Randall & Rollins; or Rollins & Randall ?

[wist43]

You guys think every Packer pick is destined for the HOF - most of you guys are drunk on Green and Gold Kool-Aid, and not sober enough to take a critical look at players.

If Randall makes it as a corner, it will be b/c of his intangibles, i.e. instincts and work ethic. In terms of ability, he's average at best, with some glaring weaknesses. While he is a terrible tackler, and does take some bad angles, his backpedal and hips are just as much of a concern.

The guy simply did not play cornerback - so everything about him is a projection. Very risky 1st round pick for those reasons.

[Zool]

You guys think every Packer pick is destined for the HOF - most of you guys are drunk on Green and Gold Kool-Aid, and not sober enough to take a critical look at players.

And? You choose to try and analyze a player's weaknesses. Others like to look for positives in players.

Is either one wrong?

[3irty1]

If Randall makes it as a corner, it will be b/c of his intangibles, i.e. instincts and work ethic. In terms of ability, he's average at best, with some glaring weaknesses. While he is a terrible tackler, and does take some bad angles, his backpedal and hips are just as much of a concern.

I see you've masterfully left yourself room for a backpedal. Maybe you should coach up Randall.

[George Cumby]

You guys think every Packer pick is destined for the HOF - most of you guys are drunk on Green and Gold Kool-Aid, and not sober enough.

Point #1: ludicrous.
Point #2: Not really. From my perspective, TT has a proven successful track record and I have learned not to rush to judgement. I Don't think I'm drinking Kool aid by trusting professionals who know their business.
Point #3: probably a bunch of us.

[wist43]

I see you've masterfully left yourself room for a backpedal. Maybe you should coach up Randall.

lol... a lot of mid-late round picks make it. Shields and Williams were both undrafted, so obviously they didn't catch the scouts eye for whatever reason. Pat Lee was a 2nd round pick, and couldn't play anything but Special Teams.

For these things, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Me? I don't like soft players - Randall looks like a very soft player, with a few other negatives. He has positives too - I've mentioned his positives. If he were a mid-round pick I wouldn't be bitching, but he was a 1st round pick.

[wist43]

And? You choose to try and analyze a player's weaknesses. Others like to look for positives in players.

Is either one wrong?

If a guy is in a wheelchair, but has great hands - does the negative of his not being able to run outweigh his great hands??

Just depends - who was that LB about 10 years back, who had HOF physical ability, but couldn't think his way out of a parking lot?? Torrence Marshall?? 3rd round pick, and everyone could see the physical ability, but the negative was that he was dumb as a rock - another Special Teamer.

[Patler]

You guys think every Packer pick is destined for the HOF - most of you guys are drunk on Green and Gold Kool-Aid, and not sober enough to take a critical look at players.

If Randall makes it as a corner, it will be b/c of his intangibles, i.e. instincts and work ethic. In terms of ability, he's average at best, with some glaring weaknesses. While he is a terrible tackler, and does take some bad angles, his backpedal and hips are just as much of a concern.

The guy simply did not play cornerback - so everything about him is a projection. Very risky 1st round pick for those reasons.

But aren't you very much the opposite? You basically dislike almost everyone the Packers pick. The year Favre left, you assured us that Aaron Rodgers would never be good enough to carry the team or lead them to the Super Bowl. The only draft picks I can recall you liking were Brohm (mostly because you thought so little of Rodgers, not that you were so high on Brohm) and Abdul Hodge, who you said made the 2006 draft a success. You may have liked others, but I sure don't recall any.

I like everyone the Packers pick, not because I think they are headed to the HOF, but because they each have some attribute or unique characteristic that cause them to be drafted. A 300 pound lineman that was the gunner on his punt team, the small college player who has exceptional size for a wide receiver and is blazingly fast, the player who has kept a detailed notebook from every team practice he has participated in because ultimately he wants to coach. The running back who has ambitions of being the mayor of Los Angeles, the lineman who toiled anonymously yet successfully on teams that were not very good, the undisciplined quarterback with a rocket arm, the DB who played mostly basketball or baseball or wide receiver or quarterback but showed promise in limited exposure on defense. I know most will have very brief professional careers, even fewer will make an impact. But they all are interesting to follow, to see which will be a BJ Coleman, which an Alan Barbre, which a Sam Shields and once in a great while, a Willie Wood.

[wist43]

I don't dislike most Packer picks - some I liked a lot, but didn't think they'd be a good fit, and as often as not, that has proven to be true.

I like the Raji pick a lot - he was fine until they started misusing him. Perry? Thought he never belonged at OLB, and he said he didn't want to play OLB; other guys that I've liked, that I wanted the Packers to draft, but they didn't, went to other teams and performed very well.

Still others - I didn't like the Greg Jennings pick initially, but after seeing him run routes live in minicamp I knew right then that he would be a player; I immediately reversed course and endorsed Jennings; and so it goes...

One of the reasons I'm more negative on some of our players though is b/c of the style of play the Packers prefer, i.e. finesse. The OL is finesse, and our DB's tend to be finesse players. Add to that the fact that Capers undermans his defensive fronts, and you have a recipe for getting run over - which to me, there is no excuse for. If you can't stop the run, you're going to struggle mightily on defense - and of course we haven't been able to stop the run, and we've struggled for years on defense.

Still, we have a good team - we're close, we could very well win the SB this year; but it is going to depend on rookie corners, and MM and Capers not coaching scared.

We'll see.

[Zool]

If a guy is in a wheelchair, but has great hands - does the negative of his not being able to run outweigh his great hands??

Just depends - who was that LB about 10 years back, who had HOF physical ability, but couldn't think his way out of a parking lot?? Torrence Marshall?? 3rd round pick, and everyone could see the physical ability, but the negative was that he was dumb as a rock - another Special Teamer.

Guy looks average at best in college. Rarely gets a start. Barely gets drafted. Does nothing outstanding on tape. Measurable's are all average. Becomes Tom Brady. Let people be happy and upbeat for fucks sake.

[MadScientist]

I don't dislike most Packer picks - some I liked a lot, but didn't think they'd be a good fit, and as often as not, that has proven to be true.

I like the Raji pick a lot - he was fine until they started misusing him. Perry? Thought he never belonged at OLB, and he said he didn't want to play OLB; other guys that I've liked, that I wanted the Packers to draft, but they didn't, went to other teams and performed very well.

Still others - I didn't like the Greg Jennings pick initially, but after seeing him run routes live in minicamp I knew right then that he would be a player; I immediately reversed course and endorsed Jennings; and so it goes...

One of the reasons I'm more negative on some of our players though is b/c of the style of play the Packers prefer, i.e. finesse. The OL is finesse, and our DB's tend to be finesse players. Add to that the fact that Capers undermans his defensive fronts, and you have a recipe for getting run over - which to me, there is no excuse for. If you can't stop the run, you're going to struggle mightily on defense - and of course we haven't been able to stop the run, and we've struggled for years on defense.

Still, we have a good team - we're close, we could very well win the SB this year; but it is going to depend on rookie corners, and MM and Capers not coaching scared.

We'll see.

Your criticisms of Peri were spot on, but some of the most critical things you said about Randall (backpedal, hips) are different than what some of the scouts have said http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...302087691.html

The biggest issues besides so-so tackling are that he doesn't know the position as well as you would expect from a 1st rounder (onus on coaches here), and that he is short, especially given who he may be up against. Also since Hayward is not a sure thing, it would have been nice to pick up a couple of guys with a higher chance of being decent, instead of hit-or-miss types. At this point I don't love or hate these two picks, and hopefully, starting next week, the needle will start pushing toward love 'em.

I don't see the OL as finesse, they have just started every season incompetently shitty, which could be mistaken for finesse. Defense is geared to stopping the pass first, and generating turn overs, which makes it more finesse. No team is good enough to win if the pass is shut down, just ask the Vikings. The game and the rule changes are pushing the game this way. Even so-so tackling by diving for legs fits in with this because those tackles are less likely to lead to concussions and suspensions.

[pbmax]

Nick Perry would not rush the passer better if he was a DE. Do you maniacs actually think he suddenly becomes Richard Dent with a finger in the dirt?

One other thing to consider. Randall was not a safety coming into ASU. His coaches asked him to move when he came in as a JUCO. Watching his safety film is watching him out of position from the standpoint of his experience and his job with the Packers.

[sharpe1027]

I don't dislike most Packer picks - some I liked a lot, but didn't think they'd be a good fit, and as often as not, that has proven to be true.

Iits not that you don't like the pick, you just don't like the pick for the Packers? I don't think most people would split hairs this way. If you don't like the player for the team that selected them, then you don't like the pick. Anyway, I think this horse is dead.

[wist43]

Iits not that you don't like the pick, you just don't like the pick for the Packers? I don't think most people would split hairs this way. If you don't like the player for the team that selected them, then you don't like the pick. Anyway, I think this horse is dead.

Not being a fit for the defense has been a long-standing criticism of TT. They've changed the base a bit, so some of these guys fit a little better, but Perry wasn't a fit, Jones wasn't a fit, even Daniels and Raji weren't good fits.

Since MM forced Capers to go to an Elephant/hybrid, there is more of a role for those guys, but when they were drafted, and how they were initially used - no, they were not good picks b/c they weren't good fits. That is almost all entirely on Capers - and TT didn't help the situation by taking guys that were better fits for other schemes. It's as if TT and Capers weren't on the same page.

That said, Capers had quite a bit of talent in the front seven in '13 and 14 - he completely sucked it up in '13, and '12 was a complete bust b/c he insisted on playing that idiotic "Jumbo 2-4" 75% of the time.

As for DB's, I do place more of a value on solid tackling and toughness - the Packers care little about it. Every year MM has to fend off the media b/c they are constantly on his ass about, "... what are you going to do about the poor tackling"; and every year MM says, "... we're going to get that cleaned up", lol...

It is what it is.

[wootah]

[...]

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.

Sweet post and your username makes it even sweeter. Repped.

[Joemailman]

The Packers best defense under Capers was in 2010. They were 2nd in the NFL in points allowed. This despite the fact that their rushing defense was 18th, and their rushing YPC was 31st. On the other hand, they were 5th in passing yards allowed, and 2nd in interceptions. Since the loss of Collins and Woodson, they haven't been as good of a ballhawking defense. With the drafting of Randall, Rollins, HHCD, Goodson and Hayward in recent years, TT is trying to get back to what he had in 2009-2010. It's not what Wist wants, but is what won them a Super Bowl.

[wist43]

The Packers best defense under Capers was in 2010. They were 2nd in the NFL in points allowed. This despite the fact that their rushing defense was 18th, and their rushing YPC was 31st. On the other hand, they were 5th in passing yards allowed, and 2nd in interceptions. Since the loss of Collins and Woodson, they haven't been as good of a ballhawking defense. With the drafting of Randall, Rollins, HHCD, Goodson and Hayward in recent years, TT is trying to get back to what he had in 2009-2010. It's not what Wist wants, but is what won them a Super Bowl.

Collins and Woodson were both physical DB's and solid tacklers. Woodson was a coach on the field, and Collins was one of the fastest players in the NFL - enough talent that even spraypaintedhair couldn't fuck it up.

Last year, spraypaintedhair had the best set of DB's since the '10 season, the only real soft spot being HHCD, but only b/c he was a rookie. He was exposed a few times, but that is expected of a rookie. Now Williams and House are gone - so the outside is a huge question mark.

I like Hayward, I like Hyde, I like Rollins, and I think Goodson has tools - but can any of them play outside?? I don't think Randall can survive out there. So we'll see.

[sharpe1027]

The Packers best defense under Capers was in 2010. They were 2nd in the NFL in points allowed. This despite the fact that their rushing defense was 18th, and their rushing YPC was 31st. On the other hand, they were 5th in passing yards allowed, and 2nd in interceptions. Since the loss of Collins and Woodson, they haven't been as good of a ballhawking defense. With the drafting of Randall, Rollins, HHCD, Goodson and Hayward in recent years, TT is trying to get back to what he had in 2009-2010. It's not what Wist wants, but is what won them a Super Bowl.

One could argue 2010 roster was no more physical than this year's roster. I would suggest, however, that there is no meaningful way to measure how "physical" a team is and that it is not worth arguing about. It can be used as a broad talking point, but it is to abstract to be much more than that.

[MadScientist]

Nick Perry would not rush the passer better if he was a DE. Do you maniacs actually think he suddenly becomes Richard Dent with a finger in the dirt?

He came in with the attitude of not wanting to play OLB and not wanting to reduce his weight after bulking up to be a 4-3 DE. Limiting his responsibilities to DE (fewer keys, no pass coverage) and not fighting his attitude probably would have helped. Not enough to make him Richard Dent, but at least better than the Arthur Dent the Packers got his first year.

I've not heard anything negative about Randall's attitude at all. Questions are can he learn the position fast enough and can he overcome the size difference against some of the taller receivers.

[pbmax]

He rarely is played in coverage. And we have been over and over his comments before the draft (prefer to be DE) and his weight, which the team said it was OK about.

He needs another pass rushing move, not a position change.

[3irty1]

The Packers best defense under Capers was in 2010. They were 2nd in the NFL in points allowed. This despite the fact that their rushing defense was 18th, and their rushing YPC was 31st. On the other hand, they were 5th in passing yards allowed, and 2nd in interceptions. Since the loss of Collins and Woodson, they haven't been as good of a ballhawking defense. With the drafting of Randall, Rollins, HHCD, Goodson and Hayward in recent years, TT is trying to get back to what he had in 2009-2010. It's not what Wist wants, but is what won them a Super Bowl.

The Packers were great against the run when they needed to be in 2010. It was still a huge strength of the team left over from 2009. The reason they were 18th in 2010 was because they stayed in nickle all the time precisely to leverage their advantage as a run defense.