How could the Browns trade him?
This is the refrain that can be heard by anyone tuning in to ESPN or any other sports network for the last week. The Cleveland Browns gave up a 2012 first round pick; former Alabama star running back Trent Richardson, to the Indianapolis Colts in exchange for a first round pick in next year’s draft. Cleveland has been majorly criticized for this decision by many sports analysts… and even by Richardson himself. And to defend Richardson’s outspokenness, this trade does seem insane. Exchanging the seemingly most dynamic player in the Browns’ offense for a high draft pick can only mean that Cleveland is playing the waiting game until they can rebuild next year.
Cleveland will take flack for this move all year, but should they? Richardson entered the league from the collegiate giant that is Alabama football; a team that has produced numerous NFL prospects in the past few years (32 currently active players have left the Tide since coach Nick Saban began coaching in 2007). Despite such success in creating NFL players out of NCAA stars, Alabama football alumni are often criticized: it is common for players to be pigeonholed because Saban’s system and coaching methods are supposedly just so good that any player could look NFL-ready while playing for the Crimson Tide. One of the most specific of these criticisms is that the offensive line at Alabama is so dominant in comparison to all other teams, making mediocre running backs seem like unstoppable forces that NFL teams often value higher than they really should.
So did the Browns actually make a smart trade? I’m not necessarily saying I agree with it, but maybe there was a reason that the Browns traded Richardson other than to rebuild in the 2014 draft. Some experts have theorized that maybe Cleveland doesn’t like Richardson due to injury concerns, or that he has unknown attitude issues that have not yet been exposed by the media.
The only thing I want to look at though is how good of a player he really is, and whether or not it really was Nick Saban’s near-unstoppable Crimson Tide that had made Trent Richardson look better than he actually is.
In 2012, Richardson’s average YPC (yards per carry) was 3.6. Although not a terrible metric, this number is almost .4 yards less than the NFL average that year. In weeks one and two of this season, before the trade was made, his YPC was even weaker, with an average of 3.4 compared to an NFL average of 4.05. The numbers aren’t necessarily flattering. In fairness though, Cleveland’s offensive line is not good, and these stats only span 17 career games for Richardson.
So let’s broaden the sample size, and look at a few other running backs that have made the transition from Alabama to the NFL in recent years.
Mark Ingram, who was the Tide’s feature back before Richardson, has also struggled since entering the world of professional football, average only 3.8 yards per carry since beginning his career with the New Orleans Saints in 2011. The former Heisman winning back has, like Richardson, performed just under the NFL average (4.05 YPC during that multi-year span).
Eddie Lacy, who took over after Richardson left Alabama, has also struggled in his first 3 NFL starts with the Green Bay Packers, averaging a measly 3.4 YPC.
So we have three Crimson Tide running backs, two of which (Richardson and Ingram) placed in the top 3 in Heisman voting at some point during their college careers, and who are now rushing worse than over half of the NFL. Is Alabama really this good?
They actually may be.
Let’s take Richardson’s final season at Bama (2011) for example. His 5.9 YPC was over a full yard greater than the NCAA average of 4.7 for that year. The same holds true for other Crimson Tide backs. For example, Mark Ingram averaged 5.5 yards per carry in his final season (2010), a year in which the average was also 4.7.
I’m definitely not saying that the Browns have made a fantastic trade, but maybe Trent Richardson is not is good as everyone thinks he is or wants him to be. History seems to show that Alabama has, in recent years, made its backfield seem statistically superior than the players within it really are.