IMO McKinney in the first would have been a much bigger reach than Randall ever was. I wanted Anthony in that spot.Originally Posted by wist43
IMO McKinney in the first would have been a much bigger reach than Randall ever was. I wanted Anthony in that spot.
We'll see... the knock on McKinney was, as I remember, instincts. There isn't any doubt about his physical ability.
Randall on the other hand, is a huge projection to the outside, and his terrible tackling and angles shows up on film all the time. Someone posted that there were scouts that said he was a "hitter" and a good tackler... can't imagine what they were looking at, unless it was just at the number of "tackles" he was credited for. A lot of his tackles were where he was hanging on and waiting for help, or he was the nearest defender that escorted someone out of bounds.
As for making an open field tackle, or making jarring hits?? That sure as heckfire isn't Randall. Like I said, I thought he was a mid-round pick. Go on youtube and watch some of his games... it's on the tape.
wist
Ahh, yes. The youtube clip analysis by fans always ends the forum discussions. Case closed.
You can watch every defensive snap of a some games if you want.
If you can't see a "missed tackle", or that a player took a bad angle, or that he is timid, or that he avoids contact, etc - then I would ask - as a fan and observer of the game, what the hell are you actually looking at while these crimes are taking place on the field??
Seriously, how freaking hard is it to watch some tape, especially when someone was kind enough to post the video with a highlight/isolation on the guy you're evaluating?? It's like having your own Quality Control dept in charge of getting evaluation tape ready for you.
Watch it, make up your own mind, and give a take - then we can actually have an intelligent debate about the subject
wist
The thing is, people that do this for a living already watched tape and disagree with you. Why would my opinion carry any more weight?You can watch every defensive snap of a some games if you want.
If you can't see a "missed tackle", or that a player took a bad angle, or that he is timid, or that he avoids contact, etc - then I would ask - as a fan and observer of the game, what the hell are you actually looking at while these crimes are taking place on the field??
Seriously, how freaking hard is it to watch some tape, especially when someone was kind enough to post the video with a highlight/isolation on the guy you're evaluating?? It's like having your own Quality Control dept in charge of getting evaluation tape ready for you.
Watch it, make up your own mind, and give a take - then we can actually have an intelligent debate about the subject
Here it is, just the same.
He makes bad angles sometimes, but is willing to put himself in harms way. If he plays CB, he will be better than a lot of CBs. If he plays safety, I would be worried. That being said, I don't pretend to be qualified to really stack his abilities up against other players in the draft.
I trust my own eye as much as anyone else's in most instances - you have to remember, that for the guys making these calls, batting .500 is a pretty good average. A lot of these players will bust - and GM's and scouts will be fired. It's how the business works.
That said, it doesn't take a scout see that a guy isn't physical, or that his misses tackles - if a team, i.e. the GM and scouts think the guy's positives outweigh his negatives, and think they can correct the negatives, they may give the guy a higher grade. A lot of it is preference of style and scheme.
The Packers historically like DB's with better balls skills, and physicality and tackling don't matter as much; hence, it makes sense that they would give a guy like Randall a higher grade than most. The Packers are a finesse team - I happen to hate that style of play, especially on defense, but it is what it is.
I'm much higher on Rollins, who is the antithesis of Randall. While Randall would rather stand back and watch others make the tackle, Rollins is a tough and sure tackler - so taking both of them back to back is a bit of head scratcher.
I think Randall has a very tough transition in front of him. He played facing the LOS, his back pedal is questionable, his hips are questionable, and his make up speed is questionable. He probably would be better at Safety, but then his poor tackling and lack of physicality would show up more. I think he's going to struggle more than Rollins, even though Rollins is much more inexperienced.
wist
HOFer
Randall led his team with 106 tackles--which was 6th in the Pac 12 and 2nd among DBs. I would not describe his play as somebody who stands back and watches others tackle (i.e. unwilling to tackle). He isn't a good tackler for a safety. That's not surprising for his size. I'm guessing he'll be adequate. He's at least willing--unlike Sam Shields in the early part of his career and Tramon Williams at times in his career. His size and over-aggressiveness gets him in trouble at times. Rollins has better ball skills and he's a sure tackler, but he also has below average speed and leaping ability. As an overall athlete, Rollins is similar to Micah Hyde and Patrick Lee. As an overall athlete, Randall is similar to Casey Hayward (5'11" 196, 4.46, 4.07, 6.83, 38", 120" for Randall vs. 5'11" 192, 4.47, 3.90, 6.76, 34", 119" for Hayward).
There is a lot of projection to his game though. There are things to like about him, but it reminds me a bit of Carl Bradford coming out of ASU. What he was good at while playing at ASU won't necessarily translate to his new position in the NFL. There's not a lot of film showing the traits he'll need at his new position in the NFL. With Bradford that only cost a 4th round pick. With Randall it costs a 1st round pick. I wouldn't be surprised if Rollins is better. Of course, we'll see what Thompson gets out of this draft in total. That usually ends up being better than his results in the first round only.
Last edited by HarveyWallbangers; 07-27-2015 at 01:00 AM.
"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
Oh, I know the likelihood of them getting it right is not that high.
Also, nobody said he was physical or that he didn't miss tackles, in fact, everyone is pretty much in agreement on those points. What you said was "he can't tackle - just a terrible, terrible tackler."
What I said was "He's no HaHa, but it is not that bad."
I think you overstated his weakness. He is not "terrible, terrible" by any stretch of the imagination.
This begs the question. Do you think your rate would be higher than .500?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote