Paul Richardson....

[SonicHawk]

So......if your man Tate is sooooo much better than Richardson (in every category other than speed as you say) why were his first two years nearly identical, if not worse than PRich's to date?

You've conveniently been dodging that question. We know why.

What question have I been dodging?

Richardson is simply not as good of a prospect as Tate was coming out of college. Similar crappy numbers in the first year do not mean that they will have similar career trajectories.

 

[SonicHawk]

All that said, I sure do miss the threat Golden Tate brought, and his Run After Catch was more consistent and exciting than Harvin's. PRich doesn't seem like much of a tackle-breaker.

He's a space guy for sure, but we have yet to get to enjoy him break free, which I think we will soon.

 

[Hawkpower]

So......if your man Tate is sooooo much better than Richardson (in every category other than speed as you say) why were his first two years nearly identical, if not worse than PRich's to date?

You've conveniently been dodging that question. We know why.

What question have I been dodging?

Richardson is simply not as good of a prospect as Tate was coming out of college. Similar crappy numbers in the first year do not mean that they will have similar career trajectories.

First of all, the rhetoric that Tate is a better prospect than Richardson is your opinion, hardly a fact, and one that most NFL scouts and posters here disagree with.

And now we will try this again. Please explain, SPECIFICALLY, why Tate, despite being "miles better" than Richardson, put up Richardson like numbers in years one and two.

We know why you won't answer, but we at least have to try

 

[SonicHawk]

So......if your man Tate is sooooo much better than Richardson (in every category other than speed as you say) why were his first two years nearly identical, if not worse than PRich's to date?

You've conveniently been dodging that question. We know why.

What question have I been dodging?

Richardson is simply not as good of a prospect as Tate was coming out of college. Similar crappy numbers in the first year do not mean that they will have similar career trajectories.

First of all, the rhetoric that Tate is a better prospect than Richardson is your opinion, hardly a fact, and one that most NFL scouts and posters here disagree with.

And now we will try this again. Please explain, SPECIFICALLY, why Tate, despite being "miles better" than Richardson, put up Richardson like numbers in years one and two.

We know why you won't answer, but we at least have to try

It's not my opinion, it's a general consensus during the draft times. I honestly don't watch college football close enough to have personal opinions on who is a better prospect, but I do enjoy reading draft analysis and even re-reading that analysis now has Tate as clearly a better prospect than Richardson.

I can't continue to argue against so much intentional ignorance, you have access to the same draft reports that I do.

I honestly don't really care about comparing Tate and Richardson on talent, my views on Richardson are completely dependent on his play on the field.

But if you feel like continuing to prod me with crap like 'we know why you won't answer' I'm going to keep responding to your crap with additional stats.

But let's actually compare Richardson to someone that matters, like 'John Brown' from the Cardinals.

3rd round pick (90th overall), in an offense that's based around the defense, backup QBs --

645 yards - 5 TDs.

Players picked in 2nd/3rd yards after Richardson with double receiving yards:

Davante Adams, GB
Allen Robinson, JAX
Jarvis Landry, MIA
Donte Moncrief, IND
John Brown, AZ

 

[SomersetHawk]

Can we stop prolonging a futile argument? Sonic has his opinion, he's stated it in so many words (too many) and others are still asking for him to keep reinforcing it, resulting in a tedious sequence of multiquotes that don't really apply to the topic; seeing as Tate isn't a Seahawk any more.

What I will say Sonic is that you are for sure missing out if this is the case.

It's not my opinion, it's a general consensus during the draft times. I honestly don't watch college football close enough to have personal opinions on who is a better prospect, but I do enjoy reading draft analysis and even re-reading that analysis now has Tate as clearly a better prospect than Richardson.

It's important to have your own opinion, otherwise you might have thought Russell Wilson and Richard Sherman were set to be career backups and Bruce Irvin was one of the worst 1st round picks ever.

 

[Hawkpower]

So......if your man Tate is sooooo much better than Richardson (in every category other than speed as you say) why were his first two years nearly identical, if not worse than PRich's to date?

You've conveniently been dodging that question. We know why.

What question have I been dodging?

Richardson is simply not as good of a prospect as Tate was coming out of college. Similar crappy numbers in the first year do not mean that they will have similar career trajectories.

First of all, the rhetoric that Tate is a better prospect than Richardson is your opinion, hardly a fact, and one that most NFL scouts and posters here disagree with.

And now we will try this again. Please explain, SPECIFICALLY, why Tate, despite being "miles better" than Richardson, put up Richardson like numbers in years one and two.

We know why you won't answer, but we at least have to try

It's not my opinion, it's a general consensus during the draft times. I honestly don't watch college football close enough to have personal opinions on who is a better prospect, but I do enjoy reading draft analysis and even re-reading that analysis now has Tate as clearly a better prospect than Richardson.

I can't continue to argue against so much intentional ignorance, you have access to the same draft reports that I do.

