PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft drafting Trent Richardson


Pages : [1] 2

jlscorpio
01-11-2012, 03:54 AM
just saw the 2nd different mock that has us taking T-Rich 2.0 w/our 1st pick. I'm not opposed to it since no all-world DT is available this year. Here's the write up from Foxsports:

11. Kansas City Chiefs*: Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama: The Chiefs lost Jamaal Charles in the second week of the 2011 NFL season, and the offense never rebounded. Charles should be back and healthy next season, but Richardson is the rare running back talent who can completely change an offense. The way this mock draft has unfolded, hell be slipping out of the Top 10 something few scouts or experts expect. A different type of back from Charles, the two could work together to form a dynamic duo in the Kansas City backfield. Though Charles signed a five-year, $32 million extension in 2010, hes not making the Adrian Peterson/Chris Johnson money you might expect. Richardson, a between-the-tackles grinder, is viewed as a much better pro prospect than his former teammate, Mark Ingram. In the rough-and-tumble AFC West, I love the thought of a Charles-Richardson platoon.

Rausch
01-11-2012, 04:45 AM
THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

dannybcaitlyn
01-11-2012, 05:16 AM
Draft BPA. If Richardson falls to us more then likely he will be BPA. A Elite pro bowl talent. We need more of these type of players on our team last time I looked. He's was the best back in college football. You don't reach and settle for an average ol or NT when you have a can't miss elite talent sitting there when we pick first round. That's the consolation prize for suckage in a season. The team gets an early pick in the draft with a much much better chance of picking up elite talent. So I have no problem with the pick.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 05:23 AM
Richardson is a beast, but you don't spend a top pick on a RB unless your team is already stacked. It's a luxury pick. The injury risk is too high, their careers are too short, and you can get a good one late in the draft or as an UDFA.

HMc
01-11-2012, 05:35 AM
Draft BPA. If Richardson falls to us more then likely he will be BPA. A Elite pro bowl talent. We need more of these type of players on our team last time I looked. He's was the best back in college football. You don't reach and settle for an average ol or NT when you have a can't miss elite talent sitting there when we pick first round. That's the consolation prize for suckage in a season. The team gets an early pick in the draft with a much much better chance of picking up elite talent. So I have no problem with the pick.

If we draft Richardson, and he and Charles have strong years but nevertheless we still draft in the top 10 again in 2013, and the "BPA" in '13 is another elite level RB, do you draft that RB then also?

Gonzo
01-11-2012, 06:20 AM
Draft for need. Our running game is good enough. We can find a good backup) in the 3rd round or later.
Posted via Mobile Device

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 06:22 AM
You don't reach and settle for an average ol or NT when you have a can't miss elite talent sitting there when we pick first round

This is exactly how i feel. The most pressing need on this team is a young QB, but if ones not available, the select the BPA.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 06:26 AM
This is exactly how i feel. The most pressing need on this team is a young QB, but if ones not available, the select the BPA.

Assuming the Chiefs re-sign Bowe and Carr, and BPA is a WR or CB, do you draft him?

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 06:28 AM
FTR, I don't see Trent making it out of the top-10.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 06:28 AM
Assuming the Chiefs re-sign Bowe and Carr, and BPA is a WR or CB, do you draft him?

heh, no......i guess i should have said BPA at a position of MOST need. We need RB depth. I have no idea how the Chiefs feel about Charles, but my gut tells me they dont have complete faith in him to carry a full load and never have. Drafting Richardson would be a nice insurance policy.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 06:32 AM
FTR, I don't see Trent making it out of the top-10.

If hes not there, ill bet they go Oline then.

nychief
01-11-2012, 06:35 AM
Draft for need. Our running game is good enough. We can find a good backup) in the 3rd round or later.
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't know how you can say this... without blind faith that Jamal will be the same again. Did you watch the running game this year after he went down? I think we'll be drafting a RB early, if not the 1st round, and TR makes too much sense to not be a real candidate if he is sitting there.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 06:41 AM
Yeah, let's draft a big bruiser.

Because smashmouth football works so well in today's NFL.

And led us to multiple Super Bowl victories in the 90's too...

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 06:41 AM
heh, no......i guess i should have said BPA at a position of need. We need RB depth. I have no idea how the Chiefs feel about Charles, but my gut tells me they dont have complete faith in him to carry a full load and never have. Drafting Richardson would be a nice insurance policy.

I don't disagree. However, I strongly feel that RB is a position you can get cheap rounds 4-7 or as an UDFA.

Roy Helu - round 4
Michael Bush - round 4
Darren Sproles - round 4
Brandon Jacobs - round 4
Michael Turner - round 5
Tim Hightower - round 5
Kolby smith - round 5
Javon Ringer - round 5
James Starks - round 6
Anthony Dixon - round 6
Jonathan dwyer - round 6
Bernard Scott - round 6
Terrell Davis - round 6
Jamal Anderson - round 7
LaRod Stephens-Howling - round 7
Peyton hillis - round 7
Ahmad Bradshaw - round 7
Priest Holmes - UDFA
Arian Foster - UDFA
Fred Jackson - UDFA
Benjarvis Green-Ellis - UDFA
Mike Tolbert - UDFA
LeGarrette Blount - UDFA
Pierre Thomas - UDFA

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 06:42 AM
Yeah, let's draft a big bruiser.

Because smashmouth football works so well in today's NFL.

And led us to multiple Super Bowl victories in the 90's too...

heh, i knew it wouldnt take long.......


What would you do?

jlscorpio
01-11-2012, 06:49 AM
I don't disagree. However, I strongly feel that RB is a position you can get cheap rounds 4-7 or as an UDFA.

Roy Helu - round 4
Michael Bush - round 4
Darren Sproles - round 4
Brandon Jacobs - round 4
Michael Turner - round 5
Tim Hightower - round 5
Kolby smith - round 5
Javon Ringer - round 5
James Starks - round 6
Anthony Dixon - round 6
Jonathan dwyer - round 6
Bernard Scott - round 6
Terrell Davis - round 6
Jamal Anderson - round 7
LaRod Stephens-Howling - round 7
Peyton hillis - round 7
Ahmad Bradshaw - round 7
Priest Holmes - UDFA
Arian Foster - UDFA
Fred Jackson - UDFA
Benjarvis Green-Ellis - UDFA
Mike Tolbert - UDFA
LeGarrette Blount - UDFA
Pierre Thomas - UDFA

Kolby fucking Smith??? Really???

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 06:54 AM
I don't disagree. However, I strongly feel that RB is a position you can get cheap rounds 4-7 or as an UDFA.

Roy Helu - round 4
Michael Bush - round 4
Darren Sproles - round 4
Brandon Jacobs - round 4
Michael Turner - round 5
Tim Hightower - round 5
Kolby smith - round 5
Javon Ringer - round 5
James Starks - round 6
Anthony Dixon - round 6
Jonathan dwyer - round 6
Bernard Scott - round 6
Terrell Davis - round 6
Jamal Anderson - round 7
LaRod Stephens-Howling - round 7
Peyton hillis - round 7
Ahmad Bradshaw - round 7
Priest Holmes - UDFA
Arian Foster - UDFA
Fred Jackson - UDFA
Benjarvis Green-Ellis - UDFA
Mike Tolbert - UDFA
LeGarrette Blount - UDFA
Pierre Thomas - UDFA

Your abolutely right. I think good teams have to be able to rack and stack each position then determine if the player you like is SUBSTANTIALLY better than other guys you like in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th round, whatever...If hes not that much better than those guys, you wait and take someone else.......if you think he has elite skills, then you take him obviously.

suds79
01-11-2012, 06:55 AM
Yeah, let's draft a big bruiser.

Because smashmouth football works so well in today's NFL.

And led us to multiple Super Bowl victories in the 90's too...

Not saying I'm full on board with Trent. So my take isn't on drafting him. It's on what he is.

I always thought he was an all around guy who runs hard. Just looked it up. He's 224. I'll be curious to see what he runs at the combine.

But I've never thought he's some stiff, big bruiser.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WLB2M_LSlcY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

suds79
01-11-2012, 06:57 AM
I don't disagree. However, I strongly feel that RB is a position you can get cheap rounds 4-7 or as an UDFA.

Roy Helu - round 4


I've had my good share of misses but I wanted the Chiefs to get Helu. I obviously saw plenty of him. 215 lbs with 4.4 speed and the ability to make someone miss? I thought it was a no brainer.

HMc
01-11-2012, 06:58 AM
heh, no......i guess i should have said BPA at a position of MOST need. We need RB depth. I have no idea how the Chiefs feel about Charles, but my gut tells me they dont have complete faith in him to carry a full load and never have. Drafting Richardson would be a nice insurance policy.

:facepalm:

KC-TBB
01-11-2012, 06:58 AM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/files/2010/11/dr-evil.jpg Maybe we should draft...a backup punter...hmmmm

suds79
01-11-2012, 07:02 AM
I just want the Chiefs to use their first on a playmaker. Somebody who can win you games.

I'm becoming more & more of the opinion that the following positions simply don't matter all that much and are just "guys". Can be plugged in by several dudes.

So do not draft in the 1st:

Guards, Centers, DEs (in a 3-4 system), MLB (in a 3-4), and FB.

RB probably should also be on the list considering you can find them late. But I'd favor that over some fatty who doesn't have a big impact due to the nature of his position.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:08 AM
heh, i knew it wouldnt take long.......


What would you do?

I wouldn't take Richardson, that's for damn sure.

Every year, there are a few players that teams see as elite talents, guys you can build a scheme around. Richardson is one of those players.

The problem is not with Richardson, it's with the STYLE of offense teams can, and will, build around him.

Atlanta scored TWO points this past weekend. On defense. Run-oriented offenses DO NOT work in today's NFL.

KCUnited
01-11-2012, 07:08 AM
Pioli with Fescoe this morning: Matt Cassel is a good NFL quarterback. We need to improve on the Oline.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:09 AM
I just want the Chiefs to use their first on a playmaker. Somebody who can win you games.

I'm becoming more & more of the opinion that the following positions simply don't matter all that much and are just "guys". Can be plugged in by several dudes.

So do not draft in the 1st:

Guards, Centers, DEs (in a 3-4 system), MLB (in a 3-4), and FB.

RB probably should also be on the list considering you can find them late. But I'd favor that over some fatty who doesn't have a big impact due to the nature of his position.

What kind of games do you want to win? Because running games don't win in the postseason.

suds79
01-11-2012, 07:16 AM
What kind of games do you want to win? Because running games don't win in the postseason.

Hey if the Chiefs used the first and several other future picks to find a way to get RG3, I'd be ecstatic.

If they couldn't do that and instead drafted the next best QB, I'd be full on board with that plan.

I realize our biggest problem is the QB. I was merely commenting on something other than QB for once.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 07:26 AM
The problem is not with Richardson, it's with the STYLE of offense teams can, and will, build around him.

Atlanta scored TWO points this past weekend. On defense. Run-oriented offenses DO NOT work in today's NFL.

I agree but the Chiefs are stuck in the No Mans Land of this years draft. They are not going to get a QB.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:27 AM
Hey if the Chiefs used the first and several other future picks to find a way to get RG3, I'd be ecstatic.

If they couldn't do that and instead drafted the next best QB, I'd be full on board with that plan.

I realize our biggest problem is the QB. I was merely commenting on something other than QB for once.

You're missing the point.

People are advocating drafting an ELITE RB, ala Adrian Peterson. What has Adrian Peterson REALLY done for the Vikings?

It's not just about THIS draft, it's about the next 5, 6, or more.

With Adrian Peterson, the Vikings thought Tarvaris Jackson was good enough. Then they got Favre. And as if it wasn't COMPLETELY obvious after that, they went with DONOVAN MCNABB.

They finally drafted Ponder just in time to have AP finish the season on IR. They WASTED Jared Allen's best years. They wasted Henderson's best years. What's really sad is that they wasted ADRIAN PETERSON'S best years.

If I thought this team would take Richardson this year and then go fix the QB position next year, I'd be all for it.

But they WON'T. They'll do what pretty much every team does when they take an elite back before getting the franchise QB - they'll build the offense around him and hover around 8-8 for the next decade.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:27 AM
I agree but the Chiefs are stuck in the No Mans Land of this years draft. They are not going to get a QB.

See my response to Suds. It's not just about this year.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 07:32 AM
See my response to Suds. It's not just about this year.

im not disagreeing with you. I think your 100% correct. I think the Chiefs options are limited considering where they are drafting.

Since the Chiefs are essentially "playoff ready", i would be tempted to go after Manning if i felt he was 100% healthy and the Colts released him.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 07:44 AM
im not disagreeing with you. I think your 100% correct. I think the Chiefs options are limited considering where they are drafting.

Since the Chiefs are essentially "playoff ready", i would be tempted to go after Manning if i felt he was 100% healthy and the Colts released him.

I wouldn't be opposed to it, IF he's healthy. I tend to think he won't ever be the same.

I'd just as soon take an OL and try to sign Orton.

Anything but Richardson. That's how strongly I feel about it. I'm not ready for another decade like the 90's, getting fooled into thinking we're a contender when we're not.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 07:47 AM
Kolby fucking Smith??? Really???

Nice job. Pick one guy out on the list and throw a tantrum. Kolby Smith is not, and never was, an elite RB. However, it was just another example of a guy who you can get on the cheap who is able to step in and put together a few solid games in 2007.

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 07:57 AM
Pioli with Fescoe this morning: Matt Cassel is a good NFL quarterback. We need to improve on the Oline.

is this real?

KCUnited
01-11-2012, 08:01 AM
is this real?

I'm sure they'll have the podcast up later today. Fescoe asked him directly if his thoughts of Matt Cassel as a QB were the same today as they were when he brought him to KC. That's when he gave the Matt is a good NFL QB and brought up the 27 TD to whatever INT's for 2010 and his last season in New England.

He was then asked about the draft and what pieces he felt the Chiefs needed and stated the Oline needs upgraded and the entire team needs additional depth.

All in vague generalizations of course.

Rausch
01-11-2012, 08:02 AM
You're missing the point.

People are advocating drafting an ELITE RB, ala Adrian Peterson.

I could name 20 ELITE HB's, probably 10 HOF level guys, never won a SB.

HB'S ARE EASY TO REPLACE (unless you have King Carl drafting for you.)

Franchise (guys that can start for 7-10 years) QB's are nearly impossible to find.

You WILL miss more than you hit, but if you don't shoot, you can't hit the target...

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 08:03 AM
I'm sure they'll have the podcast up later today. Fescoe asked him directly if his thoughts of Matt Cassel as a QB were the same today as they were when he brought him to KC. That's when he gave the Matt is a good NFL QB and brought up the 27 TD to whatever INT's for 2010 and his last season in New England.

He was then asked about the draft and what pieces he felt the Chiefs needed and stated the Oline needs upgraded and the entire team needs additional depth.

All in vague generalizations of course.

awesome....fml

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 08:04 AM
I'm sure they'll have the podcast up later today. Fescoe asked him directly if his thoughts of Matt Cassel as a QB were the same today as they were when he brought him to KC. That's when he gave the Matt is a good NFL QB and brought up the 27 TD to whatever INT's for 2010 and his last season in New England.

He was then asked about the draft and what pieces he felt the Chiefs needed and stated the Oline needs upgraded and the entire team needs additional depth.

All in vague generalizations of course.

FML

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 08:05 AM
I could name 20 ELITE HB's, probably 10 HOF level guys, never won a SB.

HB'S ARE EASY TO REPLACE (unless you have King Carl drafting for you.)

Franchise (guys that can start for 7-10 years) QB's are nearly impossible to find.

You WILL miss more than you hit, but if you don't shoot, you can't hit the target...

Yep.

suds79
01-11-2012, 08:05 AM
is this real?

You really surprised that Scott plans to stick with Cassel? Seems as though from what you hear from media that's the direction they're going.

Sad I know.

OzarksChiefsFan
01-11-2012, 08:06 AM
If Joe fan can't have a QB then a RB must be the choice? Bull****.. first off there are plenty of runners who can be had later that are as good or better. Secondly this team needs bigs and there will be one there when we pick.

KCUnited
01-11-2012, 08:08 AM
It's hard to glean anything substantial out of a Pioli interview, but its becoming clear that the marketing campaign for 2012 is "we've won with Cassel".

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 08:08 AM
You really surprised that Scott plans to stick with Cassel? Seems as though from what you hear from media that's the direction they're going.

Sad I know.

Not surprised at all. My head has been telling me for weeks that Cassel would be back.

That didn't keep my heart from hoping beyond all hope I was wrong.

Slainte
01-11-2012, 08:13 AM
I'm sure they'll have the podcast up later today. Fescoe asked him directly if his thoughts of Matt Cassel as a QB were the same today as they were when he brought him to KC. That's when he gave the Matt is a good NFL QB and brought up the 27 TD to whatever INT's for 2010 and his last season in New England.

He was then asked about the draft and what pieces he felt the Chiefs needed and stated the Oline needs upgraded and the entire team needs additional depth.

All in vague generalizations of course.

Clever misdirection on Pioli's part. It's a shoe-in we're going for a franchise QB in the draft...

Chiefnj2
01-11-2012, 08:27 AM
Pioli has 1 guy under contract with an NFL win on his resume. Even if he felt they needed to move in a different direction, he isn't going to come out and question the player.

Demonpenz
01-11-2012, 08:30 AM
Run the ball and Stop the run. I am glad the chiefs are starting to find an Identity. Turnovers kill this team, especially when the weather gets bad at arrowhead.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 08:35 AM
Not surprised at all. My head has been telling me for weeks that Cassel would be back.

That didn't keep my heart from hoping beyond all hope I was wrong.


Cassel = 10-6 and always competing for a wildcard berth. If your a wildcard, youve got a chance....isnt that what Carl Peterson used to say? : )

Chiefnj2
01-11-2012, 08:43 AM
KC doesn't need to use the #11 on a RB to improve the running game. Run blocking was horrible this year.
PFF grades:

Wiegmann: -4.4 (26th out of 35)
Albert: -1.0 (32nd out of 76)
Asamoah: -12.3 (70th out of 77)
Lilja: -3.8 (40th out of 77)
Richardson: -19.5 (76th out 76)

Chief Faithful
01-11-2012, 08:52 AM
Rather see a QB or RT selected at 11. If not then move down for extra picks and select a RT or LG later in the 1st.

tredadda
01-11-2012, 08:57 AM
THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

Agreed, QB is our biggest need by far but,

1. Luck and RGIII will be long gone by the time we pick so unless we trade up for one of them (which is almost a guarantee we won't) there are no other QBs worth the #11 pick unless you want to reach for a Tier II QB at #11.

2. Richardson is a playmaker and if we decide to draft at #11 instead of trade back then give me one of the top playmakers in this draft. We can address our RT situation later unless you feel that a RT is worthy of the #11 pick.

3. We could also use a NT. Are there any worth a #11 pick? Would you reach for one at that spot?

The problem is this team screwed itself by winning those pointless games against the Bears, SD, Indy, and Minn. While those wins "felt good" at the time, they put us in a bad spot. Pioli will most likely not trade up for a stud QB, so unless we draft a Tier II QB and hope he pans out we might be screwed at the position for a few years. We will be better next year because of our talent coming back and an easier schedule. We will miss out on next year's stud QBs as well. It appears that this team wants to win with a good defense, running game and average QB. Since they want to do that, why not get the best RB in the draft?

suds79
01-11-2012, 09:01 AM
For everybody who says you can get a RB easily later in the draft, you can say the same thing about RT.

aturnis
01-11-2012, 09:06 AM
THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

THE CHIEFS WILL NOT FILL THEIR BIGGEST NEED(QB) WITH THEIR FIRST ROUND PICK. GUARANTEED! What then, do you propose they do instead?

Brock
01-11-2012, 09:09 AM
For everybody who says you can get a RB easily later in the draft, you can say the same thing about RT.

If the choice is RB or RT, it's a no brainer. But that's probably not the choice.

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 09:10 AM
we already have an elite RB, we don't need two...there is way too much value at RB throughout the draft to spend the #11 on a RB

i mean, i'm not going to freak out if we draft him, he's a good player

but I'd rather trade down and take dontari poe* at NT (even if it's a slight reach)...hell, even a tackle if we trade down (can not believe I'm saying that)

just don't see the results from stacking elite skill players at one position, at least until you have a QB


*Edit

reading around about Poe, I'm not so impressed, a first pick on him would be a reach...so scratch that

Demonpenz
01-11-2012, 09:11 AM
Trade Jamaal Charles for a 3rd rounder and this team looks pretty good

1st- Richardson
2nd -Smith RT
3rd - Andre -Center 3rd Mclainson Guard
4th- Johnson- Tight End
5th- Mcarthy - Dlineman
6th-????
7-?????/

That leads us to having a road grating right tackle with richardson. A center and a guard who have proven to have a nasty attitdude. We had some D-line help in the offseason. We draft a tight end that can block and catch a ball or two. Bring back Battle for special teams. That kind of team would be aweful tough to handle when the bad weather rolls around.

Zeke
01-11-2012, 09:18 AM
KC doesn't need to use the #11 on a RB to improve the running game. Run blocking was horrible this year.
PFF grades:

Wiegmann: -4.4 (26th out of 35)
Albert: -1.0 (32nd out of 76)
Asamoah: -12.3 (70th out of 77)
Lilja: -3.8 (40th out of 77)
Richardson: -19.5 (76th out 76)

I'm surprised to see Asamoah grade out that poorly. Guess I assumed he was better than that, and the problems were with Richardson\Lilja\Wiegs

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 09:20 AM
reading around about Poe, I'm not so impressed, a first pick on him would be a reach...so scratch that

Alameda Ta'amu in the 2nd, FTW!

warpaint*
01-11-2012, 09:22 AM
Depends on the prospects of JC returning 100%. If the Chiefs believe he's going to be back same as before I'd probably look somewhere else. Otherwise if there is doubt I wouldn't mind taking TR. Dude is going to be really good in the pros I think.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 09:29 AM
So let me get this straight...CP Thinks that we should trout out an offense (that will inevitably be led my Matt Cassel) that features Jackie Battle and a RB who's coming off an ACL surgery who has NEVER carried the load......that's a good idea?

Get real. Look, I hope JC returns 100%, but the odds of that aren't great. On top of that, you really trust a back coming off of ACL surgery to handle 350+ carries?

Because with Cassel at QB, that's what we'll be facing.

Like it or not CP, we need a RB. They should have got one last draft, they didn't, and look what happened.

Richardson would be the BPA at a position of need.

If you think our running game is "fine" then you might as well just stop watching football.

milkman
01-11-2012, 09:30 AM
I'm sure they'll have the podcast up later today. Fescoe asked him directly if his thoughts of Matt Cassel as a QB were the same today as they were when he brought him to KC. That's when he gave the Matt is a good NFL QB and brought up the 27 TD to whatever INT's for 2010 and his last season in New England.

He was then asked about the draft and what pieces he felt the Chiefs needed and stated the Oline needs upgraded and the entire team needs additional depth.

All in vague generalizations of course.

Same shit, different day.

Same GM, different name.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 09:31 AM
So let me get this straight...CP Thinks that we should trout out an offense (that will inevitably be led my Matt Cassel) that features Jackie Battle and a RB who's coming off an ACL surgery who has NEVER carried the load......that's a good idea?

Get real. Look, I hope JC returns 100%, but the odds of that aren't great. On top of that, you really trust a back coming off of ACL surgery to handle 350+ carries?

Because with Cassel at QB, that's what we'll be facing.

Like it or not CP, we need a RB. They should have got one last draft, they didn't, and look what happened.

No one has said that. Yes we need help at RB, but that can be found in rounds 4-7 or UDFA.

tredadda
01-11-2012, 09:36 AM
No one has said that. Yes we need help at RB, but that can be found in rounds 4-7 or UDFA.

Outside of QB that can be said about almost any position. Since we are drafting #11 why not get an elite talent at a position of need. Our options are RT, NT, or RB as the two stud QBs will be gone and this team seems dead set on keeping Cassel in spite of what everyone sees. Since they refuse to address the QB situation, why not give the crap sandwich that we have under center even more help.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 09:37 AM
No one has said that. Yes we need help at RB, but that can be found in rounds 4-7 or UDFA.

Decent RB's can be found there, sure.

But ELITE? Sorry, no.

The best backs in the NFL were drafted between rounds 1-2. Not 4-7.

milkman
01-11-2012, 09:37 AM
I wouldn't be opposed to it, IF he's healthy. I tend to think he won't ever be the same.

I'd just as soon take an OL and try to sign Orton.

Anything but Richardson. That's how strongly I feel about it. I'm not ready for another decade like the 90's, getting fooled into thinking we're a contender when we're not.

Here's the problem with your thought process.

The Chiefs have been doing the same damn thing for 25 years, when they last drafted a first round QB.

They are going to draft O-Lineman, after having spent money in free agency on a receiver, and drafting another.

They are going to do everything they can to help Cassel, and the Chiefs by extension, achieve mediocrity.

These guys are never going to fix the QB position.
They are always going to use the bandiad approach, cause if they haven't figured out it isn' working yet, they are never going to figure it out.

We are ****ed, pure and simple.

Embrace the ****.


The definition of "In Kansas City"...Keep signing reject QBs and expect different results.

the Talking Can
01-11-2012, 09:38 AM
So let me get this straight...CP Thinks that we should trout out an offense (that will inevitably be led my Matt Cassel) that features Jackie Battle and a RB who's coming off an ACL surgery who has NEVER carried the load......that's a good idea?

Get real. Look, I hope JC returns 100%, but the odds of that aren't great. On top of that, you really trust a back coming off of ACL surgery to handle 350+ carries?

Because with Cassel at QB, that's what we'll be facing.

Like it or not CP, we need a RB. They should have got one last draft, they didn't, and look what happened.

Richardson would be the BPA at a position of need.

If you think our running game is "fine" then you might as well just stop watching football.

who said we don't need a RB?

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 09:41 AM
Outside of QB that can be said about almost any position. Since we are drafting #11 why not get an elite talent at a position of need. Our options are RT, NT, or RB as the two stud QBs will be gone and this team seems dead set on keeping Cassel in spite of what everyone sees. Since they refuse to address the QB situation, why not give the crap sandwich that we have under center even more help.

Major this. Took the words right out of my mouth.

We've had this very same conversation about Guards, RT's, NT's, etc. The list goes on and on.

Richardson isn't just ANY back. He's an elite back. He's a Tomlinson type back.

IMO, the only person who has presented a valid argument in this thread is Htis, and he may be right, but then again, Drafting Tomlinson didn't stop the Chargers from drafting Brees & Rivers either.

He keeps bringing up AP and Vikes, but even they attempted to fix the QB position with signing Favre and drafting a 1st rnd QB.

MJD didn't stop the Jags from taking a QB in the 1st, and Chris Johnson didn't stop the Titans from taking a 1st rnd QB either.

Bane
01-11-2012, 09:44 AM
Luck goes 1st,someone trades up to take RG3 @4-5 and Richardson never makes it past Shanahan.

philfree
01-11-2012, 09:45 AM
Major this. Took the words right out of my mouth.

We've had this very same conversation about Guards, RT's, NT's, etc. The list goes on and on.

Richardson isn't just ANY back. He's an elite back. He's a Tomlinson type back.
IMO, the only person who has presented a valid argument in this thread is Htis, and he may be right, but then again, Drafting Tomlinson didn't stop the Chargers from drafting Brees & Rivers either.

He keeps bringing up AP and Vikes, but even they attempted to fix the QB position with signing Favre and drafting a 1st rnd QB.

MJD didn't stop the Jags from taking a QB in the 1st, and Chris Johnson didn't stop the Titans from taking a 1st rnd QB either.

Good points ans what's Rivers done since Tomlinson left?

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 09:46 AM
Luck goes 1st,someone trades up to take RG3 @4-5 and Richardson never makes it past Shanahan.

Also possible. Despite what someone posted earlier in this thread, Roy Helu or whatever the fuck his name is, is NOT elite. He was what was left from that scrap heap backfield. Him being on that list is a joke. Might as well have just thrown Jackie Battle up there.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 09:49 AM
Also possible. Despite what someone posted earlier in this thread, Roy Helu or whatever the fuck his name is, is NOT elite. He was what was left from that scrap heap backfield. Him being on that list is a joke. Might as well have just thrown Jackie Battle up there.

When was the last time an ELITE RB lead a team to a SB victory?

Reaper16
01-11-2012, 09:49 AM
While Richardson is one of my very favorite college players of all time and a man that I would mark out over seeing in a Chiefs uniform, I don't want the Chiefs to spend the #11 overall pick on a running back. Any running back.

Chocolate Hog
01-11-2012, 09:51 AM
When was the last time an ELITE RB lead a team to a SB victory?

Marshall Faulk. This is a stupid argument BTW.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 09:54 AM
When was the last time an ELITE RB lead a team to a SB victory?

When was the last time an ELITE RT led the team to a SB?

Not a valid argument. We're not talking about QB's. This isn't a QB vs HB debate.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 09:58 AM
Marshall Faulk. This is a stupid argument BTW.

No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

Monty
01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
You WILL miss more than you hit, but if you don't shoot, you can't hit the target...

Loading the weapon in order to make a shot would be a step in the right direction for this organization.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 10:00 AM
When was the last time an ELITE RT led the team to a SB?

Not a valid argument. We're not talking about QB's. This isn't a QB vs HB debate.

It also isn't a RT vs HB debate.

Chocolate Hog
01-11-2012, 10:01 AM
No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

I agree you don't always need the best RB but we're talking value at the #11 spot. Is Richardson a better pick at 11 than a right tackle, guard or possibly reaching for a Nose tackle?

Monty
01-11-2012, 10:02 AM
Here's the problem with your thought process.

The Chiefs have been doing the same damn thing for 25 years, when they last drafted a first round QB.

They are going to draft O-Lineman, after having spent money in free agency on a receiver, and drafting another.

They are going to do everything they can to help Cassel, and the Chiefs by extension, achieve mediocrity.

These guys are never going to fix the QB position.
They are always going to use the bandiad approach, cause if they haven't figured out it isn' working yet, they are never going to figure it out.

We are ****ed, pure and simple.

Embrace the ****.


The definition of "In Kansas City"...Keep signing reject QBs and expect different results.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1828/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1828R-5179.jpg

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:02 AM
No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

Lol. Those guys hardly contributed at all. All QB driven teams.

ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT QB's.

You showed me a list of RB's....great

Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Ben Ruthelessraper
Eli Manning.

I'm well aware a Franchise QB is needed. But because we don't have one, and there likely won't be one available when we draft, we should just pass up on a player that provides instant offense?

Bane
01-11-2012, 10:03 AM
No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round

This is one of those times when I sorta agree with you,but it's still not awesome.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:03 AM
I agree you don't always need the best RB but we're talking value at the #11 spot. Is Richardson a better pick at 11 than a right tackle, guard or possibly reaching for a Nose tackle?

Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea.

BPA at a position of need.

It's how the Ravens do it. It's how the Steelers do it. It's how the Packers do it.

It's how the Chiefs should do it, regardless of who is at QB.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:05 AM
This is one of those times when I sorta agree with you,but it's still not awesome.

Those RB's he listed are good enough to win with when you have a SB caliber QB. But then again, I bet Aaron Rodgers would still be 15-1 with Jackie Battle as his primary back.

So wtf does it matter?

Bane
01-11-2012, 10:05 AM
Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea.

BPA at a position of need.

It's how the Ravens do it. It's how the Steelers do it. It's how the Packers do it.

It's how the Chiefs should do it, regardless of who as at QB.

Then we would be following documented FACTS..:evil:..Who the **** do you think you are to suggest such logic!!!!!!!

Bane
01-11-2012, 10:08 AM
Those RB's he listed are good enough to win with when you have a SB caliber QB. But then again, I bet Aaron Rodgers would still be 15-1 with Jackie Battle as his primary back.

So wtf does it matter?

I don't think Richardson will be there when we pick so IMO it doesn't matter.Probably wrong as fuck but I can see it happening.

Chiefnj2
01-11-2012, 10:08 AM
Lol. Those guys hardly contributed at all. All QB driven teams.



When the Giants won the Super Bowl they were a top 5 rushing team and middle of the pack passing team. Not really QB driven.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:10 AM
When the Giants won the Super Bowl they were a top 5 rushing team and middle of the pack passing team. Not really QB driven.

You know damn well that Eli was the reason they won in the post season. They were an average team going into the playoffs. Their post season success was QB driven.

suds79
01-11-2012, 10:13 AM
I wouldn't be upset at all if the Chiefs drafted Richardson. He's not my first choice but I wouldn't be upset.

While I believe in general best practices when drafting (which includes "RBs can be found late"), I don't believe in absolutes. If that was the case, one could have said pass on Eric Berry then because typically you shouldn't draft a Safety so high.

I want a QB most of all. More than anything. I'd love for the Chiefs to go after RG3. However, since I don't think there's any chance in hell that happens, might as well have a backup plan.

Most of all in the first, I want a playmaker. So if the Chiefs think this guy has Adrian Peterson type of ability, it's hard to justify passing that up. I'd take that over some RT any day. Just give me someone who can change the game. Especially when our RB is a speed guy coming off an ACL.

Chiefnj2
01-11-2012, 10:17 AM
You know damn well that Eli was the reason they won in the post season. They were an average team going into the playoffs. Their post season success was QB driven.

Their pass rush was the reason they won.

Deberg_1990
01-11-2012, 10:17 AM
No it's not. It proves my point. RBs found much later on are good enough to win.

Look at the starting Super Bowl RBs for the last few winners:

James Starks - 6th round
Pierre Thomas - UDFA
Willie Parker - UDFA
Brandon Jacobs - 4th round


UNderstand what you are getting at but teams dont think this way. If a guy is available who they view as "cant miss" or "elite" they are rarely going to pass. You cant hope you might get lucky and find a diamond in the rough 4 or 5 rounds later. The odds of finding a star or a decent starter for 5-8 years are much higher in the first few rounds than the lower rounds. Its all a gamble and about playing the odds ultimately.

BigChiefFan
01-11-2012, 10:17 AM
I don't think Richardson will be there when we pick so IMO it doesn't matter.Probably wrong as **** but I can see it happening.

No, I believe you are right. The top 6 players are Luck, Kalil, RG3, Claiborne, Blackmon, and Richardson. Doubt any of them will be available, if we stay put.

suds79
01-11-2012, 10:26 AM
I don't think Richardson will be there when we pick so IMO it doesn't matter.Probably wrong as **** but I can see it happening.

Adrain Peterson went 7 when he came out. Ran a flat 4.4 40 at the combine.

If Richardson is going top 10, he'll have to run a similar time. And he's a little bigger than AP. Hard for me to see that happening. Unless he's even freakier than I think.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:30 AM
Their pass rush was the reason they won.

So what are you trying to convince me of here? That great D and a strong running game win championships?

Is that what you're saying?

Because all you're doing is making an argument for Richardson and Orton right now.

Chief Faithful
01-11-2012, 10:35 AM
For everybody who says you can get a RB easily later in the draft, you can say the same thing about RT.

True, but an RT gives you value for 10 - 15 years and makes your other RB's better. Better to get a RB after the OL is in place because their career life is much shorter.

Chiefnj2
01-11-2012, 10:35 AM
So what are you trying to convince me of here? That great D and a strong running game win championships?

Is that what you're saying?

Because all you're doing is making an argument for Richardson and Orton right now.

Although people focus on QB's right now, yes, if you can get consistent pressure with your front 4, it increases your odds dramatically of winning in the postseason. Brees went untouched in his game. Stafford and Ryan got pressured. Tebow had time.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 10:37 AM
Trade Jamaal Charles for a 3rd rounder and this team looks pretty good

1st- Richardson
2nd -Smith RT
3rd - Andre -Center 3rd Mclainson Guard
4th- Johnson- Tight End
5th- Mcarthy - Dlineman
6th-????
7-?????/

That leads us to having a road grating right tackle with richardson. A center and a guard who have proven to have a nasty attitdude. We had some D-line help in the offseason. We draft a tight end that can block and catch a ball or two. Bring back Battle for special teams. That kind of team would be aweful tough to handle when the bad weather rolls around.

Is this what you'd call 'getting DemonPIEd?'

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:40 AM
Although people focus on QB's right now, yes, if you can get consistent pressure with your front 4, it increases your odds dramatically of winning in the postseason. Brees went untouched in his game. Stafford and Ryan got pressured. Tebow had time.

Ok. Good. So lets draft Richardson and continue to develop Hali, Houston & Baily.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 10:44 AM
True, but an RT gives you value for 10 - 15 years and makes your other RB's better. Better to get a RB after the OL is in place because their career life is much shorter.

Good RB's find holes to run through when there seems to be none. See Jammal Charles, 2010.

There isn't anymore of a Guarantee that your RT is going to last you 10-15 years. Why that idea floats around, I have no idea. Ask the Rams and Jags about their high round tackles. There have been PLENTY of high round tackle busts. Russel Okung ring a bell?

And of all the positions that could be addressed between rounds 4-7, RT has to be at the top of the list.

Everyone suggesting #11 is too high for an Elite RB should slap themselves for not thinking the same regarding a freaking RT.

Urc Burry
01-11-2012, 10:45 AM
Adrain Peterson went 7 when he came out. Ran a flat 4.4 40 at the combine.

If Richardson is going top 10, he'll have to run a similar time. And he's a little bigger than AP. Hard for me to see that happening. Unless he's even freakier than I think.

richardson is likely a 4.5 guy, but his bench press is probably going to break a record for running backs

suds79
01-11-2012, 10:48 AM
True, but an RT gives you value for 10 - 15 years and makes your other RB's better. Better to get a RB after the OL is in place because their career life is much shorter.

Right but you have to look at the options.

It's not just RB vs RT. It's Trent Richardson vs say a Jonathan Martin (6'6 305). Who's greater at their position?

And a lot of the top tackle prospects you'd take at 11 all played LT. So you're talking a position change.

Furthermore, this is a pet peeve of mine, all the top 1st round OT prospects are just over 3 bills. That drives me crazy. We already have just about the lightest O-line in the league who just so happens to be bad on 3rd & short. Shocking.

Our Center (who thankfully will be gone next year) was 285. I think we need some road graders up front. Where's the 330 Guard? Where's the 6'6 335 RT?

suds79
01-11-2012, 10:49 AM
richardson is likely a 4.5 guy, but his bench press is probably going to break a record for running backs

If he runs a 4.5, there's no way he goes top 10 IMO.

Chief Faithful
01-11-2012, 11:07 AM
Right but you have to look at the options.

It's not just RB vs RT. It's Trent Richardson vs say a Jonathan Martin (6'6 305). Who's greater at their position?

And a lot of the top tackle prospects you'd take at 11 all played LT. So you're talking a position change.

Furthermore, this is a pet peeve of mine, all the top 1st round OT prospects are just over 3 bills. That drives me crazy. We already have just about the lightest O-line in the league who just so happens to be bad on 3rd & short. Shocking.

Our Center (who thankfully will be gone next year) was 285. I think we need some road graders up front. Where's the 330 Guard? Where's the 6'6 335 RT?

I understand what you are saying, and in many ways I agree. The argument you make about tackles in my mind fits Richardson. He might do better then I expect, but I do not think his game translates well to the NFL.

If they can move down for extra picks and address both RT and LG in this draft I would be happy. As I don't think the top tier QB's will drop to 11 it would be nice if they could pick up one of the second tier QB's in the late 1st or 2nd. If they do pick up Richardson I would not be upset, I just don't think he is so special that he should be a priority over QB or OL.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:11 AM
I understand what you are saying, and in many ways I agree. The argument you make about tackles in my mind fits Richardson. He might do better then I expect, but I do not think his game translates well to the NFL.

If they can move down for extra picks and address both RT and LG in this draft I would be happy. As I don't think the top tier QB's will drop to 11 it would be nice if they could pick up one of the second tier QB's in the late 1st or 2nd. If they do pick up Richardson I would not be upset, I just don't think he is so special that he should be a priority over QB or OL.

The transition for a RB from College to the Pros is about as seamless as it gets for a player. There is no other position in football that can transition as easily. Really, the only thing Richardson would have to work on is his pass protection.

Everything else is based off of his God-Given talent.

Micjones
01-11-2012, 11:14 AM
THIS IS NOT OUR BIGGEST NEED.

We spend a 1st on a HB (a position most teams can fill in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th) and I'll be livid...

This.

Forget QB (our biggest need).
We draft a RB over RT or NT and I'll be livid.

Bump
01-11-2012, 11:21 AM
reaching for some NT who shouldn't be taken would piss me off. T Rich would not piss me off. We don't know if Charles will make a full recovery, it's unlikely if anything. I say draft him if he's there. Either that or a RT :)

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 11:25 AM
If he runs a 4.5, there's no way he goes top 10 IMO.
You are a damn idiot. You need youth and break tackle ability with good speed. That's top 10.
This.

Forget QB (our biggest need).
We draft a RB over RT or NT and I'll be livid.
Fucking retarded.

Chief Faithful
01-11-2012, 11:27 AM
The transition for a RB from College to the Pros is about as seamless as it gets for a player. There is no other position in football that can transition as easily. Really, the only thing Richardson would have to work on is his pass protection.

Everything else is based off of his God-Given talent.

Again, another reason to address OL before RB.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:28 AM
This.

Forget QB (our biggest need).
We draft a RB over RT or NT and I'll be livid.

mmmm'kay

So instead we should severely reach for a NT (when there is already two promising ones on the roster) or draft a RT, which would also be highly overvalued at #11.

Reaching for need is how bad teams draft.

Drafting BPA at a position of need is how good teams draft.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:31 AM
Again, another reason to address OL before RB.

Here's an Idea:

Do both in the same draft!

Address both positions but take the most talented player first.

suds79
01-11-2012, 11:32 AM
You are a damn idiot. You need youth and break tackle ability with good speed. That's top 10.

:facepalm: Okay tough guy and think before you speak.

Unless you're new to football, you should know that NFL teams put entirely way to much stock into the 40 time. My point wasn't that he's not top 10 quality. It was if he runs a 4.5 40, he will not be drafted in the top 10. Bank on it.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:47 AM
Good points ans what's Rivers done since Tomlinson left?

Same thing he did WITH Tomlinson - NOTHING.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:49 AM
I think people are missing the point.

This isn't about the value of the #11 pick. This isn't about taking a RB that high being a bad idea when you can get one much later in the draft.

This is about the overall direction of the team, the pieces that dictate the offensive philosophy.

Trent Richardson is the type of player you BUILD around. Especially for a team like the Chiefs that loves to crawl into their ultra-conservative shell whenever they get the chance, they WILL build around Richardson.

Drafting Richardson all but guarantees another decade of mediocrity. That's all there is to it.

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 11:50 AM
:facepalm: Okay tough guy and think before you speak.

Unless you're new to football, you should know that NFL teams put entirely way to much stock into the 40 time. My point wasn't that he's not top 10 quality. It was if he runs a 4.5 40, he will not be drafted in the top 10. Bank on it.

If he runs a 4.5, only a tenth slower than a 4.4 and you say he won't go top 10? Yes you are an idiot.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 11:52 AM
I think people are missing the point.

This isn't about the value of the #11 pick. This isn't about taking a RB that high being a bad idea when you can get one much later in the draft.

This is about the overall direction of the team, the pieces that dictate the offensive philosophy.

Trent Richardson is the type of player you BUILD around. Especially for a team like the Chiefs that loves to crawl into their ultra-conservative shell whenever they get the chance, they WILL build around Richardson.

Drafting Richardson all but guarantees another decade of mediocrity. That's all there is to it.

Which is why i said thus far you have the only dog in this fight.

But I still disagree and I gave you examples.

I have the same fear that you have, that the Chiefs will turtle up and get cozy with a game manager QB.

But it looks as though they'll do that regardless.

When Pioli is gone, and Cassel is gone, wouldn't you rather have Richardson than some random RT?

Saccopoo
01-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Which is why i said thus far you have the only dog in this fight.

But I still disagree and I gave you examples.

I have the same fear that you have, that the Chiefs will turtle up and get cozy with a game manager QB.

But it looks as though they'll do that regardless.

When Pioli is gone, and Cassel is gone, wouldn't you rather have Richardson than some random RT?

Would he still be running behind Barry Richardson?

I wonder how he'll like that.

suds79
01-11-2012, 11:56 AM
If he runs a 4.5, only a tenth slower than a 4.4 and you say he won't go top 10? Yes you are an idiot.

Never said that the 40 time issue at the combine isn't ridiculous. But that's reality. That's how NFL teams view it. Not my fault that you don't understand that.

Saving this exchange for the draft. We'll just see who the idiot is.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 11:58 AM
Which is why i said thus far you have the only dog in this fight.

But I still disagree and I gave you examples.

I have the same fear that you have, that the Chiefs will turtle up and get cozy with a game manager QB.

But it looks as though they'll do that regardless.

When Pioli is gone, and Cassel is gone, wouldn't you rather have Richardson than some random RT?

There's a better than good chance that Richardson won't last long enough to see Pioli and Cassel get shown the door.

And even if he does, the next crew that comes in here will be just as tempted to build the offense around him.

I'd much rather have the random RT and the uncertainty that comes with it. The certainty that comes with a player like Richardson is not something I want to endure.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:01 PM
Anyone know anything about TR's skills as a receiver?

Big difference between a Jerome Bettis and a Marshall Faulk.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:04 PM
There's a better than good chance that Richardson won't last long enough to see Pioli and Cassel get shown the door.

And even if he does, the next crew that comes in here will be just as tempted to build the offense around him.

I'd much rather have the random RT and the uncertainty that comes with it. The certainty that comes with a player like Richardson is not something I want to endure.

If Cassel fails next season, he will be gone. If he's not gone and Cassel gets another chance to succeed, then Pioli will be shown the door with him. Dude is on a short leash.

And when a new staff comes in, a new QB will almost always comes along with it.

Like i said. We can't predict the future.

So basing your current picks off of what MIGHT happen isn't a good idea IMO.






The fact of the matter is, at this point it's hard to say what the Chiefs SHOULD do w/o F/A.

If the Chiefs land a guy like M. Bush, obviously my view on Richardson would sway significantly.

What if the Chiefs landed Manning? Too many what if's.

Reaper16
01-11-2012, 12:05 PM
Would he still be running behind Barry Richardson?

I wonder how he'll like that.
Trent is used to running behind paltry run blockers. Alabama's O-Line basically run blocks for shit but pass protects like monsters.

Anyone know anything about TR's skills as a receiver?

Big difference between a Jerome Bettis and a Marshall Faulk.
They don't use him much as a receiver. Probably for good reason. He's made really clutch catches and he's dropped heartbreakers. If I were coming to his pro day I'd want to see him in reception drills.

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 12:05 PM
There's a better than good chance that Richardson won't last long enough to see Pioli and Cassel get shown the door.

And even if he does, the next crew that comes in here will be just as tempted to build the offense around him.

I'd much rather have the random RT and the uncertainty that comes with it. The certainty that comes with a player like Richardson is not something I want to endure.

Third down is the biggest down in the NFL these days. It dictates momentum and possession. In 3rd and 4. Would you comfortably run Charles or have to pass with Cassel OR give the rock to TR for a hard 4 yard gain?

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 12:06 PM
Never said that the 40 time issue at the combine isn't ridiculous. But that's reality. That's how NFL teams view it. Not my fault that you don't understand that.

Saving this exchange for the draft. We'll just see who the idiot is.

I'll agree to that. Wait for the draft which is quickly creeping up on us.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:10 PM
There's a better than good chance that Richardson won't last long enough to see Pioli and Cassel get shown the door.

And even if he does, the next crew that comes in here will be just as tempted to build the offense around him.

I'd much rather have the random RT and the uncertainty that comes with it. The certainty that comes with a player like Richardson is not something I want to endure.

The CERTAINTY that having a really good running back means that's the ONLY thing they'll ever do? The CERTAINTY that no one would ever make any effort to pair him with a good QB, given that rushing leaders with shitty QBs lead to the Titans and Browns of the league, while duos like Elway/Davis, Roethlisberger/Bettis, Warner/Faulk, Manning/James, Brees/Bush win SBs?

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:10 PM
Third down is the biggest down in the NFL these days. It dictates momentum and possession. In 3rd and 4. Would you comfortably run Charles or have to pass with Cassel OR give the rock to TR for a hard 4 yard gain?

And even though the NFL has changed and is far more slanted towards the passing game, the fundamentals are still the same. It's basic math.

The running game can open up the passing came. The Donks are perfect proof of that. So are the 2010 Chiefs, just ask Cassel, who was carried by our running game.

It's simple numbers. If more defenders are forced into the box to assist in run stopping, then the reads the QB has to make are simpler, the WR's will have more 1 vs 1 situations and the passing game would be more effective. The Play action game would be very advantageous. Seems like lately, the Play action has been very effective in the NFL. The Chiefs marched up and down the Packers D because of effective play action.

Outside of:

Brady
Rodgers
Brees
Stafford
Manning

Every team needs a running game.

So, unless you have a top 5 QB, which 27 other teams do not have, you need to have a running game to have a chance.

Zeke
01-11-2012, 12:12 PM
Anyone know anything about TR's skills as a receiver?

Big difference between a Jerome Bettis and a Marshall Faulk.

According to Musburger he is an excellent receiver, oh and Honey Badger (drink!).

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 12:13 PM
There's a better than good chance that Richardson won't last long enough to see Pioli and Cassel get shown the door.


That's part of the problem with drafting RBs high. Lets look at the past 10 drafts (2001-2011). There were 11 RBs drafted top-15. Every single one of them has either a) missed significant time due to injury, b) hasn't been good enough to supplant the starter, or c) has moved on from the team that drafted him.

CJ Spiller - 9th overall
Ryan Matthews - 12th overall
Knowshon Moreno - 12th overall
Darren McFadden - 4th overall
Jonathan Stewart - 13th overall
Adrian Peterson - 7th overall
Marshawn Lynch - 12th overall
Reggie Bush - 2nd overall
Ronnie Brown - 2nd overall
Cedric Benson - 4th overall
Cadillac Williams - 5th overall

ReynardMuldrake
01-11-2012, 12:15 PM
I still think it's weird calling another guy T-Rich.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:21 PM
The CERTAINTY that having a really good running back means that's the ONLY thing they'll ever do? The CERTAINTY that no one would ever make any effort to pair him with a good QB, given that rushing leaders with shitty QBs lead to the Titans and Browns of the league, while duos like Elway/Davis, Roethlisberger/Bettis, Warner/Faulk, Manning/James, Brees/Bush win SBs?

This is Kansas City baby. We give new meaning to the word "futile".

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:21 PM
Third down is the biggest down in the NFL these days. It dictates momentum and possession. In 3rd and 4. Would you comfortably run Charles or have to pass with Cassel OR give the rock to TR for a hard 4 yard gain?

You're still looking at it tactically. I'm looking at it strategically.

Extra Point
01-11-2012, 12:23 PM
I still think it's weird calling another guy T-Rich.

If the guy can block, I wouldn't.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:24 PM
You're still looking at it tactically. I'm looking at it strategically.

Yeah, but [IMO], your position is 'we should do something stupid because if we do something smart it might lead us to do something stupid in the future.'

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:25 PM
Yeah, but [IMO], your position is 'we should do something stupid because if we do something smart it might lead us to do something stupid in the future.'

in a nutshell.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:30 PM
Yeah, but [IMO], your position is 'we should do something stupid because if we do something smart it might lead us to do something stupid in the future.'

There's nothing stupid about taking a top offensive linemen. Safe? Yes. Somewhat cowardly? Probably. But certainly not stupid.

And if you want to call taking a RB that high "smart" we can go back to all of the ancilliary arguments that have been made by others - the overwhelming evidence suggest it isn't AT ALL "smart".

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:40 PM
There's nothing stupid about taking a top offensive linemen. Safe? Yes. Somewhat cowardly? Probably. But certainly not stupid.

And if you want to call taking a RB that high "smart" we can go back to all of the ancilliary arguments that have been made by others - the overwhelming evidence suggest it isn't AT ALL "smart".

Neither move is overwhelmingly smart. The same argument can be made for both positions. Which is why this argument will never die.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:41 PM
There's nothing stupid about taking a top offensive linemen. Safe? Yes. Somewhat cowardly? Probably. But certainly not stupid.

And if you want to call taking a RB that high "smart" we can go back to all of the ancilliary arguments that have been made by others - the overwhelming evidence suggest it isn't AT ALL "smart".

I'm operating on the presumption that the RB is clearly BPA, and has been characterized as elite difference maker versus solid cog.

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 12:44 PM
You're still looking at it tactically. I'm looking at it strategically.

Strategy was thrown out the window a long time ago in the NFL. Performance dominates everything. This is a "What can you do for me now? What have you done for me lately?" league. If we get an OL and he sucks it up, and you're only argument is...he's a rookie...what good does that do us in 2012 when all those injured players are back? I say draft who gives you more upside NOW, not later. Thus Trent mother****in Richardson.

Editing for more. Crennel isn't thinking, "hmmm I want an lineman in the first round so I can start winning a SB 3 years down the road when I'm still here for having subpar seasons waiting for said lineman to develop." F that.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:45 PM
Neither move is overwhelmingly smart. The same argument can be made for both positions. Which is why this argument will never die.

The argument will never die because I won't relent. :)

My argument is based partially in fact but based mostly on my near 30 years of being a fan for a team that's really never made the "right" move.

Does that make sense?

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:46 PM
Strategy was thrown out the window a long time ago in the NFL. Performance dominates everything. This is a "What can you do for me now? What have you done for me lately?" league. If we get an OL and he sucks it up, and you're only argument is...he's a rookie...what good does that do us in 2012 when all those injured players are back? I say draft who gives you more upside NOW, not later. Thus Trent mother****in Richardson

Enjoy your 8 wins and no playoffs.

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 12:48 PM
Enjoy your 8 wins and no playoffs.

THAT'S your response to what I'm saying? That just means you know I'm right and now you're being petty.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 12:50 PM
THAT'S your response to what I'm saying? That just means you know I'm right and now you're being petty.

It means you're unable to grasp what I'm talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're not a fan of a TEAM. You follow your favorite college players around the NFL.

I've been a fan of this team for almost 3 decades and I've seen them make moves like this one over and over and over again.

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2012, 12:54 PM
Hypothetically if we had our quarterback in tow - Richardson would be our pick in a heart beat IMO if he was on the board. No questions asked.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 12:56 PM
The argument will never die because I won't relent. :)

My argument is based partially in fact but based mostly on my near 30 years of being a fan for a team that's really never made the "right" move.

Does that make sense?

I've said many times, i understand your fear. I share it to a degree. But it's time to let that go.

At some point, this team HAS to make the right moves.

If this team takes Richardson, and wins 7-8 games a year, then it would be clearly evident that the QB position is the issue. If you have a great D, and a great running game and still only win 8 games, then the passing game (QB) would stick out like a sore thumb.

While you think it will mask our QB, i think it'll make the need for a QB glaring.

Because if you can't succeed with SB caliber Coaching, a SB caliber Running game, and a SB caliber D, then you'll never win anything. Ever.

Pioli has a lot of faults. But I do believe he wants to win a SB, and I don't think he'll let Matt Cassel stand in his way.

If everything people have said about his ego is true, then i fully expect Cassel to be cut, if not this season then surely next, because the ultimate way to feed that ego, to live up to the hype you think you are, is to win a SB by all means necessary.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 12:58 PM
It means you're unable to grasp what I'm talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're not a fan of a TEAM. You follow your favorite college players around the NFL.

I've been a fan of this team for almost 3 decades and I've seen them make moves like this one over and over and over again.

Larry Johnson, Greg Hill, Paul Palmer, Woody Green and Jeff Kinney.

One too few 'overs,' if you go back 40+ years. One too many for just 30. ;)

ChiefsCountry
01-11-2012, 01:00 PM
If Fisher ends up in Miami, no way Richardson doesn't make it past the Dolphins.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 01:01 PM
If Fisher ends up in Miami, no way Richardson doesn't make it past the Dolphins.

RGIII

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:02 PM
Hypothetically if we had our quarterback in tow - Richardson would be our pick in a heart beat IMO if he was on the board. No questions asked.

If we intend to give Stanzi a LEGITIMATE shot at the starting job next year, draft Trent Richardson and don't look back.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:02 PM
If Fisher ends up in Miami, no way Richardson doesn't make it past the Dolphins.

I don't not think your sentence doesn't fail to mean what you didn't want it to.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:05 PM
If this team takes Richardson, and wins 7-8 games a year, then it would be clearly evident that the QB position is the issue. If you have a great D, and a great running game and still only win 8 games, then the passing game (QB) would stick out like a sore thumb.


This part isn't my central issue. No doubt the QB will become a glaring issue, just like it did in the 90's here, or in Minnesota now.

The problem isn't what needs to be addressed but HOW they address it.

In your scenario, they've drafted Richardson and already built an offense around him. We, as Chief fans, know how this ends. We'll be looking at some other team's castoffs for the next dozen years trying to "get over the hump".

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:06 PM
Larry Johnson, Greg Hill, Paul Palmer, Woody Green and Jeff Kinney.

One too few 'overs,' if you go back 40+ years. One too many for just 30. ;)

I wasn't specifically talking about drafting a 1st round RB.

I was talking more specifically about being overly conservative when it comes to skill players.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:07 PM
This part isn't my central issue. No doubt the QB will become a glaring issue, just like it did in the 90's here, or in Minnesota now.

The problem isn't what needs to be addressed but HOW they address it.

In your scenario, they've drafted Richardson and already built an offense around him. We, as Chief fans, know how this ends. We'll be looking at some other team's castoffs for the next dozen years trying to "get over the hump".

Because Lamar, Err, Carl, err Marty, err, Gunther, err, Dick, err Herm, YEAH Herm!!! will demand it!!!!

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:08 PM
I wasn't specifically talking about drafting a 1st round RB.

I was talking more specifically about being overly conservative when it comes to skill players.

You want I should list our first round OT/Gs and DEs?

Extra Point
01-11-2012, 01:15 PM
How many people were saying WTF when JC was drafted, when we had LJ? RB may be a seamless transition, but it's the most brutal. Touch the ball, you get hit. Hard.

Jackie Battle, Thomas Jones, and who, after JC? No depth; we need help. Young help. How much dealing can we do, before the draft? Do we have on the PS, help with RB depth?

Extra Point
01-11-2012, 01:16 PM
If we intend to give Stanzi a LEGITIMATE shot at the starting job next year, draft Trent Richardson and don't look back.

THAT is a good statement!

DaWolf
01-11-2012, 01:17 PM
It's a possibility. Wasn't Mark Ingram the guy the Chiefs were discussing drafting to replace Thomas Jones last year according to the book "War Room"? The organization is on the lookout for a guy like Richardson. It'll come down to who we can get in free agency and how the draft board breaks down, but I could see it...

bevischief
01-11-2012, 01:19 PM
I am not against drafting him but we would need a OC that could figure out to use him Charles and the midget. KC needs something besides one touch and down Battle. I haven't looked to see who is available in FA yet so this may not even a option come draft day. KC needs to go with the BFA on their draft board with the pick.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 01:20 PM
Alright. I'll try to make my final statement on this issue.

If Cassel is kept and no HB is signed, then Draft Richardson, QB in the second, RT in the 3rd

If Orton is kept and no HB is signed, then draft Richardson, QB in the second, RT in the third.

If Manning is signed, then unquestionably draft Richardson, RT or QB in the second.

If Orton or Cassel are the QB's going into the year and a RB is signed, then draft the top OL available in the 1st.


There.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:21 PM
Because Lamar, Err, Carl, err Marty, err, Gunther, err, Dick, err Herm, YEAH Herm!!! will demand it!!!!

When they've been doing the same things over and over since I was a child, and they haven't won a playoff game since I was in college, they're going to have to SHOW me they can do it differently before I'll jump out on a limb and believe. :)

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:22 PM
You want I should list our first round OT/Gs and DEs?

Those aren't skill players.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:24 PM
If Cassel is kept and no HB is signed, then Draft Richardson, QB in the second, RT in the 3rd

To me, this is a recipe for 3-5 more years of Cassel rather than 1.

If Orton is kept and no HB is signed, then draft Richardson, QB in the second, RT in the third.

And again, this looks like a recipe for giving Orton a 6-year deal instead of trying to pair Richardson with a REAL QB.

If Manning is signed, then unquestionably draft Richardson, RT or QB in the second.

This I absolutely agree with.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 01:28 PM
To me, this is a recipe for 3-5 more years of Cassel rather than 1.



And again, this looks like a recipe for giving Orton a 6-year deal instead of trying to pair Richardson with a REAL QB.



This I absolutely agree with.

What if the Chiefs drafted Richardson and then traded up into the 1st for a guy like Tannehill?

How would you feel about Richardson then?

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:32 PM
Those aren't skill players.

First off, I owe you an apology on the 'too many overs' forgot about Harvey Williams.

But from there, I'm confused.

Yes, 1st round QBs have been a problem. But skill players have been on par with the league norm. Bowe and Gonzalez beast. In the time in between we had few prime picks, Johnson and Williams gave decent output for a period. Greg Hill was a decent runner who was runntofft by Marty's pecker, and looked to flourish in StL until he broke his leg. SlyMo was a tragedy of injury who showed promise as well.

Prior to Marty they were a drafting shithouse for 2 decades straight.

But your response to 'they're too conservative wrt skill positions' is to forego an elite skill player in favor of a guard?

And FTR: if they get a reasonable offer to trade up to RGIII territory and reply "nope, we got our RB in our sights' or likewise decline a place at the table in the Manning sweepstakes. That's an entirely different matter. I'm talking about what they do, after trying everything in their power to maneuver for maximum draft/FA payoff, and are sitting there with the draft slip faced with RG or RB.

You are conflating situational draft strategy and the addressing QB situation, when they are compartmentalized issues.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:36 PM
What if the Chiefs drafted Richardson and then traded up into the 1st for a guy like Tannehill?

How would you feel about Richardson then?

Much better.

I'm really ONLY concerned about drafting Richardson if we go into next season with Cassel or Orton. Those guys NEED to be 1-year band aids.

My fear is that a guy like Richardson makes them 5-year band aids.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:40 PM
First off, I owe you an apology on the 'too many overs' forgot about Harvey Williams.

ROFL

Yes, 1st round QBs have been a problem. But skill players have been on par with the league norm. Bowe and Gonzalez beast.

Bowe has, admittedly, turned into a damn fine receiver. But he was drafted because he could block according to the coach at the time.

Now Gonzales is precisely the kind of move I'm talking about. They traded up to get the greated TE in the HISTORY OF THE GAME. He's an offensive focal point. And he's NEVER WON A PLAYOFF GAME.

But your response to 'they're too conservative wrt skill positions' is to forego an elite skill player in favor of a guard?

If said elite skill player is going to pigeon-hole them into an outdated and ultimately unsuccessful overall offensive philosophy? 100% absolutely yes.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 01:40 PM
Much better.

I'm really ONLY concerned about drafting Richardson if we go into next season with Cassel or Orton. Those guys NEED to be 1-year band aids.

My fear is that a guy like Richardson makes them 5-year band aids.

Finally something we can agree on.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:45 PM
Not gonna argue on Cassel. I already live my life like he's gone, b/c if he's on the roster the Chiefs don't exist for me except as an abstraction like the Hobbits of the Shire.

But supposed Orton plays next year with JC and TR at RB, flashes brilliance on many occasions, works himself into top 10-12 rated QBs, goes 11-5 or 12-4, hosts a playoff game winning one, maybe two, and otherwise doesn't exhibit signs of being an albatross, is he still a one-year stopgap?

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:46 PM
Finally something we can agree on.

I don't think we actually disagree.

I think my concern is a fringe one, fueled by years of Chiefs-related disappointment.

It's not a rational thing by any means, although I certainly believe that my argument has logical merit.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:46 PM
Not gonna argue on Cassel. I already live my life like he's gone, b/c if he's on the roster the Chiefs don't exist for me except as an abstraction like the Hobbits of the Shire.

But supposed Orton plays next year with JC and TR at RB, flashes brilliance on many occasions, works himself into top 10-12 rated QBs, goes 11-5 or 12-4, hosts a playoff game winning one, maybe two, and otherwise doesn't exhibit signs of being an albatross, is he still a one-year stopgap?

Damn...

ROFL

Of course not!

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:47 PM
I don't think we actually disagree.

I think my concern is a fringe one, fueled by years of Chiefs-related disappointment.

It's not a rational thing by any means, although I certainly believe that my argument has logical merit.

Irrational, yet unshakeable. Dangerous mix.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:50 PM
Irrational, yet unshakeable. Dangerous mix.

Just give me a samurai sword.

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:52 PM
Damn...

ROFL

Of course not!

To be clear, I view mental hiccups differently than processing and fundamentals hiccups. Orton has made it clear he's capable of the throws we need from a QB, and making quick decisions, and exhibiting pocket presence. He just brain farts too regularly. That's different from Cassel who tries hard but fails, in decision making, in precision, in range of passing attack, in threat assessment. Too much to clean up with Cassel, too long performing without progress to hope for future progress. Cassel needs to start doing things he's rarely to never done. Orton needs to start doing things he's capable of doing ALL THE TIME.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 01:54 PM
To be clear, I view mental hiccups differently than processing and fundamentals hiccups. Orton has made it clear he's capable of the throws we need from a QB, and making quick decisions, and exhibiting pocket presence. He just brain farts too regularly. That's different from Cassel who tries hard but fails, in decision making, in precision, in range of passing attack, in threat assessment. Too much to clean up with Cassel, too long performing without progress to hope for future progress. Cassel needs to start doing things he's rarely to never done. Orton needs to start doing things he's capable of doing ALL THE TIME.

Makes perfect sense.

salame
01-11-2012, 01:57 PM
I don't disagree. However, I strongly feel that RB is a position you can get cheap rounds 4-7 or as an UDFA.

Roy Helu - round 4
Michael Bush - round 4
Darren Sproles - round 4
Brandon Jacobs - round 4
Michael Turner - round 5
Tim Hightower - round 5
Kolby smith - round 5
Javon Ringer - round 5
James Starks - round 6
Anthony Dixon - round 6
Jonathan dwyer - round 6
Bernard Scott - round 6
Terrell Davis - round 6
Jamal Anderson - round 7
LaRod Stephens-Howling - round 7
Peyton hillis - round 7
Ahmad Bradshaw - round 7
Priest Holmes - UDFA
Arian Foster - UDFA
Fred Jackson - UDFA
Benjarvis Green-Ellis - UDFA
Mike Tolbert - UDFA
LeGarrette Blount - UDFA
Pierre Thomas - UDFA

?

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 01:57 PM
?

Q

salame
01-11-2012, 01:57 PM
Remember when Mark Ingram was "elite talent capable of changing an offense"

Baby Lee
01-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Remember when Mark Ingram was "elite talent capable of changing an offense"

The lowest 1st RB off the board in the draft since the merger?

suds79
01-11-2012, 02:05 PM
Remember when Mark Ingram was "elite talent capable of changing an offense"

Yep. Then he ran a 4.58 40. ;) That's for you Setsuna.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 02:14 PM
To be clear, I view mental hiccups differently than processing and fundamentals hiccups. Orton has made it clear he's capable of the throws we need from a QB, and making quick decisions, and exhibiting pocket presence. He just brain farts too regularly. That's different from Cassel who tries hard but fails, in decision making, in precision, in range of passing attack, in threat assessment. Too much to clean up with Cassel, too long performing without progress to hope for future progress. Cassel needs to start doing things he's rarely to never done. Orton needs to start doing things he's capable of doing ALL THE TIME.

Best comparison of the two i've seen yet.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 02:17 PM
Alright. I'll try to make my final statement on this issue.

If Cassel is kept and no HB is signed, then Draft Richardson, QB in the second, RT in the 3rd

If Orton is kept and no HB is signed, then draft Richardson, QB in the second, RT in the third.

If Manning is signed, then unquestionably draft Richardson, RT or QB in the second.

If Orton or Cassel are the QB's going into the year and a RB is signed, then draft the top OL available in the 1st.


There.

IMO, it's all meaningless since Richardson will be off the board.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 02:19 PM
?

The majority of the list is fail.

DaKCMan AP
01-11-2012, 02:20 PM
Remember when Mark Ingram was "elite talent capable of changing an offense"

Trent Richardson > Mark Ingram and it's not really close.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 02:20 PM
IMO, it's all meaningless since Richardson will be off the board.

Possibly. But most mocks have him dropping out of the top ten, which isn't uncommon.

Detoxing
01-11-2012, 02:22 PM
Remember when Mark Ingram was "elite talent capable of changing an offense"

Actually, no i don't. I do remember there being major concerns about his college workload and how many years you'd actually get out of him considering his running style and College carries.

Contrarian
01-11-2012, 02:44 PM
Draft for need. Our running game is good enough. We can find a good backup) in the 3rd round or later.
Posted via Mobile Device

Uh no it's not.

milkman
01-11-2012, 03:30 PM
The biggest problem I have with your argument in this thread, Parker, is that Trent Richardson is not going to affect this team's philosophy with regards to QB in any way.

They are going to continue to address the QB position exactly as they have for the last years, with retreads and rejects, regardless of whatever else they do.

This team is like a garage band with no lead singer.

Hey, they get to play in the garage.
They don't need to play on stage.

htismaqe
01-11-2012, 04:37 PM
The biggest problem I have with your argument in this thread, Parker, is that Trent Richardson is not going to affect this team's philosophy with regards to QB in any way.

They are going to continue to address the QB position exactly as they have for the last years, with retreads and rejects, regardless of whatever else they do.

This team is like a garage band with no lead singer.

Hey, they get to play in the garage.
They don't need to play on stage.

In other words, you see the future as even MORE bleak than I do...

ROFL

TrebMaxx
01-11-2012, 05:14 PM
I watched some segment on the draft the other day and the panel started talking about using a 1st rounder on a RB saying that teams shouldn't and it waste the value of the pick. They said that you don't usually get enough time out of a running back due to the physical toll taken at the position. I found it interesting so I checked this seasons top five backs and where they were selected.

Maurice Jones-Drew 2006 / Round: 2 / Pick: 60
Ray Rice 2008 / Round: 2 / Pick: 55
Michael Turner 2004 / Round: 5 / Pick: 154
LeSean McCoy 2009 / Round: 2 / Pick: 53
Arian Foster Undrafted 2009

How about 3 of the 5 being selected in the 2nd round near the same picks. If I get time I want to check out the next 10 to see if that 2nd round figure keeps showing up.

Setsuna
01-11-2012, 07:46 PM
Yep. Then he ran a 4.58 40. ;) That's for you Setsuna.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :deevee::clap:

hometeam
01-11-2012, 07:55 PM
that mock draft is utter fail

jlscorpio
01-11-2012, 09:51 PM
He would definitely fix our pathetic Red Zone offense that probably cost us 2+ games this year.

Short Leash Hootie
01-11-2012, 11:26 PM
Im all for Richardson in the 1st...newsflash!!!! We can draft for luxury, our team is stacked! (Minus QB) and we aren't getting griffin or luck so take Richardson and hide Orton with our dynamic duo at RB and let's win a god damn playoff game!!

DaKCMan AP
01-12-2012, 05:37 AM
I watched some segment on the draft the other day and the panel started talking about using a 1st rounder on a RB saying that teams shouldn't and it waste the value of the pick. They said that you don't usually get enough time out of a running back due to the physical toll taken at the position. I found it interesting so I checked this seasons top five backs and where they were selected.

Maurice Jones-Drew 2006 / Round: 2 / Pick: 60
Ray Rice 2008 / Round: 2 / Pick: 55
Michael Turner 2004 / Round: 5 / Pick: 154
LeSean McCoy 2009 / Round: 2 / Pick: 53
Arian Foster Undrafted 2009

How about 3 of the 5 being selected in the 2nd round near the same picks. If I get time I want to check out the next 10 to see if that 2nd round figure keeps showing up.

This is true. As I posted earlier, there were 11 RBs drafted top-15 in the past 10 drafts. Every single one of them has either a) missed significant time due to injury, b) hasn't been good enough to supplant the starter, or c) has moved on from the team that drafted him.

CJ Spiller - 9th overall
Ryan Matthews - 12th overall
Knowshon Moreno - 12th overall
Darren McFadden - 4th overall
Jonathan Stewart - 13th overall
Adrian Peterson - 7th overall
Marshawn Lynch - 12th overall
Reggie Bush - 2nd overall
Ronnie Brown - 2nd overall
Cedric Benson - 4th overall
Cadillac Williams - 5th overall

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 05:54 AM
now post all the LT's that didn't work out or moved to RT

now post all the WR's that didn't work out

now post all the DL that didn't work out

RB's aren't immune to being busts...

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 05:55 AM
and I'd take 3 years of Adrian Peterson over 10 years of Glenn Dorsey

but that's just me...I think you can replace a Glenn Dorsey via fee agency (see Shaun Smith)..but Adrian Peterson's don't grow on trees...

you can find RB's anywhere, any time (Khalil Bell, Evan Royster)...but ones that have true playmaking ability (Peterson, Johnson, Charles, MJD)...are hard to find

DaKCMan AP
01-12-2012, 05:56 AM
now post all the LT's that didn't work out or moved to RT

now post all the WR's that didn't work out

now post all the DL that didn't work out

RB's aren't immune to being busts...

No, but I bet if you look at all the other positions that were drafted top-15 not every single player would be scarred by injury, bust, or switching teams. I didn't just post the RBs that didn't work out. That's the complete list of top-15 RBs in the past 10 years and every single one of them has had issues.

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 06:02 AM
well RB's, since the Benson year, haven't gone high for a reason...no one is going to pay $40M to a RB, ever...

now that draft slotting is completely different, RB's will go high again. Believe it.

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 06:03 AM
you can take a Trent Richardson 3 overall now and not have to pay him $40M guaranteed.

Short Leash Hootie
01-12-2012, 06:03 AM
the new CBA is going to totally change the draft in terms of trading up, down, and taking players in specific spots early

tredadda
01-12-2012, 08:00 AM
I watched some segment on the draft the other day and the panel started talking about using a 1st rounder on a RB saying that teams shouldn't and it waste the value of the pick. They said that you don't usually get enough time out of a running back due to the physical toll taken at the position. I found it interesting so I checked this seasons top five backs and where they were selected.

Maurice Jones-Drew 2006 / Round: 2 / Pick: 60
Ray Rice 2008 / Round: 2 / Pick: 55
Michael Turner 2004 / Round: 5 / Pick: 154
LeSean McCoy 2009 / Round: 2 / Pick: 53
Arian Foster Undrafted 2009

How about 3 of the 5 being selected in the 2nd round near the same picks. If I get time I want to check out the next 10 to see if that 2nd round figure keeps showing up.

Outside of QB what position is worth a #11 pick? What position gives us an elite game changer player? What position that, if drafted by a team, will suddenly propel them to playoff and eventual SB success? Ultimately a team needs a franchise QB to succeed. If they can't or won't address that, then getting a play maker is the next best thing (and because of the nature of their position I consider a LT to be a play maker) The argument that you can get a good RB later can apply to ANY position on the team outside of QB (except in rare circumstances).

tredadda
01-12-2012, 08:06 AM
This is true. As I posted earlier, there were 11 RBs drafted top-15 in the past 10 drafts. Every single one of them has either a) missed significant time due to injury, b) hasn't been good enough to supplant the starter, or c) has moved on from the team that drafted him.

CJ Spiller - 9th overall
Ryan Matthews - 12th overall
Knowshon Moreno - 12th overall
Darren McFadden - 4th overall
Jonathan Stewart - 13th overall
Adrian Peterson - 7th overall
Marshawn Lynch - 12th overall
Reggie Bush - 2nd overall
Ronnie Brown - 2nd overall
Cedric Benson - 4th overall
Cadillac Williams - 5th overall

So you recommend we draft what position at #11? It is clear we need a QB, but it also seems like we are stuck with the Cassel/Orton show for better or worse. What player can we get at #11 that will instantly improve this team assuming Luck and RGIII are gone and Pioli won't trade up?

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 08:09 AM
and I'd take 3 years of Adrian Peterson over 10 years of Glenn Dorsey

but that's just me...I think you can replace a Glenn Dorsey via fee agency (see Shaun Smith)..but Adrian Peterson's don't grow on trees...

you can find RB's anywhere, any time (Khalil Bell, Evan Royster)...but ones that have true playmaking ability (Peterson, Johnson, Charles, MJD)...are hard to find

How many playoff wins does Adrian Peterson have? How about Barry Sanders?

If you get the RB BEFORE the QB, it's a death sentence.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 08:10 AM
So you recommend we draft what position at #11? It is clear we need a QB, but it also seems like we are stuck with the Cassel/Orton show for better or worse. What player can we get at #11 that will instantly improve this team assuming Luck and RGIII are gone and Pioli won't trade up?

RT.

tredadda
01-12-2012, 08:13 AM
RT.

????????????? So you think with a RT we are a playoff team? You think a RT drafted at #11 will have more of an impact than a stud RB? Oh well, I guess that is your opinion. But every argument against drafting Richardson can be used for RT as well FWIW.

DaKCMan AP
01-12-2012, 08:15 AM
How many playoff wins does Adrian Peterson have? How about Barry Sanders?

If you get the RB BEFORE the QB, it's a death sentence.

.

suds79
01-12-2012, 08:25 AM
How many playoff wins does Adrian Peterson have? How about Barry Sanders?

If you get the RB BEFORE the QB, it's a death sentence.

I don't think anybody is advocating RB before QB. At least I hope not.

We all hope for the unrealistic situation of Scott trading up for RG3. But honestly, that's almost a dead issue because he probably won't do it. So scratch that.

If your take is Tannehill should be the target or the next best QB? I can understand that. I'd prefer taking a chance on a QB over RB. Still, I don't think it's likely.

For me personally, Trent Richardson is a better option over say the other realistic options.

NT worthy of that spot? Nope. RT? Sure there might be but I'd rather have a playmaker. Plus RT (just like RBs) can be found later.

Zeke
01-12-2012, 08:34 AM
htis wants us to continue to suck enough next season, obtaining a high draft pick, with the chance of drafting a QB. Drafting a RT helps to lay a foundation for the future, without impacting the immediate win\loss record positively (by much). Trent Richardson would be the type that could turn this team from a 7 win to a 9 win, ensuring no chance at drafting an impact QB.

That an accurate summation?

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 08:34 AM
????????????? So you think with a RT we are a playoff team? You think a RT drafted at #11 will have more of an impact than a stud RB? Oh well, I guess that is your opinion. But every argument against drafting Richardson can be used for RT as well FWIW.

Without a real QB we'll never be a legitimate playoff team.

If we take a RB now, especially one like Trent Richardson, there's a very real chance they build the offense around him and completely forego trying to find a real QB.

"When you have Trent Richardson (Barry Sanders) you can get by with Matt Cassel (Scott Mitchell)."

Next year is a lost year, regardless of who we draft, because we don't have a QB. Taking a RT only continues to build the team around the gaping hole at QB. Taking an elite RB covers that hole with a carpet and makes people believe there's no hole there...

That is until the team gets to the playoffs and they step on the rug, plunging to their death in the hole below it.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 08:35 AM
htis wants us to continue to suck enough next season, obtaining a high draft pick, with the chance of drafting a QB. Drafting a RT helps to lay a foundation for the future, without impacting the immediate win\loss record positively (by much). Trent Richardson would be the type that could turn this team from a 7 win to a 9 win, ensuring no chance at drafting an impact QB.

That an accurate summation?

Not totally.

I don't want us to tank next season. If we win 8 next year, fine.

I just think the drafting of a guy like Richardson sets a team up, ESPECIALLY the conservative-leaning Chiefs, for 10 years of 8-win seasons.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 08:38 AM
I don't think anybody is advocating RB before QB. At least I hope not.

We all hope for the unrealistic situation of Scott trading up for RG3. But honestly, that's almost a dead issue because he probably won't do it. So scratch that.

If your take is Tannehill should be the target or the next best QB? I can understand that. I'd prefer taking a chance on a QB over RB. Still, I don't think it's likely.

For me personally, Trent Richardson is a better option over say the other realistic options.

NT worthy of that spot? Nope. RT? Sure there might be but I'd rather have a playmaker. Plus RT (just like RBs) can be found later.

I'm not talking about THIS year. Of course, nobody is advocating taking Richardson if RG3 or Luck is somehow magically there. That would be stupid.

I'm talking about taking Richardson now while you still have a gap at QB. Teams that have done that ultimately NEVER find their QB because most of them stop looking.

Zeke
01-12-2012, 08:44 AM
Not totally.

I don't want us to tank next season. If we win 8 next year, fine.

I just think the drafting of a guy like Richardson sets a team up, ESPECIALLY the conservative-leaning Chiefs, for 10 years of 8-win seasons.

So you'd rather us win 8 games than 3, and not be in a position to draft a QB? Yet you'd rather us not draft an elite player that helps us win more because you believe that it will "mask" our real problem.

I understand to a degree, but I think it's blinded by pure anxietyregarding the QB position that has been burned into your person. We all want a better QB, but I'd much rather take the BPA if there is not one there. If BPA means trading back to accumulate more picks, so be it. But I just can't agree with the complete tunnelvision take on the QB position forsaking all else in the process.

suds79
01-12-2012, 08:52 AM
I'm not talking about THIS year. Of course, nobody is advocating taking Richardson if RG3 or Luck is somehow magically there. That would be stupid.

I'm talking about taking Richardson now while you still have a gap at QB. Teams that have done that ultimately NEVER find their QB because most of them stop looking.

I see your point and what you're getting at. But think of it this way.

To not want an elite player because it will mask our true problem which is the QB, just doesn't fit. Why can't we get an elite RB and still know we need an elite QB to win a SB?

I know it. You know it. 3 quarters of people on this board knows it. If Scott doesn't know it, then we're F-ed no matter what. So that's a GM problem. Not who do we draft problem.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 09:19 AM
To not want an elite player because it will mask our true problem which is the QB, just doesn't fit. Why can't we get an elite RB and still know we need an elite QB to win a SB?

I'm not saying we CAN'T.

I'm saying they WON'T.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 09:23 AM
So you'd rather us win 8 games than 3, and not be in a position to draft a QB? Yet you'd rather us not draft an elite player that helps us win more because you believe that it will "mask" our real problem.

I don't care how many games we win next season. If you WANT to go get a QB, you will, regardless of draft position.

I understand to a degree, but I think it's blinded by pure anxietyregarding the QB position that has been burned into your person. We all want a better QB, but I'd much rather take the BPA if there is not one there. If BPA means trading back to accumulate more picks, so be it. But I just can't agree with the complete tunnelvision take on the QB position forsaking all else in the process.

You've again completely missed my point. If the BPA is a NT, C, S, WR, or just about any other position on the field, take him.

RB is the ONLY position that you can take that moves a team AWAY from a pass-first offense instead of towards.

This isn't just about the fact that we don't HAVE a QB. It's also about the last 20 years of our FO believing we don't NEED one. Right now, we're teetering on the edge of Clark Hunt realizing we DO need one.

Taking Trent Richardson could be a dangerously real step in the wrong direction.

Baby Lee
01-12-2012, 09:29 AM
"When you have Trent Richardson (Barry Sanders) you can get by with Matt Cassel (Scott Mitchell)."

Problem is, very few viewed Scott Mitchell as 'getting by' prior to coming to the Lions. He didn't have a Matt Cassel year with the Dolphins, he had a Kurt Warner-esque 1/2 year where everyone was saying where did this phenom come from. He was highly sought after in the offseason, not a pansy fight between McD and Pioli alone. He was injured in '94, then came back to set Lions records for passing and TDs in 95. They went to the playoffs in 95 and 97 with him. He didn't live up to what people projected from his time in Miami, but he wasn't a 'getting by' acquisition.

Further, the Lions spent the high part of the draft in the Mitchell years trying to shore up their D, much like the Chiefs tried to [based on similar glaring need in DV's years]. And they still stopped off to pick up Batch in R2.

In doing so they missed opportunities to move up big for Health Schuler, Trent Dilfer or Kerry Collins or move down big for Perry Klein, Doug Nussmeir, Todd Collins, Kordell Stewart, Tony Banks or Bobby Hoying.

Zeke
01-12-2012, 09:37 AM
I don't care how many games we win next season. If you WANT to go get a QB, you will, regardless of draft position.



You've again completely missed my point. If the BPA is a NT, C, S, WR, or just about any other position on the field, take him.

RB is the ONLY position that you can take that moves a team AWAY from a pass-first offense instead of towards.

This isn't just about the fact that we don't HAVE a QB. It's also about the last 20 years of our FO believing we don't NEED one. Right now, we're teetering on the edge of Clark Hunt realizing we DO need one.

Taking Trent Richardson could be a dangerously real step in the wrong direction.


Actually I do get your point, as do darn near everyone reading this. We just don't necessarily have to agree with your extremist take.

Baby Lee
01-12-2012, 09:41 AM
I see your point and what you're getting at. But think of it this way.

To not want an elite player because it will mask our true problem which is the QB, just doesn't fit. Why can't we get an elite RB and still know we need an elite QB to win a SB?

I know it. You know it. 3 quarters of people on this board knows it. If Scott doesn't know it, then we're F-ed no matter what. So that's a GM problem. Not who do we draft problem.

Popping my 'this' cherry.

BossChief
01-12-2012, 10:15 AM
I am totally in belief that we have a real prospect in Ricky Stanzi.

For that reason, I would love to have a guy like Trent Richardson to pair with Charles coming out of the backfield.

That would be a perfect situation for Stanzi to walk into once Cassel fails again.

milkshock
01-12-2012, 10:16 AM
Richardson is the pick for me if he is available. Essentially a cant miss prospect and we cannot be certain what Charles will do coming back from injury.

BossChief
01-12-2012, 10:18 AM
Add Berry, Charles, Moeaki, Richardson and Stanzi to this team going forward to go along with other free agents and continue to draft well and we could be a scary good team for a pretty long time.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 10:21 AM
I am totally in belief that we have a real prospect in Ricky Stanzi.

For that reason, I would love to have a guy like Trent Richardson to pair with Charles coming out of the backfield.

That would be a perfect situation for Stanzi to walk into once Cassel fails again.

Now this I can go for.

Chris Meck
01-12-2012, 10:26 AM
I'm coming around to thinking that this is our best option, barring a trade down.

Richardson, if he's still there, is an elite talent. You shouldn't pass one those, even if it is a RB, where they're likely to be done in 5 years.

Maybe not, with Charles to split carries...maybe they're both rockin' in 5 years still.

We still need to draft a QB. If it's going to be a prospect, then let it be Moore, who has all the intangibles, all the experience, and lacks only prototypical height. He is a Drew Brees clone.

go into the season with....Cassel (retch), Stanzi, and Moore.

and a bitchin' running game with a top 5 defense.

Chiefnj2
01-12-2012, 10:29 AM
Is Richardson that good? Seems to me whoever carries the ball for Bama puts up mega-yards; Richardson, Ingram, Lacey.

suds79
01-12-2012, 10:33 AM
I'm coming around to thinking that this is our best option, barring a trade down.

Richardson, if he's still there, is an elite talent. You shouldn't pass one those, even if it is a RB, where they're likely to be done in 5 years.

Maybe not, with Charles to split carries...maybe they're both rockin' in 5 years still.

I have this believe that RB is a young man's position regardless of use. That's why I never understood the save Jamaal carries thing. It's a ticking timebomb no matter what. Seems to me RB's best years are always 1-3 no matter what. The list of top RBs in the league continually changes year to year.

So given that Jamaal is not only coming back from an ACL, I think it's important to draft another stud because I think he might not be the explosive guy we remember sooner than we think.

Nothing wrong with getting 4-5 years of excellent play from a young RB and then trading him out for another young buck.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 10:39 AM
I'm coming around to thinking that this is our best option, barring a trade down.

Richardson, if he's still there, is an elite talent. You shouldn't pass one those, even if it is a RB, where they're likely to be done in 5 years.

Maybe not, with Charles to split carries...maybe they're both rockin' in 5 years still.

We still need to draft a QB. If it's going to be a prospect, then let it be Moore, who has all the intangibles, all the experience, and lacks only prototypical height. He is a Drew Brees clone.

go into the season with....Cassel (retch), Stanzi, and Moore.

and a bitchin' running game with a top 5 defense.

The part in bold is my only worry. We ALL know we still need a QB, but do the Chiefs see it that way.

The NFL is, by nature, very conservative - that's why coaches that suck continue to get jobs.

The Chiefs are even MORE conservative than the NFL norm.

Baby Lee
01-12-2012, 10:43 AM
The part in bold is my only worry. We ALL know we still need a QB, but do the Chiefs see it that way.

The NFL is, by nature, very conservative - that's why coaches that suck continue to get jobs.

The Chiefs are even MORE conservative than the NFL norm.

Not a word on all the massive talent Detroit missed out on by 'getting by' with Mitchell?

In full disclosure, looking back a little closer, I omitted the possibility of moving from mid-20s to #3 overall for McNair, but then that's a pretty big jump and McNair's a failure as well w/o a SB Champ ring [isn't that how it works?].

BossChief
01-12-2012, 10:45 AM
Richardson is a complete back.

He should time around 4.45
He is 225 and has the power to run effectively between the tackles and fast enough to get the edge
He is a good blocker in pass protection
He is a good receiving option out of the backfield (though he isn't a Priest Aholmes or Marshall Faulk)
He is very very strong and will blow up at the scouting combine
He has fantastic vision to find the hole and enough burst to get into the secondary with ease
He is a punishing running back. He often searches for contact instead of going OOB.
His body isn't beat up from being a 3 year college feature back and paired with Charles, we would be assured of having an elite running attack for the foreseeable future.

The kid won't make it to our pick, but if he does sessions be complete fools to pass on him.

A more likely scenario would be Pioli using the leverage of Richardson being on the board to make a move down to around 20 and adding a future pick or an additional second rounder this year...not sure on current draft chart values for a move from 11 to 20, but it's gotta be quite a bit.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 10:46 AM
Not a word on all the massive talent Detroit missed out on by 'getting by' with Mitchell?

My head hurts, I didn't want to break it down. :)

Collins played in a SB and Dilfer won one, so they passed on that I guess.

In full disclosure, looking back a little closer, I omitted the possibility of moving from mid-20s to #3 overall for McNair, but then that's a pretty big jump and McNair's a failure as well w/o a SB Champ ring [isn't that how it works?].

Given that we haven't won a single playoff game in almost 2 decades, I won't call McNair a failure... ;)

Deberg_1990
01-12-2012, 11:27 AM
RB is the ONLY position that you can take that moves a team AWAY from a pass-first offense instead of towards.



So your basically saying by taking Richardson, we turn into a 35+ run plays a game team? 25 for Richardson, 10-15 for Charles.

BigChiefFan
01-12-2012, 12:01 PM
The part in bold is my only worry. We ALL know we still need a QB, but do the Chiefs see it that way.

The NFL is, by nature, very conservative - that's why coaches that suck continue to get jobs.

The Chiefs are even MORE conservative than the NFL norm.

They have to see it, at least somewhat, because they picked up Orton off of waivers. Hell, Stevie Wonders can see we need a QB.

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:03 PM
So your basically saying by taking Richardson, we turn into a 35+ run plays a game team? 25 for Richardson, 10-15 for Charles.

We're not running 40 times a game.

15 apiece.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:08 PM
So your basically saying by taking Richardson, we turn into a 35+ run plays a game team? 25 for Richardson, 10-15 for Charles.

That is my fear, absolutely.

And by limiting Cassel to just 15 passes a game, they feel like he's good enough to get it done.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:09 PM
We're not running 40 times a game.

15 apiece.

Sorry but I've been a fan for 30 years, they're going to have to actually come out and PROVE they won't do it before I believe it.

Outside of a half dozen seasons in the last TWENTY, they've been one of the most conservative offenses in football, regardless of coach.

Zeke
01-12-2012, 12:09 PM
That is my fear, absolutely.

And by limiting Cassel to just 15 passes a game, they feel like he's good enough to get it done.

Actually, I read that more like they don't want him throwing the ****ing ball.

Demonpenz
01-12-2012, 12:09 PM
They have to see it, at least somewhat, because they picked up Orton off of waivers. Hell, Stevie Wonders can see we need a QB.

Stevie Wonder is blind dude.

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:11 PM
Sorry but I've been a fan for 30 years, they're going to have to actually come out and PROVE they won't do it before I believe it.

Outside of a half dozen seasons in the last TWENTY, they've been one of the most conservative offenses in football, regardless of coach.

I would guess we've literally never run it 40 times a game in the past 20 years.

Even when we led the league in rushing attempts in 2010 we ran it 35 times a game.

The '05 Chiefs were the #1 offense and ran it 32.5 times a game.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:11 PM
Actually, I read that more like they don't want him throwing the ****ing ball.


They don't. And if he doesn't HAVE to, that's a success to them.

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:12 PM
Htismaqe,

We're going to need a second back anyway. That's the way the NFL works these days.

Why not take the best one available? RT isn't helping this team more.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:13 PM
I would guess we've literally never run it 40 times a game in the past 20 years.

Even when we led the league in rushing attempts in 2010 we ran it 35 times a game.

The '05 Chiefs were the #1 offense and ran it 32.5 times a game.

Literally? No.

But 35 times a game isn't a recipe for success. It gets crushed in the playoffs, ask Marty.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:15 PM
Htismaqe,

We're going to need a second back anyway. That's the way the NFL works these days.

Why not take the best one available? RT isn't helping this team more.

RT isn't hurting the long-term direction of the team, either.

Trent Richardson isn't a 2nd back. He's an elite talent, equal to Charles. We'd be looking at Byner/Mack, part 2.

Sorry, I'm not gonna budge on this. There's nothing in football I hate more than Martyball and I'm not going to advocate anything that takes us back there.

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:19 PM
Literally? No.

But 35 times a game isn't a recipe for success. It gets crushed in the playoffs, ask Marty.

2011 rushing leaders:

1. Denver

2. Houston.

They got crushed last week, didn't they?


2010 rushing leaders:

2. NY Jets

Got crushed on their way to the AFC Championship?


2009 rushing leaders:

1. NY Jets:

Got crushed on their way to the AFC Championship?

2008 rushing leaders:

1. Baltimore

Crushed on their way to the AFC Championship?

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:20 PM
RT isn't hurting the long-term direction of the team, either.

Trent Richardson isn't a 2nd back. He's an elite talent, equal to Charles. We'd be looking at Byner/Mack, part 2.

Sorry, I'm not gonna budge on this. There's nothing in football I hate more than Martyball and I'm not going to advocate anything that takes us back there.

The QB is going to be Matt Cassel. We're not going to throw for 4,000 yards.

Might as well take Richardson.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:35 PM
2011 rushing leaders:

1. Denver

2. Houston.

They got crushed last week, didn't they?


2010 rushing leaders:

2. NY Jets

Got crushed on their way to the AFC Championship?


2009 rushing leaders:

1. NY Jets:

Got crushed on their way to the AFC Championship?

2008 rushing leaders:

1. Baltimore

Crushed on their way to the AFC Championship?

I don't see any Super Bowls in there, do you?

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:36 PM
The QB is going to be Matt Cassel. We're not going to throw for 4,000 yards.

Might as well take Richardson.

Yeah because why suffer through 1 season of Cassel when you could get 4 or 5?

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:39 PM
I don't see any Super Bowls in there, do you?

The 2008 Steelers were 9th in rushing attempts, and in 2005 they were 1st.

xztop12
01-12-2012, 12:43 PM
I think trading down is a bigger possibility. all i know is that i want Hightower in the second more than I want Richardson in the first

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 12:50 PM
The 2008 Steelers were 9th in rushing attempts, and in 2005 they were 1st.

The 2008 Steelers threw the ball 56 more times than the ran it.

Congratulations on the 2005 Steelers. You found one in the last 20 years.

xztop12
01-12-2012, 12:52 PM
i dont see richardson happening with mccluster. whoever was calling the plays in the last 3 games did a much better job of using him too

Detoxing
01-12-2012, 12:54 PM
i dont see richardson happening with mccluster. whoever was calling the plays in the last 3 games did a much better job of using him too

McCluster is a Gadget Player.

Richardson = Tomlinson

McCluster = Sproles

Count Zarth
01-12-2012, 12:57 PM
The 2008 Steelers threw the ball 56 more times than the ran it.

Congratulations on the 2005 Steelers. You found one in the last 20 years.

04 Patriots - 5th in rushing attempts
2000 Ravens - 5th in rushing attempts

This may be irrelevant with the way passing offenses are dominating now, however.

DeezNutz
01-12-2012, 01:00 PM
Yeah because why suffer through 1 season of Cassel when you could get 4 or 5?

Lilja did an interview this morning on 810, and he was asked about Orton. Dude had all sorts of positives to say about how he handled the huddle and the game, but I laughed out loud when Lilja said, "It felt like we had Cassel back."

LMAO.

Backup QBs all smell the same, I suppose.

xztop12
01-12-2012, 01:04 PM
McCluster is a Gadget Player.

Richardson = Tomlinson

McCluster = Sproles

thanks i didnt know that mccluster was a Gadget player. Can you tell me more about him, what number jersey does he wear?

also Janoris Jenkins might be available in the second and he is a Asante Samuel clone, i think we try and pick up extra 2onds this year

Detoxing
01-12-2012, 01:08 PM
thanks i didnt know that mccluster was a Gadget player. Can you tell me more about him, what number jersey does he wear?

also Janoris Jenkins might be available in the second and he is a Asante Samuel clone, i think we try and pick up extra 2onds this year

You're the one who assumes that he'll be used as a RB, so clearly you need some clarification.

htismaqe
01-12-2012, 01:27 PM
04 Patriots - 5th in rushing attempts
2000 Ravens - 5th in rushing attempts

This may be irrelevant with the way passing offenses are dominating now, however.

Well you found another one in the 04 Patriots. I have to give you credit. Of course they had Tom Brady when they acquired Corey Dillon, not the other way around.

And the 2000 Ravens had one of the 3 or 4 best defenses in the history of the game, so they're out.