns would have done well to get a #2, never mind a #1.  Maybe he flourishes in Indy with Luck, you never know.   



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    Another thought on this; maybe it's not just the Colt's first round pick that the Brown's have their eye on.

    The value of winning no games instead of, say, 4 games could set this franchise up for 10 more years.

    As far as giving up a number 3 pick overall; Sunk costs are never relevant.

    this could be "suck for Bridgewater"

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

    Another thought on this; maybe it's not just the Colt's first round pick that the Brown's have their eye on.

    The value of winning no games instead of, say, 4 games could set this franchise up for 10 more years.

    As far as giving up a number 3 pick overall; Sunk costs are never relevant.

    this could be "suck for Bridgewater"


    I think that's a given.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to G0DVERNMENT's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    I don't know that I'd be so negative about this trade. Richardson in Indy, vs Richardson in Cleveland, are two different players. One is 'the show' the other merely complements a passing attack. Plus, for a chunky little RB Richardson is actually a pretty gifted receiver out of the backfield, which suits what Indy does.

    That said, no RB is worth a first rounder, but I'd imagine that Indy probably thinks they won't be getting a very good first rounder because their division isn't terrific, and they may eke into the playoffs again.

     

     



    no RB? that's a bit of an extreme statement don't you think? AP isn't worth a 1st rounder? 

     



    If Laurence Maroney was, I think AP gets the nod, too. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?


    This is a great deal for Indy in my opinion. But not a total loss for Cleveland.

    People are talking as if he's been in the league for 4 years. The guy is 18 games into his career. As UD6 pointed out, CLE paid a lot of the money already in bonuses.

    They ended up with the 2012 #1 and #3 fking picks, are you kidding me! On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal? Indy cashed in on an awful CLE situation.

    Luck, Hilton, Richardson. Wow. You're a fortunate fan UD6, what a core to have fun watching for the next 3+ seasons.

    This is one of those rare situations where both teams did well. Nobody else would have paid such a price. Only that price makes this deal happen in Week 3.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:


    This is a great deal for Indy in my opinion. But not a total loss for Cleveland.

    People are talking as if he's been in the league for 4 years. The guy is 18 games into his career. As UD6 pointed out, CLE paid a lot of the money already in bonuses.

    They ended up with the 2012 #1 and #3 fking picks, are you kidding me! On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal? Indy cashed in on an awful CLE situation.

    Luck, Hilton, Richardson. Wow. You're a fortunate fan UD6, what a core to have fun watching for the next 3+ seasons.

    This is one of those rare situations where both teams did well. Nobody else would have paid such a price. Only that price makes this deal happen in Week 3.


    I agree both teams benefitted.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:


    On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?



    18 games later Richardson has a history of nagging injuries and a 3.5 ypc.  His stock isn't nearly as high as it was on draft day.  I think the additional weapons in Indy will be more or less cancelled out by the inferior offensive line.  If Richardson improves it will be because he improves as a player as opposed to the effect of the change of scenery imo.  I don't think it's a given that he becomes the superstar the draftniks thought he was going to be. Obviously the Browns don't either since they just traded him and frankly given how hard Saban rides these guys at Bama you have to wonder about durability a bit.  We'll know more at the end of the season, but I was surprised at this trade.  I thought the Colts had bigger needs than RB.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to FrankDooley's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     


    aren't the pats a little thin at running back right now?  Isn't Maroney available?  He knows the system. 

     



    You have nothing to say. We walked from guys like BJGE and Woodhead, both UDFAs, who blow away anything on your roster right now.

     

    Your team isn't built yet and Irsay thinks it is. Colossal mistake.  You dom't mortgage drafts in the future when you aren't close to winning it all.

    You rented a lot of players this year as a bridge year, with a flat cap and so many guys gone from last year, and no coach with cancer to rally the troops, you'll be in a different spot, especially with Arians gone.

    Transition year. Grigson panicked. Period.

     




    ur garbage queenie

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

     


    On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?

     



    18 games later Richardson has a history of nagging injuries and a 3.5 ypc.  His stock isn't nearly as high as it was on draft day.  I think the additional weapons in Indy will be more or less cancelled out by the inferior offensive line.  If Richardson improves it will be because he improves as a player as opposed to the effect of the change of scenery imo.  I don't think it's a given that he becomes the superstar the draftniks thought he was going to be. Obviously the Browns don't either since they just traded him and frankly given how hard Saban rides these guys at Bama you have to wonder about durability a bit.  We'll know more at the end of the season, but I was surprised at this trade.  I thought the Colts had bigger needs than RB.

     



    Yet the colts get a player without having to pay or account for any bonus money.  That makes the deal, financially, significantly better than just a 1st round pick.  There are plenty of teams who do not covet first round picks especially because the picks provide no guarantee of success. 

    I noted what the pats got in 09 for their first round pick.  Everyone was raving about the haul of picks they got for it and not a single player stuck on the roster.  

    The he colts have high expectations for Richardson.  Grison said he passed the eye test.  I'd say the reigning exec of the year gets that benefit of the doubt.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

     

     

     


    On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?

     

     



    18 games later Richardson has a history of nagging injuries and a 3.5 ypc.  His stock isn't nearly as high as it was on draft day.  I think the additional weapons in Indy will be more or less cancelled out by the inferior offensive line.  If Richardson improves it will be because he improves as a player as opposed to the effect of the change of scenery imo.  I don't think it's a given that he becomes the superstar the draftniks thought he was going to be. Obviously the Browns don't either since they just traded him and frankly given how hard Saban rides these guys at Bama you have to wonder about durability a bit.  We'll know more at the end of the season, but I was surprised at this trade.  I thought the Colts had bigger needs than RB.

