Jump to content

i WOULD NOT! pass on Trent Richardson


Recommended Posts

How is it flimsy and wrong? If the theory is that RBs are as important today as they once were, then why hasn't AP's presence in Minny made them a perennial contender? Truth is, it hasn't. Minny wasn't considered a true contender until they got a retread, washed up QB to take over the reigns. Favre added 5 wins to their season. That's HUGE. Take AP off that team, they win the same amount of games -- maybe one less.

 

The league has changed. You do not build your team around RBs anymore. In fact, name a top 5 RB in the league that has won a ring in the past few years ... you can't. In fact, no team that has led the league in rushing has won a super bowl in OVER A DECADE.

 

2011 Individual Rushing Leaders

MJD

Ray Rice

Michael Turner

McCoy

Foster

 

(3 out of 5 made the playoffs, 0 made the Super Bowl)

 

2010

Foster

Charles

Turner

C.Johnson

MJD

 

(2 out of the 5 made the playoffs, neither of those won a playoff game)

 

2009

C.Johnson

S. Jackson

Jones

MJD

AP

 

(2 out of 5 made the playoffs, neither made the Super Bowl)

 

2008

AP

Turner

Williams

Portis

Jones

 

(1 out of 5 made the playoffs. No one made the Super Bowl)

 

And it doesn't improve if you look at team rushing numbers:

 

2011 Team Rushing Leaders

SF

Baltimore

Miami

Houston

Chicago

 

(3 out of 5 made the playoffs. None made the Super Bowl)

2010

Steelers

Chicago

Jets

Chargers

Ravens

 

(4 out of 5 made the playoffs. Steelers made the Super Bowl and lost)

 

2009

GB

Minny

Steelers

Dallas

Ravens

 

(4 out of 5 made the playoffs. None made the Super Bowl)

 

2008

Minny

Steelers

Ravens

Eagles

Chicago

 

(1 out of 5 made the playoffs. No one made the Super Bowl)

 

So, you do the math. If having the best rushing attack in the league hasn't led ANY TEAM to a Championship in over a decade, why would you advocate using another first round pick on a RB when the BEST CASE SCENARIO still doesn't get you any closer to a championship?

 

Anyone who thinks a RB is worth a first round pick hasn't been paying attention to the changes in the NFL over the past decade. Times have changed. How you build your team has changed. And, if you think this isn't true just look at how many first round RBs have been picked over the past decade ...

 

2011: 1 (#28)

2010: 3 (#9, #12, #30)

2009: 3 (#12, #27, #31)

2008: 5 (#4, #13, #22, #23, #24)

2007: 2 (#7, #12)

2006: 4 (#2, #21, #27, #30)

2005: 3 (#2, #4, #5)

2004: 3 (#24, #26, #30)

2003: 2 (#23, #27)

2002: 2 (#16, #18)

 

-28 first round picks have been spent on RBs the past in 10 years. That accounts for 8% of first round picks used on RBs. In comparison, in the previous ten drafts 10% of first round picks were spent on RBs (31 of 310 picks).

 

-Of those 28 first round RBs, only Reggie Bush, Joseph Addai and *Rashard Mendenhall have rings.

(*Mendhall was on IR for the Super Bowl run.)

 

-22 different teams used those 28 first round picks on round RBs. Only the Saints, Colts, Lions, Panthers and Bills used more than one first round pick on a RB. The Bills were the only team to use THREE first round picks on Running Backs (Willis, Lynch, Spiller).

*NO (2), SD, DET (2), DEN, IND (2), ARZ, OK, CAR (2), DAL, PIT, TEN, MIN, NE, MIA, CHI, TB, ST, CIN, KC, CLE, ATL

BUF (3)

 

-11 of those 28 RBs picked were selected #15 or higher. The highest pick being Reggie Bush and Ronnie Brown, both selected at #2 overall in '05 and '06.

 

-2 of those 11 backs were picked by the Buffalo Bills (Spiller and Lynch).

 

With all due respect to the time you must have put into your response, I didn't read it in t's entirty as I know where you were going with this.

 

I understand the landscape of the league and the notion that Rb's are not as valued as they once were.

 

Also, as I stated, I'm not advocating drafting TR. However, like DeCastro, we may find a player at a position whee he is so much better than the next at his position that selecting either of them would be understandable.

 

Fact is, the Bills would be automatically better with TR or Decastro on its roster, would they not?

 

Now, should we draft either? Perhaps not.....but I'd understand if they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With all due respect to the time you must have put into your response, I didn't read it in t's entirty as I know where you were going with this.

 

I understand the landscape of the league and the notion that Rb's are not as valued as they once were.

 

Also, as I stated, I'm not advocating drafting TR. However, like DeCastro, we may find a player at a position whee he is so much better than the next at his position that selecting either of them would be understandable.

 

Fact is, the Bills would be automatically better with TR or Decastro on its roster, would they not?

 

Now, should we draft either? Perhaps not.....but I'd understand if they did.

No. They would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't care what no body say on this board about having Fred or that we have Spiller...

 

Saw the guy play in college....and he looked amazing in workouts....

 

Now you may blast me....

 

He's like MJD 2.0. He is certainly a phenomonal player. BUT...Getting him when we already half both Freddy "Krueger" Jackson (My nickname for him since he is a scary good player, and I love Freddy of the Nightmare slahser films) and C.J Spiller is ludicrous. These moves have been done before and they'e rarely EVER worked out! PS: Way to name this thread "I WOULD NOT PASS!" without a picture of Ian McKellan. Really blew it, didn't ya?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't care what no body say on this board about having Fred or that we have Spiller...

 

Saw the guy play in college....and he looked amazing in workouts....

 

Now you may blast me....

 

My first reaction was to blast you. I see your point, I just would not draft a RB in the first round no matter what. Too many guys out there that just needs a chance, look at Fred J. Where is lynch? I would try to move back one more time and then take a LT or best player any position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then.....consider yourself wrong.

Explain how they would be better? I've shown that having the best RBs in the league doesn't equate to super bowl wins, nor does having the most team rushing yards. So how does adding a RB to a roster already containing the best RB in the league last year and a first round pick waiting in the wings make the Bills ANY better in 2012?

 

... Right, it doesn't.

 

Fred Jackson was the best player on the field for the Bills in 11. Spiller showed flashes of being explosive in limited work. Both backs can catch, Fred is a better blocker than Richardson by a MILE on pass protection, so what does Richardson add that the bills are missing?

 

....oh wait, nothing.

 

Taking a RB, ANY RB no matterbhow good he is, won't make the Bills better in the only column that counts: wins. Especially when there are actual holes that need to be addressed on the roster. We currently do not have any starting LTs on the roster, nor do we have much at WR or LB or back up QB.

 

Your suggested method for building the team has been tried by the Bills over and over again. They have spent more first round picks on RBs over the past 15 years than ANY OTHER FRANCHISE and yet they haven't even sniffed the playoffs in that time.

 

History shows youre wrong. The stats show your wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explain how they would be better? I've shown that having the best RBs in the league doesn't equate to super bowl wins, nor does having the most team rushing yards. So how does adding a RB to a roster already containing the best RB in the league last year and a first round pick waiting in the wings make the Bills ANY better in 2012?

 

... Right, it doesn't.

 

Fred Jackson was the best player on the field for the Bills in 11. Spiller showed flashes of being explosive in limited work. Both backs can catch, Fred is a better blocker than Richardson by a MILE on pass protection, so what does Richardson add that the bills are missing?

 

....oh wait, nothing.

 

Taking a RB, ANY RB no matterbhow good he is, won't make the Bills better in the only column that counts: wins. Especially when there are actual holes that need to be addressed on the roster. We currently do not have any starting LTs on the roster, nor do we have much at WR or LB or back up QB.

 

Your suggested method for building the team has been tried by the Bills over and over again. They have spent more first round picks on RBs over the past 15 years than ANY OTHER FRANCHISE and yet they haven't even sniffed the playoffs in that time.

 

History shows youre wrong. The stats show your wrong.

Where in any of my posts have I said that TR is the answer or that we should draft him? Answer: NOWHERE

 

I merely said I can understand them selecting a player best at his position. Much like drafting DeCastro.

 

So, while you have compiled all those lovely numbers, stats, trends, etc......I haven't ONCE said we SHOULD draft him. I hope we don't.

 

Yes, there are other holes to fill...lets hope they do that. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in any of my posts have I said that TR is the answer or that we should draft him? Answer: NOWHERE

It's difficult to have a conversation when you keep changing the subject or when you don't read the post.

 

You asked this:

 

Fact is, the Bills would be automatically better with TR or Decastro on its roster, would they not?

 

To which I responded:

 

(Decastro is not what this conversation is about, it's about whether drafting a running back, ANY running back but in this case Richardson, in the first round would make the Bills better.)

 

No. They would not.

You then wrote:

 

Well then.....consider yourself wrong.

 

Which is where this response comes in:

 

Explain how they would be better? I've shown that having the best RBs in the league doesn't equate to super bowl wins, nor does having the most team rushing yards. So how does adding a RB to a roster already containing the best RB in the league last year and a first round pick waiting in the wings make the Bills ANY better in 2012?

 

... Right, it doesn't.

 

Fred Jackson was the best player on the field for the Bills in 11. Spiller showed flashes of being explosive in limited work. Both backs can catch, Fred is a better blocker than Richardson by a MILE on pass protection, so what does Richardson add that the bills are missing?

 

....oh wait, nothing.

 

Taking a RB, ANY RB no matterbhow good he is, won't make the Bills better in the only column that counts: wins. Especially when there are actual holes that need to be addressed on the roster. We currently do not have any starting LTs on the roster, nor do we have much at WR or LB or back up QB.

 

Your suggested method for building the team has been tried by the Bills over and over again. They have spent more first round picks on RBs over the past 15 years than ANY OTHER FRANCHISE and yet they haven't even sniffed the playoffs in that time.

 

History shows youre wrong. The stats show your wrong.

 

So, again, in response to the original question you asked: Would the Bills be automatically better if they drafted Richardson? The answer is an unequivocal NO.

 

This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. Fact backed by data, statistics and general understanding of the modern game. Short of Spiller and Jackson retiring before the draft there is absolutely no scenario in which the Bills should even consider taking Richardson in the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...