I honestly don't really care about comparing Tate and Richardson on talent, my views on Richardson are completely dependent on his play on the field.

But if you feel like continuing to prod me with crap like 'we know why you won't answer' I'm going to keep responding to your crap with additional stats.

But let's actually compare Richardson to someone that matters, like 'John Brown' from the Cardinals.

3rd round pick (90th overall), in an offense that's based around the defense, backup QBs --

645 yards - 5 TDs.

Players picked in 2nd/3rd yards after Richardson with double receiving yards:

Davante Adams, GB
Allen Robinson, JAX
Jarvis Landry, MIA
Donte Moncrief, IND
John Brown, AZ

Young receievers in a run first offense arent going to put up the same numbers as a guy in greenbay or indy.

Young talented receivers have a history of starting off slow statistically in Seattle and slowly blossoming.

You know all of this.

Although I agree with the previous poster, this is tedious, lol. I admire your stubborness, regardless of how odd your opinion may be.

Happy Holidays

 

[sutz]

I certainly don't remember it like Sonic appears to. In my recollection, Tate was called by most a prospect with great athleticism and YAC, but was a poor route runner that needed polish. His career arc did not surprise me in the least.

Last year, my recollection of the scouting on Rich was that he was good route runner that should flourish in the pro game with only a little seasoning required. In fact, I remember people comparing the two directly and stating that Rich was better than Tate at running routes. So his early development does not surprise me.

YMMV, of course, but that's how I remember it.

 

[Scottemojo]

Tate was a terrible route runner out of college, but his ability comp was Steve Smith. Tate never became a great route runner, but put him in space and watch him YAC. Tate is a playmaker, without being a craftsman. Houshmanzadeh was a craftsman, but not a playmaker.
Where Richardson really has Tate is attitude. The reason Tate was stagnant for two years was between his ears. I don't get any of that from Richardson.

Let the kid get his first postseason, then his first off season. He added some body mass this year, it's going to take a little time to get his combine speed back with the extra 10 to 15 pounds (helluva a lot to add to a 170 pound body and still be sprinter speed).

I said it before. Watch tape of Desean. Then watch Richardson. Jackson owns every gear between slow and top speed. Richardson doesn't, not yet. Watching Richardson, he is the guy sometimes eating up the space between him and the DB. Desean Jackson has a firm grasp on the fact that creating space is more important than running fast, and he will slow down to create space if he has to.

Also, if Richardson has the flexibility to do it, working with Baldwin will help him with his short area quickness.

 

[SonicHawk]

Can we stop prolonging a futile argument? Sonic has his opinion, he's stated it in so many words (too many) and others are still asking for him to keep reinforcing it, resulting in a tedious sequence of multiquotes that don't really apply to the topic; seeing as Tate isn't a Seahawk any more.

What I will say Sonic is that you are for sure missing out if this is the case.

It's not my opinion, it's a general consensus during the draft times. I honestly don't watch college football close enough to have personal opinions on who is a better prospect, but I do enjoy reading draft analysis and even re-reading that analysis now has Tate as clearly a better prospect than Richardson.

It's important to have your own opinion, otherwise you might have thought Russell Wilson and Richard Sherman were set to be career backups and Bruce Irvin was one of the worst 1st round picks ever.

I have my own opinion, but like I said, I don't watch college football close enough to know, that's why I'm not an NFL scout or GM.

I however do remember RW and Paul Richardson in college and both guys were impressive.

 

[SonicHawk]

I certainly don't remember it like Sonic appears to. In my recollection, Tate was called by most a prospect with great athleticism and YAC, but was a poor route runner that needed polish. His career arc did not surprise me in the least.

Last year, my recollection of the scouting on Rich was that he was good route runner that should flourish in the pro game with only a little seasoning required. In fact, I remember people comparing the two directly and stating that Rich was better than Tate at running routes. So his early development does not surprise me.

YMMV, of course, but that's how I remember it.

At what point in time do you think Paul Richardson had to be a good route runner in college? Once he gets by you you're not catching up ( in college ), he probably looked amazing because he could beat guys on single moves or straight go-routes.

I remember seeing him in college (distant memory, I know heh), the dude is fun to watch in space but I don't particularly remember him running great 'routes'.

 

[SonicHawk]

Davante Adams, GB
Allen Robinson, JAX
Jarvis Landry, MIA
Donte Moncrief, IND
John Brown, AZ

Young receievers in a run first offense arent going to put up the same numbers as a guy in greenbay or indy.

Young talented receivers have a history of starting off slow statistically in Seattle and slowly blossoming.

You know all of this.

Although I agree with the previous poster, this is tedious, lol. I admire your stubborness, regardless of how odd your opinion may be.

Happy Holidays

John Brown is in a run-first offense, so is Jarvis Landry and Devante Adams is the 3rd/4th receiver - Moncrief is 3rd as well.

The point is, Richardson was slow to get on the field. It doesn't mean he can't be great, it just means that he isn't there [hopefully] yet.

 

[Meeker]

Davante Adams, GB
Allen Robinson, JAX
Jarvis Landry, MIA
Donte Moncrief, IND
John Brown, AZ

Young receievers in a run first offense arent going to put up the same numbers as a guy in greenbay or indy.

Young talented receivers have a history of starting off slow statistically in Seattle and slowly blossoming.

You know all of this.

Although I agree with the previous poster, this is tedious, lol. I admire your stubborness, regardless of how odd your opinion may be.

Happy Holidays

John Brown is in a run-first offense, so is Jarvis Landry and Devante Adams is the 3rd/4th receiver - Moncrief is 3rd as well.

The point is, Richardson was slow to get on the field. It doesn't mean he can't be great, it just means that he isn't there [hopefully] yet.

The Cardinals have 528 pass attempts to 372 rushes. The Dolphins have 556 pass attempts to 378 rushes. The Seahawks have 429 pass attempts to 491 rushes.

Now Wilson's rushes on pass plays affect this...they also affect this for the Dolphins, and just how much is impossible to tell, unless you've charted every rush attempt for the QBs.

 

[zifnab32]

I certainly don't remember it like Sonic appears to. In my recollection, Tate was called by most a prospect with great athleticism and YAC, but was a poor route runner that needed polish. His career arc did not surprise me in the least.

Last year, my recollection of the scouting on Rich was that he was good route runner that should flourish in the pro game with only a little seasoning required. In fact, I remember people comparing the two directly and stating that Rich was better than Tate at running routes. So his early development does not surprise me.

YMMV, of course, but that's how I remember it.

At what point in time do you think Paul Richardson had to be a good route runner in college? Once he gets by you you're not catching up ( in college ), he probably looked amazing because he could beat guys on single moves or straight go-routes.

I remember seeing him in college (distant memory, I know heh), the dude is fun to watch in space but I don't particularly remember him running great 'routes'.

STRENGTHS: Terrific athlete who appeared every bit as agile and explosive in 2013 after missing the entire 2012 season with a torn ACL. Very good straight-line speed making him an excellent option on vertical routes. Savvy route-runner who alters his gait off the line and throughout his route to gain separation from cornerbacks. Sinks his hips and explodes out of his breaks.
Generally plucks the ball cleanly out of the air with his hands, securing it quickly. Can track the ball over either shoulder and flashes the ability to dive and haul in the extraordinary catch.

Emphasis mine. He was quite literally the only weapon Colorado had for years, and he constantly torched teams.

 

[pehawk]

We're rewriting history a bit by saying he's not a good route runner. Could be how the "bad hands" knock began as well.

 

[Tech Worlds]

I am surprised how well small Paul has done lately. Still not sure how he will hold up as an everydown player over a full season.

 

[LoneHawkFan]

I'm as close to 100% positive as I can possibly be that there were folks in Buffalo who genuinely believed that Marshawn Lynch was not the best RB on their team. After all, he was injured and had come off a season in which he was replaced by Fred Jackson as the starter.

Stats are numbers Sonic, they require very little effort to read. They do however, take a helluva lot of thought to analyze in their proper context.

It would be rad if you had some thought, some intuition, some insight into Richardson's talent level that suggests to you that he just isn't a good WR....at least not good enough to be the best WR on a team that has a bunch of UFDAs currently filling those positions.

Again, who is the most talented WR on the Seahawks roster (I'm positive Pehawk can read numbers)?

 

[bjornanderson21]

Baldwin hasn't been replaced as our best wr yet but it is very positive to see richardson come in and actually contribute. We aren't having to sacrifice quality just to get him experience. They're finding ways to make him useful so we can be hopeful that he is going to develop into a fine WR and that we will get some quality production from him BEFORE he is up for a new contract.

Even with the salary cap going up they can't afford to pay everyone a FA salary. They have to be able to move on from certain vets and let their draft picks step up.

Richardson is already better than Percy Harvin ever will be. More WR draft picks, less losers from the Vikings

 

[jlwaters1]

Love the strides he's been making since we threw Percy overboard. Would love to see the same strides made by Norwood soon, and see them work with Russ in the offseason to develop some more chemistry.

I thought Norwood was coming along nicely up until the last 2 games where he's barely seen the field. I've got to believe with Kearse out this will force him into a more prominent role.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Richardson is already better than Percy Harvin ever will be. More WR draft picks, less losers from the Vikings

That would be novel. Seriously they need to relax and give Norwood and Richardson 2-3 years to actually develop some chemistry with Wilson and draft a bigger WR in the draft whenever they have a decent shot at it.

 

[Smellyman]

I am surprised how well small Paul has done lately. Still not sure how he will hold up as an everydown player over a full season.

I wonder about this though. Sure seems like small, quick guys almost never get hurt while the big guys are sure hurt a lot.

Is small guys not lasting and big guys staying healthy more perception than reality?