Trent Richardson FTW

[peeker643]

Take a look at the piece Jason and I put up on Richardson. Truly a freak: http://bit.ly/wmfc0t

Jason's has his roster eval on the site now and is working on the position pieces. 3500 words of interesting ;-)

http://bit.ly/yVwRtc

[scott]

I wouldn't mind if we stay at 4 and take this guy. I don't see anyone else I want at that spot.

[peeker643]

I wouldn't mind if we stay at 4 and take this guy. I don't see anyone else I want at that spot.

You know, I keep saying it's too high and it probably is. But God, you watch his games and it's really hard not to be impressed and have second thoughts.

Still, is there enough difference at next level between him and Miller and Wilson to justify the #4 overall?

That's what it comes down to.

[Hikohadon]

Again, I have to agree. He's starting to grow on me as an option, mainly because I see him as having a very low bust potential.

[noles1]

I prefer Isaiah Pead my RB of choice.

I think Richardson is an option at #4 but I think they go Coples or Claiborne (noting the lower cost of #4 now) as it stands now.

[peeker643]

I prefer Isaiah Pead my RB of choice.

I think Richardson is an option at #4 but I think they go Coples or Claiborne (noting the lower cost of #4 now) as it stands now.

Thought the impression was he was more of a zone running game guy and could even be a LaMichael James 3rd down guy given he's not as strong between the tackles as he is getting wide.

[noles1]

I prefer Isaiah Pead my RB of choice.

I think Richardson is an option at #4 but I think they go Coples or Claiborne (noting the lower cost of #4 now) as it stands now.

Thought the impression was he was more of a zone running game guy and could even be a LaMichael James 3rd down guy given he's not as strong between the tackles as he is getting wide.

I don't know. From what I saw of him throughout last year especially, I saw a good pass catcher and a Roger Craig-type skill set.

[pup]

Hate the idea of taking a RB at 4.
Especially in an offense predicated on passing 60% of the time.

But he is, in all likelihood and IMO, the BPA at #4. Which I will almost always agree with taking.

[fairvis]

I've seen Richardson a lot over the past few years (living in Alabama will do that to you). I've also seen him in person when I went to the Mississippi State/Alabama game in Starkville this year.

Saban always seems to have "the next back" in his stable. The Alabama offense is predicated on a smashmouth running attack, and he splits carries well enough between a couple of guys. Remember, a few years ago, when Ingram won the Heisman, Richardson was who everyone was drooling over... and now everyone's drooling over Eddie Lacy.

I wouldn't kill myself over Richardson at #4, but I think that Blackmon has more flash to him and passes the eye test a little better. This was visible in OK St's bowl game, where I summed up their offensive philosophy as "throw it to Blackmon, he'll catch it".

[JCoz]

Hate the idea of taking a RB at 4.
Especially in an offense predicated on passing 60% of the time.

But he is, in all likelihood and IMO, the BPA at #4. Which I will almost always agree with taking.

Yeah I guess that's the bitch about it.

Clearly the BPA in my eyes. At least on offense.

But is the best player playing a less impactful position better than a lesser player at a more impactful position?

I don't know. I don't know that WR is that much more impactful than RB even in todays game. QB's and Passhrushers on the rise, CB's,RB's,WR's maybe on the decline in value, some more than others of course.