     

     

     



    Yet the colts get a player without having to pay or account for any bonus money.  That makes the deal, financially, significantly better than just a 1st round pick.  There are plenty of teams who do not covet first round picks especially because the picks provide no guarantee of success. 

     

    I noted what the pats got in 09 for their first round pick.  Everyone was raving about the haul of picks they got for it and not a single player stuck on the roster.  

    The he colts have high expectations for Richardson.  Grison said he passed the eye test.  I'd say the reigning exec of the year gets that benefit of the doubt.  



    See how good of a deal when he gets hurt. He has a much better QB to play for. The threat of a legit pass will take people out of the box. Career wise good move for Richardson.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

    Another thought on this; maybe it's not just the Colt's first round pick that the Brown's have their eye on.

    The value of winning no games instead of, say, 4 games could set this franchise up for 10 more years.

    As far as giving up a number 3 pick overall; Sunk costs are never relevant.

    this could be "suck for Bridgewater"




    Bostate

    It is obvious you understand more than football with your statement "Sunk costs are never relevant". The mistakes many of us make in life is living too much in the past. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     

    In response to ma6dragon9's comment:

     

     

     

     


    On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?

     

     

     



    18 games later Richardson has a history of nagging injuries and a 3.5 ypc.  His stock isn't nearly as high as it was on draft day.  I think the additional weapons in Indy will be more or less cancelled out by the inferior offensive line.  If Richardson improves it will be because he improves as a player as opposed to the effect of the change of scenery imo.  I don't think it's a given that he becomes the superstar the draftniks thought he was going to be. Obviously the Browns don't either since they just traded him and frankly given how hard Saban rides these guys at Bama you have to wonder about durability a bit.  We'll know more at the end of the season, but I was surprised at this trade.  I thought the Colts had bigger needs than RB.

     

     

     

     

     



    Yet the colts get a player without having to pay or account for any bonus money.  That makes the deal, financially, significantly better than just a 1st round pick.  There are plenty of teams who do not covet first round picks especially because the picks provide no guarantee of success. 


    I noted what the pats got in 09 for their first round pick.  Everyone was raving about the haul of picks they got for it and not a single player stuck on the roster.  

    The he colts have high expectations for Richardson.  Grison said he passed the eye test.  I'd say the reigning exec of the year gets that benefit of the doubt.  



    See how good of a deal when he gets hurt. He has a much better QB to play for. The threat of a legit pass will take people out of the box. Career wise good move for Richardson.  

     



    When he gets hurt?  For goodness sake.  You must now be kicking and screaming at the pats deals for Amendola 31 million, Gronkowski 55 million, and Hernandez 40 million.  Where are these guys? 

    Richardson will be on the field for the colts this week.  His contract is 6 million over 3 years.  Pennies compared to these others.  Welker will be suiting up this week for the broncos at 12 million over 2 years. 

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-redsox-rule. Show the-redsox-rule's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    The only back worth being a first round pick would be Adrian Peterson. Backs have a short shelf life, especially guys who played at Alabama for Saban. Cleveland shouldn't have used the 3rd pick for him in the first place. I guess they've done what they had to do to put themselves in position to draft a franchise QB. They've packed it in for the season after week two.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to the-redsox-rule's comment:

    The only back worth being a first round pick would be Adrian Peterson. Backs have a short shelf life, especially guys who played at Alabama for Saban. Cleveland shouldn't have used the 3rd pick for him in the first place. I guess they've done what they had to do to put themselves in position to draft a franchise QB. They've packed it in for the season after week two.


    What's a short shelf life, and what should be the shelf life of a first rounder?  I looked up the RB's that played for Saban at Alabama and were drafted high:  Richardson, Ingram, and Lacy - All are still in the NFL.  That tells me that we don't exactly know what their shelf-life is. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to UD6's comment:



    Yet the colts get a player without having to pay or account for any bonus money.  That makes the deal, financially, significantly better than just a 1st round pick.  There are plenty of teams who do not covet first round picks especially because the picks provide no guarantee of success. 

    I noted what the pats got in 09 for their first round pick.  Everyone was raving about the haul of picks they got for it and not a single player stuck on the roster.  

    The he colts have high expectations for Richardson.  Grison said he passed the eye test.  I'd say the reigning exec of the year gets that benefit of the doubt.  



    You need to relax.  I didn't say it was a bad trade.  The question I was responding to read:

    "On draft day, had they traded their 2014 first rounder for Trent Richardson, people would have flipped out at the robbery...but 18 games later and it's not still a steal?"

    I gave my perspective as to why this trade and that scenario are not equivalent on paper because I don't think his stock is as high as it was on draft day.  Why you're even mentioning the Patriots here is a mystery to me.  The fact that you feel the need to aggressively defend your team from any perceived criticism on another team's message board is amusing in it of itself.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Any speculation on the Monster Colts trade?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    I don't know that I'd be so negative about this trade. Richardson in Indy, vs Richardson in Cleveland, are two different players. One is 'the show' the other merely complements a passing attack. Plus, for a chunky little RB Richardson is actually a pretty gifted receiver out of the backfield, which suits what Indy does.

    That said, no RB is worth a first rounder, but I'd imagine that Indy probably thinks they won't be getting a very good first rounder because their division isn't terrific, and they may eke into the playoffs again.

     

     



    Well put

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share