Richardson to the Colts

We talked about what a bad fit he was in Cleveland last week. We have some pretty good football commentators on this forum. The Colts are going to be tough. Great fit for his future.

A golden star for forum members who participated in this discussion.https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t9613-gonna-be-a-long-season-for-trent-richardson

Why did you start another thread?

The Colts still need an offensive line.

It won't happen as he is under a 4-5 year contract with Browns. By then he will be spent as a pro back.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/23/browns-get-deal-done-with-trent-richardson/

20 mil 4 years with 13 mil signing bonus as upfront money. So he got 65% up front before taxes. That was smart. He might not be anything but broken and injured after 4 years with Browns.

If he doesn't have a posse with their hand out and he lives "not too large" he should be set for life.

He never had a good track record of remaining injury free all through hs and college unfortunately.

He never had a good track record of remaining injury free all through hs and college unfortunately.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:It won't happen...

It already has happened.

This trade makes no sense to me from Cleveland's perspective.


They basically had a power runner needing the ball 25 times a game. He is a pretty good blocker and a pretty good receiver. It is going to be hard for Cleveland to get a better runner. The improvement in blocking and pass receptions would have to be pretty high to justify the draft choice, but I think it was a combination of dumping some salary, and probably going to the free agent market and get an offensive line. This is the only possible rationalization I can see for this deal.

The Bears have two rookie offensive lineman on the right side this year and they have simply changed the complexion of the entire team. Instead of Cutler being sacked 5-10 times a game, I think it has been two games and no sacks. the Long kid could be rookie of the year, he is like a brick wall, and if Cleveland sees good free agents coming into the market next year, they could vastly improve their team and not go backwards. The Colts I think are going to be contenders. Andrew Luck is the real deal, and with a viable running threat, the Colts should make the playoffs.

The Vikings sacked Cutler at least once. He fumbled the ball and it was returned for a touchdown. Just a little bright spot on a heart breaking loss.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:It won't happen as he is under a 4-5 year contract with Browns. By then he will be spent as a pro back.

Do you not read? This deal was done yesterday. Richardson is now wearing the blue and white of the Colts.

Sal wrote:This trade makes no sense to me from Cleveland's perspective.

They're cleaning house and stockpiling draft picks. They will likely draft a Manzeil or a Bridgewater next year, along with some WR talent, and build the o-line.

It's the Cleveland Browns.

The Vikings sacked Cutler at least once. He fumbled the ball and it was returned for a touchdown. Just a little bright spot on a heart breaking loss.


Captain.....you raise an interesting question. If a QB is being chased, and he drops the ball and the opponent gets the ball as he hits the ground......is that a sack. I always thought a sack was a tackle where the QB does not make any yardage behind the line of scrimmage. I do not know if they called that a sack, and I do not know what the rule is on it. I agree with you that he definitely would have been sacked if he had not dropped the ball, but can you sack someone where there is a fumble?

2seaoat wrote:The Vikings sacked Cutler at least once. He fumbled the ball and it was returned for a touchdown. Just a little bright spot on a heart breaking loss.


Captain.....you raise an interesting question.  If a QB is being chased, and he drops the ball and the opponent gets the ball as he hits the ground......is that a sack.   I always thought a sack was a tackle where the QB does not make any yardage behind the line of scrimmage.   I do not know if they called that a sack, and I do not know what the rule is on it.   I agree with you that he definitely would have been sacked if he had not dropped the ball, but can you sack someone where there is a fumble?

The QBs intent must be to pass the ball in order for it to be recorded as a sack. If his intent is to rush, then is goes on record as tackle for loss of yardage and is subtracted from the QBs rushing total. In the case you referenced, whether the ball is fumbled because of defense or the QB just accidentally drops the ball and it is recovered by the opposition then it is still a fumble by the QB whose intention was to pass and is recorded as a sack. So to answer your question is that it would be recorded as a sack going to the defensive player who recovered the fumble.

The QBs intent must be to pass the ball in order for it to be recorded as a sack. If his intent is to rush, then is goes on record as tackle for loss of yardage and is subtracted from the QBs rushing total. In the case you referenced, whether the ball is fumbled because of defense or the QB just accidentally drops the ball and it is recovered by the opposition then it is still a fumble by the QB whose intention was to pass and is recorded as a sack. So to answer your question is that it would be recorded as a sack going to the defensive player who recovered the fumble.


I am still having a problem with that play. My recollection was that he was running outside the pocket and still intended to pass when the defender started to grab him and he dropped the ball. Are you saying that a safety or corner who comes up with the ball gets credited with the sack, or are you saying that the person who made initial contact gets credit for the sack. It just did not seem like a sack. It seemed like before the sack could happen, Cutler simply dropped the ball, and I have not even tried to look at the rule book, but this sure did not look like a sack.

2seaoat wrote:The QBs intent must be to pass the ball in order for it to be recorded as a sack. If his intent is to rush, then is goes on record as tackle for loss of yardage and is subtracted from the QBs rushing total. In the case you referenced, whether the ball is fumbled because of defense or the QB just accidentally drops the ball and it is recovered by the opposition then it is still a fumble by the QB whose intention was to pass and is recorded as a sack. So to answer your question is that it would be recorded as a sack going to the defensive player who recovered the fumble.


I am still having a problem with that play.  My recollection was that he was running outside the pocket and still intended to pass when the defender started to grab him and he dropped the ball.   Are you saying that a safety or corner who comes up with the ball gets credited with the sack, or are you saying that the person who made initial contact gets credit for the sack.   It just did not seem like a sack.   It seemed like before the sack could happen, Cutler simply dropped the ball, and I have not even tried to look at the rule book, but this sure did not look like a sack.

It doesn't matter, his intent was to pass the ball, but the line of scrimmage changed with the recovered fumble. Now if the defender had his hands on Cutler in any way then he get credit for the sack and the other defender gets credit for the fumble recovery. I was under the impression that Cutler just dropped the ball with no defensive action against him. Since there was defensive action against him, it is recorded as a sack, a fumble and a defensive fumble recovery. And as you well know, if he was attempting to throw the ball away, then he had to be outside the tackle box and the ball must be thrown past the line of scrimmage.