Damarious Randall traded to the Browns for DeShone Kizer

[Leader]

4 hours ago, Dubz41 said:

If you only rate CBs by interceptions? Then, yes he could play CB.  When you watch his whole tape and not just the highlights you see a very inconsistent CB.  He didn't like to tackle and he wasn't within 10 yards of a lot of opponents TDs.  He also had terrible body language on the field and made a lot of stupid plays after the whistle.  Had talent, but was incredibly immature.  Sometimes you just have to cut bait.

As far as the Kizer part of the trade; He was a rookie for the effin' Browns and he almost beat us with our 'highly trained' reserve QB who was a 3 year vet.  Relax on Kizer, he has more potential than Hundley and is heading to a better organization for development.  Give it a chance.

Damn Dubz....thats right on target. (Thumbs up emoticon here)

[skibrett15]

4 hours ago, Dubz41 said:

If you only rate CBs by interceptions? Then, yes he could play CB.  When you watch his whole tape and not just the highlights you see a very inconsistent CB.  He didn't like to tackle and he wasn't within 10 yards of a lot of opponents TDs.  He also had terrible body language on the field and made a lot of stupid plays after the whistle.  Had talent, but was incredibly immature.  Sometimes you just have to cut bait.

As far as the Kizer part of the trade; He was a rookie for the effin' Browns and he almost beat us with our 'highly trained' reserve QB who was a 3 year vet.  Relax on Kizer, he has more potential than Hundley and is heading to a better organization for development.  Give it a chance.

I'm just addressing the misconception that he was some sort of horrible fit at CB.  He was fine.

The rest of it, whatever.  people love to complain.

I know you don't ignore the rest of how a guy plays.  LIS, go watch the cleveland tape and tell me that's a bad CB.  You also don't ignore 10 INTs at a position and claim the guy can't play that position.  10 INTs in 3 years, look at his company.  Are the rest of those guys bums too?  He's somehow the only bad player in the list of high INT guys?  He must be the exception, yeah.  That makes the most sense.

[spilltray]

It's not unlike Corey Williams and Darren Sharper. Yes they made sacks and INTs but they also we're just wrong a ton. Are the big plays worth the blown plays?

[incognito_man]

17 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I'm just addressing the misconception that he was some sort of horrible fit at CB.  He was fine.

The rest of it, whatever.  people love to complain.

I know you don't ignore the rest of how a guy plays.  LIS, go watch the cleveland tape and tell me that's a bad CB.  You also don't ignore 10 INTs at a position and claim the guy can't play that position.  10 INTs in 3 years, look at his company.  Are the rest of those guys bums too?  He's somehow the only bad player in the list of high INT guys?  He must be the exception, yeah.  That makes the most sense.

INTS are flukey. Weren't you arguing during the season that Hyde's ints this past year were EXTREMELY opportunistic? Might have been someone else, but I remember all the gifs

[Dubz41]

12 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I'm just addressing the misconception that he was some sort of horrible fit at CB.  He was fine.

The rest of it, whatever.  people love to complain.

I know you don't ignore the rest of how a guy plays.  LIS, go watch the cleveland tape and tell me that's a bad CB.  You also don't ignore 10 INTs at a position and claim the guy can't play that position.  10 INTs in 3 years, look at his company.  Are the rest of those guys bums too?  He's somehow the only bad player in the list of high INT guys?  He must be the exception, yeah.  That makes the most sense.

I really wasn't looking at the rest of the guys on the list. My focus was DR and you found the only list that could get him in good company.  I admitted that he had talent, but his best plays were more 'safety' like. Tipped interceptions or acrobatic catches over the middle.  Its under the bridge now.  He's a safety for Cleveland.  And we're looking for a corner to play in a team concept.

[skibrett15]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

INTS are flukey. Weren't you arguing during the season that Hyde's ints this past year were EXTREMELY opportunistic? Might have been someone else, but I remember all the gifs

Of course.  It's just easier for the simple folk to understand when you post the INTs.

Also, they are flukey year to year, but much less so over 3 years.  Let me type this in all caps since I've posted it thrice now.

WATCH THE CLEVELAND TAPE OF RANDALL.  If not, accept that the INTs are somewhat representative of his play.

Just now, Dubz41 said:

I really wasn't looking at the rest of the guys on the list. My focus was DR and you found the only list that could get him in good company.  I admitted that he had talent, but his best plays were more 'safety' like. Tipped interceptions or acrobatic catches over the middle.  Its under the bridge now.  He's a safety for Cleveland.  And we're looking for a corner to play in a team concept.

See above.  And thanks for agreeing that he is and was a more than capable corner for GB.  PFF has him ranked in the 60-90 range, which also places him squarely in the starting CB levels in the NFL.  I get that you are fine with moving Randall, and that's not what I'm trying to argue here.  @Leader is pushing some concept that he's a FS and should be a FS on green bay and was a poor draft choice because he could only ever be a safety.  Perhaps he can be a safety, but he's proven in his career here that he's a capable CB.  And he's never shown that he can be a capable FS.

More likely is that he's gonna play slot corner for them, but we shall see.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

  @Leader is pushing some concept that he's a FS and should be a FS on green bay and was a poor draft choice because he could only ever be a safety.  Perhaps he can be a safety, but he's proven in his career here that he's a capable CB.  And he's never shown that he can be a capable FS.

Thats not accurate skilbrett but little matter to me now and its water under my bridge.

[skibrett15]

6 minutes ago, Leader said:

Thats not accurate skilbrett but little matter to me now and its water under my bridge.

I mean you as much as said it was a strange choice because he was a FS in college, and that we should have taken a pure CB instead.  Course you didn't name any names, even with the benefit of hindsight.

[Norm]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

Of course.  It's just easier for the simple folk to understand when you post the INTs.

Also, they are flukey year to year, but much less so over 3 years.  Let me type this in all caps since I've posted it thrice now.

WATCH THE CLEVELAND TAPE OF RANDALL.  If not, accept that the INTs are somewhat representative of his play.

See above.  And thanks for agreeing that he is and was a more than capable corner for GB.  PFF has him ranked in the 60-90 range, which also places him squarely in the starting CB levels in the NFL.  I get that you are fine with moving Randall, and that's not what I'm trying to argue here.  @Leader is pushing some concept that he's a FS and should be a FS on green bay and was a poor draft choice because he could only ever be a safety.  Perhaps he can be a safety, but he's proven in his career here that he's a capable CB.  And he's never shown that he can be a capable FS.

More likely is that he's gonna play slot corner for them, but we shall see.

It's been reported from their beat guy he's gonna play safety FWIW

[Joe]

2 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

It's been reported from their beat guy he's gonna play safety FWIW

https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/football/news/packers-damarious-randall-to-play-free-safety-in-cleveland/

 

There's your story. He played out of position for us, but made up for it with his ball skills. He was always better in zone than in press coverage and since, it's assumed, Pettine isn't going to play zone as much and/or desires big, physical DB's, Randall did not fit the mold. Ergo, given that and his other personal issues, he was traded. We got a QB who played poorly for a horrible team with little to no support around him as a rookie who demonstrated leadership skills down the stretch, and we made two significant leaps on day three INCLUDING moving to the first pick OF Day 3 as we did last year IIRC...

[Jaegybomb]

The picks are significant but wasn't the whole point of making a splash to try to capitalize on the Rodgers window and win now?

[Kepler]

3 hours ago, Jaegybomb said:

The picks are significant but wasn't the whole point of making a splash to try to capitalize on the Rodgers window and win now?

I'm sure it is. How can anyone know what their overall plan is based off one move? The new league year isn't even 48 hours old yet. 

[deltarich87]

Kizer will wear #9

[CWood21]

14 hours ago, Jaegybomb said:

The picks are significant but wasn't the whole point of making a splash to try to capitalize on the Rodgers window and win now?

I mean, it can be a big picture thing.  Remember, picking at the first of every round is more valuable than picking in the middle or the bottom.  I'm not saying that was the Packers' sole motivation for moving Randall, but it's a part of the trade.  The Packers now pick first on Day 3 unless they decide to move it.

[MacReady]

Second year in a row the Packers get the first pick of a day by trading with the Browns.