^^^ Still, Wist could be right - over a career I could see Darby having a better run than Randall. Just saying it's too early to tell. Looks pretty close right now.
^^^ Still, Wist could be right - over a career I could see Darby having a better run than Randall. Just saying it's too early to tell. Looks pretty close right now.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
End of first round is less than a fifty-fifty proposition that they start for any appreciable time. Packers ahead of the curve there. He and Quentin Rollins Band are going to be around for awhile.Originally Posted by mraynrand
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
All true it appears. But here I'm just comparing to Darby. If you project Randall from 9 to 15 starts, he has more tackles, and twice as many interceptions. I've watched them both. Randall may be 'softer' but he covers better in man. (only two games watched for the Bills to every game for the Packers so there is a bias)
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
HOFer
I wasn't talking about Darby vs. Randall. That is irrelevant to the discussion. I was poking fun at wist's brutal scouting report on Randall, and the fact that he said he wouldn't take Randall before the 5th round.
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson
Don't think I said that... as I remember, I said there were sites that had a 5th round grade on him - one site had him as an undrafted FA. I don't like soft players, and would think that there would be a player more to my liking at just about every pick of the draft.
Look Harv, I know all you guys are homers, and you love every pick Ted makes - whether they are good or hamburger flippers is irrelevant to the fact that you all will pour accolades on to every Packer draft choice.
Philosophically, I don't agree at all with the Packer approach to defense - so naturally, I'm not going to like a lot of the players TT picks on that side of the ball simply b/c of style. They may end up being a servicable player for the style that the Packers play, but for the style of play I prefer, Ted's players simply wouldn't be a fit.
There are teams that get how to play good defense; and, there are teams that get how to play good offense - and they draft accordingly. The Packers, under TT and MM, have been all about offense, and the defense has been bad to average, with the exception of a couple of years in which TT had inherited players and actually signed a couple of key FA's, i.e. Jenkins, Woodson, and Pickett.
The rest of the time, the majority of the time TT has been here - the defense has been shit With you guys the whole time thinking you're watching something that is Lombardiesque.
Didn't know 'Lombardiesque' was a word did ya?? Well, now ya do
wist
I know you weren't. But Wist was. So I decided to address that. Feel free to poke fun at Wist
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Heh. You cannot admit you are wrong. Ever? You said he's got a better shot at flipping burgers than an NFL career. If the only corner in the entire 2015 draft better than Randall is Darby then what? Was he still a wasted first round pick? If he starts for 10 years and ends up with 45 ints is it a wasted pick?
I just gave you an explanation as to why I don't like the guy - give it a fucking rest you unnatural fucking noise.
wist
It's Randall time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeWCs2FlrU0
Boy, that kid likes to make plays. Pick six, game saving pass break up, multiple end zone picks. What a great choice, Ted! Amazing that we lay folk couldn't see what Ted and his professional scouts saw. Ted must have just gotten lucky! Amiright!?
If you read Randall's scouting report with an eye toward being a safety, I think you could see your way to soft 'n small. Doesn't really mean the same thing for a CB.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Can the majority of CBs be called "soft" due to the widespread tackling issues? What about most safties? I think we all see DBs in general decide to throw their bodies at TEs and WRs by leading with a shoulder with hopes that they will knock the guy down vs actually tacking them. Frankly, it's rare that actual tackling exists out of the front 7.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote