DeShone Kizer

[SSG]

1 minute ago, StinkySauce said:

I'm convinced, based on two medium-sized pours of Longrow 10/100 and my complete lack of knowledge on the subject, that Kizer is a better prospect than Hundley .  A better backup?  I don't know about that, either; but I'm convinced, based on three medium-sized pours of Longrow 10/100 and my complete lack of knowledge on the subject, that Hundley isn't good enough to get us a wildcard spot if Rodgers goes down after gifting him a 4-1 record in a division with both the Bears and the Lions.  

So with that logic, is Kizer capable of winning a NFL game?  Last year his play was the single biggest reason Cleveland went winless.  You simply aren't going to win many games when your QB has has twice as many turnovers as TDs.  

[snackattack]

AG20 is one of my favorite posters but i’m with Ray (another fav) on this one. I actually liked the trade a lot.

regardless of our personal opinions or evaluations of randall, does anyone believe we were gonna pick up his 5th year option? I dont. Hundley also was extremely unlikely to be re-signed. That means we only had one year each left for an inconsistent corner and backup qb. Why not factor them into a trade that improves your draft stock slightly and gives you a backup qb that MM is high on with three more years of 3rd round rookie contract salary?

if you dont like this trade, i could understand if your main focus is on being as good as possible for 2018 only. I wouldnt understand anyone who doesnt think this trade made a lot of sense for the next three years.

[StinkySauce]

1 minute ago, SSG said:

So with that logic, is Kizer capable of winning a NFL game?  Last year his play was the single biggest reason Cleveland went winless.  You simply aren't going to win many games when your QB has has twice as many turnovers as TDs.  

My logic won't get me that far, no.  It gets me far enough to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Hundley didn't get us a wildcard spot last year when Rodgers went down after gifting him a 4-1 record in a division with both the Bears and the Lions.  The best that can be said about Hundley is that he somehow pulled off a miracle OT win against Kizer's Browns.  

Finding a backup QB is never a sexy process.  Maybe not making sausage bad, but plenty bad.  Maybe not taking both a punter and a long-snapper in the same draft bad, but plenty bad.  My only problem with the Randall-Kizer trade is that, for a while, we had a frighteningly empty secondary and I thought Gute had lost his marbles.  But he found his marbles, so it's okay now.

[Greg C.]

25 minutes ago, snackattack said:

if you dont like this trade, i could understand if your main focus is on being as good as possible for 2018 only. I wouldnt understand anyone who doesnt think this trade made a lot of sense for the next three years.

My basic problem with this trade is that the Packers traded a starter for a backup. You might also say that they traded a player who had an okay year for a player who had a terrible year. I didn't understand until after the trade was made how badly they wanted to get rid of Randall. I just thought they could've gotten more for him. 

[Jaegybomb]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Or keep Randall and draft Davenport and we're not sitting here on bended knee praying to get minimally 25 healthy games out of Clay and Perry.

Just want to say Davenport isn't going to do anything this year. Isiah Oliver and the Falcons are going to destroy them

[Blink]

6 minutes ago, Greg C. said:

My basic problem with this trade is that the Packers traded a starter for a backup. You might also say that they traded a player who had an okay year for a player who had a terrible year. I didn't understand until after the trade was made how badly they wanted to get rid of Randall. I just thought they could've gotten more for him. 

Take a look at what high profile players have been traded for lately, we are lucky to get any value at all.

 

The starter logic doesn’t hold, just because you’re a part of one of the worst positions groups of recent memory with street free agents getting starters reps doesn’t mean you are actually starting quality.

 

If the Browns thought he was a starting quality corner they wouldn’t be switching him to safety 

[snackattack]

12 minutes ago, Greg C. said:

My basic problem with this trade is that the Packers traded a starter for a backup. You might also say that they traded a player who had an okay year for a player who had a terrible year. I didn't understand until after the trade was made how badly they wanted to get rid of Randall. I just thought they could've gotten more for him. 

I just don’t view Randall as valuable enough to merit much more in a trade. Hell, Robert Quinn was traded for essentially a fourh round draft pick, and he is a much better player than Randall.

We were going to need a backup QB soon, and the veteran market is much more expensive than a rookie. This trade gave us a cheap backup for three more years without requiring us to spend any draft picks on one. It wasn’t sexy, but it was a good trade imo.

[packfanfb]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I haven't written off anybody in the 2017 class. Just because I don't think Josh Jones is better than Kentrell Brice does not mean I'm writing off the entire class no matter how much you like Jones.

I'm a fan of a lot of guys on this team, I just don't have ridiculous expectations for Rookies. Something like 50% of first round draft picks are busts. It gets down to about 75% and 85% in rounds 2 and 3 and in rounds 4-7 you're basically lucky to pull two roster spots out of the 5 picks most teams have. It's been a few years since I looked at the numbers but I can't imagine they've changed too much.

For all of Randall's problems, he also was the best CB on the team last year. 

I just don't want to be sitting here three years from now when packfanfb is typing out:

 

Lol, just saw this. 

[packfanfb]

3 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I'll keep saying this, if I proposed this trade, even knowing Randall was an issue that had to go, people would have laughed me off this website for it. I'm not anti Kizer or even pro Randall but it feels like that same thing we all fall into at times where we trust the team ( I do) and have hope for the move. That's fine, that's fandom. But I'm still ticked off

This is true.

[Jaegybomb]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

This is true.

Up until the even if Randall had to go part.

[packfanfb]

The thing I'm going to miss most about Randall  (and why I don't love the trade) is because Randall basically personified me as a fan lol. Randall called out Dom's bull**** defense and the lack of accountability overall on that side of the ball, and MM didnt like that Randall was saying mean things about the guy that MM went to bat for year after year after year. But he was right, and he was traded for it.

[Mazrimiv]

Randall won't be missed by me.  Not a bit.  When I rewatch the games from the past couple seasons, it's hard to believe the Randle I see in those games is the same guy who seems to be so loved by this board.  Whatever good shows up is far outweighed by the bad.  I was more than happy to see him kicked to the curb.  The idea that I now have a negative opinion of Randall because he is no longer a Packer is laughable.  I have a negative opinion of him entirely because of how he performed as a Packer.

[Chili]

I honestly think the sudden praise on Kizer's "talent" has more to do with gaining leverage over Rodgers in the contract negotiations. I think they're trying to drive the price down a bit.

[Golfman]

28 minutes ago, Chili said:

I honestly think the sudden praise on Kizer's "talent" has more to do with gaining leverage over Rodgers in the contract negotiations. I think they're trying to drive the price down a bit.

I don't agree with this at all. First of all, Rodgers has two more years on his current deal. If we wanted to we could make him play out his deal, then franchise him for a year. Now he's what 37 at that point! I'm glad we got Kizer because Hundley was a disaster, but the market has been set for the Rodgers deal and it's going to be very, very expensive. I say he get 31 million a year on average. 

The reality is once we extend Rodgers, Kizer is here for 3 years (tops) barring a career ending injury to Rodgers. If we took the hard line approach with Rodgers, I see no evidence of this, Rodgers would probably be gone by the end of the 2020 season. 

The simple fact is when you are the GOAT, you have all the leverage. The market price has been set for Rodgers, now it's just semantics as to how it is structured.

[Gopackgonerd]

33 minutes ago, Chili said:

I honestly think the sudden praise on Kizer's "talent" has more to do with gaining leverage over Rodgers in the contract negotiations. I think they're trying to drive the price down a bit.

I doubt McCarthy did that to gain leverage  over the contract, he was just asked a question about Kizer.