Results 1 to 20 of 103

Thread: Randall & Rollins; or Rollins & Randall ?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    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??
    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!

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by MadScientist View Post
    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.
    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 tempo
    Undersized 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •