View Full Version : Whither Tony Richardson?

03-20-2001, 08:37 AM
As you may know, I think Richardson would be a good featured HB in the single-back Offense that will dominate our scheme. I have already articulated my reasons for this opinion, so there is no need to do so again.

Because I come not to praise Richardson, but to bury him.

Carl needs to pick an exciting player with that hotly-contested #12 pick. Therefore, despite the fact that Richard Seymour would be a HUGE addition to our beleaguered Defense, Carl will go HB with the #12 pick: McAllister [as if!], Bennett or Jordan.

If this is the case, does it make sense to have a Pro Bowl quality Fullback on a team running the Chargers Offense? He will seldom feel the turf under his cleats.

So, does it serve our best interests to trade Richardson? And what could we get for him?

e tú, Gaz?

emulating Brutus, all for the good of the R&G state.

Mark M
03-20-2001, 08:47 AM
Ouch. That would hurt. But I do see your point. I don't think the Chiefs will trade him, however. At this point he is our best RB and is a known factor. A rookie would not be.

But to play along ...

TRich would have huge trade value, IMO. The guy has been a consistent performer, can play either FB or HB (in the single-back set) and has great hands out of the backfield.

Some teams that come to mind: Packers (have a ton of picks); Miami (not many picks, but could use a good FB); 49ers; Cincinnati (have picks, have cap room and need all of the help they can get).

I would be very, very unhappy with trading him ... what other FBs do we have? Could Moreau be converted?

~~Sees the thought processes ... but doesn't like it.

[Edited by Mark M on 03-20-2001 at 08:54 AM]

03-20-2001, 08:51 AM
While I can follow your thinking on this, I don't see the Chiefs trading T. Rich for two reasons:

1. Even if we do draft a RB I think keeping TR as a short yardage or 3rd down back would be in the Chiefs best interest. I don't know exact numbers, but I don't think he hits our cap very hard.

2. As much as I like him, I don't there would be all that much interest in him on the market, and we probably wouldn't be offered a high-caliber player for him in a trade.

I think, in the very least, we won't do anything with him until draft day, and even if we do get a stud rookie, I would rather see the Chiefs keep him and release Cloud to save a little bit of cash. But like I said, I don't know the exact numbers. I just can't imagine seeing T. Rich in anything but Red and Gold.

counting down the days until the draft...

03-20-2001, 09:06 AM
I think I read somewhere, that Buffalo liked a back like TR. Though he resigned last year, and I don't know the numbers, he still might be too high for the cash strapped Bills. If it could work, I doubt anything higher than a 4th rounder, and if that is the case, forget it. I agree, unless those 3 names are gone, we, if we don't give it away, will probably use the #12 on a RB.

03-20-2001, 10:42 AM

Please tell me that you're joking.

Why we shouldn't trade T-Rich:

he's a pro-bowl caliber FB - one of our most gifted players
he's a leader and one who comes to play all the time. A real blue-collar player who came up through the ranks of ST prowess and deserves captaincy, not trade.
you can count on him to run the ball in ANY situation (short yardage, 3rd and long, all season long in case of an injury or otherwise). At the very least he is one of the league's best back-up RBs you could wish for, and top-tier FB.
he's still young
he's supposed to be one of our fastest players
he's very early in a cap friendly contract
we wouldn't get much in return compared to what he is worth to us. I'd sooner have T-Rich and #12 than #12 and a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick which might be spent on someone like Mario Fatafehi (best case scenario). We have holes in our team. Let's not create another one.
we lucked into T-Rich (undrafted rookie FA, right?). These are the guys we want to keep. We want to build a team around guys like him and Hicks.
Shannon would be devastated!

What are we currently trying to do? Build a young, athletic team for a run at a SB in the next 2-3 years? I hope so. If that's the case, and it'd better be, why on EARTH would we trade one of our cornerstones. He's simply one of our best young players. Someone who has never had a bad word said about him to the best of my knowledge. Probably as vital to our locker-room atmosphere, and team morale as anyone there is left. Trade T-Rich and trade away another part of our team's identity. We may have lost Grunhard. We've lost Hasty. Who's next, Gonzo???

Don't mean to jump down your throat. I guess I'm just passionate about this one ;)

03-20-2001, 11:00 AM

Me choir, you preacher. I do not disagree with any of your points.

If I were king, I would make Richardson the featured HB [duck, here come the HB Homers!], but that idea is generally met with derision, often with side comments about my recreational drug habits or questioning when my Mom dropped me on my head.

And, in all likelihood, I think Carl will draft a HB at #12 to appease the masses disenchanted with losing a pick for Vermeil as well as the Green nonsense.

So, if that is indeed the situation, is there a place for Richardson on our team?

just wondering where TR fits in.

03-20-2001, 11:09 AM

I see that he may be 'underutilised' based on his talent, if we snag a HB with #12. But I fear for our decision at #12. McAllister's durability is questionable. I'm not convinced Bennett is much more than just fast, and Tomlinson (while maybe the pick of the 3) is a darkhorse just like any other. Keeping T-Rich is fundamental. He's only getting a back-up type salary anyway. What we do with him after that is secondary. He's a great FB. In fact, as you remember, many people say he should be left at FB because that's where his strength is. So, if that's the case, that's what we must do. Worst case scenario: we draft a bust at RB, or said draftee gets injured. At least we'll have T-Rich as the "uber-plan B". :D

The question now becomes: What do we do with T-Rich?.....not......What can we get for T-Rich?

The only problem is, that's been debated again and again and..... :D

03-20-2001, 11:11 AM
I too would anoint TRich the feature back, if I were King.
Alas, I am not, nor is Gaz, who would do the same.

I suspect we will grab Bennett, or LT if he is still on the board, with #12. This does assume we still have that pick of course. I can't say this is a bad move, either, just not the move I would make.

A much preferrable move, IMHO, would be to grab Seymour or Morgan or even Hutchinson, or better yet trade down to obtain 2nd/3rd round pick(s). We could then use them to grab WR, QB, LB, CB, and RB prospects in rounds 2-4.

But, if King Carl appeases the masses @12, then sadly TRich will not see the field even as much as last season, when he was grossly underutilized. He deserves much better, yet in the event of an injury, we still need him, thus we must keep him. Unfortunate turn of events for TRich, but still best for the R&G.


03-20-2001, 11:12 AM
Gaz: let me first off state that Im not necessarily opposed to TR as the feature back and Im not necessarily of the opinion that we MUST draft a RB with #12.

That said, TR does not have the vision that I would like in a feature RB. TR does not have the ability to hit the small holes to convert those 3rd and 1's or 4th and goals. It has been demonstrated on many occasion, although I will agree that the coaches lining up in an obvious running formation, on an obvious running situation didnt exactly help.

I would like to have a HB that has the vision and ability to slide through the cracks of the line that Marcus Allen could. Yes, yes, I know that there arent many like Allen, but that's what I would like.

At this point, Im of the opinion that if you do want TR as the feature HB, then you will need five #1's lining up in front of him to open holes big enough for him to run through.

03-20-2001, 11:13 AM
In all likely hood we give up our #12 for Green and pick up Holmes in FA...that's my story and I'm sticking to it...

If this happens...then TRich becomes one of two things...a valuable FB or trade bait...

Regardless of Green or not to Green...we keep TRich...he's played way to well to let him go...and personally I think he could be the man in 2001 if not beyond...he can run, catch and block...okay so maybe he doesn't have that turn the corner speed, but he does have power and up the middle speed...I'd like to see him get the chance...I'd much prefer to spend my FA dollars or draft choices on Sharper, Morgan a QBOTF and in later rounds a potential RBOTF...

Mark M
03-20-2001, 11:14 AM
I think the Saunders (or at least hope) is smart enough to find a way to utilize TRich. Not in a RBbC way, but when you have a player with his skills you don't just use him to pave the way for some rookie. The Rams utilize a lot of pre-snap movement. They line up in one formation then all move around to: a) see the defensive alignment; b) to create mis-matches; and c) to confuse the defense. I can see TRich utilized in this way very well. He starts in the backfield and is then sent into the slot, or the HB is in the slot and TRich winds up as the lone RB in the backfied.

They will find a way to get him the ball, IMO.

Also, I believe TRich was a FA out of Dallas.

~~Knows you get the ball in the hands of playmakers.

03-20-2001, 11:17 AM
So Titus, since your "not necessarily opposed...." What do you want?? What should the Chiefs do with the #12 pick. What do you think they will do? Try to answer that without the extra dog sh t fluff you tend to put in there.

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick! And you think I "am on the fence"!!!

03-20-2001, 11:17 AM
Will Shields is pretty much a #1 talent who we stole in the 3rd. Riley and Tait ARE #1 picks. There is a chance we grab Hutchinson @#12.

So, hypothetically, we rebuild this season with TRich as feature back, get another high 1st rounder next year, draft a OC with our 1st rounder, and we pretty much would have 5 #1s opening holes for TRich.

Your suggestion is only 2 more picks and a rebuilding season away from reality, KCTitus.

just thought i'd let ya know

03-20-2001, 11:19 AM
Coryt: that would be an inexcusable waste of a #1 pick to draft a G or C when KC needs many other things.

03-20-2001, 11:30 AM

C'mon dude, I am still waiting for an answer to my quesitons from a few posts ago.

What do you THINK the Chiefs will do with the 12th pick and

What SHOULD they do? If they keep it, who do you think they will draft?

03-20-2001, 11:35 AM

You say that as if it's never happened before?
It just so happens that OG is one of our biggest needs. Not so much for OC any longer, but picture next March if Wiegman flames out bigtime.

Don't get me wrong, I'm none too thrilled with this prospect, only pointing out it's not beyond the realm of possibilities.

I would be fine with grabbing Hutchinson @12, provided Seymour or <insert you fav DT or CB here> is off the board, whom I'd prefer.


03-20-2001, 11:37 AM
I guess I'm confused over the question about what to do with TRich. Right now he is our ONLY fullback. Are you suggesting that if we get a stud HB, we have no need for a FB? I don't see that. He may be underutilized, but we will still need his talents. And if he's cap friendly, there's no reason to get rid of him.

03-20-2001, 11:37 AM

I certain there are MANY MANY MANY folks around here still waiting for YOU to respond with more specifics to any number of topics. I don't see much point in you clamoring for somebody else to feed you what you wish.


03-20-2001, 11:38 AM
Coryt: LOL, touche`...

I disagree that OG is our biggest need and I would really hate it to see KC draft another linemen with a #1.

Red Till Dead
03-20-2001, 11:39 AM
Let me start by saying TR is one of my favorite chiefs players. He came to play every week in 2000!

TR is a fullback. What should make him an all pro at this position is his ability to run and catch better than almost all fullbacks, and he hits like a tank when blocking. That said he does not run or catch better than most halfbacks.

Our new offense will need players that can turn the corner, and create downfield space in passing game. Our middle running game will rely on draws and quick hitting running plays that force the runner to make quick decisions and moves to make LB miss. TR is a power runner with speed. Elusiveness is not his strong point. Any of the top 4 backs in this years draft will fit into system better. Just don't see TR as a threat split out wide as a pass receiver, shifting out to an empty back field.

TR would be a great option as a back up in our offensive system. Would not trade him if we couldn't get a mid range second rounder for him. May be tough because fullback is low on most teams priortity list. Supply out weighs demand.

With a second rounder we could draft another WR with speed, or a much needed defensive tackle.

Frank Moreau was our short yardage back last year, and should be again this year. (one of the reasons is ypc was so low)

If not mistaken TR signed a 4 year deal for about 8 million. Don't remember structure of contract or bonus amount. That money could be used to sign some low price free agents in positions of need after June 1st cut down date.

Like TR but think we should pull the trigger if right opportunity presents itself!

03-20-2001, 11:42 AM
I do not see OG as our biggest need, but certainly ONE of the biggest. My #1 need(not that my needs will be addressed anytime soon) is a run-stuffin, pocket-bustin, QB-crushin MADMAN at DT.

Oh, and a starting QB would be nice, too.


03-20-2001, 11:42 AM

Ask me a question and I will answer it. Dont waste my time with these questions like "what does a punter do". . Make me use my brain and put together thoughts based on facts. Something I am trying to get Gregg to do.

I asked Titus a couple of very simple questions and he doesnt seem to have an answer. But he sure is quick to jump on other peoples opinions. Imagine that.

03-20-2001, 11:45 AM

A simple "I dont know" will do. You might gain a little respect by admitting that.

You know me well enough that I am not going to let this go until you give me some answers. I have made you look like a fool lots of times and now you are setting yourself up for more embarrassment. C'mon, dont do that to yourself!

Forget about the mustache comments, it was all in fun!

03-20-2001, 11:46 AM
Personally, I don't give a sh!t 'What a punter does...', but you suggest I ask a question which you will answer, so I'll play along.

Why are you such a PRICK?

anxiously awaiting your response

Mark M
03-20-2001, 11:48 AM
Red Till Dead--
While I see your point, I would have to disagree. I think TRich is fast enough to be split out in the slot against a base 4-3 defense. Why? he is big enough to shuck off the bump and run, he is fast enough to blow past a LB, and once into the secondary he can run over any CB trying to tackle him.

These are just my opinions from watching the guy play. He may not have the shake-and-bake some people love in a HB, but the guy is quick and can run a route.

03-20-2001, 11:51 AM
I could ask the exact same question out of many of you guys.

I fight fire with fire. You guys ridicule me, I fight back.

I am actually a very nice guy, but I think I rub you guys the wrong way by presenting arguments with facts. I tell it like I see it. Some people dont like that.

Mark M
03-20-2001, 11:52 AM
Butter Nuts (AKA PAckfan)--
With as many times as you've ignored Titus, what makes you think he'll answer you?

And you can't answer even the most basic of questions, so you're request to answer a question that requires you to use your "brain" is impossible. It would be like asking Chumura to keep his d!ck in his pants: it just won't happen.

03-20-2001, 11:55 AM

The "prick" question?? See Mark M's post directed at me. He is not a prick??? You kidding me?

Mark M,

I DONT think Titus will answer. He doesnt have an answer. He doesnt know. He only addresses other peoples opinions and statements. Thats my point. Just watch some of his posts for awhile. You will see what I mean.

03-20-2001, 11:58 AM
Mark: I think I touched a 'nerve'...

Clint in Wichita
03-20-2001, 11:59 AM
Guard is never ANY team's biggest need.

It is one of the easier positions to adequately fill IMO.

TR should be kept on the roster, because we'd only get MAYBE a 3rd rounder for him.

He was the 3rd best receiver on the team last year BTW.

Mark M
03-20-2001, 12:01 PM
Well, am I a prick or just an honest person trying to show the world what a worthless troll Butter Nuts is? Now be honest.

Butter Nuts--
What a matter .. did I make the poor widdle twoll upset? Awwwwwwww ...

Also, I've seen Titus make predictions before. I guess he just doesn't feel like feeding the troll today.

It seems we both did. :D

~~Have you upset a troll today?

Red Till Dead
03-20-2001, 12:01 PM

See your point as well, and trading TR would be a tough decision. He is to good a player to make move not recieving value in return.

With that said, most teams didn't play the Rams with a base 4-3 last year. Our game case in point. Usually go with one less LB and bring in an extra defensive back. Can TR create space against a DB? TR was great catching the ball on swing routes, but haven't seen him enough in down field passing game to be sure he will excell in this area.

Our RBs will have to be able to do this in our new system.
Marshall Faulk is a bigger threat 20 yards down field in passing game than he is from line of scrimmage. Maybe TR can suprise. He is a much better runner than originally thought he could be.

Still agree we shouldn't give him up in less we get real value in return.

03-20-2001, 12:02 PM

No matter what you say or anybody else, you wont touch a nerve with me. I realize that this is a internet bulletin board, nothing else, nothing less. You know I stand up to the heat. Its easy arguing my side because the Chiefs havent dont much in the last eight years.

Mark M
03-20-2001, 12:09 PM
Red Till Dead--
The nickel would be a tough match up to be sure. But more often than not he'd be matched up against a safety. I, too, haven't seen TRich downfield catching balls a lot, but I would like to think he could beat a safety or 2nd tier CB.

I think the Chiefs could counter act the nickel D by going with 3WRs (DA, Gonzo, SlyMo) and 2 RBs (TRich, and ?? .. Cloud, Moreau, Rookie). You have a mismatch with Gonzo on the outside and the RB or TRich against a LB or safety. If the D shows blitz, have the QB audible to keep TRich in to block and have gonzo or DA go in motion and hit him with a quick slant. OR, you could send out all 5 as WRs and someone would have to be open somewhere and they would be in zone D, thus allowing for some YAC.

But perhaps I've thought about this too much ...

~~Defensive homer who studies the offense.

03-20-2001, 12:09 PM

What do you think the Chiefs will do with the 12th pick
and what SHOULD they do? If they keep it, who should they draft?

Still waiting for an answer.........................

(remember, you shouldnt be ashamed if you dont know the answer! I think we all kind of expect that!)

03-20-2001, 12:16 PM
Yes, Mark, you are a prick, too!!

And for that matter gentlemen, along the Sigmund Freud line of thought, aren't we all?


Your opinions are no more 'facts' than my opinions, and that IS a fact.

Now we could discuss the FACT that Brett Farve had the largest contract in MFL history for only a few days, or the FACT that Elvis has never won a playoff game. These are examples of MY definition of FACTS.

Or we could discuss the FACT that Farve's best days are behind him, or that TRich would put up better #s than Stephen Davis with like # of carries. These are examples of YOUR definition of FACTS.

Goes a long way to explain why you receive much redicule amoung PlanetBBers.


03-20-2001, 12:18 PM
I think we all know the reason why Elvis has not won a playoff game.

Mark M
03-20-2001, 12:20 PM
Thank you ... thank you very much. I can live with that.

~~Only takes information from a reliable source.

03-20-2001, 12:35 PM
How many people would commit suicide if the Chiefs drafted Dominic Raiola with the 12 pick?

03-20-2001, 12:45 PM
To anyone who considers trading T-Rich a good idea:

He's not Marshall Faulk, and can't play his role in our offense. He may not outrun safeties or bowl over CBs if he gets in a mismatch all the time. But 6 or 7 years ago if you had an opportunity to trade Kimble Anders, would you think that would have been a good move in retrospect? This is a rhetorical question - I'm not holding out for an answer here :D. I just don't think we'd get more than a 3rd rounder for T-Rich (we'd be blessed to get a 2nd, as others have said, FB is not a sexy "need" position on many teams), and he's worth a hell of a lot more than that to us IMO.

Mark M,

You're right.....T-Rich was an undrafted rookie FA who came to us via Dallas and NE. LOL @ have you upset a troll today? :D:D:D

[Edited by Cormac on 03-20-2001 at 12:51 PM]

keg in kc
03-20-2001, 01:28 PM
Let me preface by saying I think T-Rich could do the job at halfback. Maybe not "flashy", but he'd get the yards. I can live with that...

However, if we intend to put Richardson back into the role of fullback, and if we will not use the fullback for the majority of the game, then we would be foolish NOT to trade him. Not because of the value we'd get for him, which I agree wouldn't likely be above a 3rd round pick, but because his base salary for 2001 is 1.1 million dollars. We could fill a need position (or two) on the roster for that sort of cap space in any number of positions, especially on the defensive side of the ball, where in my opinion, we're going to need all the help we can get...

I doubt it will happen, but I don't think it would be a bad move. 1.1 million is a lot of $$$ for a player if, as it appears to me will be the case, he won't see the field more than 10 times/game, and won't touch the ball more than 3-4.

Now, if we intend to use a lot of "I" formation and/or pro sets, then we should keep him, but I frankly don't think that scenario is very likely at this point - I think we'll be predominantly a one-back set offense.

It's all about the Benjamins baby...

03-20-2001, 03:22 PM

Here's my best compromise. Maybe after this season, if we have a proven go-to RB from the draft or FA, and Moreau (or somebody else) has shown he can step in and be an effective blocking or running back in short yardage situations...........then maybe T-Rich could be dealt. But right now, there's no way we can afford to lose him for all the reasons I gave earlier. Let's not assume he's expendable just because we might take a RB at #12.

It'd still hurt though if he was dealt even next year. We need more like him.

keg in kc
03-20-2001, 04:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, Cormac, T-Rich is one of my favorite players on the squad, I agree it would hurt to lose him. That's why I'm glad I'm here talking about the personnel moves and not actually the guy who has to do it...

03-20-2001, 04:13 PM

I am just throwing out scenarios myself. I wouldn't want the job either :)

03-20-2001, 04:22 PM

What the f ck are you talking about?? Give me an actual quote where I state what I think is a fact yet is actually an opinion. Otherwise, shut the f ck up!

Titus, can you help him find one?


03-20-2001, 04:32 PM
Can't give you a direct quote, Ken. I don't cut and paste from a BB. Honestly, I find anyone who does to be quite anal, and would prefer no assitance from somebody else for such a quote.

If you don't realize many facts you spew are a personal opinion, then you have bigger issues to deal with than you reputation on an internet BB. IN MY OPINION, of course! ;)


03-20-2001, 05:10 PM

Your the one b tching about it! Ask Titus, he will help look. If its not a big deal, then shut the f ck up already!


03-21-2001, 07:30 AM
I also believe that CP will take a HB with that #12 pick, if we still have it. I think, however, that if McCallister or Tomlinson are not there, that he will go in a different direction, which means, of course, that the Chiefs will pass on Bennett, because of his hands (or lack thereof).
He will pick a RB with the #12 because of Tearmeil, not because he needs to make a splash with the fans. He just doesn't operate that way.
I don't believe that we will have that #12 pick though. I still believe that it will go to the Rams in a draft day trade for Green, and we will get their #20 pick. That pick will be used on a DT, OL, or WR. Or Lamont Jordan might be a possibilty if he's there.
What I would like to see is a tradedown that would get us that trade partner's first, second, and possibly third (depending how far we trade down).