That's well put, and I don't disagree with all of it. I do disagree about the job security angle though. I think a lousy 2014 campaign is much more easily defended after this move. "Look, we inherited terrible players from the previous regime, then it took us a year to turn those into something useful for the future, and with such a young team we need more time to develop all this new talent." I think it 1) allows them to write-off 2013 more easily since it wasn't merely 'not their players' but it was basically 'no players,' and 2) in 2014 they can claim a bigger chunk of the team's future performance isn't yet knowable.
____
The financial side IMHO makes the deal (a little) worse for Cleveland. They're losing out on a RB's most productive years, and while he wasn't a super cheap RB due to his draft status, he was going to be one going forward. I expect the $6M he'd get over 3 years will actually be pretty close to what a third round pick will earn over that time.
(September 19th, 2013, 15:25)scooter Wrote: This trade is not that great, but drafting any RB in the top 3 of a recent draft was a far worse move than this trade.
(September 19th, 2013, 15:25)scooter Wrote: This trade is not that great, but drafting any RB in the top 3 of a recent draft was a far worse move than this trade.
I disagree intensely.
Well then you're intensely wrong . (I'm kidding, mostly.) You draft a QB in the top 5. If he ends up being a pro bowl caliber QB (no I will not use the E word and don't any of you dare ), you get him performing at that level for well over 10-15 years. If he ends up being a prob bowl caliber RB, you get that level of performance for 5-6 years. RBs don't perform at a high level in their 30s unless they are "miraculously" recovering from ACL injuries in record speed like Adrian Peterson.
Come on, other than the Ravens, name me a team that's recently won a Super Bowl because of their amazing RB? And never mind the fact that the Ravens won it mainly because Flacco turned in one of the greatest string of playoff games from the QB position in NFL history. The reason all the best RBs seem to end up on consistently mediocre teams is because in a salary cap league, the value you get from spending big on a top RB isn't nearly as good as spending big on other positions, and the recent results support out that hypothesis. There's also been a half dozen rule changes over the last 10 years that have gradually shifted the balance of the game towards passing anyway. Therefore, investing heavily in an attempt to get at top-tier RB is a poor decision because it's far less likely to pay off.
Aside from the Ravens? Okay, let's see...you mentioned rule changes over the last 10 years, so I will use a sample size of the last 10 Super Bowls.
How about the 2007 New York Giants? 4th in Rushing Yards and Yards/Attempt, 7th in TDs, but in the bottom half for passing yards and 14th for Passing TDs. The only problem here is maybe the fact that they didn't use ALL one RB: But Brandon Jacobs still got 5.0 Y/A while Ward got 4.8 Y/A, but it still is proving my point, that the team won because of a strong running game in general.
There's the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers, who were in the bottom half or 16th in all passing stats except for INTs, but were 5th in yards and TDs and 12 in Yards/Attempt. Willie Parker may have flamed out early, but he drastically helped the Steelers win that Super Bowl (Along with some short yardage Jerome Bettis).
The 2004 New England Patriots were a good passing team, but an elite running game led by Corey Dillon was a key part of their Super Bowl victory, and they had arguably better stats on the ground (11th in Passing Yards, 7th in Rushing Yards: 6th in Passing TDs, 8th in Rushing TDs, though they had a bit of al ower YPA). While Tom Brady was important, the running game was key.
There are three exampls of teams that had very strong running games in the past 10 years, and are NOT the Baltimore Ravens (We have 4 if we include them, 40% of our sample size), that have won the Super Bowl, two of which were on the back of the running games and the other of which had a strong passing game with a strong running game. This is also ignoring any comparisons of teams that had strong passing to previous years, to see if they won a Super Bowl when they got good rushing, how their rushing compared to non-Super Bowl years, and so on. (For example, the Saints going to the Super Bowl the one year their rushing improves)
This ALSO fails to take into account the larger sample sizes of the playoffs or, at the least, Super Bowl losers, given that a single game (The Super Bowl) is an incredibly small sample size. Let's double our Sample Size by including all Super Bowl losing teams:
We get last years San Francisco 49ers, who were Top 5 in most Rushing categories (6th in TDs) while behind the strong rushing prowess of Frank Gore, while being crap in most passing categories (They were crap in TDs and yardage categories, but tied for 1st in not throwing INTs).
The 2010 Pittsburgh Steelers, who lost to the Packers by 6 points, had great contributions from Rashard Mendenhall: 11th in Rushing Yards and 8th in TDs, though only 17th in Yards/Attempt, but much better than their anemic passing game, which was only good in INTs (Due to not making many attempts) and Net Yards/Passing Attempt (Which was also helped by a lower % of passes). Their passing game was efficient, but not particularly impressive.
