Damarious Randall traded to the Browns for DeShone Kizer

[tredpack]

3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Seriously, people need to calm it with telling me to calm it.  99% of me yelling at people is in jest.  99% of what I say is hyperbole.  I believe in what I'm saying, but if you couldn't find the humor in a three paragraph boat analogy, that's more a reflection of you than it is me. 

The boat analogy is the best post I've read in my 5 years of reading this site. Yell--hyperbole till the cows come home. 

One thing that should be noted is the Packers must feel pretty confident in a healthy King. I'm guessing Pettine is looking for corners with some size and tackling ability, Randall wasn't the biggest and tended to play smaller than his actual size. 

[ThatJerkDave]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Which he had and evidenced. It really was the only part of his game that was positive IMO. BUT - I contend we needed to bypass the "lets convert this guy into a CB" angle and go after and draft a pure, accomplished CB. A bird in hand type guy.

Is this a common theme with the TT/MM regime (add some Dom in there too)? They seem to like fluidity in their positions.  Their three best guards (Colledge, Lang, Sitton) were tackle converts.  Cobb and Montgomery have played WR and RB.  Hyde, Randall, Bush, Woodson have played CB/S.  Jones and Burnett seem to be playing S/LB.  Matthews moves around a lot.  Datone and Neal were DL to LB converts.  Or am I just reading too much into the positional names and how the game is being played now?

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, Rodjahs12 said:

They’re going to play Randall at FS and move Peppers down closer to the line of scrimmage. Both will benefit from this immensely.

Is that on target? If so, I agree. DRs not a (good) CB (coverage-wise) and from Safety would mirror his college experience.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

Is this a common theme with the TT/MM regime (add some Dom in there too)? They seem to like fluidity in their positions.  Their three best guards (Colledge, Lang, Sitton) were tackle converts.  Cobb and Montgomery have played WR and RB.  Hyde, Randall, Bush, Woodson have played CB/S.  Jones and Burnett seem to be playing S/LB.  Matthews moves around a lot.  Datone and Neal were DL to LB converts.  Or am I just reading too much into the positional names and how the game is being played now?

No, no. Dont think you are....but coverage from Safety is a world of difference from Corner. I contend (looking back certainly.....) that we should have focused on and secured a "position sure" CB.

[northernpackfan]

4 minutes ago, jontat83 said:

I am beginning to think McCarthy the QB guru label perhaps isn't true at all.

Or that being the HC adds too many other responsibilities that preclude him from working closely enough with the QBs to really have an impact on their development.  Maybe that's why the Packers let Van Pelt walk - he had proven he wasn't able to develop Kizer.  That being said, I don't love the Cignetti hire, I'm not sure I've seen him develop anyone into anything.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, northernpackfan said:

Or that being the HC adds too many other responsibilities that preclude him from working closely enough with the QBs to really have an impact on their development.  Maybe that's why the Packers let Van Pelt walk - he had proven he wasn't able to develop Kizer.  That being said, I don't love the Cignetti hire, I'm not sure I've seen him develop anyone into anything.

Agree with this - except that I believe you were referring to Hundley.

The CBA prohibits actual - pads on - practices. They're down to a minimum. So - learning aint happening on the practice field in 7 or 7's. I think the QB Coach needs to pound the backups on film study, testing and drills on footwork and such.

[northernpackfan]

2 minutes ago, Leader said:

Agree with this - except that I believe you were referring to Hundley.

Yes I was, thanks for catching that.

[Cpdaly23]

Do you realize how much of a troublesome locker room presence you have to be to have vets on a team with super bowl aspirations recommend the release of a starting CB?  That’s the key here.  It isn’t about Randall “calling out Capers”, it’s about the BS that NOBODY on this board even knows about.

We all complained about how the team quit after Rodgers went down last year, and I think there is a very high probability that Randall was identified as a ringleader.  

Frankly, he isn’t good enough to outweigh the negative influence in the locker room, which a lot of posters here are underestimating because we don’t see it day to day.  

Read Kizer’s scouting reports pre draft last year.  He has physical tools that compared to Steve McNair, but the one knock was that he needed to sit and be developed.  This is literally the exact opposite of what the browns did.  On a potential basis, he is on another level relative to Hundley and has three years left on his rookie deal.

Throw in the move up in rounds 4 and 5, and the deal seems pretty fair to me.

[northernpackfan]

23 minutes ago, tredpack said:

I'm guessing Pettine is looking for corners with some size and tackling ability, Randall wasn't the biggest and tended to play smaller than his actual size. 

I believe the key traits Pettine is looking for in his CBs is to be strong at the LOS, and be able to turn and run with the WR after the bump, neither of which Randall can do.  In three years, he never really developed his press coverage ability, or the fluidity of his hips to turn and run with the receiver.  If he wasn't going to fit into the scheme that Pettine is going to run, I'm glad the Packers got something for him - even if it is just a backup QB and an upgrade in 3rd day picks.

Hopefully he fits in the Browns' system.  I don't have anything against the guy, I just think he was a bad fit in the new GB defense, and I truly hope for the sake of Browns' fans that Dorsey and Wolf can get things turned around.

[MacReady]

Just now, Cpdaly23 said:

Do you realize how much of a troublesome locker room presence you have to be to have vets on a team with super bowl aspirations recommend the release of a starting CB? 

For approximately the 17th time (times a billion), it's not about losing Randall.  That explains why we traded Randall, not what we got for him. 

[Chinaski_86]

1 hour ago, northernpackfan said:

Fair point, it's a plug that hopefully never needs to be used, as it requires another plug to give way before it's needed. That being said, it can be the most crucial plug, as it fills a very big hole.  Case in point, while they wouldn't have sunk as quickly as the Packers' boat did, the Eagles would not have been able to win the Super Bowl if they had Hundley as their backup QB.

The Eagles wouldn't have won it with Kizer either. That "hole" at the backup position still isn't fixed. If the Packers truly want to fix it they'll have to go and sign someone who has shown he can actually complete passes. 

[Green19]

4 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

For approximately the 17th time (times a billion), it's not about losing Randall.  That explains why we traded Randall, not what we got for him. 

They got a QB prospect they really like.

See how high those prospects go now a days? They are talking about 4-5 in the top 10 this year.... all of which aren’t Andrew Luck coming out. They all have flaws.

QB prospects cost a lot. Green Bay bought low on one they really like just a year ago.

[Rodjahs12]

Anyone who isn’t offended by the compensation we recieved for Randall isn’t being honest with themselves. Buffalo got #65 from Cleveland for a stop gap QB even they know won’t be starting for them beyond 2018. We trade them our best player at a position they’re extremely thin at (whether you want to call it FS or CB) for a couple round move ups and a throw in piece they didn’t want anyway.

[Norm]

13 hours ago, thrILL! said:

I’m not sure his 3 game stretch of INTs is enough to merit even a doubletake much less drooling.  

People got horny when there was a rumor we were being Peyton Hillis once lol. Every fa with issues but have some something good at points were all like oh man he would be good here and his issues will go away, see: Wilk thread

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Rodjahs12 said:

Anyone who isn’t offended by the compensation we recieved for Randall isn’t being honest with themselves. Buffalo got #65 from Cleveland for a stop gap QB even they know won’t be starting for them beyond 2018. We trade them our best player at a position they’re extremely thin at (whether you want to call it FS or CB) for a couple round move ups and a throw in piece they didn’t want anyway.

I mean, obviously I wanted the 4th overall pick for Randall but I'm also realistic enough to know that wasn't going to happen.  Does anyone truly believe that Gute took a "lesser" deal for Randall?  They have their reasons for trading him, so I'm going to be patient enough to watch the long game.