Randall & Rollins; or Rollins & Randall ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.