NFL.com: Alfred Morris vs. Trent Richarson: Which RB reigns supreme?

[Bishop Hammer]

I'm going with Morriss. Some argue because Cle didn't have a proper passing attack leaving defenses to only focus on Trent as the reason. Well Marshawn Lynch was the focal point of Sea's offense with defenses scheming to stop him and he still had a beast year. Granted The Seahawks had a better passing game but its fairly close to the same dilemma Richardson dealt with all last season.

[Hitman21ST]

I'm going with Morriss. Some argue because Cle didn't have a proper passing attack leaving defenses to only focus on Trent as the reason. Well Marshawn Lynch was the focal point of Sea's offense with defenses scheming to stop him and he still had a beast year. Granted The Seahawks had a better passing game but its fairly close to the same dilemma Richardson dealt with all last season.

 

That might have been true at the beginning of the season, but by week 6 or 7, Wilson was a legit threat and their offense was opened up.

[Conn]

Richardson also played 9 games with multiple broken ribs. Like, he could barely sleep laying down type of pain. It's fairly relevant.

[bedlamVR]

I'm not sure why people keep trying to beat this drum. It's incredibly difficult to produce, in any capacity, with Brandon Weeden as your quarterback and a receiving corps of: Travis Benjamin, Greg Little, Josh Gordon and Ben Watson.

Trent Richardson had two less receptions than the Browns leading pass catcher (Little). Little had 53. Richardson had 51.

Josh Gordon, the Browns top receiver yards wise only had 805 yards.

And just off the top of your head how many yards did Washingtons top reciever have .? I will give you a clue it was less than the browns ......

.

Trent had almost 100 less carries than Moris yet the yards per carry was much much less .... you would think the guy with less carries would have the higher average because big gains have a bigger impact on the average ..... it kind of tells us there were an awful lot of short or negative gains ....

This reminds me of when people were falling over themselves to claim Marrion Barber was the best rb in the division - despite all the measurables and the elevated draft position the stats say Richardson just simply did not get it done...

You can .make all kinds of excuses but they simply do not add up . When teams targeted Morris he had his biggest games...and to say ah well Moris fell into the perfect situation is bs and kind of insulting to Morris ....Morris was given the chance and put up numbers ...at the end of the day despite what is going on around you you have to produce when you have the opportunity and Richardson didn't.....

I actually belive if Richardson were here an Morris were with the b,Browns I think Al Mo would still out perform Richardson.... the only thing which would change would be who some in the Redskin nation would be drooling over, as there is a "grass is greener" attitude to our entire roster ... if they are in b&g they are garbage ..... hell I have even seen some saying they would still rather have Luck, Wilson or Newton over RGIII .....some people cannot see that it is not always about potential . I would take production over potential any day and twice on Sunday ...

[KCClybun]

...You guys really don't understand how inept the Browns were...

[Hitman21ST]

When teams targeted Morris he had his biggest games... 

 

Not really. In the Browns game (the only real game he was targeted) he went 27 carries for 81 yards (a measley 3 ypc).

[KDawg]

And just off the top of your head how many yards did Washingtons top reciever have .? I will give you a clue it was less than the browns ......

Trent had almost 100 less carries than Moris yet the yards per carry was much much less .... you would think the guy with less carries would have the higher average because big gains have a bigger impact on the average ..... it kind of tells us there were an awful lot of short or negative gains ....

You can .make all kinds of excuses but they simply do not add up . When teams targeted Morris he had his biggest games...and to say ah well Moris fell into the perfect situation is bs and kind of insulting to Morris ....Morris was given the chance and put up numbers ...at the end of the day despite what is going on around you you have to produce when you have the opportunity and Richardson didn't.....

I actually belive if Richardson were here an Morris were with the b,Browns I think Al Mo would still out perform Richardson.... the only thing which would change would be who some in the Redskin nation would be drooling over, as there is a "grass is greener" attitude to our entire roster ... if they are in b&g they are garbage ..... hell I have even seen some saying they would still rather have Luck, Wilson or Newton over RGIII .....some people cannot see that it is not always about potential . I would take production over potential any day and twice on Sunday ...

 

It's very difficult for me to take someone seriously when they don't even bother reading entire replies. I never once stated the Morris was worse than Richardson. I merely said that Richardson is in a difficult situation and that the comparison between the two isn't a good one at this point. Does that mean I think Richardson is better? No. No one is making excuses. It's a conversation piece.

 

While you're right that the Redskins leading receiver had less than Gordon, I think you need to look at context. Gordon played in 13 games. Our two best pass catchers, Fred Davis and Pierre Garcon both played in less. Garcon played in ten games and had 633 yards. Fred Davis played in 7 games and had 325. Hankerson only started five, but played in 16 and had 543 yards. Josh Morgan and Santana Moss both had over 500 yards.

 

Watching the Browns was a lot like watching the Redskins under John Beck. Ugly. The proof is in the pudding while watching them attempt to give people the illusion that they were an NFL football team.

 

I also don't buy the whole, "less carries should mean better average" mantra you are going with. It takes a couple really good carries to really up an average, and the more attempts you get, the more opportunities you have to get that carry. It also works the way you suggested. But it's certainly not exclusive.

 

Saying Morris fell into the perfect situation is FAR from BS. It's the truth. It's honest. And he did. He fell into a GREAT situation where his SKILLSET fit perfectly. And he has a tremendous skillset. There is nothing insulting about that. Systems help to make players, and players help to make systems. It's a symbiotic relationship. Our running game wouldn't have been the same without Alfred Morris.

 

You don't have to trash Trent Richardson to say that Alfred Morris is a great back. It's 100% totally unnecessary. Morris' numbers, ability and attitude speak for themselves. Trashing another player to elevate another is weak, in my opinion. Especially considering that you keep saying Richardson didn't produce. That's entirely inaccurate. Entirely. From a production standpoint, Morris was certainly better, and he looked to be the better back last year, but let's not get silly.

 

Morris had 1690 yards from scrimmage. Most of that was in the running game (1,613 yards of it...) where he set a Redskin FRANCHISE record for rushing yards. A franchise that has touted some pretty good backs. Morris eclipsed all of them... In his ROOKIE campaign. You can take NOTHING away from Alfred. He was a monster.

 

But let's not pretend that Richardson didn't do some great things with broken ribs, a missed game and a horrendous offense. I'm going to underline this next part so it's clear, SAYING RICHARDSON HAD A DECENT YEAR, OR A FAIRLY PRODUCTIVE YEAR AS I'M ABOUT TO SAY, DOESN'T MEAN I'M TAKING A STANCE AGAINST MORRIS. FOR THE 800TH TIME, I'M NOT!!

 

Richardson had 1,317 yards from scrimmage in 15 games. He added 11 rushing touchdowns and one receiving touchdown. His YPC was a bit low, but he also added 51 receptions for over 300 yards of offense. And he only fumbled three times. When playing in Cleveland, with an abysmal team around him, those numbers aren't too shabby.

 

And to your last point, I don't know what threads you've been reading, but I haven't seen a single person say they'd take Luck, Wilson or Newton over RG3. Do you have proof of that? I'd love to read it. That's asinine.