I'm sure I don't need to talk about how the 2005 Seattle Seahawks were led by Shaun Alexander.
The 2003 Carolina Panthers were another run-first team, losing by 3 points, though they were not a TD machine rushing.
Once again, by adding 10 sample size, we get about 4 teams, or 40%, or 8 of 20, of teams that were strong rushers, 7 of 20 of which were distinctively led by it (The Patriots were balanced). I should also note that I did not include any other teams that had strong rushing AND passing, which I feel is key (A team which is JUST rushing is, in my opinion, just as flawed as a team that is JUST passing).
I ALSO did not point out the fact that when you are doing this, you want a larger sample size than a single football game (The Super Bowl). Ideally, you woul want to take the last 10 Playoffs, on the basis that a single game has a large amount of statistical noise in it, but taking the last 10 Playoff games would reduce that noise by adding in more games (Specifically, including a total of 11 games per playoffs would give us a sample size of 110 games: More importantly, it would increase the sample size of the number of teams we include, as we would get 12 teams per playoffs. If we treat each team year-over-year as a seperate entity, which we should, that would give us 120 unique teams to look at, then compare how they did in the regular season and to other teams in the playoffs, which would drastically increase our sample size. Even my conclusions about don't mean much given the size of our sample). However, I do not have the time right now to shuffle through all these playoff teams and do analysis, nor do I have the statistical expertise to give more than "X was good at Y".
I find the QB argument a bit odd because, while a good QB CAN last that long (And they do not always do so: Just look at Philip Rivers), QBs also seem to have a much higher rate of being overrated, as 1st round QBs seem to often be busts (Of Jay Cutler, Vince Young and Leinart, only Cutler has been anything and he has been pretty much average), and almost none of the top tier QBs have been recently drafted: Tom Brady? Old. Peyton Manning? Old. Drew Brees? Drafted in 2001 and was productive even before his 2006 joining of the Saints. Aaron Rodgers is the most recent Top 5 level QB to be drafted and he appeared in 2005, though he only began starting in 2008.
Aside from that, how have early QBs worked out? I'll ignore the 2013 Draft, as any player from it is far too early to say.
2012: Andrew Luck seems to be turning out well, Weeden was a bust, Ryan Tannehill has flashed potential but so far has been average. RGIII will need more time to say: His ACL injury could take away a lot of his greatest asset, speed, and while he has thrown for a lot of yardage i t has been because of volume (he is 15th in Yards/Attempt, 18th in Competion %).
2011: Cam Newton was great his first year, reduced in greatness the second year (He reduced his INTs, but also his Completion %, while barely improving his passer rating) and has been off to a bumpy start in 2013, throwing poor numbers and not rushing well. Jake Locker has been dissapointing, which is sad because he was a pick of mine to be great. Blaine Gabbert sucks. Christian Ponder has been streaky and is at best average.
2010: Sam Bradford shows exactly why trading away Richardson is dumb: You can't just draft a QB and all your problems are gone, he needs a team around him. Bradford hasn't been great since he was drafted, but his team has sucked, so. (Gee, sounds like what happens to some RBs!) He was the onl early QB off the year.
2009: Stafford has been great. Mark Sanchez, Pick #5, has been a complete disaster who potentially ruined Jets playoff chances by being their QB in their playoff runs. Josh Freeman has flashed potential, but not lived up to it.
2008: Matt Ryan is, alongside Stafford, probably the best Top 5 draft success story in a while. This draft reminds me how I hate how teams evaluate RB talent, as I was screaming for Rice in the 1st. (I also wanted the Bengals to take J-Stewart SO BAD. Considering how well he did BACKING UP DeAngelo, it would have been a great move)
2007: Remember when JaMarcus Russel was a 1st pick? Good times. My uncle, who is a Raiders fan, was hoping they'd pick AP the entire time. Poor guy. Brady Quinn was also a disaster.
2006: Vince Young went with the 3rd pick, was good for a very short time and then flamed out. Matt Leinart sucked. Jay Cutler, who was my favorite coming into it all, has been an average QB whose strengths are made up for with massive flaws.
2005: Poor Alex Smith. A guy I always liked who was killed by his offense dicking with him. He was good in his last Niners years, but obviously never lived to his potential. Jason Campbell became an underrated, if average (To a bit above), QB. And this is the year I will end with because it represents the drafting of the last great QB, Aaron Rodgers, who is now an 8 year veteran.
I would say that this doesn't show a much better rate of success than RBs, and I would argue that it also shows that having them for a long time isn't even always a good thing, like when you keep running out Mark Sanchez because he was a #5 pick and he should turn out good. Since 2005, there has been Matt Ryan and Matthew Stafford who have seen sustained success (Rodgers was IN 2005, not since, but if you want to count him, sure), with Cam Newton, RGIII and Andrew Luck recent players who look poised to show it off. Mixed in with this are the busts of JaMarcus Russel, Vince Young, Alex Smith and Mark Sanchez, with guys like Sam Bradford who could turn out good given when they were drafted, but so far have been dissapointing.
