Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Could Richardson Be a Great Pick, After All? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 9

sunrisejeff

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2264
Offline
#15 : March 21, 2012, 08:19:37 AM

Like I said before I'll be happy any way I think.  Claiborne, TR, Kalil, trade down for Blackmon rights and draft Keuchly(my personal fav atm)  All good scenarios imo.

Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22983
Offline
#16 : March 21, 2012, 08:24:47 AM


Whole argument is just awful filled with the usual cliches about running the ball. Let's look:

"What do you do offensively if you do not have one of those quarterbacks? . " You throw the ball. Blaine Gabbert and MJD are as big a variance in quality as you can have. MJD averaged a spiffy 4.7 ypa. Blaine Gabbert averaged a net yards per attempt (yards passing - yards sacked / attempts) of 4.2. That is as bad as it gets in the NFL. Unless you have one of THOSE QB's you throw the ball. Now take a more mundane scenario: Reggie Bush and Matt Moore. Bush averaged 5.0 ypc which is great. Matt Moore still averaged nypa 5.9.  In other words Matt Moore on any given play is getting you almost a full yard more than Bush.

"Is there no correlation between a strong rushing attack and an explosive passing game? " <-- No, there isn't Greg. None, zero, zilch nada correlation. As I've said before if this argument were true then all good running teams should be good passing when usually great running teams are terrible passing teams.

"The tendency, in normal down and distance situations, will be for the defense to add that eighth player into the box." <-- Yes Greg this is true, it is true no matter who your RB is. The only time D's don't do this is if you are spread out. See the next argument he makes.

"He utilizes 21 personnel (2 backs and 1 tight end) and 12 personnel (1 back and 2 tight ends). He is outstanding manipulating the safety as an add-in run defender. The result was a high percentage of what we call single high safety coverages, which is one safety in the deep middle of the field. Almost always, in that alignment, the corners play off coverage. Rarely do they play aggressive press man-to-man with only one deep safety." <-- Again, that is the formation dictating the coverage and not the actual man in the backfield. The same things worked when Tolbert was their RB and he's no dynamic threat,

"What that does is shorten the game. The clock moves when you run the ball. The ancillary benefit is your defense is on the field for fewer plays. A back like Richardson therefore not only makes your passing game better, he helps your defense." <-- Also not true, ToP isn't won that way and really isn't won in the NFL at all. You just don't get massive spreads of time in the NFL and ToP in a passing driven league matters less and less. You need to score not play keep away. Plus, he misses the relationship, you need the defense to keep you in games to be able to run.

amswer the big question Dal, if we did draft TR and he turns out to be an elite RB(2,000 all purpose yards/15 TDs) does he make us a better team in the immediate future?  This team is being built to win a Super Bowl in the next 5 years.  Whether it happens or not remains to be seen but by then Freeman will be in his 9th year and all our other draftees will be at least in their 7th.  I mean we just signed a 29 year old #1 WR.  That is the plan.  Not so worried about 10 years from now.


Ludicrous Speed

*
Starter
****
Posts : 287
Offline
#17 : March 21, 2012, 08:32:05 AM

I'm fine with whoever the Bucs take as I can see the merits of each player, but in terms of Richardson vs Claiborne, it always makes me think of the Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey trade.

Portis was drafted in 2002. Bailey was drafted in 1999. Portis is a few years removed from relevancy (2008 was his last big season). Bailey is still starting. I just think the discrepancy in the years each position can give you is so big that if you have them rated even, you have to go CB.

Spoolios points out a really good way to look at this.  There are five consensus elite level players in this draft:  the two QBs, Kalil, Claiborne & Richardson.  After these you drop down to the 2nd tier of players, which is why you don't reach for a player like Kuechly or Reiff @ #5 - you take the elite player that's still there, not the 2nd tier player based on a positional need.  In fact, I've read where some of the 2nd tier players in this draft would be considered 3rd tier in other years.

Point is, if two of the three remaining elites (after the QBs are gone) are there at #5, you know they're ranked closely - they're all considered elite, you're going to get a great player which ever one you take.  But at that point it's smarter to take the player of greater positional value.  Again, we're not talking about taking a lesser player based upon positional value - we're talking about taking a player with greater positional value over a player of lesser positional value who are ranked almost even, talent-wise.

Again, would you rather have the stud RB (Portis) or the stud corner (Bailey)?


: March 21, 2012, 08:34:00 AM Ludicrous Speed

Meet the new bossSame as the old boss

Beatles123

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 9117
Offline
#18 : March 21, 2012, 08:47:29 AM

You don't have to be AP to be an elite back...Hel, you don't even have to be elite to be a key piece to a team. He's graded at #5 for a reason. That reason is because he's obviously damn good at what he does.

