Jump to content

Damarious Randall traded to the Browns for DeShone Kizer


marky mark

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

A site you claim is crap and a year Randall had a groin injury, which YOU said is an impossible injury to play through as a cornerback.

And there are no underlying circumstances as to why Kizer would have a bad year as a QB, lol OK.

You just do whatever it takes to help you feel this is an awful trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyecatcher said:

Wow.  I tried to read this thread but after 20 pages of "Fire Gute" and "Gute is worse than Ted", I had to stop.   

Yes, we are blessed with some of the more prolific diaper-loaders on the internet.

 They obviously got confused on the difference between mensas and menses....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I think it's obvious I have been doing that without your permission, but thanks for the permission, mom. 

I consider myself more of your shrink right now.

You're clearly still at stage one of the five stages, and thinking you're at stage three is just more of you being at stage one. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I expect Randall to challenge for league lead in interceptions this season.  Browns are going to use him at safety and at various places in that defense, and with a #1 overall pass rusher and an influx of other talent, Randall is going to make whoever demanded he be traded look bad.  Kizer is going to be out of the league in 3 years. 

Yeah it looks like he will be a rangy safety for them.

I have a bad feeling this one might get filed under the increasingly common failure of the Packers coaching staff fitting players to a scheme, rather than fitting a scheme to their talent.

That said, the Packers return on the trade is very interesting too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Leader said:

Alright. This is as if the washing machine is stuck on constant Rinse + Repeat cycle.
I didnt say he needed to replaced - that was the organizations decision. I said they need to replace him. There's a difference.

So - thats what we're setting out to do. Not unlike many years previous. Replacing a player.

I'm not going to lie.. I'm thoroughly confused lol. But I think I get it. They knew they needed to replace him. I thought you were saying he was someone who was a player of the level that needed to replaced regardless. I follow now, I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

One All Pro went for a 4th and future 2nd, one for a 5th, we got 4th round value and a lottery ticket QB that could turn into even higher picks, or at the very least gives us 3 more years of cheap backup QB play (which allows us to save a draft pick or 5m contract on one), we got market value for Randall, the notion we didn't needs to stop.

Again, I'm not yet convinced he would play better than Hundley or that level of guy.. So that's where I'm at with it. If I thought he would definitely be a good backup who's cheap I'd feel better. If you could get someone's last year second round pick who's a QB my brain tells me we could have gotten someone else somehow that would play without injuries. The staff was high on Kizer and that's fine with me. I just wanted a different position. 

While we're on the topic of cheap QB play, so we saved some money long term, we probably (?) Now have to spend it to replace him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I'm not going to lie.. I'm thoroughly confused lol. But I think I get it. They knew they needed to replace him. I thought you were saying he was someone who was a player of the level that needed to replaced regardless. I follow now, I think.

Damn Norm....this isnt advanced calculus.

The team wanted to get rid of him - for WHATEVER reason.

He's a player - a roster spot - that NOW has to be replaced.

Btw - (this isnt really important, but.....) does anybody actually know who dialed up who first? I read after the fact reporting that supposedly chatter was going on during the Combine. Maybe CLE called to ask about the weather and threw in: "What would it take to snag DR?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leader said:

Damn Norm....this isnt advanced calculus.

The team wanted to get rid of him - for WHATEVER reason.

He's a player - a roster spot - that NOW has to be replaced.

Btw - (this isnt really important, but.....) does anybody actually know who dialed up who first? I read after the fact reporting that supposedly chatter was going on during the Combine. Maybe CLE called to ask about the weather and threw in: "What would it take to snag DR?"

 

I just read your context wrong at first. My bad there. Again, just would have rather had another position. That's all there really is to my stance, I'm cool with the rest. Even the fact that Kizer has talent I'm openly admitting.

I'd be curious how they went down as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

I expect Randall to blossom into a player better than Micah Hyde.  he's gonna be a top 50 secondary player in the next 1-2 years.

I feel like he'll continue to be a roller coaster type but he'll turn the ball over and make some plays while giving them up. Just probably more consistent, more or less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Again, I'm not yet convinced he would play better than Hundley or that level of guy.. So that's where I'm at with it. If I thought he would definitely be a good backup who's cheap I'd feel better. If you could get someone's last year second round pick who's a QB my brain tells me we could have gotten someone else somehow that would play without injuries. The staff was high on Kizer and that's fine with me. I just wanted a different position. 

While we're on the topic of cheap QB play, so we saved some money long term, we probably (?) Now have to spend it to replace him.

I doubt the market was very hot. 

I'm sure we could've tried for Shelton instead seeing as how he was traded shortly after. Maybe not getting him is a sign they like where they're at with Wilkerson? Maybe I'm reading too mch into it and they just didn't want a 2 down DL that's not as good as Daniels/Clark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I just read your context wrong at first. My bad there. Again, just would have rather had another position. That's all there really is to my stance, I'm cool with the rest. Even the fact that Kizer has talent I'm openly admitting.

I'd be curious how they went down as well.

I got it and you're right: we're cool :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Yes, we are blessed with some of the more prolific diaper-loaders on the internet.

 They obviously got confused on the difference between mensas and menses....

I'm pretty sure this is my first FF freak out. I popped my cherry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...