I simply find the idea that "Top 5 QB!" and "Rushing is inferior!" absurd when teams like the Niners and Seahawks routinely trounce teams like the Packers and Saints.
But leaving aside ALL OF THAT, the Richardson move is STILL a poor move for the simple fact that if they DO draft a QB, he no longer has a great RB who can take some of the heat off of him and become an elite passing option out of the backfield, which Richardson was. Instead, they will be putting him into a situation where he has no RB, unless they use a high draft pick on another RB (In which case...WHY TRADE HIM) or take a flier late and hope it works, while still needing to fill holes at WR. It shows the continued and continued flaw of the Cleveland Browns, which is drafting a QB, throwing him into a crappy situation, then getting rid of him if he does not make it all better in 3 years (Colt McCoy, Weeden are two recent examples, Weeden's drafting being an example of McCoy not instantly making the team better so kick him). As long as they continue to mindlessly draft QBs without building a team around the damn QB, they're going to mire in their suck until they hit some lucky fliers at WR and RB to give him elite options without actually trying to give him elite options.
Now then, I'm off to try and do the predictio nthingy before the game. Pchooooooooo!
(September 19th, 2013, 16:23)sunrise089 Wrote: 2) in 2014 they can claim a bigger chunk of the team's future performance isn't yet knowable.
That's a fair point. I would hope that ownership would be prepared to stick with the Front Office through 2014 even before this trade; seems silly to me to jettison management after 2 drafts and 2 seasons.
Quote:The financial side IMHO makes the deal (a little) worse for Cleveland. They're losing out on a RB's most productive years, and while he wasn't a super cheap RB due to his draft status, he was going to be one going forward. I expect the $6M he'd get over 3 years will actually be pretty close to what a third round pick will earn over that time.
I won't pretend to know the machinations of the salary cap, but I understand that Richardson's salary cap bonus is now accelerated against the Browns' cap for this year and maybe next year. Not sure if that's accurate or, really, what sort of effect that has going forward for that team.
I think the cheap salary deal comprises a significant amount of the benefit for the Colts, in addition to buying Richardson at a perceived low point. This trade might blow up in someone's face, but it's clear this one of the more interesting trades in some time.
Yet another week of playing .500 ball. What are the odds? Let's at least TRY to get over .500 this week!
The Pony Express (-1, Kuro) vs. Bench Brady And... (Sunrise)
Sunrise's matchup of Forte at the Steelers might sound bad, but this ain't your daddy's Steelers: They've been bad at stopping the run this year. While I think that Michael Floyd is a poor WR, he IS facing the Saints this week, which gives him a nice production boost. Combined with nice Morris and Cruz MUs this week and Brady is looking good, though wittin and Finley both have a bit of tough MUs this week, as the Rams have actually been good at covering TEs. With Richardson gone, the Vikings D/ST goes from a bad player to an acceptable upside play, though Brady suffers from the fact that he has a very poor bench, so a guy like Finley being limited due to his toe and Roddy White not being healed is really hurting him. Matt Ryan against Miami could be the key play here.
By comparison, Kuro hopes to lead his team to victory by ignoring his early RB problems and having Alex Smith against a bad Eagles D while having Megatron crush and shred the Washington D and the Seahawks rough up the Jags. He faces a bit of an RB problem this week: Houston's D has not been great so far, but it still ain't bad, so Pierce is a bit of a risky play, and Giovani Bernard WOULD be a high upside play against the bad Packers D...but he's popped up with a hamstring injury, which could force Ridley to play despite a horrible matchup. Eddie Royal and Antonio Gates both line up well, but there is too much potential downside to take The Pony Express this week, though I DO feel this will be quite a close matchup. I'm taking Sunrise.
Pick: Bench Brady And... (+1)
Baltimore Blue Jays (Cyneheard, +10) vs. Stamford Cyberams (David Coporial)
Rice being injured really hurts the Blue Jays here, as Montee Ball has failed to become a valid RB and none of his other RB options look appealing at all. But on the flipside, he has great guys like Drew Brees and Demaryius Thomas facing bad teams like Arizona and Oakland. Antonio Brown could be the secret key to iff Cyneheard wins this week, as he has been a massive dissapointment in a bad offense, but faces a Chicago defense that has failed to stop opposing wideouts so far. A good Brown performance could seal it and a bad Brown performance could end it.
On the flipside, the Cyberams are a team with a lot of problems: Richardson's trade and Weeden's injury means Josh Gordon has basically 0 value right now, meaning David has basically Hakeem Nicks and Mike Williams as WR options, while David Wilson has been actively harmful to fantasy teams he is on. And Daryl Richardson has a boot on. Peyton Manning has an amazing MU this week, but it is simply not enough to make up for everything else...especially when the Blue Jays are getting +10!
Pick: Baltimore Blue Jays (+10)
Portland Pindis (Pindicator, +7) vs. Team Bruce (-7)
I might run out Bradford over RGIII this week, but RGIII is still on a good offense, so it's fine. McCoy faces a tough task with a surprising Chiefs D/ST this week, but Chip Kelly's offense has been amazing thus far, so it is hard to doubt him. Miller is in a poor matchup, though, and V-Jax still needs Freeman to pop up good this week, but Stevie should help cover his ass some. Also, Jared Cook looks nice this week.
Bilial Powell over Run DMC? Uh, okay...dunno why, but okay! Torrey Smith looks nice, though the Texans aren't a GREAT matchup, while Garcon and Boldin are a bit meh. Rodgers is, as always, a good play, but could see slightly depressed stats against the Bengals defense. I'm not sure how much to say here. I'd like them a lot more if you could get Run DMC and Powell in here, but I'm taking Pindicator anyway.
Pick: Portland Pindis (+7)
Team Scooter (-1, Scooter) vs. Gaspar Werewolves (Gaspar)
Scooter has THREE Questionable players on his active roster right now, presumably in a covert attempt to make trying to project his team as hard as possible. Right now, it appears Bush will not play or be limited, while Andre and Julio will be fine, so let's roll with that: Julio against Miami could be tough with the injury, but Andre against the Ravens has to be nice, while Cam faces a weak D. And Doug Martin against New England? That has to be nice, especially if the Bucs get a lead. Putting Moreno in Bush's spot if he fails to start gives some nice possible upside options, but Vincent Brown does not a bench make. The Saints D/ST is still a poor play.
I gotta say that I prefer Gaspar here: Vick has a possily hard MU, but seeing Chip Kelly's O in action has made me a believer, while CJ1K and Over Dwayne Bowe look like they have some cushy Matchups...Spiller surely wishes he'd just be the lead back already, though. Hopkins has turned into a surprisingly fine Flex play and the Browns D/ST is solid enough to be an okay start against the Vikings, even if you have to worry about AP. I like what I see.
Pick: Gaspar Werewolves (+1)
Noble Nitpickers (NobleHelium, -2) vs. Norfolk and Chance (Twinkletoes)
It is not a good thing when your RB2 is an injured Rashard Mendenhall: He's more of a guy you wanna rotate in at RB3/Flex, but S-Jax's injury (Why am I not surprised he got injured?) forces NH's hands. I bet he wishes he got in on Starks or something! Stafford against Washington does give him a great QB matchup, though, and Stafford is good, while Green/Wayne/Smith comprise a very solid WR corps, especially with Green's matchup this week. Combine it with the Broncos D matchup, assuming the Broncos offense works (I think if Run DMC gets a lot of time to run amok, it could be very uh-oh), is pretty nice. Also, good Owen Daniels!
Norfolk and Chance also has a nice team, with Mike Wallace against Atlanta, Lynch against the Jags, Olson against the GIants and even Kapernick and Gore seem like fine choices, all good players to boot. The choice of the Chargers as a D could be a bit iffy, though I'd feel a lot better if Fitz was 100% cleared, as it'd be a great day to feast on. Ultimately, I will go with the Nitpickers on the basis of Green and Stafford.
Pick: Noble Nitpickers (-2_
The Fox Says It's Tuel Time (Wetbandit, -5) vs. Beijing Lewd Lobbers (Lewwyn)
Both Bryant for Wetbandit and Marshall for Lewwyn deal with some aliments coming into today, meaning both WR1s could have some issues, but AP against Cleveland is a lot better upside-wise than a Richardson adjusting to his new home against the stout Niners. Alongside Joique bell against the Redskins, Wilson against the Jaguars is good, though the chance for it to turn a blowout is worrying, and Welker vs. Oakland + Graham vs. Arizona are great. So I'll take Wetbandit. He really should drop that Packers D/ST already, though: -4 points on the year, man! Sorry for this being so short, the game is about to start, so I gotta rush it out some!
. (I'm kidding, mostly.) You draft a QB in the top 5. If he ends up being a pro bowl caliber QB (no I will not use the E word and don't any of you dare 
), you get him performing at that level for well over 10-15 years. If he ends up being a prob bowl caliber RB, you get that level of performance for 5-6 years. RBs don't perform at a high level in their 30s unless they are "miraculously" recovering from ACL injuries in record speed like Adrian Peterson. 
