I'm not saying that either Richard or Ingram are bad NFL running backs. I just don't believe either one of them are going to be great. They both avg < 4 yards per carry in the NFL. When you pick a back at #3 you are expecting them to be a super star player.
My whole thing is, I see Richardson playing better in Indy because Indy has a passing game. It's not worth the Browns to destroy their RB if they don't have a passing game. Defenses just put more guys in the box and stop him and it doesn't benefit Richardson or the Browns. If you look at most good RBs, they are good because they have a QB who can throw the ball and keep the defense honest (AP is an exception because he is awesome). I think it's premature to assume that this was a bad move for the Browns because we haven't seen next year's draft yet. Would I have made this move? Probably not. But I'm not going to say whether it was good for one side or the other until a few years down the road. I remember when the Cowboys traded Walker back in the late 80s and ended up building a Super Bowl winning team from it. Will that happen in Cleveland, unlikely, but they can certainly improve and be a solid team if they build for the future.
That they do. The Vikes O-line sucks as It did last year as well when Peterson ran for 2000 some yards. This year the O-line is even worse I think.
So they pick up Willis McGahee as a free agent, and are going to use him to replace the productivity the they were getting from Richardson, in the overall realm, considering they weren't likely to get great productivity out of Richardson, and they may get comparably LOW productivity out of McGahee, and it's landing them an extra 1st round pick this spring, it may have been a good trade, but it still looks like it's their intention to tank the season and start yet another "Rebuliding" process....
