jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (4 posts)

Who did better in the Trent Richardson trade, the Browns or Colts?

  1. lions44 profile image99
    lions44posted 4 years ago

    Who did better in the Trent Richardson trade, the Browns or Colts?

    When the Browns traded their former #1 pick to the Colts yesterday, I was stunned. But then realized it was a good move. I think long term the Browns will get the best of the deal. The Colts will be better with Richardson for now. But they still need help on the offensive line which could have been rectified with their first round pick in 2014. Luck could also use another receiver.  So I say good move for the Browns.

  2. Writer David profile image80
    Writer Davidposted 4 years ago

    I think you pretty much nailed it (long-term vs short-term).  But, Trent is such a good, effective RB, he helps negate a bad OL with a quality QB in Luck. The play-action pass is now going to be a staple of the Indy offense.  He had no help in Cleveland in regards with an OL or QB.  It is a very good move for Trent.  This only makes the Indy offense that much more effective and balanced.

    1. Paul Edmondson profile image
      Paul Edmondsonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think your comment about it being the best move for Trent is on the money.  Cleveland doesn't seem to know what it wants with picks, while the Colts seem to have a pretty good plan.

  3. Tim Quam profile image61
    Tim Quamposted 4 years ago

    I think the Colts came out ahead on value.  Richardson was the No. 3 pick in 2012.  Indianapolis is giving up a first-round pick in 2014.  With the Colts leading the AFC South, the pick is probably going to be pretty late in the round.  He may not live up to the expectations that led Cleveland to take him so high, but getting a top-five player late in the first round is probably better than what Indianapolis could have gotten with the pick had they not made the trade.