Colts Waive Trent Richardson/ Signs with Raiders

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the video vindicated him just a bit. The Rams had a LB, #54, closing in on the hole and would have stopped Trent for a short or no gain. Although, I don't think Trent saw that or the apparent hole at all either way.

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a link to the video of this play? I searched YouTube and had no luck.
 

That screenshot is definitely cherry picked at just the right time and angle to make Trent look bad. The Rams' #86 (96?) crushed his blocker straight across Trent's face and into that cutback lane to Trent's left. You can see it starting to happen just to Trent's right in the picture. The Rams' #54 was scraping and was there to make the play in that hole if Trent had cut back anyway.

Did he miss a hole? Probably. Would the result have been much different if he had hit that hole? Probably not, still would have had to get past #54. Was the whole play as bad as the picture makes it out to be? Definitely not.
 
With all this talk, it seems to be overlooked that Trent looked a lot better than Dyer statistically speaking at least. It was a decent, but not good performance from Trent. Which sadly is kind of what we'd expect now, but if he can just improve a little he can be effective.
 
Ive heard that it wasn't a busted play. It was just captured at perfect time to make it look like he missed it. Someone was already closing up the hole as soon he got the ball.. so it wouldn't make any difference if he went that way.
 
But sometimes, looks, not to mention camera angles, can be deceiving. NFL writer Cian Fahey used a different angle of the play to show that the hole Richardson passed up may not have been as wide-open as it appeared.
People are still making this mistake with the EZ angle of Richardson's run http://t.co/CY4iB80ecR Cutback isn't there pic.twitter.com/O76zzfAlrI
— Cian Fahey (@Cianaf) August 16, 2015
He had nowhere to go, blocking was just bad: pic.twitter.com/7qdhZCvMzP
— Cian Fahey (@Cianaf) August 16, 2015
 
CMiy062WgAA0Hn9.png


See what he means
 
But sometimes, looks, not to mention camera angles, can be deceiving. NFL writer Cian Fahey used a different angle of the play to show that the hole Richardson passed up may not have been as wide-open as it appeared.
People are still making this mistake with the EZ angle of Richardson's run http://t.co/CY4iB80ecR Cutback isn't there pic.twitter.com/O76zzfAlrI
— Cian Fahey (@Cianaf) August 16, 2015
He had nowhere to go, blocking was just bad: pic.twitter.com/7qdhZCvMzP
— Cian Fahey (@Cianaf) August 16, 2015

You've just armed me with logic. Thanks.

I figured it was more to it, but I couldn't prove it.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus RTR
 
Guys...come on. I'm sad to say he's just not that good at the NFL level. I thought he was better than all the RBs we've had in the Saban era, but he just can't seem to take that next step in the NFL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads