DeShone Kizer

[packfanfb]

16 hours ago, Golfman said:

I think Randall sucks and am glad he was traded. Isn't it somewhat ironic none of his teammates came to his defense other than Daniels who said something about his off season work. I do believe there is an underlying message there. To me it is more of Daniels trying to say something nine and not offending anyone, which doesn't appear to be his MO. I can't read his mind, but it is sort of ironic no one came to his defense about this trade. 

If Randall "sucks" I can't imagine what you must think about the rest of the CBs from our 2017 roster including House, Rollins, etc. -- none of them were close to Randall last year, not even King. 

[Patriotplayer90]

On 5/8/2018 at 1:03 PM, TheOnlyThing said:

This. 

And so much more.

Those still whining about trading GB's best "cornerback" refuse to acknowledge the following:

(1) Randall is a Safety not a CB. 

The Cleveland Browns plan to move Randall back to free safety, his collegiate position, full-time. "I think that’s his natural position. I think we all recognize that.” McCarthy said. https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/27/mike-mccarthy-admits-damarious-randall-was-playing-out-of-position/

(2) Randall being the "best" of a crappy group of CBs means nothing.

MD Jennings and Jerron McMillian were the "best" options to start at S along side Burnett in 2013. AJ Hawk and Brad Jones were the "best" inside linebackers on the roster to begin the 2014 season. Richard Rodgers was the "best" TE on the roster in 2015. So the F what. Randall, who again is not even being played at CB by the team that traded for, may have been the "best" of a bad group but Gute, Pettine, and MM are obviously aiming for much more at CB than what Randall offered.

(3) Randall was a known attitude problem whom MM obviously did not want on the team.

If anything, MM is known for being a players-coach who is at times too loyal to his players (and coaches). It obviously took a lot for MM to send Randall home during the Bears (nationally televised) game last season.

To Randall's credit, he played better thereafter. However, there were the rumblings that Randall made a "business decision" to sit out games at the end of the year. 

Once the season was over, MM (again who rarely chastises a player in public) announced that  “I’ll tell you what I told Damarious. He needs to focus on himself. He’s got to clean his own house."http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/05/mike-mccarthy-damarious-randall-needs-to-clean-his-own-house/

In the end, the writing was on the wall heading into the offseason that MM (and others in the organization) wanted Randall off the team. Given that reality, what team was going to give up more than a 5th round pick & backup QB for a known malcontent Safety who played out of position for 3 years in Green Bay? I say Gute did as well as he could be expected to do.

Time for the Randall fans to let it go even if Kizer turns out to be no better than Hundley.

Your point #2 is an issue that has been with this roster for years.  Brad Jones should not be your primary backup, let alone a starter.  The same with Richard Rodgers. 

 

  You should not have to take your highest paid player on defense and use him in a position that he's not particularly good at and should be easy to replace just because you have no other option.

 

You should not have to take your receiver and use him in a position that he's not particularly good at and should be easy to replace just because you have no other option

I'm not understanding how TT thought the CB group was addressed adequately after being the league's worst unit in 16.  A second round rookie will single -handedly turn things around?  Okay.

 

.Not to mention that ST has been average at the very peak.  Crosby is good enough,  but the punter situation was embarrassing for a while.  And it says A lot when Janis is a ST standout, just because of how meh the coverage units have been overall.

I'm not expecting All-Pros at every position, but TT was really losing touch and putting too much faith in his ability to not only draft starters, but adequate depth, both of which he was failing at

[Spartacus]

36 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

If Randall "sucks" I can't imagine what you must think about the rest of the CBs from our 2017 roster including House, Rollins, etc. -- none of them were close to Randall last year, not even King. 

Eh King i'll give a break to as a 2nd round rookie and injured at times through the season. Being better than House & Rollins is nothing to write home about. There are probably at least 4 or 5 corners on every team that are better than Rollins and House is nothing but depth signing at this point. We expected big things from House out of hope. The reality is if he was actually any good he would have been paid a lot more money.  

[skibrett15]

3 hours ago, Kenrik said:

Isnt that an example of Daniels leadership? A fierce defense that holds players accountable cant have players that pout and blame others for their own issues even if hes the best CB amongst one of the worse secondaries.

if you want to double assume and read between the lines between the lines... that's fine.  Isn't it more likely to be true if we just take it at face value?

[Norm]

3 hours ago, Kenrik said:

Isnt that an example of Daniels leadership? A fierce defense that holds players accountable cant have players that pout and blame others for their own issues even if hes the best CB amongst one of the worse secondaries.

Then why did he defend him though

[SSG]

5 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

I do think Randall is better than he played in GB (MM did admit they played him out of position), but he was also not in the future plans and was going to be on his way out in 2019 (wasn’t getting his 5th year picked up).

 

We got a better backup qb and improved draft capital (which we used for Burks).

I’m in the not complaining/Let’s see how it plays out camp

This is a TBD IMO.  Hundley was the better starter last year and I'm not sure it was even close.  Kizer had very few moments where he looked like he was a NFL caliber QB.  As shown last year, Kizer hasn't shown that he's capable of winning even a single game much less multiple games.  He was BY FAR Cleveland's biggest problem and the single biggest reason his team went winless.  IMO Kizer has a substantial amount of improvement to make before he's even a back up caliber QB. 

[Joe]

2 hours ago, SSG said:

This is a TBD IMO.  Hundley was the better starter last year and I'm not sure it was even close.  Kizer had very few moments where he looked like he was a NFL caliber QB.  As shown last year, Kizer hasn't shown that he's capable of winning even a single game much less multiple games.  He was BY FAR Cleveland's biggest problem and the single biggest reason his team went winless.  IMO Kizer has a substantial amount of improvement to make before he's even a back up caliber QB. 

I think that's taking it a bit far. Here are their numbers since the first week Hundley was the starter:

Kizer: 1929 yds, 8 TD's, 11 INT's. 

Hundley: 1679, 8 TD's, 9 INT's.

 

Pretty similar numbers if you ask me, not to mention the fact that Hundley threw 3 picks against Minnesota and Kizer had a tougher schedule. It's also true that Hundley had a far greater supporting cast around him so it's pretty easy to poo-poo Kizer; especially given that Kizer was a rookie and Hundley was in his third year. I personally wasn't a fan of Kizer when he came out, but after seeing Hundley play, I think Kizer has a better chance of being a better QB here than he was in Cleveland.

 

Fit is everything, just ask Tom Brady...

[Golfman]

8 hours ago, packfanfb said:

If Randall "sucks" I can't imagine what you must think about the rest of the CBs from our 2017 roster including House, Rollins, etc. -- none of them were close to Randall last year, not even King. 

I'd cut Rollins right now. House is serviceable but not an everyday starter. King showed he can play but needs more experience. He'll be light years ahead where Randall was last year, this year. 

Yeah, our CB's were pretty bad last year. We've upgraded through subtraction and the additions. 

[Norm]

13 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I'd cut Rollins right now.

What is the point of this? This obsession with cutting guys in May all the time. Like maybe people are scared he might make the roster so cut him now so there's no way he can make the team because I hate him. He's good enough for a 90 man, especially with the possibility of moving to safety maybe. That being said, he might never play again depending on that injury.

[Gopackgonerd]

3 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

What is the point of this? This obsession with cutting guys in May all the time. Like maybe people are scared he might make the roster so cut him now so there's no way he can make the team because I hate him. He's good enough for a 90 man, especially with the possibility of moving to safety maybe. That being said, he might never play again depending on that injury.

Same to people wanting to cut House because we drafted 2 CBs, it just doesn't make sense, why not have these guys for depth?

[Norm]

Just now, Gopackgonerd said:

Same to people wanting to cut House, it just doesn't make sense, why not have these guys for depth?

I was literally gonna bring that up as an example. Like some UDFA who's not on a 90 is better to have now?

[SSG]

55 minutes ago, Joe said:

I think that's taking it a bit far. Here are their numbers since the first week Hundley was the starter:

Kizer: 1929 yds, 8 TD's, 11 INT's. 

Hundley: 1679, 8 TD's, 9 INT's.

 

Pretty similar numbers if you ask me, not to mention the fact that Hundley threw 3 picks against Minnesota and Kizer had a tougher schedule. It's also true that Hundley had a far greater supporting cast around him so it's pretty easy to poo-poo Kizer; especially given that Kizer was a rookie and Hundley was in his third year. I personally wasn't a fan of Kizer when he came out, but after seeing Hundley play, I think Kizer has a better chance of being a better QB here than he was in Cleveland.

 

Fit is everything, just ask Tom Brady...

I  don't think its a stretch at all.  By ignoring a large portion of Kizer's season you are ignoring some of his worst games.  You are leaving out a whopping 11 turnovers, which was his worst stretch of the season.  While Hundley had a  lot of turnovers for basically 10 starts, Kizer turned it over at a  substantially higher clip (more than half a turnover per game more).

