Good to know Capers has wist's back.Originally Posted by mraynrand
Good to know Capers has wist's back.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
All rookies have to prove it on the field of course, but Randall was a major reach.
There was a lot of talk that other teams liked him in the 1st round, but I sure never saw it on any tape I watched, and mid-season and into the post-season he was considered a mid-late round pick.
He flashes plays when he's facing the LOS, which is most of what you see on tape b/c they had him playing S most of the time; but to project him outside?? and think he can turn and run with elite receivers in the NFL?? That is a huge leap of faith by TT and Capers.
Add to that the guy tackles like a Barbie Doll, and you have the makeup of a mid-round pick. He's going to struggle mightily at the next level, especially if they try to play him outside.
TT and Capers will never change though... tackling and forcing punts aren't as sexy as picks.
wist
I prefer turnovers to punts or tackles, but what do I know?
Who else would you have taken at that spot if not Randall? Stephone Anthony?
Was Wist right?
We would have had to trade up for McKinney in the second.
I would have taken any of those guys over Randall in the 1st... they all went shortly after our pick. Anthony went with the next pick; McKinney went 13 picks later; and Rowe went 17 picks later.
TT said they had fielded some calls about moving down, but never seriously considered it b/c they were locked in on Randall - a guy that a lot of people had moving up boards, but others still had as a mid-round pick.
Given the Packers abysmal track record of evaluating defensive talent - and miscasting players with the scheme... Randall looks like another projection-miss. Maybe not from the Packer perspective - which is one that discounts tackling and physicality; but if the guy can't play outside either - which I seriously doubt, then what was the point of taking him in the 1st round??
wist
If he can't play outside, then yes the pick was a waste. I haven't watched the tape, so I don't know how bad his tackling really is, but there are a lot of corners out there who are not known for tackling prowess. If he can cover well enough that QB's throw elsewhere and make plays on the ball when it is thrown his way. The NFL seems to be discouraging tackling receivers these days, so do what is needed to stop him from getting the ball.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
He's no HaHa, but it is not that bad. The reports I read questioning his takling were relative to him playing safety. For a corner, I think he stacks up pretty well. But you don't have to take my word for it:
nfl.com
Strengths Plus athlete with good speed. Scouts love his toughness and effort. Inspired effort as a tackler, racking up 177 tackles during two-year stint at Arizona State. Looks to punish. Explodes into targets and jolts his victims. Takes very good angles in space in run support. Instinctive blitzer who times snap and has a nose for the quarterback.
bleacherreport
In other words, Randall doesn’t have the instincts required to play safety despite racking up a number of tackles in 2014. He can often be seen missing tackles and taking bad angles as well, which often led to big plays by the opponent.
In fact, Randall doesn’t even have good recovery speed. In the game against Oregon State, he failed to catch the running back on a long run that he is largely responsible for letting happen.
In general, he is not a physical player and will do his best to keep his jersey clean. Big hits will not be a part of his repertoire and he is a major risk to be run over by bigger, more physical players in the NFL
cbssports
Plays bigger than he looks and initiates the action, seeking out contact with a violent mentality to strike through his target. Plays ticked off and sets the tempoUndersized and lacks ideal strength and bulk for the safety position. Willing tackler, but too often needs help to finish stops and can be taken for a ride. Too many ankle biting tackle attempts.
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.
I think they will both be good players, but the guy I am very excited to see is the blur from Stanford. Mark it down - we see Cobb and Stanford in the backfield at the same time this year on a few occasions. I think the Packers will make an effort to get this guy a few touches per game minimum.
Who posted that scary video of Randall covering Montgomery in a Sr Bowl practice?? Think it was a Sr Bowl practice??
Montgomery looks good eating up the cushion; Randall does a terrible job getting his hips turned and running with Montgomery - Montgomery has him beat by a mile; then Montgomery doesn't even come close to tracking the ball that was thrown over his outside shoulder, lol...
Now that was a mess of a play for both of them... can't find the video though.
wist
HOFer
Better give up on Ha-Ha then because he had his share of embarrassing moments trying to tackle last year (see Seattle game). If you just watched a handful of these on youtube, you'd think he was the worst tackler in the world. My takeaway is that Randall's a willing tackler, he goes all out on every play (he plays like his hair is on fire), he lacks bulk so he's not as good of a tackler as most safeties but for a corner he's at least willing (which is half the battle getting corners to tackle). Hard to project how good he'll be as a cover corner. He was good at coverage for a safety, but that's a long way from being a good coverage corner. I suspect he'll actually be okay for a corner at tackling, but his coverage skills will need work. On the plus side, Randall's athleticism is top notch. His speed index (40+shuttle+3 cone) was 8th out of the 62 DBs that I calculated. Rollins seems more instinctive (which is surprising for a guy who played so little in college), but he lacks Randall's athleticism. I see Rollins more like Hyde--with the potential to be a little more dynamic with his great ball skills and better leaping ability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY0QBFR49AA
"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
If it were any position other than CB or WR, I would doubt the selection. But they have no trouble picking those guys out of the heap. They know what to look for.
But that said, dissing the pick is a mug's game. 50% of all early draft picks bust. Its like predicting its going to rain this week. There is nothing unusual about it and predicting it is trivial. Of course the news would treat it like a earthquake, but by no rational definition is it rare.
Picking a ILB at that spot, with worse overall ratings, would have been a worse choice from a likelihood to bust standpoint. They don't award you extra wins at the end of the year for a pick that busted but was at a position of need. You take the player most likely to succeed.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
You guys are making ridiculous arguments. All rookies struggle to some extent - remember Reggie White tossing Larry Allen like a rag doll?? Larry Allen is in the HOF.
Clinton-Dix, as opposed to Randall on the other hand, at least had some prototypical size and speed, and did in fact show up much better on tape, and his predraft ranking was always pretty high.
Randall on the other hand - some scouts had him as a late round pick at best. And the knocks on him are legit - the guy is simply a poor tackler. He's a very, very soft tackler. Beyond that, his hips are questionable, and his make-up speed is questionable. Mid-rounds sounds about right for a guy like that.
Throw in a position change, and now you're really talking apples and oranges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for guys like McKinney and Anthony - I think they're both safer picks than Randall. I think Anthony might be more "NFL ready" than McKinney, but McKinney probably has more upside.
wist
But we've been through this before. Some scouts are wrong and the people who they claim to be late risers (and Randall was one of them) are not actually rising on team draft boards. But the reporters who double as draft scouts are finding out that teams like a player much more than the amateurs did.
NFL.com - DRAFT PROJECTION Round 2
NFL Draft Scout"Randall is what today's free safety is all about. He is by far the best cover safety in this draft. Randall can play man-to-man; he has cornerback-level cover skills. You give up some physicality, but his coverage ability is where the NFL is going. Remember Jimmie Ward was a first-rounder last year (to the 49ers) with a similar skill set." -- Mike Mayock
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS | #29
No player has flown up the board faster over the past few months than Randall, whose agility and instincts in coverage make him better suited to handing today's pass-happy offenses than Alabama's Landon Collins. For a club needing help at safety and hoping to vault past Denver and New England as the elite team in the AFC, Randall makes sense.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I read all that stuff max - I also looked at a lot of his game film. The guy is a lousy tackler, very passive in run support, has questionable hips and make-up speed. That's what is on tape.
Also on tape, he shows great anticipation, good hands, excellent ball skills - but, all of that is playing at safety, facing the LOS. Playing CB, outside, in the NFL?? His skill set and traits simply do not translate to that; and, given his deficiencies as a tackler and his lack of physicality, he probably isn't a top-flight S prospect either.
We're stuck with him - and given that they are determined to play him at corner, he's going to have to play the slot and be our nickel back. Sorry, but I want more from a 1st round draft pick than to just project him to nickel back.
wist
Good to know he isn't a late round projection then.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote