Damarious Randall traded to the Browns for DeShone Kizer

[packfanfb]

The optimistic side of me says the Packers have a plan in place to improve the CB position well before the draft. Why? If MM was truly pushing this move, which I very much believe he was, the move itself makes very little sense for MM because it makes the team worse and MM needs to win THIS year. I think hes out of a job if he doesn't (and should be). He needs more good players, not fewer ones. I'd think he'd put his ego aside to keep a player with talent unless he and the brass plan to truly upgrade the position via FA. That's the only reason I'm optimistic about this trade at this point. 

[AlexGreen#20]

6 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Your selection of one of the worst RBs ever to get extended run as a Packers ball carrier as your forum name is amazingly indicative of the quality of your football knowledge. Well done.

That's entirely the point. 

It's a reminder to listen to others and that I don't know everything. It has nothing to do with me currently believing that Alex Green is a stud. 

[cannondale]

The locker room issues are being ignored here. Your veteran committee wanted him gone. Think about that for a second. Don't just gloss over it. What if I said Randall's problems were infecting guys like HHCD ?

We only see the tip of the iceburg. Randall was dead man walking at best

[Stevein2012]

36 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I don't get why people keep saying this. 

Literally any move we make this offseason will not be something we couldn't have done had we kept Randall. 

If we re-sign House and sign Sherman, we are still a better defense with Randall than we are without him.  If we sign Sherman and draft a cornerback in the first three rounds, we are still a better defense with Randall. 

Any way you look at it, our defense got worse because of this trade.  Literally.  Literally any way you look at it. 

You can never have too many cornerbacks or defensive backs, especially versatile ones like Randall.  Especially when all the corners currently on your roster have major injury concerns.  Especially when you spent the last two years down to nothing at that position.

The coaching staff clearly didn't like him.  It's not that crazy for a team to move on from a player that doesn't fit in the locker room regardless of their talent and contract, especially with a new coaching staff coming in.

[AlexGreen#20]

6 hours ago, northernpackfan said:

Maybe I didn’t read closely enough, but I’m not sure why you’re asserting that examples from that era are useless?

Simply that the game has evolved and interception percentages are significantly down. Passing in today's gameis easier now than it was then. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

9 hours ago, Gopackgonerd said:

For all tense and purposes Kizer was worse than Hundley last season, not saying he can't turn into a better QB over time, but you traded for a similar player with worse production.

It's not fair to compare a rookie to a third year player. The only fair way to judge Kizer is to evaluate him in his third year of play and compare that to Hundley's play this year. Many players make a significant second year jump in performance. I was impressed with Kizer's arm in the game he played against Green Bay. Now he has a good staff to develop  him. Patience, Grasshopper. 

[AlexGreen#20]

4 hours ago, Chili said:

Just finished reading all 47 pages. Yikes!

Cleveland Browns draft picks:

• 1st Round: No. 1 overall
• 1st Round: No. 4 overall
• 2nd Round: No. 33 overall (1st in round)
• 2nd Round: No. 35 overall (3rd in round)
• 2nd Round: No. 64 overall (32nd in round)
• 3rd Round: No. 65 overall (1st in round) ----> traded to Bills (Taylor)
• 4th Round: No. 101 overall (1st in round) -----> traded to Packers (Randall)
• 4th Round: No. 123 overall (23rd in round) ----> traded to Miami (Landry)
• 5th Round: No. 138 overall (1st in round)
• 5th Round: No. 159 overall (22nd in round)
• 6th Round: No. 175 overall (1st in round)
• 7th Round: No. 219 overall (1st in round)

I'm not sure which of our 4th round and 5th round picks we gave to them.

We can confirm that we get their 101 overall 4th round pick but its still not clear which 5th round pick we will get. If I had to guess it will be the 138 overall as that is higher than our 150 overall 5th rounder.

Its a risk/reward thing at this moment in time. Laying it all out:

• We get to move on from Randall despite our clear CB deficiencies. I don't think we had any intention of re-signing him so we will take what we can get for him now. By doing so we will get.....
• A potential upgrade at backup QB.
• Frees up a tiny bit of cap space.
• Avoids using up a draft pick on a QB
• Gives us ammunition to trade up into the bottom 1st/ 2nd round in the draft. Having no.1 picks in the 4th and 5th rounds will greatly help us with this. I think this is the biggest reason for accepting the trade.

The way I see it now is that the reason for accepting this trade is "flexibility". We can do more things now as the result of this trade. Despite the hit we will take at corner the hit can be nullified somewhat if we can sign a solid FA corner. My gut says we will be targeting Sherman because he is a top level FA corner who won't factor into the compensatory pick calculations as he was cut. Adding a highly competitive and experienced corner is never a bad thing especially if we pair him with King. Of course there's risks with his injury history but that will allow us the opportunity to get him at a discounted price. It makes sense.  I like the idea of getting Amukamara too for added depth and experience, he should be very inexpensive. What I remember about him in my draft research is that he was very good at sticking close to receivers but he didn't have a knack of making plays on the ball. That's literally the opposite of Randall.

King, Sherman, Amukamara, Draft Pick, Waters, Pipkins. That is definitely a size/speed/experience upgrade throughout the cornerback group if our offseason shakes out like that. Would we take this now if we know if this scenario will happen?

I'm absolutely certain now we will be drafting a corner within the first three rounds especially with the potential scenario of using the picks we acquired in the trade to trade up. Our work is not done yet that's for sure.

