tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post3807296240565571636..comments2023-10-31T06:31:41.395-04:00Comments on Bottom of the Barrel: Bill Simmons Has 14 Reactions to the Trent Richardson Trade Because a Longer List Means Higher Quality Content, Right? Bengoodfellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-66353155090963638832013-09-30T14:23:52.135-04:002013-09-30T14:23:52.135-04:00Jack, that's a really good point and one I did...Jack, that's a really good point and one I didn't think of. It's harder to turn it around in the NFL with the addition of just one draft pick. <br /><br />I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook has some theory about why each team is 2-0 after the trade. I'm sure the theory will suck. Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-1622562548200766932013-09-30T12:33:26.936-04:002013-09-30T12:33:26.936-04:00The only proof you need that Bill is a complete an...The only proof you need that Bill is a complete and total moron is his notion that the NBA and NFL are in any way, shape, or form comparable. You can't "tank" a season on purpose in the NFL an automatically assume it is going to transform your team into a contender based on acquiring one player with a Top 5 pick. This can work in the NBA since you only have 12 active players on the roster, it does not work in the NFL when you have a 53 man roster and injuries occur weekly to key players on the roster. <br /><br />Sure there are individual players who elevate otherwise mediocre teams (RG3 in Washington last year, Peterson in Minnesota) but on the whole this is not a model for success and teams that stockpile picks and assets would on the whole be more successful than Bill's hypothetical (and entirely wrong) scearion where the Browns are trying to fold on purpose for Clowney or Bridgewater. What's even more hilarious is both the Colts and the Browns are 2-0 after this trade, further making Bill's whole premise of this article laughably stupid.jacktotheracknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-35588881809422662792013-09-30T08:31:05.081-04:002013-09-30T08:31:05.081-04:00Anon, I don't know if I see it as a master pla...Anon, I don't know if I see it as a master plan to tank either. I do, in that the Browns thought they were naturally going to be an inferior team w/o Richardson, but I also don't because they weren't going anywhere with him. When the trade happened (and probably here on this blog) I said "Stating Richardson is the Browns best player says more about the Browns then Richardson." Richardson is a good RB, but I don't think I would give a 1st round pick for him. He's not a franchise changer at this point. <br /><br />Plus, it really made sense to trade Richardson in that he doesn't fit Chud's offense at all. Chud had no idea what to do with Mike Tolbert (another back who can catch the ball and grind out yardage) and Chud prefers to pass the football rather than run. So Richardson was wasted. I think it's a good move for both teams, but I do like it for the Browns. <br /><br />I know the salary cap is a part of it and I would bet they would take a huge hit. I wasn't trying to make it too cut-and-dried that they chose Bradford over Griffin, but hindsight makes me wonder how good the Rams would be if they had gotten a chance to make a trade work and had another 1st round pick in return for doing so. It doesn't matter now obviously, but I'm not a huge Sam Bradford fan and always felt he gets off a bit easy (until now...something about playing on national television opens people's eyes) for his performance. Bengoodfellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09401971573776672570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-102327997051254703.post-72944829767732160092013-09-30T00:38:07.423-04:002013-09-30T00:38:07.423-04:00The idea that the Browns were tanking by trading T...The idea that the Browns were tanking by trading Trent Richardson never passed muster with me. They weren't winning with Richardson, so how was trading him going to cause them to lose more? They traded him specifically because he's not that good, not because of some devious plan to forfeit the season. <br /><br />And OH BY THE WAY, the Browns are currently tied for first in their devision. Everyone seems to think the Bengals are playoff/Super Bowl contenders, well the Browns beat them today by 11. They weren't trading their best player, they were selling high on a wasted pick and refocusing the offense. No more having to suffer through 3 yards per carry for 25 carries a game because of their "franchise" back, now they can pass all they want and utilize their truly best players, Jordan Cameron and Josh Gordon. Assumptions truly are a seductive mistress. People assumed the Browns were purposefully getting worse, when in fact they were getting better. <br /><br />By the way, I think the Rams held on to Sam Bradford because of his enormous contract, and the size of the salary cap hit they would take by trading him. I don't know specifics, but I know he got a monster deal as a rookie, so I bet they would have taken quite the hit by trading him a year ago. Of course you could argue it's worth it for Griffin, but it's not as cut-and-dried as "they chose Bradford over Griffin." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com