While Hundley's WR core was better, that's the only thing that was better.  Kizer got  better support from his offensive line, he had more talent at RB and a better TE for a lot of the year.  Kizer's biggest issues were Kizer.  He lacked the talent to be a NFL QB and showed a general ineptness.  The same stupid, game killing mistakes he was making early in the year were the same mistakes he was making late in the year (check out that link that showed his INTs).  He was too stupid to learn from his mistakes and was the biggest reason that Cleveland team went winless.  Fixing stupid in a QB isn't easy and Kizer showed plenty of stupidness last year with VERY FEW bright spots.  Time will tell if he's better than Hundley.  While Hundley has been in the league longer, last year was the first time he got meaningful snaps.  Hundley was terrible last year but IMO his bright moments were brighter than Kizer's (he was a lot better player in the head to head and he was GREAT against a very good Pitt defense).  

Fit is important and I'm not sure this offense is a great fit for an inept QB.  

[SSG]

40 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I'd cut Rollins right now. House is serviceable but not an everyday starter. King showed he can play but needs more experience. He'll be light years ahead where Randall was last year, this year. 

Yeah, our CB's were pretty bad last year. We've upgraded through subtraction and the additions. 

What do we gain by cutting Rollins right now?  I'm not a fan at all but he showed a lot of promise as a rookie and there is no guarantee that either of the rookies are any better.  Josh Jackson as a prospect is a lot like Rollins was his last year in college.  A ball hawk with questionable speed that has very little experience.  

 

I'd wait till he's beaten out before he's cut.  There is no guarantee a healthy Rollins can't help a secondary that is lacking talent in the worst way.  

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, Patriotplayer90 said:

Your point #2 is an issue that has been with this roster for years.  Brad Jones should not be your primary backup, let alone a starter.  The same with Richard Rodgers. 

 

  You should not have to take your highest paid player on defense and use him in a position that he's not particularly good at and should be easy to replace just because you have no other option.

 

You should not have to take your receiver and use him in a position that he's not particularly good at and should be easy to replace just because you have no other option

I'm not understanding how TT thought the CB group was addressed adequately after being the league's worst unit in 16.  A second round rookie will single -handedly turn things around?  Okay.

 

.Not to mention that ST has been average at the very peak.  Crosby is good enough,  but the punter situation was embarrassing for a while.  And it says A lot when Janis is a ST standout, just because of how meh the coverage units have been overall.

I'm not expecting All-Pros at every position, but TT was really losing touch and putting too much faith in his ability to not only draft starters, but adequate depth, both of which he was failing at

So where's the point where you go with the guys you've invested in and figure out whether or not they're capable starters?  You're going to say in camp, but the reality is those reps in camp are absolutely NOTHING alike.  Did TT use all of his avenues to improve a team?  I think we'd be foolish to say he did.  But if you've invested premium or semi-premium picks, and you don't put them on the field you're not doing your job.

[Mazrimiv]

39 minutes ago, SSG said:

I  don't think its a stretch at all.  By ignoring a large portion of Kizer's season you are ignoring some of his worst games.  You are leaving out a whopping 11 turnovers, which was his worst stretch of the season.  While Hundley had a  lot of turnovers for basically 10 starts, Kizer turned it over at a  substantially higher clip (more than half a turnover per game more).

While Hundley's WR core was better, that's the only thing that was better.  Kizer got  better support from his offensive line, he had more talent at RB and a better TE for a lot of the year.  Kizer's biggest issues were Kizer.  He lacked the talent to be a NFL QB and showed a general ineptness.  The same stupid, game killing mistakes he was making early in the year were the same mistakes he was making late in the year (check out that link that showed his INTs).  He was too stupid to learn from his mistakes and was the biggest reason that Cleveland team went winless.  Fixing stupid in a QB isn't easy and Kizer showed plenty of stupidness last year with VERY FEW bright spots.  Time will tell if he's better than Hundley.  While Hundley has been in the league longer, last year was the first time he got meaningful snaps.  Hundley was terrible last year but IMO his bright moments were brighter than Kizer's (he was a lot better player in the head to head and he was GREAT against a very good Pitt defense).  

Fit is important and I'm not sure this offense is a great fit for an inept QB.  

6

Hundley was in his 3rd season on a team that was 4-1 when he stepped in. Kizer was a mid 2nd round rookie inserted as the starting QB on a team that was 4-28 over the prior two seasons.  Kizer was setup to fail, and he failed.  As a QB prospect to groom for the future, I'll take Kizer over Hundley without a second thought.  I expect both Kizer and Hundley will be given plenty of opportunities to show something in OTA's and camp.  When camp is done, I don't expect Hundley to be on the roster.