If a player of Peters calibre moved for only a 2018 4th rounder and a 2019 2nd rounder then it was unlikely we would get a deal much better than that for a talented but wildly inconsisent corner with attitude problems. With that perspective in mind, Kizer + no.1 4th rounder + no.1 5th rounder doesn't sound too bad considering.

It would be hilarious after seeing Hayward and Hyde becoming all-pros if Randall follows suit. If that does happen it will speak to the incompetence of Capers not getting the best out of his players but also the incompetence of the front office for letting all of those corners go. It will highlight serious player evaluation issues throughout the organisation. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I'm not contradicting you, just curious how we know we're getting Pick 101 for pick 114 rather than pick 123 for 133? Both are 4th round trade ups. 

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

It's not fair to compare a rookie to a third year player. The only fair way to judge Kizer is to evaluate him in his third year of play and compare that to Hundley's play this year. Many players make a significant second year jump in performance. I was impressed with Kizer's arm in the game he played against Green Bay. Now he has a good staff to develop  him. Patience, Grasshopper. 

There's a strong argument to be made that Hundley and Kizer have the same amuoont of experience, Hundley having more NFL time, Kizer having more NFL snaps. Minimally I think you have to consider a mix of both propositions when saying who has more experience. 

[AlexGreen#20]

29 minutes ago, sgtcheezwiz said:

We keep saying it because y'all acting like we are going into the season with pipkins and King.

Why do we need to stockile cornerbacks? Maybe instead of having 4 starting caliber guys like you guys keep suggesting we only 2 or 3 and a a pass rusher. Please just give them the off season lmao

The average NFL offense is playing 3 WRs on 70%ish percentage of snaps. You definitely need more than 2 starting caliber QBs, especially when we start getting decimated by Injuries like seems to happen every year. 

[MacReady]

Just now, Stevein2012 said:

The coaching staff clearly didn't like him.  It's not that crazy for a team to move on from a player that doesn't fit in the locker room regardless of their talent and contract, especially with a new coaching staff coming in.

How many times we gotta disprove the same talking points?

It's not about Randall. 

Quit bringing up Randall as a person and as an attitude problem.  You get rid of Randall, okay, you get rid of him for something that can help you replace him. 

I'll put it into a story: 

You're in a sinking boat.  The boat has 5 holes in it.  You intend on filling the other two holes soon.  Three of the holes are already plugged.  We will call those three plugs Randall, Rollins and King.  You've been in this boat for 2 years now and the plugs keep falling out towards the end of the day, letting a lot of water in.  You are wearing the best life preserver there possibly could be.  We will call that life preserver Rodgers.  You have a backup life preserver.  We will call that backup life preserver Brett.  You don't like the way one of the plugs fits.  It works better than the other two, but you've been in this boat for 2 years and you're going a little insane, so you don't like the way it talks to you.  Another boat passes.  They got a life preserver a little bit better than your backup life preserver.  They want one of your plugs.  You give them one of your plugs for another life preserver. 

Now you have to fill three holes, except your boat came with limited trading supplies.  Let's say... 170 of them.  The plug called Randall cost 2 of the 170.  Plugs typically cost a minimum of 5-10. 

You only have 20 supplies left.  8 of those supplies have to go towards the supplies draft.  Problem is you're also missing a paddle.  Your current paddles, called Cobb, Nelson, Adams, well... Two of them are really old and take up the space of 10 supplies each.  Problem is the weight of them costs 3 supplies each to get rid of. 

So you've got 20 supplies left.  You have to use some of those supplies to replace your plug, so that leaves you with less supplies for other things you need.  Gotta have some shade to protect against the sun.  Your current shade is named Dickrod, and the process of putting it up is slow.  Very slow. 

Now... After considering all of that, wouldn't trading the plug have made more sense if we had traded for even an older, not as good plug?  Wouldn't trading that plug have made more sense if we traded it for a supply we need but don't have?  Like a new paddle?  Or some new shade?  Or for a better supplies draft pick?  What are you going to do with two crappy life preservers? 

 

[cannondale]

We tried to trade Randall for Jalen Ramsey. They said no.

We traded a cast off for a cast off

[Stevein2012]

Just now, HorizontoZenith said:

How many times we gotta disprove the same talking points?

It's not about Randall. 

 

Wrong, they weren't calling up the browns just because they wanted Kizer so bad.  They were calling around trying to dump Randall and that was the offer they liked best.  It's completely about Randall.  They didn't want him on the team anymore and got what they could for him simple as that.

[MacReady]

Just now, Stevein2012 said:

Wrong, they weren't calling up the browns just because they wanted Kizer so bad.  They were calling around trying to dump Randall and that was the offer they liked best.  It's completely about Randall.  They didn't want him on the team anymore and got what they could for him simple as that.

How many of the trade offers we got for Randall do you think were for backup quarterbacks?  They chose a backup QB over alternatives.  I don't know where the disconnect is here for you. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, Stevein2012 said:

Wrong, they weren't calling up the browns just because they wanted Kizer so bad.  They were calling around trying to dump Randall and that was the offer they liked best.  It's completely about Randall.  They didn't want him on the team anymore and got what they could for him simple as that.

The issue that many have is that they wanted Kizer. If you're just looking to dump Randall, get more draft picks, or more cap space, or a different effective player. You didn't even read his post, or minimally you didn't understand it. 

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

How many of the trade offers we got for Randall do you think were for backup quarterbacks?  They chose a backup QB over alternatives.  I don't know where the disconnect is here for you. 

Kizer was the best garbage that we could get for our garbage.