Jump to content

Damarious Randall traded to the Browns for DeShone Kizer


marky mark

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Kenrik said:

Did you miss the 2nd half of last season? We do need a better backup QB. 

So why did we get a worse one? Kizer has way more potential, not convinced he's any better for 018 season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Leader said:

Pardon me? Did I violate some ethics rule because I posted somebodies Twitter feed.

Spare me the condescending comments.

I know you don't like this dude but that play with the penalty was actually a SMART play. And everyone used it against Randall and it's been debunked ages ago. It needs to be let go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just downright foolish to believe that Gutekunst didn’t hit the bid on the deal with the best return for the packers.  

What do you think is more likely- The GM of the Green Bay Packers not doing his full due diligence to maximize Randall’s trade value?

OR

a poster on this forum vastly overrating the market for an average at best slot CB who is also a perceived locker room cancer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And GB could say the same no? They got a young talent at the most important position. That is never cheap. Plus GB has him for 3 years.

Browns are renting for a year unless they redo his deal.

The compensation is in the eye of the beholder. If GB sees Kizer as a solid second round talent even in this up coming class... they just traded Randall for a second.

QB now or later... still using that “2nd” on a position most feel is stupid to use it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kepler said:

http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/43983/brett-hundley-has-competition-packers-cornerback-room-has-holes-after-trade

Read this article. Towards the bottom Demovsky references the committee of veterans advising Randall be released because he was souring the locker room. 

So MM was losing the locker room?  If it was that fragile, then Randall should have been dealt last season after a few good games to a team in the playoff hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

So why did we get a worse one? Kizer has way more potential, not convinced he's any better for 018 season

It’s not for the 2018 season.  Was Rodgers meant for the 2005 season when ted drafted him?

GMs like it or not have to look at the long game. Last year showed all in GB what life is like without Brett or Aaron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Packers fans in a tizzy over losing Randall.  This is going to be the highlight of my off-season.  The guy is marshmallow soft, and Pettine wanted no part of him, so Gute showed him the door.  I won't miss him a bit. The outrage over losing GB's "top" CB is laughable.

Wait wait wait. Banned people can like posts????!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Leader said:

Again - backup QB was a need (IMO at least) and supposedly - those who actually get paid to make these evaluations and decisions - determined that Kizer had more upside than a 4th year Hundley. As for draft picks - we did move up in both the 4th and 5th rounds.

He does have more upside.. But it's hard to convince to that if Rodgers goes down next year he's gonna help you win more games that Brett would. That's my lean anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

So MM was losing the locker room?  If it was that fragile, then Randall should have been dealt last season after a few good games to a team in the playoff hunt.

Maybe they tried. Trade deadline is end of October which is right when Randall started to turn it around (before getting in the doghouse again late in the season).

In hindsight it may have been the best time to trade him after week 7 last year, but that's with obviously huge advantage of hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, incognito_man said:

Maybe they tried. Trade deadline is end of October which is right when Randall started to turn it around (before getting in the doghouse again late in the season).

In hindsight it may have been the best time to trade him after week 7 last year, but that's with obviously huge advantage of hindsight.

Or maybe, they knew they had to wait until the offseason to revamp the position because injuries to King, Rollins and House had decimated the depth at CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cpdaly23 said:

It is just downright foolish to believe that Gutekunst didn’t hit the bid on the deal with the best return for the packers.  

What do you think is more likely- The GM of the Green Bay Packers not doing his full due diligence to maximize Randall’s trade value?

OR

a poster on this forum vastly overrating the market for an average at best slot CB who is also a perceived locker room cancer?

Probably somewhere in between the two.  Could Gute have squeezed more immediate return out of Randall?  Probably.   But I think you're selling Randall a tad short if he's an "average at best" slot CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I know you don't like this dude but that play with the penalty was actually a SMART play. And everyone used it against Randall and it's been debunked ages ago. It needs to be let go.

Dont know the dude personally, but you might consider following him on Twitter as he provides a host of good insights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Maybe they tried. Trade deadline is end of October which is right when Randall started to turn it around (before getting in the doghouse again late in the season).

In hindsight it may have been the best time to trade him after week 7 last year, but that's with obviously huge advantage of hindsight.

Except they would have gotten even less for Randall at the deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, squire12 said:

So MM was losing the locker room?  If it was that fragile, then Randall should have been dealt last season after a few good games to a team in the playoff hunt.

You mean after he threw a fit on national TV? And to that point hadn’t done anything of note that year? What would they of gotten? There wasn’t a guarantee he would play better.

At least sticking with him in a down year he increased his value for this offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...