snarkster Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'm not usually a fan of trading picks to move up, but I wouldn't complain much IF they're certain he would be there. If they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them trade down a few spots from 21 to maybe get the third or another 5th back. I could see that and see us ending up with something like: 1A Trent Richardson (RB) Stanford 1B Stephon Gillmore (CB) South Carolina 02 Kevin Zeitler (OG) Wisconsin If they deal our 3rd pick, they would probably have to go after a #2 WR in Free Agency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='JungleCat' timestamp='1330540524' post='1100555'] Don't forget we'll probably get an extra 3 from Joseph leaving. [/quote] Wrong lol, where have you been? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredtoast Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I am almost always opposed to giving up picks to move up in the draft. But if we can do this for just a third and a fifth I'd jump all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='texbengal' timestamp='1330540100' post='1100544'] Assuming he was there at #13, I would consider it as well - moving up 4 spots isn't much, and I'd use a 3rd and a 5th - hell, they got an extra for Chad, supposedly. They'd still have #21, and a second, so they'd still come out of the draft with 3 of the top 50 or so players. Or, they could trade out of 21 and get another pick or two if they wanted.[/quote] I am intrigued by the idea of trading up from 17 a few spots and then down from 21 (possibly with a team targetting a QB?) to pick up extra picks later. Especially if our target is a guard and Decastro is gone. A guy like Zeitler could be had later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhfinks Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1330540106' post='1100545'] Didnt our Offensive Coordinator just say he wanted a RB by commitee approach. If thats the case why would you trade up to get a back? [/quote] I believe jay was throwing a smoke screen.... he'd wet himself for T.. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I feel like the fact that there is so much smoke around Richardson might mean there is a smoke screen. The fact that Jay mentioned him specifically in an article makes me feel every bit more that they are kind of smoke screening it. I don't remember them talking about Andy like this or AJ like this last year, but somehow during the draft, it was almost like everyone knew by that point that we wanted to trade up and take him, which is odd. They might want to get things a little more under wraps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhfinks Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='snarkster' timestamp='1330541598' post='1100588'] I'm not usually a fan of trading picks to move up, but I wouldn't complain much IF they're certain he would be there. If they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them trade down a few spots from 21 to maybe get the third or another 5th back. I could see that and see us ending up with something like: 1A Trent Richardson (RB) Stanford 1B Stephon Gillmore (CB) South Carolina 02 Kevin Zeitler (OG) Wisconsin If they deal our 3rd pick, they would probably have to go after a #2 WR in Free Agency [/quote] I would love this kinda draft...... pick up a CB, S, OG, WR in FA and i would say hello Playoffs...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starkesn Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='mhfinks' timestamp='1330542847' post='1100622'] I believe jay was throwing a smoke screen.... he'd wet himself for T.. Rich [/quote] Agreed. If he falls past the top 10, I'm on the phone immediately to look to move up. This article makes me just salivate about the possibility of him as a Bengal. [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/alabama-rb-trent-richardson-doesnt-believe-in-running-back-by-committee-approach/2012/02/24/gIQAIexWYR_story.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/alabama-rb-trent-richardson-doesnt-believe-in-running-back-by-committee-approach/2012/02/24/gIQAIexWYR_story.html[/url] “It’s a mindset thing,” he said. “I’m not saying that Ray Lewis is not going to take me out, but when it comes down to it, we’ll have to see each other in the hole. I love Uncle Ray to death. I know he’s going to try to bring all the contact he can and he’s going to try to beat me up in the hole. But why would you stand down?” Richardson says it’s more than physical tools that set him apart. He enjoys blocking and watching film, important things that aren’t nearly as popular as carrying the ball. “Not to be cocky or anything, I work on my game every day,” he said. “Even if it’s not physical stuff, I work in the classroom, running plays, learning formations or learning the defensive line, learning what the linebacker’s doing.” As far as his speed, Richardson said numbers don’t matter. “I’ve never been caught from behind,” he said. “People who want to question my speed, look at the tape.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='snarkster' timestamp='1330541598' post='1100588'] I'm not usually a fan of trading picks to move up, but I wouldn't complain much IF they're certain he would be there. If they do, it wouldn't surprise me to see them trade down a few spots from 21 to maybe get the third or another 5th back. I could see that and see us ending up with something like: 1A Trent Richardson (RB) Stanford 1B Stephon Gillmore (CB) South Carolina 02 Kevin Zeitler (OG) Wisconsin If they deal our 3rd pick, they would probably have to go after a #2 WR in Free Agency [/quote] Trent went to Alabama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmanMunster Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='JungleCat' timestamp='1330540524' post='1100555'] Don't forget we'll probably get an extra 3 from Joseph leaving. [/quote] we wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmanMunster Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 i really dont want trent richardson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1330540106' post='1100545'] Didnt our Offensive Coordinator just say he wanted a RB by commitee approach. If thats the case why would you trade up to get a back? [/quote] Of course, there is someone who could change Gruden's mind.