If the three years he's "Supposed" to last help lead us to greatness again, I could care less if he doesn't last. It's what you do with the chance you're given.

I think it's near impossible to screw up this pick. Everyone is a pretty safe bet IMO.

This space for rent....*sigh* I trusted you coach.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Online
#19 : March 21, 2012, 08:49:41 AM

amswer the big question Dal, if we did draft TR and he turns out to be an elite RB(2,000 all purpose yards/15 TDs) does he make us a better team in the immediate future?  This team is being built to win a Super Bowl in the next 5 years.  Whether it happens or not remains to be seen but by then Freeman will be in his 9th year and all our other draftees will be at least in their 7th.  I mean we just signed a 29 year old #1 WR.  That is the plan.  Not so worried about 10 years from now.
Are we still going to have a QB who threw the second most INT's in the NFL and the #30 total defense? Until those things get fixed it won't matter how many yards the RB runs for.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

JC5100

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8208
Offline
#20 : March 21, 2012, 08:51:58 AM

2-3 years?  give me a break.  The NFL is littered with RBs that have given their teams 8-12 years of solid production.  Even AP, who was injury prone in college and has a running style that exposes him to injuries has given the Vikes 5 years and counting.

And Peterson just tore his ACL and MCL. And who are these RBs, currently, who have given their teams 8-12 years of solid production. It happened in the past, but with players getting bigger, stronger and faster the RBs are getting jacked up.

tatmanfish

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7632
Offline
#21 : March 21, 2012, 08:57:46 AM

http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1293269.0.html



Quote from: Illuminator
You were simply too smart for me.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#22 : March 21, 2012, 09:05:18 AM

amswer the big question Dal, if we did draft TR and he turns out to be an elite RB(2,000 all purpose yards/15 TDs) does he make us a better team in the immediate future?  This team is being built to win a Super Bowl in the next 5 years.  Whether it happens or not remains to be seen but by then Freeman will be in his 9th year and all our other draftees will be at least in their 7th.  I mean we just signed a 29 year old #1 WR.  That is the plan.  Not so worried about 10 years from now.

No. The running back doesn't matter. Richardson could go off, I mean totally go off and we'd still be a losing team unless Freeman and the defense play better. We'd be the Vikes #4 rushing team (#2 in ypa)  but 26th in pass defense and 28th in pass offense makes you a loser in this league.

By contrast if Freeman channels 2010 we're at least 8-8 and if the defense pays well then we're a playoff team and who or what he RB does doesn't matter.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

blind melon

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15409
Offline
#23 : March 21, 2012, 09:06:27 AM

Our backfield will make our oline.   Not the other way around - ask any olineman.

Greg Cosell is an excellent talent analyst.   

I'd be very happy with Richardson - if only because of instant production that this team needs.

I'd be just as happy with Claiborne or Kalil.

That all said - I'd still not jump off the skyway if they took a second tier back in the second/third round.

Our defense will be fine with a few pieces, a little luck with Talib and the hope that we can keep some defenders healthy.   The new scheme, 4-3 over puts a lot on our safeties... That's our biggest concern IMO.

Ideally, I'd like to see this:

1 - Richardson - RB
2 - Barron - SS
3 - Kendricks -LB (or Cole in the 5th)
5 - Wylie - WR
6 - Menzie - CB
7 - Marcel Jones - OT

Who knew how good it would feel as a fan when we now know what it\'s like for our team to have a direction, an attitude, and dare I say an offense?.  

Good time to be a Bucs fan.

Dy-nasty D

*
Starter
****
Posts : 633
Offline
#24 : March 21, 2012, 09:09:14 AM


Whole argument is just awful filled with the usual cliches about running the ball. Let's look:

"What do you do offensively if you do not have one of those quarterbacks? . " You throw the ball. Blaine Gabbert and MJD are as big a variance in quality as you can have. MJD averaged a spiffy 4.7 ypa. Blaine Gabbert averaged a net yards per attempt (yards passing - yards sacked / attempts) of 4.2. That is as bad as it gets in the NFL. Unless you have one of THOSE QB's you throw the ball. Now take a more mundane scenario: Reggie Bush and Matt Moore. Bush averaged 5.0 ypc which is great. Matt Moore still averaged nypa 5.9.  In other words Matt Moore on any given play is getting you almost a full yard more than Bush.

"Is there no correlation between a strong rushing attack and an explosive passing game? " <-- No, there isn't Greg. None, zero, zilch nada correlation. As I've said before if this argument were true then all good running teams should be good passing when usually great running teams are terrible passing teams.

"The tendency, in normal down and distance situations, will be for the defense to add that eighth player into the box." <-- Yes Greg this is true, it is true no matter who your RB is. The only time D's don't do this is if you are spread out. See the next argument he makes.

"He utilizes 21 personnel (2 backs and 1 tight end) and 12 personnel (1 back and 2 tight ends). He is outstanding manipulating the safety as an add-in run defender. The result was a high percentage of what we call single high safety coverages, which is one safety in the deep middle of the field. Almost always, in that alignment, the corners play off coverage. Rarely do they play aggressive press man-to-man with only one deep safety." <-- Again, that is the formation dictating the coverage and not the actual man in the backfield. The same things worked when Tolbert was their RB and he's no dynamic threat,

"What that does is shorten the game. The clock moves when you run the ball. The ancillary benefit is your defense is on the field for fewer plays. A back like Richardson therefore not only makes your passing game better, he helps your defense." <-- Also not true, ToP isn't won that way and really isn't won in the NFL at all. You just don't get massive spreads of time in the NFL and ToP in a passing driven league matters less and less. You need to score not play keep away. Plus, he misses the relationship, you need the defense to keep you in games to be able to run.

Give me a break. Next you'll be trying to sell the idea that it isn't any easier to convert a 3rd down and 2 than it is to convert a 3rd down and 6 and that it isn't easier to make plays passing the ball down the field when the opponent's safety comes up to the box.

Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22983
Offline
#25 : March 21, 2012, 09:19:15 AM

2-3 years?  give me a break.  The NFL is littered with RBs that have given their teams 8-12 years of solid production.  Even AP, who was injury prone in college and has a running style that exposes him to injuries has given the Vikes 5 years and counting.

And Peterson just tore his ACL and MCL. And who are these RBs, currently, who have given their teams 8-12 years of solid production. It happened in the past, but with players getting bigger, stronger and faster the RBs are getting jacked up.
E. James 11 years.  F. Taylor 12 years. T. Jones 11 y ears. W. Dunn 11 years.  J. Lewis 9 years.  R. Williams 11 years.  S. Jackson 7 years+.  L. Tomlinson  11 years+.


bashear

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2433
Offline
#26 : March 21, 2012, 09:19:19 AM

I'm warming up to the idea of drafting TR should Kalil and Claiborne are off the board. Should the Bucs enter the draft without adding RB talent to the roster, I wouldn't be surprised to see them take TR if Kalil and Claiborne are off the board.

I understand posters' concerns about drafting a RB so high, but the ability to draft a three-down back (should TR make the difficult transition to a blocking back in the NFL) and play-maker on a team that states they will run the ball might be too enticing for the Bucs to pass up. I would be surprised if the Bucs passed on wither Kalil or Claiborne to draft TR.

BucDaFackUp

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4359
Offline
#27 : March 21, 2012, 09:20:18 AM

You know what I picture with T-Rich in Buc backfield? I picture the Bucs offence running no-huddles and hurry-up with 1 personnel package against defences that will need to pick their poison in terms of how they choose to defend....so aside from the other obvious advantages of a great RB, he can also create advantages for his team that weren't previously available. Freeman's potential for this year would skyrocket as a result...

Great article by the way....thanks.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Online
#28 : March 21, 2012, 09:21:09 AM

Give me a break. Next you'll be trying to sell the idea that it isn't any easier to convert a 3rd down and 2 than it is to convert a 3rd down and 6 and that it isn't easier to make plays passing the ball down the field when the opponent's safety comes up to the box.
1. If you can't get more than 4 yards on two rushes, chances are the problem was with your offensive line, not your RB. The worst RB's in the NFL still average around 4.0 YPC.
2. Even the best RB's and best OL's get stuffed from time to time. Having Richardson is no more guarantee you won't get stuffed than any other RB. In fact, Richardson got held to 3 yards or less on twelve plays in the national championship game against LSU. Should we expect that number to go up od down in the NFL?

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Online
#29 : March 21, 2012, 09:22:19 AM

2-3 years?  give me a break.  The NFL is littered with RBs that have given their teams 8-12 years of solid production.  Even AP, who was injury prone in college and has a running style that exposes him to injuries has given the Vikes 5 years and counting.

And Peterson just tore his ACL and MCL. And who are these RBs, currently, who have given their teams 8-12 years of solid production. It happened in the past, but with players getting bigger, stronger and faster the RBs are getting jacked up.
E. James 11 years.  F. Taylor 12 years. T. Jones 11 y ears. W. Dunn 11 years.  J. Lewis 9 years.  R. Williams 11 years.  S. Jackson 7 years+.  L. Tomlinson  11 years+.
How long did those players play for the teams that drafted them?

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 9
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Could Richardson Be a Great Pick, After All? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools