Crazy idea but ...

[2413fanphins]

no thanks.

If we were to add a runningback, we'll have our pick of montee ball, le'veon bell, or eddy lacy this year.... and they wont' cost a first rounder.. personally I like eddy lacy in round three or so, get me inside the five yard line with that guy and I won't mind all the A gap runs sherman calls, cuz I think lacy can get it done. If we don't have lacy... I'd just soon sherman sticks to the pitches and sweeps and makes it a race to the pylon with miller.

either way, I'll go ballistic if we trade our #1 pick for a runningback named trent richardson.

[WVDolphan]

if you're gonna pimp yourself as a evaluator and analysts of pro football the nfl draft and the miami dolphins you can at least drop something with some meat to it every once in a while...not to much to ask...

there's no meat in that mark ingram "analysis"

He seems to be serving the white castles of player analysis.

[Digital]

Ingram isn't a great prospect and never should have been taken in the first round. I'd trade the Saints two bottles of purple Gatorade for him.

Hey man, hold off on trading that purple drank ... at least until after the weekend, OK?

I wouldn't trade a 1st for a quality RB like Richardson, because in our offense that's a waste and we have a lot of guys who we could get with that pick who would be impact players in our offense.

As for Chris' comment on Ingram, let's first agree that the Saints have a history of not featuring backs in the Payton/Brees era. Reggie Bush was a 3rd down back, but Sproles was even better for the New Orleans offense, while Bush certainly has shown he is worthy of more than being a 3rd down back since he joined Miami under multiple staffs. So, we don't really know what Ingram would be if featured. It's all projections, and those often wildly differ from good evaluators.

Also, many RB's have excelled outside of the top two rounds, so while Daniel Thomas may not be the poster-child for that theory, I'd say Alfred Morris is, and Lamar Miller wasn't a bad pick either. So, there is definitely a large body of evidence supporting NOT spending a 1st rounder on a RB, even if it means you don't get Adrian Peterson, because there's quality to be had later as well.

In our fathers' NFL, it was extremely hard to win without a running game. Today's NFL it's not so hard. The Packers, Patriots, and the Peytons (errrr I mean the Broncos) have all shown that the running game and the RB position has changed. Even the teams with strong RB's mostly do it by committee to reduce the wear and tear on a position that has a very short NFL lifespan. Twenty years ago Frank Gore, Arian Foster and Jamaal Charles would be feature backs, not splitting carriers with change of pace teammates.

Chris provides lots of analysis, and I think it's going overboard expecting that level of analysis in every post. IMHO, he routinely provides sound analysis and over time I think most of us will agree.

[kcbrown]

I do not understand this boards fascination with Ingram and Richardson.

Neither back was worth a first round pick. Just because they went to Alabama Fin fans think these guys are Walter Paytons. No back is worth a first round pick in today's NFL.

[Danny]

This board is always good for a laugh.

Ozzy rules!!

[Tunaphish429]

Richardson is the type of player that can carry a team...richardson is in amazing shape...he could def be apart of chips offense...chip is going to build his offense around his players anyway...and if all else you can just hand the ball to rich and get three yards everytime...would i trade for him yes...but for a first rounder? No way..

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

[JCane]

Chip Kelly is not going to Cleveland. That wouldn't make any sense. He's using Cleveland as leverage.

Philadelphia is the perfect fit for Chip Kelly. They have the appropriate personnel for his style of play.

[dcnr226]

If Chip Kelly does become the Browns coach like expected, Trent Richardson does not really fit his upbeat speed offense.

Would you trade our 1st to Clev for Richardson??

Trent Richardson was a top 5 draft pick. Of course I would trade the 12th overall pick for Trent Richardson. Would it ever happen? Absolutely not.

And for the record, Chip kelly will work magic with T-Rich. Brandon Weeden, on the other hand, has absolutely no place in his system. Nor would I want any team of mine to have anything to do with Brandon Weeden.

[dcnr226]

Hey man, hold off on trading that purple drank ... at least until after the weekend, OK?

I wouldn't trade a 1st for a quality RB like Richardson, because in our offense that's a waste and we have a lot of guys who we could get with that pick who would be impact players in our offense.

As for Chris' comment on Ingram, let's first agree that the Saints have a history of not featuring backs in the Payton/Brees era. Reggie Bush was a 3rd down back, but Sproles was even better for the New Orleans offense, while Bush certainly has shown he is worthy of more than being a 3rd down back since he joined Miami under multiple staffs. So, we don't really know what Ingram would be if featured. It's all projections, and those often wildly differ from good evaluators.

Also, many RB's have excelled outside of the top two rounds, so while Daniel Thomas may not be the poster-child for that theory, I'd say Alfred Morris is, and Lamar Miller wasn't a bad pick either. So, there is definitely a large body of evidence supporting NOT spending a 1st rounder on a RB, even if it means you don't get Adrian Peterson, because there's quality to be had later as well.

In our fathers' NFL, it was extremely hard to win without a running game. Today's NFL it's not so hard. The Packers, Patriots, and the Peytons (errrr I mean the Broncos) have all shown that the running game and the RB position has changed. Even the teams with strong RB's mostly do it by committee to reduce the wear and tear on a position that has a very short NFL lifespan. Twenty years ago Frank Gore, Arian Foster and Jamaal Charles would be feature backs, not splitting carriers with change of pace teammates.

Chris provides lots of analysis, and I think it's going overboard expecting that level of analysis in every post. IMHO, he routinely provides sound analysis and over time I think most of us will agree.

I tentatively agree, but Trent Richardson has Adrian Peterson-like potential. He will be the best back in football within 3 years.

[ChrisJNelson]

Chip Kelly is not going to Cleveland. That wouldn't make any sense. He's using Cleveland as leverage.

Philadelphia is the perfect fit for Chip Kelly. They have the appropriate personnel for his style of play.

Nice call!