[b] "If you do get a big-time guy like Trent [Richardson, Alabama running back] then I'm not opposed to giving him the ball 30 times," he said.[/b] Gruden is no fool, he knows if you can add Richardson to the pieces in place this team will be dangerous for as long as you can keep them on the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I know I am probably in the minority here, but I think adding Richardson could derail the path of success the Bengals are on. His presence on the team would force them to change their game plans to involve him more and turn away from the West Coast Offense, and instead back to the ground and pound game. This would create conflict with the other guys on the team like Green and Dalton. That's also why I believe a running back by committee with no big egos in the backfield would work best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spicoli Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1330546783' post='1100664'] I know I am probably in the minority here, but I think adding Richardson could derail the path of success the Bengals are on. His presence on the team would force them to change their game plans to involve him more and turn away from the West Coast Offense, and instead back to the ground and pound game. This would create conflict with the other guys on the team like Green and Dalton. That's also why I believe a running back by committee with no big egos in the backfield would work best. [/quote] IMO, T-Rich in this offense would be just like the old school Rodger Craig days in San Fran as a do-it-all type in that system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='spicoli' timestamp='1330547146' post='1100665'] IMO, T-Rich in this offense would be just like the old school Rodger Craig days in San Fran as a do-it-all type in that system. [/quote] I don't think he is that good of a receiver. I see him more as a Terrell Davis type. He might need 3-5 runs in a game before he gets warmed up and starts gashing defenses. When you don't give him the ball enough times he just isn't as effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Anybody who thinks adding Richardson to this offense would be a bad thing is overthinking the issue and outsmarting themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1330547387' post='1100670'] Anybody who thinks adding Richardson to this offense would be a bad thing is overthinking the issue and outsmarting themselves [/quote] Chemistry means more to winning team than you think. Look at the Miami Heat last year. They had 3 of the top 10 guys in the league on one team and still couldn't win the Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1330547460' post='1100671'] Chemistry means more to winning team than you think. Look at the Miami Heat last year. They had 3 of the top 10 guys in the league on one team and still couldn't win the Championship. [/quote] They got closer to a title than the Bengals have in two decades, next comparison please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1330547354' post='1100669'] I don't think he is that good of a receiver. I see him more as a Terrell Davis type. He might need 3-5 runs in a game before he gets warmed up and starts gashing defenses. When you don't give him the ball enough times he just isn't as effective. [/quote] so you don' t think he'd fit in a west coast offense but compare him to a running back that won 2 super bowls in a west coast offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1330547545' post='1100673'] so you don' t think he'd fit in a WCO but compare him to a running back that won 2 super bowls in a west coast offense? [/quote] Terrell Davis carried the ball A LOT. The Broncos may have had a short West Coast passing game, but they were by in large a running team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1330547634' post='1100675'] Terrell Davis carried the ball A LOT. The Broncos may have had a short West Coast passing game, but they were by in large a running team. [/quote] they still were running a WCO shanahan learned under bill walsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1330547531' post='1100672'] They got closer to a title than the Bengals have in two decades, next comparison please [/quote] With all the great players the Yankees get every year and how much they spend, they should win every year right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1330547754' post='1100677'] they still were running a WCO shanahan learned under bill walsh. [/quote] No it was not the same. Davis had 345 carries in 1996, 369 carries in 1997, and 392 carries in 1998. West Coast Offenses do not give that many carries to their running back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1330547838' post='1100679'] No it was not the same. Davis had 345 carries in 1996, 369 carries in 1997, and 392 carries in 1998. West Coast Offenses do not give that many carries to their running back. [/quote] this may be a surprise to you, but there's variations to the WCO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dautcom08 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1330547460' post='1100671'] Chemistry means more to winning team than you think. Look at the Miami Heat last year. They had 3 of the top 10 guys in the league on one team and still couldn't win the Championship. [/quote] It worked out for the Aikman/Emmitt/Irving Cowboy years pretty well. It's pretty apparent that AJ and Andy are two hella unselfish players that play the game to win more than anything else. Every quote this year and their actions have all pointed to that. Richardson wouldn't screw with that. Any teammate would welcome a threat like that to play next to them and I'm convinced Andy and AJ think the same. Richardson add a whole other dimension to this offense regarldess of scheme. Gruden is a smart enough coach to be able to work the ball around, hell any coach would salivate at the chance to have that kind of force at three major skill positions. Richardson would open up the field so much. Moreso than a high end #2 WR IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.