Snead: Richardson Still In Rams' Plans

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

PhxRam

Guest
[espn.go.com]

ST. LOUIS -- It's safe to say the 2013 season didn't turn out the way St. Louis Rams running back Daryl Richardson envisioned.

After winning a "competition" for the starting running back job with little challenge from any of the other backs in training camp, Richardson entered the season as the player handed the challenge of replacing Steven Jackson, the team's all time leading rusher.

That was pretty much the high point of the season for Richardson, who suffered a toe injury in the season opener and never got rolling before ceding the job to rookie Zac Stacy after just four weeks. When all was said and done, Stacy stated a strong case to retain the starting job heading into 2014 and Richardson spent the final eight games of the season on the inactive list.

Richardson dealt with a hamstring injury toward the end of the season and it was fair to wonder if he ever fully recovered from his foot injury. Considering Stacy's emergence as well as the work of Benny Cunningham as his backup and the special teams production of Isaiah Pead and Chase Reynolds, it's fair to wonder about Richardson's future with the team.

Rams general manager Les Snead said last week he still envisions a place for Richardson on the roster next season.

"Oh yeah, I think definitely," Snead said. "We've all seen what he can do. Some injuries derailed him a little bit and then heck, let's take Isaiah: (he) gets a chance goes on special teams and he's one of the top special teamers. As you bring in more players, there's more competition."

It remains to be seen whether the Rams add to their stable of running back options in the offseason though it doesn't seem to be a particularly pressing need given the amount of guys already on the roster. Pead has been a major disappointment in his first two years after coming in as a second-round pick in 2012 but Stacy and Cunningham seem to be settled into their spots, something coach Jeff Fisher alluded to near the end of the season.

The Rams made something of a puzzling choice to go with five running backs all season though they regularly seemed to have at least one banged up at all times. Still, that decision cost them a promising young defensive end in Gerald Rivers when they had to adjust for the injury to returner/receiver Tavon Austin.

Theoretically, the Rams could again carry five running backs but they may have to make a choice between Richardson and Pead. Richardson finished the year with 215 yards on 69 carries, an anemic 3.12 yards per attempt.

Richardson is limited in terms of his ability to make defenders miss though he flashed good speed as a rookie. It's hard to say how much injuries slowed him in 2013 but it's clear there was at least some negative effect.

For Richardson to hang tight in his spot behind Stacy and Cunningham or even emerge back in the running back mix, he may have to follow the Pead route and prove he can contribute in other ways first.

"I do know this, when he was inactive he didn't like that," Snead said. "You do like the fact he didn't like that. He's always said hey I want to start covering kicks and doing things like that. He's trying to find his way back on the 46-man. We've all seen what he can do and you've definitely got to roll with him."
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
Richardson dealt with a hamstring injury toward the end of the season and it was fair to wonder if he ever fully recovered from his foot injury.
LOL! That sounds familiar. :D
 

Ky Ram

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
1,918
No way in the world we should hea into next season with five backs - heck fur seems like too many but I could stomach that easier than 5.
I don't know who Pead has pictures of but they must pretty damning for him to still have a roster spot.:buttkisser:
 

iBruce

Pro Bowler
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,152
Name
Cory
Who's the fifth? Stacy, Richardson, Cunningham, Pead... Reynolds? Did he ever get any carries, or has he always been a STer?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
No way in the world we should hea into next season with five backs - heck fur seems like too many but I could stomach that easier than 5.
I don't know who Pead has pictures of but they must pretty damning for him to still have a roster spot.:buttkisser:

Pead is still on the team because his potential is still much better than D. Rich.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
While they list FIVE RBs on the roster, one can make the argument that Chase Reynolds is merely a "Teams" specialist, in much the same way Dominique Curry was with the previous regime. He was technically listed as a WR, but he was on the roster for ST.

I find it curious that so many people seem to get hung up on guys who actually serve a purpose, and contribute to the team in other ways than what their stated position may be. It appears that if a RB doesn't carry the ball 20 times a game, than he just isn't a part of the team, so cut him!

Stedman Bailey was one of the biggest Special Team players early in the season, and all you ever heard was how he wasn't being given a fair chance as a WR. At some point, guys find their way on the team, and eventually get other opportunities. While not the typical script for a RB, or WR, they are still here for a reason.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
While they list FIVE RBs on the roster, one can make the argument that Chase Reynolds is merely a "Teams" specialist, in much the same way Dominique Curry was with the previous regime. He was technically listed as a WR, but he was on the roster for ST.

I find it curious that so many people seem to get hung up on guys who actually serve a purpose, and contribute to the team in other ways than what their stated position may be. It appears that if a RB doesn't carry the ball 20 times a game, than he just isn't a part of the team, so cut him!

Stedman Bailey was one of the biggest Special Team players early in the season, and all you ever heard was how he wasn't being given a fair chance as a WR. At some point, guys find their way on the team, and eventually get other opportunities. While not the typical script for a RB, or WR, they are still here for a reason.
Well, except Daryl Richardson didn't play special teams at all, and this thread is about him. I don't see anyone "hung up" on Chase. Is it Pead you're taking about again? Because it's hard to get a read on what you're railing against here.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
Well, except Daryl Richardson didn't play special teams at all, and this thread is about him. I don't see anyone "hung up" on Chase. Is it Pead you're taking about again? Because it's hard to get a read on what you're railing against here.

Not railing on anything in particular... My response is more about how guys who are core ST players seem to get completely overlooked, or denigrated as being contributors to the team.

The post I replied to wasn't even sure who the 5 RBs were, which sort of makes my point.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Not railing on anything in particular... My response is more about how guys who are core ST players seem to get completely overlooked, or denigrated as being contributors to the team.

The post I replied to wasn't even sure who the 5 RBs were, which sort of makes my point.
Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of that. Are you sure you're not mixing up boards?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of that. Are you sure you're not mixing up boards?

I think Coach was referencing iBruce's comment about Chase Reynolds and bringing about the POV that people tend to forget that there are people on the team that serve the purpose as being a veteran contributor on special teams.
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
They should have asked Snead if Pead was still in the Rams plans- and I don't mean just on ST's.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
Richardson should be kept regardless. Injuries slowed him at the end of the year, but he's definitely not a bad 3rd down back/someone you can run off tackle. The only problem is Schotty refuses to do that at time, but that'a another thread.

I don't think you can make an argument to keep Isaiah. He's due a little over a million in cap money and almost all of that can be saved with a cut. I do think he has talent though. You could see it in the Dallas game this year. The only problem is he's more valuable in the passing/off tackle game. Something that really has no place in this offense.

Unless between that and the fact that he contributes on special teams makes him valuable enough but I just don't see it. I wouldn't be surprised to see him come in and have success on a team that is thin at RB this offseason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Richardson should be kept regardless. Injuries slowed him at the end of the year, but he's definitely not a bad 3rd down back/someone you can run off tackle. The only problem is Schotty refuses to do that at time, but that'a another thread.

I don't think you can make an argument to keep Isaiah. He's due a little over a million in cap money and almost all of that can be saved with a cut. I do think he has talent though. You could see it in the Atlanta game this year. The only problem is he's more valuable in the passing/off tackle game. Something that really has no place in this offense.

Unless between that and the fact that he contributes on special teams makes him valuable enough but I just don't see it. I wouldn't be surprised to see him come in and have success on a team that is thin at RB this offseason.


So you say that Richardson needs to be used off tackle and then say we need to cut Pead because his stile of play doesn't fit when you just tried to justify keeping Richardson for running off tackle?

That is a contradiction.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
So you say that Richardson needs to be used off tackle and then say we need to cut Pead because his stile of play doesn't fit when you just tried to justify keeping Richardson for running off tackle?

That is a contradiction.

I should clear that up. The majority of his carries should be off tackle, but he can be effective in all areas of the game. He's a more rounded back than Pead at this stage in their careers. He's pretty much the definition of a prefect #2 back. While he's not the best at everything he can effectively do it all. Including pass protection, catching the ball out of the backfield, PA, and running between the tackles. The thing he excels at the most is running off tackle though.
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
I should clear that up. The majority of his carries should be off tackle, but he can be effective in all areas of the game. He's a more rounded back than Pead at this stage in their careers. He's pretty much the definition of a prefect #2 back. While he's not the best at everything he can effectively do it all. Including pass protection, catching the ball out of the backfield, PA, and running between the tackles. The thing he excels at the most is running off tackle though.

What are you basing your assessment of Richardson as it pertains to him being better than Pead in pass protection and as a pass catcher?

Those are the two areas that he is less than an average back. You seem to discount Special Teams in terms of Pead's contributions, but simply ignore the fact that Richardson has ZERO contribution on them.

Your claim that he is "more well rounded" at this stage of his career seems to be based SOLELY on his number of carries.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
What are you basing your assessment of Richardson as it pertains to him being better than Pead in pass protection and as a pass catcher?

Those are the two areas that he is less than an average back. You seem to discount Special Teams in terms of Pead's contributions, but simply ignore the fact that Richardson has ZERO contribution on them.

Your claim that he is "more well rounded" at this stage of his career seems to be based SOLELY on his number of carries.

Pead is a better pass catcher than Richardson (he can actually run pretty good routes), and I would say they're about even in pass blocking. Richardson is still an effective pass catcher, and I have no doubt that he can improve in that area. My "claims" are based solely off my observations of them both, and are just my opinion. It has nothing to do with the amount of carries that each get, but that should be a telling factor as to who the coaching staff wants carrying the ball.

I don't dislike Pead, I just don't think it makes sense to keep him in this offensive scheme when you already have Richardson. Do you think he's worth a million in cap next year?
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
Pead is a better pass catcher than Richardson (he can actually run pretty good routes), and I would say they're about even in pass blocking. Richardson is still an effective pass catcher, and I have no doubt that he can improve in that area. My "claims" are based solely off my observations of them both, and are just my opinion. It has nothing to do with the amount of carries that each get, but that should be a telling factor as to who the coaching staff wants carrying the ball.

I don't dislike Pead, I just don't think it makes sense to keep him in this offensive scheme when you already have Richardson. Do you think he's worth a million in cap next year?

I think he has a much bigger upside and will make a bigger difference than Richardson. Richardson, for all intents and purposes, had some success in 3 or 4 games LAST YEAR as Jackson's backup. But either he hit the proverbial wall, or teams figured out his only real threat was getting to the corner, and were very capable of taking that away. Neither of them appear to be much more than a 3rd down back at this point, and if that is going to be the case, I'd rather have Pead in that role than Richardson. Especially if you he is able to continue to be a core ST contributor. Something that Richardson will not be.

And I will agree to disagree with you regarding the pass blocking. Pead excels in that area, Richardson is a liability.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Pead is a better pass catcher than Richardson (he can actually run pretty good routes), and I would say they're about even in pass blocking. Richardson is still an effective pass catcher, and I have no doubt that he can improve in that area. My "claims" are based solely off my observations of them both, and are just my opinion. It has nothing to do with the amount of carries that each get, but that should be a telling factor as to who the coaching staff wants carrying the ball.

I don't dislike Pead, I just don't think it makes sense to keep him in this offensive scheme when you already have Richardson. Do you think he's worth a million in cap next year?

I would rather have Pead than Richardson, yes. He has more potential, and contributes on special teams (Which we had the best Punt Coverage in the leage this year, in which Pead played gunner.)