We would have had to trade up for McKinney in the second.
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.Originally Posted by Pugger
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote