Hey man, hold off on trading that purple drank ... at least until after the weekend, OK?
I wouldn't trade a 1st for a quality RB like Richardson, because in our offense that's a waste and we have a lot of guys who we could get with that pick who would be impact players in our offense.
As for Chris' comment on Ingram, let's first agree that the Saints have a history of not featuring backs in the Payton/Brees era. Reggie Bush was a 3rd down back, but Sproles was even better for the New Orleans offense, while Bush certainly has shown he is worthy of more than being a 3rd down back since he joined Miami under multiple staffs. So, we don't really know what Ingram would be if featured. It's all projections, and those often wildly differ from good evaluators.
Also, many RB's have excelled outside of the top two rounds, so while Daniel Thomas may not be the poster-child for that theory, I'd say Alfred Morris is, and Lamar Miller wasn't a bad pick either. So, there is definitely a large body of evidence supporting NOT spending a 1st rounder on a RB, even if it means you don't get Adrian Peterson, because there's quality to be had later as well.
In our fathers' NFL, it was extremely hard to win without a running game. Today's NFL it's not so hard. The Packers, Patriots, and the Peytons (errrr I mean the Broncos) have all shown that the running game and the RB position has changed. Even the teams with strong RB's mostly do it by committee to reduce the wear and tear on a position that has a very short NFL lifespan. Twenty years ago Frank Gore, Arian Foster and Jamaal Charles would be feature backs, not splitting carriers with change of pace teammates.
Chris provides lots of analysis, and I think it's going overboard expecting that level of analysis in every post. IMHO, he routinely provides sound analysis and over time I think most of us will agree.