Randall & Rollins; or Rollins & Randall ?

[wist43]

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
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.

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.

[pbmax]

Good to know he isn't a late round projection then.

[wist43]

Good to know he isn't a late round projection then.

I would have had him as mid-round pick - but for the style of play I prefer, I wouldn't have even had him on my draft board.

I simply do not like, weak tackling, timid football players - and that pretty much sums up Randall. Of course for TT and Capers, those traits are at the top of their list apparently - it is why every year we have "clean up" that tackling thingy

[sharpe1027]

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

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?
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.

[wist43]

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?
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.

[wist43]

Vince posted this in the Randall draft thread... I'll repost all of them - the Oregon State game is probably the worst, and he had a pick in that game.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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.

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.

[sharpe1027]

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.

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.

[Zool]

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.

This begs the question. Do you think your rate would be higher than .500?

[wist43]

This begs the question. Do you think your rate would be higher than .500?

Probably about the same in terms of percentage - just like the armchair pickers that write the predraft magazines. Their mock drafts are taking from the same pool of guys that get drafted... so out of 256 or so guys, what number are going to be that much different than the actual players that get drafted?? 50-60?? And of those 50-60, the real draft may have some of those guys are signable FA's and vise versa. It's not as if there is an infinite number of players to choose from.

So that being the case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - and especially in the case of the Packers, b/c they tend to draft finesse players... physicality and tackling are secondary concerns to other traits.

[sharpe1027]

Wist, it sounds like you are not happy because you think the Packer's do not use tackling as a primary consideration for evaluating a CB. Do you think that tackling should be a primary consideration for a CB?

Regardless, you have not convinced me that Rollins is "terrible, terrible" at tackling, especially for a CB. I just don't see it.

[Patler]

Randall looks like he will be a more willing and better tackler than TW was for most of his career, especially the last few seasons. TW was "good enough" for a CB, so I don't see it as a problem for Randall.

I am much more concerned about whether Randall's cover skills will be good enough to play corner.

[Zool]

Shields would shy away from tackling a stack of pillows. Are there really very many CBs starting in the NFL who most would consider strong tacklers? I ask because I have no idea.

[wist43]

Wist, it sounds like you are not happy because you think the Packer's do not use tackling as a primary consideration for evaluating a CB. Do you think that tackling should be a primary consideration for a CB?

Regardless, you have not convinced me that Rollins is "terrible, terrible" at tackling, especially for a CB. I just don't see it.

Rollins isn't a terrible tackler - Randall is

As for CB traits - no, tackling is not #1 on my list, coverage ability is; but Randall played predominately at Safety, facing the LOS, and didn't have to demonstrate CB skills.

Coverage ability encompasses a few critical traits that a player either has to have, or he has to find a way to work around that shortcoming.

Backpedal, hips, speed, recovery speed, overall technique (pressing the sideline, etc), playing the ball, anticipation and instincts... I'd put all those traits above tackling - BUT...

I think Randall has a very average backpedal and average hips; he has decent speed, but he looks like a one-gear runner; he shows decent technique when he's in position downfield, but he got into that position from deep safety, not CB; when I did see him take a guy off the LOS, he was slow to react, slow to flip his hips, etc (look at that footage that someone posted of him covering Montgomery - which I can find, lol... )

Throw in those things with his poor tackling, and general lack of physicality - and I don't think he's a 1st rounder.

[wist43]

Randall looks like he will be a more willing and better tackler than TW was for most of his career, especially the last few seasons. TW was "good enough" for a CB, so I don't see it as a problem for Randall.

I am much more concerned about whether Randall's cover skills will be good enough to play corner.

Williams was an excellent cover corner - so you can live with his sheepish tackling. The jury is very much out on Randall and his coverage skills - he's a projection for that; if he is average in coverage, and substandard as tackler and back-end defender in general - then we wasted a 1st round pick.

If he proves to be TW clone - I'd take that in a heartbeat, but I surely haven't seen anything that would indicate he has that kind speed and coverage ability.

[sharpe1027]

Rollins isn't a terrible tackler - Randall is

As for CB traits - no, tackling is not #1 on my list, coverage ability is; but Randall played predominately at Safety, facing the LOS, and didn't have to demonstrate CB skills.

Coverage ability encompasses a few critical traits that a player either has to have, or he has to find a way to work around that shortcoming.

Backpedal, hips, speed, recovery speed, overall technique (pressing the sideline, etc), playing the ball, anticipation and instincts... I'd put all those traits above tackling - BUT...

I think Randall has a very average backpedal and average hips; he has decent speed, but he looks like a one-gear runner; he shows decent technique when he's in position downfield, but he got into that position from deep safety, not CB; when I did see him take a guy off the LOS, he was slow to react, slow to flip his hips, etc (look at that footage that someone posted of him covering Montgomery - which I can find, lol... )

Throw in those things with his poor tackling, and general lack of physicality - and I don't think he's a 1st rounder.

I just fell victim to the Patler confusion factor (TM) on their names! I think this is a much more reasonable analysis than where the conversation started. He hasn't played CB in awhile, but I bet the Packers dug up some video on him from the last time he did. The stuff I watched on him, he seemed good at making adjustments anytime the ball was thrown in his area. I think could make some plays, so long as his negatives aren't so bad they keep him off the field.

[King Friday]

Ability to play the ball in the air is far and away the trait you choose to covet for any DB in the modern NFL. Tackling is not something that would be a major red flag, and I don't see anything on the film that suggests he couldn't learn how to become a better tackler. He's from the Pac 10 for crying out loud...what do you expect? They aren't even aware that defense exists...they think the 11 guys out there when the other team has the ball is the special teams.

[Patler]

Williams was an excellent cover corner - so you can live with his sheepish tackling. The jury is very much out on Randall and his coverage skills - he's a projection for that; if he is average in coverage, and substandard as tackler and back-end defender in general - then we wasted a 1st round pick.

If he proves to be TW clone - I'd take that in a heartbeat, but I surely haven't seen anything that would indicate he has that kind speed and coverage ability.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Randall is sheepish about tackling, which is why I think he should be a better tackler than TW. However, poor tackling isn't less of a liability if he is better in coverage. It is what it is regardless of coverage skills. Ultimately, his playing time will be determined by his coverage skills, not his tackling ability, assuming, of course he doesn't turn the other way and run away form ball carriers.

[RashanGary]

When I read the things about Damarious Randall, after the pick, I was excited. The guy is fast, explosive, fluid, aggressive, best cover skills at the safety position (so it doesn't sound like a total reach for the Packers to think he can play corner,) excellent ball skills, student of the game, instinctive, tackles well enough, but not a great tackler.....

Wist has done an excellent job mentioning and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating his one weakness. And lets remember, there are a handful of excellent tackling corners in the NFL, but for the most part, cornerbacks are your least effective tacklers in the back 7. Same way offensive lineman are your least elusive players on the offensive side of the ball.

Anyone judging Damarious Randall with too much weight tilted toward Wist's assertion that he's a terrible tackler and a waste of a pick should be pleasantly surprised. If you sift through the information available, all indications are that this guy is a football player. He does everything well from his position, except tackling, which all I've read is that he's a below average tackling safety, which suggests he's an average tackler at CB.

When I look at players coming out of college into the NFL, I tend to weigh out a few things. 1st, how well do they play their position. If an OL is talked about as an excellent, consistent blocker, I tend to expect more from that player. If a player is excellent at catching the football, running routes, being on the same page as his QB and running after the catch, I tend to expect more from him as a WR. Bahktiari was one of those guys, you read about him just being a fantastic blocker. I thought, shit, this guy is really good at blocking. We need that. Well, in the spirit of looking at how well players play football, that's what we have here. We have a defensive back who can really play. I like players who play football really well, so I like Damarious Randall's chances. And then I look at athletic ability. If you have an excellent football player who is also an excellent athlete, I'm even more excited. Randall is also an excellent athlete. As I read into him, I became even more excited with his combination of skill and athleticism. The last thing I tend to read into is character/work ethic/leadership, etc. . . . Randall is also a really good guy. He works his butt off, wants to be good and loves playing.

When I sift through the mountains of information available during and after NFL drafts, the way I view players has evolved over the years. There just isn't enough information on some players and you get surprises all of the time. But once in a while there is a guy who's sort of shown it all and I feel pretty confident they'll be good in the NFL. Bahktiari, Sitton, Davante Adams and now Damarious Randall are examples of this kind of draft prospect.

I'll bet this guy rips it the fuck up. All signs point to Damarious Randall being a ball-hawking super-athlete from the corner position. He doesn't tackle as well as some safeties, but tackles as well as most corners. My money is on this guy shocking the shit out of a lot of people, Wist being at the top of that list.

[George Cumby]

Great post, Justin. Well thought out and articulated. Odd for the Internet ��