Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Burning Question: Do the Buccaneers need Trent Richardson? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 ... 5

michael89156

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11910
Offline
« : March 04, 2012, 10:52:12 AM »

Burning Question: Do the Buccaneers need Trent Richardson?

 Mar 4, 2012 8:00 AM EST

 


 

We’re fast approaching a free agency period where our hope is that the Buccaneers can land some solid starting caliber talent. Beyond that lies the always interesting NFL Draft.

Forgive me for a moment for overlooking free agency however the question that seems to be on everyone’s mind right now is: who should the Tampa Bay Buccaneers select with the number 5 overall pick? In the minds of Buccaneer fans there are only 2 possible selections, Morris Claiborne the cornerback from LSU and Trent Richardson the running back from Alabama.
 
In his most recent Mock draft Mel Kiper has the Tampa Bay Buccaneers selecting Trent Richardson from Alabama. Kiper’s rational is as follows:
 
"I'll say it again -- don't simply dismiss the idea that Richardson could land here because of the presence of LaGarrette Blount. A great running team now needs more than one good back, and Richardson is by far the best back on the board this year. As well, if the Bucs are going with a "best player available" mantra early on -- very possible given a wide range of needs -- Richardson would make a lot of sense here. Blount has power, but he's far more limited as an all-around back than Richardson. The Bucs were actually below league average in yards per rush in 2011, and could look to improve there."
 
This particular subject seems to have stirred up quite a bit of debate around Bucs Nation. There are passionate opinions from both sides of the argument. (I’m looking at you here dcbucsfan) However in all the conversations/arguments/debates/etc that have come up I haven’t heard many people talk about what I consider the key ingredient in this equation. His name is Legarrette Blount. People have mentioned him in passing, however he seems largely dismissed as evidenced by Kiper’s explanation.

Perhaps his fumbling issues in the latter half of the season have some people **CENSORED**ed. (If I remember correctly a young man named Adrian Peterson had some similar issues early on in his career.) Perhaps some people will point to his perceived lack of production this year as a reason we need an upgrade at running back. Still other people think that his pass catching ability and blocking are issues. I’ve even heard some people say that Blount doesn’t have the ability to "hit the home run". I beg to differ. He might not do it by running right by anyone or making a lot of people miss but then again neither did this guy. Regardless of the reasons why, the general sentiment is that LGB is simply not a feature back and Trent Richardson would be a tremendous upgrade over him.

I couldn’t disagree more. If you’ll bear with me for a moment I’d like to take a look at some numbers.
 
For 2011 Legarrette Blount got exactly 184 rushing attempts in 14 games. Arian Foster (while playing only 13 games and sharing time with Ben Tate) got 278 rushing attempts. That is 94 less attempts to run the ball and Blount wasn’t splitting carries with anyone. Splitting that up over 13 games that is over 7 carries per game just to get to the amount of carries Foster had. Given how far behind the Buccaneers were in most of their games this year that isn’t altogether surprising however for all the naysayers out there I want to point out one other number. 4.2 Yards per carry. Per how many times he actually got to run the ball Blount only trailed Foster by .2 YPC as Foster ran it for a 4.4 average. Kiper pointed in his explanation to the fact that the Buccaneers overall were at less than the league average in YPC. It doesn’t matter how good Blount and Graham were, at least before Graham was injured, the "Benndaround" lost so many yards we might as well have had a -1 YPC handicap. When he was given the chance Blount produced. He got to 1,000 yards in his rookie season and would have been there again this year as well. With a guy like that I can’t see the justification in spending a top 5 pick on another running back.
 
Should the Buccaneers pick up a speedy back to bring in on 3rd downs or other special situations? Absolutely. A true change of pace back would add a whole other dimension to this offense and likely be tremendously helpful to have in the game plan.
 
For those who think that we should draft Trent Richardson I ask, what use will he be to this team when our defense is getting burned and we have to play from behind the entire game? Blount would have ended up with over 1,000 yards but couldn’t get there because he simply didn’t have the opportunity. Why would having Richardson on our roster change that? Will we suddenly be able to stop opposing offenses?
 
If we were to pick up some quality free agents on the defensive side of the ball including 2 starting cornerbacks then I would be all for the philosophy of taking the best player available in the draft. (Which may or may not be Richardson depending on whom you ask and who’s actually available when we pick) However that scenario seems highly unlikely so my vote has to go to Claiborne.
 
The Detroit Lions taught the league a lesson about drafting the best player available. They infamously selected 3 wide receivers in a row all within the top 10 of their respective drafts. The Lions didn’t make the playoffs for over a decade. If we had depth then maybe we could take someone like Richardson who would be a great addition however doesn’t really address a need. We don’t have depth right now.
 
I can understand that after a 4-12 season that saw us get humiliated in many games our fans are starving for some excitement. I really don’t know if I can stand to see another team hang up 40+ on us. Yet rather than trying to address a glaring weakness we’re infatuated with getting someone who will allow our offense to be explosive! We are not the Green Bay Packers, the New Orleans Saints, or the New England Patriots. We don’t need to try and be those teams. Going forward we need to forage a new identity.
 
Defense brought us from being the laughing stocks of the league to prominence and eventually a Superbowl. Defense will once again right this franchise and rejuvenate our fans. We well remember what defense has accomplished. We well know what defense is worth now. (Just ask the New York Giants)
 
Claiborne or Richardson…. Seems pretty clear cut to me…




http://www.bucsnation.com/2012/3/4/2843443/burning-question-do-the-buccaneers-need-trent-richardson

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
« #1 : March 04, 2012, 10:54:23 AM »

The quicker they replace Blount, the better.


alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37078
Online
« #2 : March 04, 2012, 11:04:24 AM »

Richardson's kids will work against him.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23176
Offline
« #3 : March 04, 2012, 11:13:21 AM »

Richardson's kids will work against him.


Richardson's fumbles will work against him.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

DeltaBuc5

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3057
Offline
« #4 : March 04, 2012, 11:36:29 AM »

Richardson's kids will work against him.


Richardson's fumbles will work against him.

Ju1ce

****
Starter

Posts : 250
Offline
« #5 : March 04, 2012, 11:37:26 AM »

Does a bear **CENSORED** in the woods?

GMC 93

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5770
Offline
« #6 : March 04, 2012, 11:52:53 AM »

There's no need to take Richardson. We should get Tolbert in free agency or get Martin, Wilson, Polk, or Miller in round 2. Richardson at 5 would be a waste. A lot of "experts" are saying Riachrdson which means it probably won't happen. Claiborne or Blackmon will be the pick at five, depending on what position we don't take care of in free agency.
« : March 04, 2012, 11:55:01 AM freeman 5 »


Formerly known as Revis Islander

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #7 : March 04, 2012, 11:56:30 AM »

The quicker they replace Blount, the better.

The team went downhill quickly after E.G. went down. This in itself shows how important that multi-dimensional back is to the Bucs and Josh Freeman.  Blount is worth having on the squad as an option, but not the "go-to" guy.  Some talking heads here in Tampa like Dumb Dog have argued that using our first choice on Richardson is a dumb idea. I think it all depends on what Schiano has planned as far as our offense. Right now it sounds like we're going to be a rather conservative team with a run first offense. Looks like Richardson would be a key component.

DeltaBuc5

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3057
Offline
« #8 : March 04, 2012, 11:58:47 AM »

The quicker they replace Blount, the better.

The team went downhill quickly after E.G. went down. This in itself shows how important that multi-dimensional back is to the Bucs and Josh Freeman.  Blount is worth having on the squad as an option, but not the "go-to" guy.  Some talking heads here in Tampa like Dumb Dog have argued that using our first choice on Richardson is a dumb idea. I think it all depends on what Schiano has planned as far as our offense. Right now it sounds like we're going to be a rather conservative team with a run first offense. Looks like Richardson would be a key component.

Indeed, Graham was the most underrated player in this squad.

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #9 : March 04, 2012, 12:07:39 PM »

Talking heads here in Tampa keep talking about how the Saints screwed up by selecting Mark Ingram, RB first round last draft. But Saints are a throw first team and really had no need for Ingram (Sproles, Thomas, Ivory on the roster). Bucs are a very different team than N.O. and will benefit from having RIchardson on the squad.

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
« #10 : March 04, 2012, 12:11:06 PM »

Some talking heads here in Tampa like Dumb Dog have argued that using our first choice on Richardson is a dumb idea.

In that case, Richardson would be the best choice.

As far as Graham, Raheem and Dominik didn't even want him as a running back.    One of their first moves was to go out and get loser Derrick Ward to replace him.


nitey

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3420
Offline
« #11 : March 04, 2012, 12:35:08 PM »

I was on the Draft Richardson band wagon until I saw that many of the most potent offenses featured good but not great rushing attacks, which seems to be the trend in the NFL at the moment. However, trends come an go, because less than a decade ago, teams that had potent offenses usually featured a running back that ran for 1200+ yards and caught and blocked well.

All this just shows that there are many ways to have a powerful offense in the NFL in my opinion. I think we need another back to complement Blount and Tolbert could be a very cost effective method of getting that guy, however, no one will argue that Ray Rice isn't worth a 1st round pick for any team at the moment, so having a strong feature runner is still valuable in the NFL.

Taking or not taking Richardson is going to depend on how free agency shakes out. If Claiborne is off the board by the time we draft and we have no takers for a trade, I wouldn't be all that upset with taking Richardson if we didn't pick up a running back in Free Agency.

JMO.

Success is when Skill meets OpportunityFailure is when Fantasy meets Reality

GIJoeWasThere

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2012
Offline
« #12 : March 04, 2012, 12:38:46 PM »

No... the Bucs do not need him. From this point forward running backs shouldn't be taken in the first round.

TBayXXXVII

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5815
Offline
« #13 : March 04, 2012, 12:40:38 PM »

Do the Buccaneers need Trent Richardson?  Quick answer... No.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #14 : March 04, 2012, 12:42:43 PM »

In answer to the question; NO we don't NEED Richardson, he'd be nice to have, but what good is a RB when your D has you in a 3 TD deficit? We NEED a CB, because you play TWO CBs on every defensive snap, sometime 3, and we may or may not even have 1. We NEED a MLB because we are giving up 14-21 points on the ground PER HALF.

Now IF we land a CB or 2 and a MLB in FA, then Richardson may be the BPA that meets a remaining want/need. We'd still need OG, TE, S, and others but those aren't #5 overall picks.

  Page: 1 2 3 ... 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Burning Question: Do the Buccaneers need Trent Richardson? « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools