Randall & Rollins; or Rollins & Randall ?

[Patler]

I've not usually had this problem. Try as much as I can, I still can't keep these two straight in my mind. I remember their "stories", but can't keep straight which name goes with which story.

Can anyone help me out?

[SkinBasket]

I decided not to care until after the preseason. As I get older I have less and less room for information which may or may not be of use to me. Sorry that doesn't help. Rollins looks like he could be Randall's dad, and he carries the Bush Burden of 24. Randall is 23 and looks like he walked out of Boyz in the Hood.

[sharpe1027]

new-alzheimers-drugs-offer-exciting-possibilities (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/aging/new-alzheimers-drugs-offer-exciting-possibilities-n396431)

[pbmax]

Damarious Randall - 1st round - was college safety, attended a JUCO [from ASU]

Quinten Rollins - 2nd Round - was basketball player and started in just one year of major college football [Miami(Ohio)]

[pbmax]

I decided not to care until after the preseason. As I get older I have less and less room for information which may or may not be of use to me. Sorry that doesn't help. Rollins looks like he could be Randall's dad, and he carries the Bush Burden of 24. Randall is 23 and looks like he walked out of Boyz in the Hood.

House Party?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/House_Party_1990_Movie_Poster.jpg


http://www.arizonasports.com/emedia/apimage/ap_74d9b74d9d8eeb14750f6a706700c1c9.jpg?filter=myn w/620x370_cropped

[Patler]

Damarious Randall - 1st round - was college safety, attended a JUCO [from ASU]

Quinten Rollins - 2nd Round - was basketball player and started in just one year of major college football [Miami(Ohio)]

Or is it:

Quinten Rollins - 1st round - was college safety, attended a JUCO [from ASU]

Damarious Randall - 2nd Round - was basketball player and started in just one year of major college football [Miami(Ohio)]

or maybe it it is Quinten Randall and Damarious Rollins???? :-)

[Patler]

new-alzheimers-drugs-offer-exciting-possibilities (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/aging/new-alzheimers-drugs-offer-exciting-possibilities-n396431)

Not funny to an old guy!! :lol: :lol:

[KYPack]

I decided not to care until after the preseason. As I get older I have less and less room for information which may or may not be of use to me. Sorry that doesn't help. Rollins looks like he could be Randall's dad, and he carries the Bush Burden of 24. Randall is 23 and looks like he walked out of Boyz in the Hood.

I have also adopted your strategy.

I don't care about the draft until I see our young'uns in uniforms playing pre-season games. The Sherrod experience has tempered my views of rookies.

[mraynrand]

I've not usually had this problem. Try as much as I can, I still can't keep these two straight in my mind. I remember their "stories", but can't keep straight which name goes with which story.

Can anyone help me out?

Randall Cobb? Tree Rollins? Did Cobb bite Tree or was it the other way around?

[Freak Out]

Damarious Randall - 1st round - was college safety, attended a JUCO [from ASU]

Quinten Rollins - 2nd Round - was basketball player and started in just one year of major college football [Miami(Ohio)]

Wasn't the new "Batman" a one year wonder on the field after transferring from another sport at Arkansas? Fucking Grabby Smurf....lol

[esoxx]

I've not usually had this problem. Try as much as I can, I still can't keep these two straight in my mind. I remember their "stories", but can't keep straight which name goes with which story.

Can anyone help me out?

Have rhe same problem. They do seem to all look alike.

[pbmax]

Wasn't the new "Batman" a one year wonder on the field after transferring from another sport at Arkansas? Fucking Grabby Smurf....lol

Randall played BBall too, but Rollins was on scholarship at Miami as a Point Guard.

Now get some R&R.

[sharpe1027]

Not funny to an old guy!! :lol: :lol:

Sorry for the low blow! I couldn't resist (poor impulse control).

[pbmax]

Sorry for the low blow! I couldn't resist (poor impulse control).

I think Rand can recommend something for that.

[wist43]

Randall is the guy you will be noticing missing a lot of tackles and getting burned.

Rollins is the more physically talented, less experienced guy that everyone will be saying should be on the field instead Randall.

Does that help??

[mraynrand]

Randall is the guy you will be noticing missing a lot of tackles and getting burned.

Rollins is the more physically talented, less experienced guy that everyone will be saying should be on the field instead Randall.

Does that help??

Rollins already has the upper hand according to SPH. Will see playing time at slot behind Hyde.

[SkinBasket]

House Party?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/House_Party_1990_Movie_Poster.jpg

Good call. It is funny that the second recommended google image search for "Damarious Randall packers" is "Quinten Rollins."

[mraynrand]

I think Rand can recommend something for that.

I only recommend ritalin (ryetalyn) to cure Rigelian fever.

[pbmax]

Good call. It is funny that the second recommended google image search for "Damarious Randall packers" is "Quinten Rollins."

And for both of them, half the pictures are wrong. At least it wasn't three CBs this time.

[pbmax]

Rollins already has the upper hand according to SPH. Will see playing time at slot behind Hyde.

Good to know Capers has wist's back.

[wist43]

Good to know Capers has wist's back.

All rookies have to prove it on the field of course, but Randall was a major reach.

There was a lot of talk that other teams liked him in the 1st round, but I sure never saw it on any tape I watched, and mid-season and into the post-season he was considered a mid-late round pick.

He flashes plays when he's facing the LOS, which is most of what you see on tape b/c they had him playing S most of the time; but to project him outside?? and think he can turn and run with elite receivers in the NFL?? That is a huge leap of faith by TT and Capers.

Add to that the guy tackles like a Barbie Doll, and you have the makeup of a mid-round pick. He's going to struggle mightily at the next level, especially if they try to play him outside.

TT and Capers will never change though... tackling and forcing punts aren't as sexy as picks.

[sharpe1027]

TT and Capers will never change though... tackling and forcing punts aren't as sexy as picks.

I prefer turnovers to punts or tackles, but what do I know?

[Fritz]

Damarious Randall - 1st round - was college safety, attended a JUCO [from ASU]

Quinten Rollins - 2nd Round - was basketball player and started in just one year of major college football [Miami(Ohio)]


Wait, I thought that was Dmitri Goodson.

[Pugger]

All rookies have to prove it on the field of course, but Randall was a major reach.

There was a lot of talk that other teams liked him in the 1st round, but I sure never saw it on any tape I watched, and mid-season and into the post-season he was considered a mid-late round pick.

He flashes plays when he's facing the LOS, which is most of what you see on tape b/c they had him playing S most of the time; but to project him outside?? and think he can turn and run with elite receivers in the NFL?? That is a huge leap of faith by TT and Capers.

Add to that the guy tackles like a Barbie Doll, and you have the makeup of a mid-round pick. He's going to struggle mightily at the next level, especially if they try to play him outside.

TT and Capers will never change though... tackling and forcing punts aren't as sexy as picks.

Who else would you have taken at that spot if not Randall? Stephone Anthony?

[wist43]

Who else would you have taken at that spot if not Randall? Stephone Anthony?

Anthony would have been much better than Randall - just about any of the options available at positions of need would have been better than Randall. He is not a natural corner, and he certainly isn't very well suited to play outside; and as everyone has mentioned, he can't tackle - just a terrible, terrible tackler.

Anthony, I like McKinney a lot - and as for corners, I certainly like Rowe a hell of a lot more than Randall.

I see Randall as a mid-round player - he simply has too many deficiencies to be a 1st rounder. He does have the one thing that TT and Capers value though - good hands and decent ball skills.

So if he gives up a TD and 2 FG's per game b/c of missed tackles and bad angles, not to mention all of the extra run yardage he allows - do the 5 picks he has per year balance that??

[wist43]

I prefer turnovers to punts or tackles, but what do I know?

Well, you've certainly been getting what you want, that's for sure - at least in terms of poor tackling and not being able to get off the field.

We annually have one of the worst run defenses in the league, and we're known for being a soft, poor tackling team.

[Pugger]

We would have had to trade up for McKinney in the second.

[wist43]

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.

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??

[MadScientist]

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.

[Pugger]

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??

IMO McKinney in the first would have been a much bigger reach than Randall ever was. I wanted Anthony in that spot.

[sharpe1027]

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 (http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/damarious-randall?id=2552389)

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 (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2441708-despite-recent-hype-damarious-randall-is-not-2015-nfl-drafts-top-safety-prospe)

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 (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2061049/damarious-randall)

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.

[call_me_ishmael]

I think they will both be good players, but the guy I am very excited to see is the blur from Stanford. Mark it down - we see Cobb and Stanford in the backfield at the same time this year on a few occasions. I think the Packers will make an effort to get this guy a few touches per game minimum.

[wist43]

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.

[wist43]

Who posted that scary video of Randall covering Montgomery in a Sr Bowl practice?? Think it was a Sr Bowl practice??

Montgomery looks good eating up the cushion; Randall does a terrible job getting his hips turned and running with Montgomery - Montgomery has him beat by a mile; then Montgomery doesn't even come close to tracking the ball that was thrown over his outside shoulder, lol...

Now that was a mess of a play for both of them... can't find the video though.

[sharpe1027]

Go on youtube and watch some of his games... it's on the tape.

Ahh, yes. The youtube clip analysis by fans always ends the forum discussions. Case closed.

[wist43]

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 ;)

[HarveyWallbangers]

Better give up on Ha-Ha then because he had his share of embarrassing moments trying to tackle last year (see Seattle game). If you just watched a handful of these on youtube, you'd think he was the worst tackler in the world. My takeaway is that Randall's a willing tackler, he goes all out on every play (he plays like his hair is on fire), he lacks bulk so he's not as good of a tackler as most safeties but for a corner he's at least willing (which is half the battle getting corners to tackle). Hard to project how good he'll be as a cover corner. He was good at coverage for a safety, but that's a long way from being a good coverage corner. I suspect he'll actually be okay for a corner at tackling, but his coverage skills will need work. On the plus side, Randall's athleticism is top notch. His speed index (40+shuttle+3 cone) was 8th out of the 62 DBs that I calculated. Rollins seems more instinctive (which is surprising for a guy who played so little in college), but he lacks Randall's athleticism. I see Rollins more like Hyde--with the potential to be a little more dynamic with his great ball skills and better leaping ability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY0QBFR49AA

[pbmax]

If it were any position other than CB or WR, I would doubt the selection. But they have no trouble picking those guys out of the heap. They know what to look for.

But that said, dissing the pick is a mug's game. 50% of all early draft picks bust. Its like predicting its going to rain this week. There is nothing unusual about it and predicting it is trivial. Of course the news would treat it like a earthquake, but by no rational definition is it rare.

Picking a ILB at that spot, with worse overall ratings, would have been a worse choice from a likelihood to bust standpoint. They don't award you extra wins at the end of the year for a pick that busted but was at a position of need. You take the player most likely to succeed.

[wist43]

You guys are making ridiculous arguments. All rookies struggle to some extent - remember Reggie White tossing Larry Allen like a rag doll?? Larry Allen is in the HOF.

Clinton-Dix, as opposed to Randall on the other hand, at least had some prototypical size and speed, and did in fact show up much better on tape, and his predraft ranking was always pretty high.

Randall on the other hand - some scouts had him as a late round pick at best. And the knocks on him are legit - the guy is simply a poor tackler. He's a very, very soft tackler. Beyond that, his hips are questionable, and his make-up speed is questionable. Mid-rounds sounds about right for a guy like that.

Throw in a position change, and now you're really talking apples and oranges.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for guys like McKinney and Anthony - I think they're both safer picks than Randall. I think Anthony might be more "NFL ready" than McKinney, but McKinney probably has more upside.

[pbmax]

Randall on the other hand - some scouts had him as a late round pick at best. And the knocks on him are legit - the guy is simply a poor tackler. He's a very, very soft tackler. Beyond that, his hips are questionable, and his make-up speed is questionable. Mid-rounds sounds about right for a guy like that.
.

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

"Randall is what today's free safety is all about. He is by far the best cover safety in this draft. Randall can play man-to-man; he has cornerback-level cover skills. You give up some physicality, but his coverage ability is where the NFL is going. Remember Jimmie Ward was a first-rounder last year (to the 49ers) with a similar skill set." -- Mike Mayock

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.

[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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVp8vFZadbg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kce8wKxrKw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVap22Pv5A8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7MJwtXyEgQ

[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 ��

[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/packers/what-scouts-are-saying-about-the-packers-pick-b99491782z1-302087691.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.

[pbmax]

2010 was the year of the Heavy package, with Green out there with Raji and Pickett. I think they could go 4 big ones in short yardage, but don't remember the 4th. Jolly was in trouble that year.

[wist43]

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.


2010 was the year of the Heavy package, with Green out there with Raji and Pickett. I think they could go 4 big ones in short yardage, but don't remember the 4th. Jolly was in trouble that year.

Yes, we were good against the run - when dunderummy actually defended it. As it was, we had enough talent on the 2nd and 3rd levels that playing the 2-4 wasn't the disaster that it became the next year-couple of years. Woodson, Collins, Bishop, Cullen Jenkins, a fresher Raji, a fresher Pickett b/c of the rotation, etc.

Where things really went in the dumper was when we lost all those guys, or some of those guys, and dunderdummy more than doubled down on the 2-4, he went bat-shit crazy playing the 2-4.

As for who would have rotated in/out for a goal line defense in '10 - certainly Jenkins was available, and we still had CJ Wilson and Jarius Wynn in the rotation; can't remember who was hurt when, but Wilson wasn't entirely terrible if that's all you asked him to do was anchor against the run.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fall off the next couple of seasons was mostly on dunderdummy - but a lot of the blame had to go to TT as well, as he didn't do much to replenish the cupboard on defense. Still, there was no excuse for what dunderdummy did with the talent he had available to him. Just a terrible, terrible job of coaching by that idiot.

[3irty1]

Well in 2011 run defense was pretty much situational only as running on that team was a waste of time.

By 2012 all the guys from that 2009 run stuffing defense had declined or left and the offense lost enough firepower that it could no longer play run defense for Capers.

[wist43]

Well in 2011 run defense was pretty much situational only as running on that team was a waste of time.

We set an all-time record for pass defense futility, and carded the 2nd worst defense of all-time, 6,585 yardss - broken the next year by the Saints; so now we're on the hook for only the 3rd worst defense of all-time!!!

I don't care how well the offense was humming, that defense was embarrassing to watch.


By 2012 all the guys from that 2009 run stuffing defense had declined or left and the offense lost enough firepower that it could no longer play run defense for Capers.

2012 the overall numbers weren't so bad, even though I couldn't stand the fact that dunderdummy was still allowed to remain on this planet - as he and anyone with even remotely the same DNA should have been put into a capsule and shot into space!!

Of course 2012 was the year dunderdummy laid that huge turd in San Francisco that was enough to launch Kapnerfucker into the Hall of Fame.

If it's between launching dunderdummy into space, or launching Kapnerfucker into the HOF?? We could have avoided the latter, if we'd only pursued the former ;)

[3irty1]

We set an all-time record for pass defense futility, and carded the 2nd worst defense of all-time, 6,585 yardss - broken the next year by the Saints; so now we're on the hook for only the 3rd worst defense of all-time!!!

I don't care how well the offense was humming, that defense was embarrassing to watch.



2012 the overall numbers weren't so bad, even though I couldn't stand the fact that dunderdummy was still allowed to remain on this planet - as he and anyone with even remotely the same DNA should have been put into a capsule and shot into space!!

Of course 2012 was the year dunderdummy laid that huge turd in San Francisco that was enough to launch Kapnerfucker into the Hall of Fame.

If it's between launching dunderdummy into space, or launching Kapnerfucker into the HOF?? We could have avoided the latter, if we'd only pursued the former ;)

I'd take that 2011 defense over the next two iterations. History will be too harsh on that D IMO. That team ran into team after team forced to play in cockroach mode for 4 quarters. This is why they got that ridiculous amount of turnovers and its also why they gave up that ridiculous amount of yards. As a scoring defense they were average.

We had the best scoring offense in the NFL this last year and they were nowhere near that 2011 offense. That was something special.

2012 the defense was average in all aspects then destroyed in the playoffs. In 2013 the defense reached an all time low for the 2nd half of the year.

[wist43]

Imagine - Imagine the joy in wistland if spraypaintedhair were launched into space!!!

It would be a joyous event - notice the masses rejoicing!!!:wave: The grand music :violin:, the parades, the pride :cow:, feeling whole again :alc::hug:

The emotions runneth over :smk:

What a day that would be!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=131&v=TQ8bDiuqEC4

[vince]

Notwithstanding the Atlanta 2nd half and Seattle last 5 minutes, which are the two games that stick in the craw of most of us and the games we remember the most, the defense was pretty good the second half of last year. They played some below average offenses, but they also held Philly, New England, and Dallas, three top 5 offenses last year, below their average points scored.

If you could magically take out the Atlanta game, GB allowed 18.5 points/game, which is top 5 territory. As it was they were top 10 scoring D after the bye.

Here's a homer prediction just to piss you off wist. ;-) Dom's gonna turn up the pressure more consistently this year - in part to protect some of the inexperience in the secondary.

I'm hoping Rollins comes along quickly because he and Hyde being all over the field around the line of scrimmage a la Woodson x2 (with Burnett watching on the sideline eventually).

Dom's gonna go all Buddy Ryan on the league this year. No one's gonna know where they're coming from.

Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

[pbmax]

I'm with vince in spirit but I think its Matthews that is going to look like Woodson moving around this year.

With Bush gone, would love for one of the DBs to become a threat on the blitz.

[Smidgeon]

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.

I remember the 2010 defense. That was fun to watch. Woodson roaming, stuffing the run at will when it was strategic, and just generally controlling games. The offense needed some more oomph, and they got it the following year. Now if they could've combined the two...

[run pMc]

I'm with vince in spirit but I think its Matthews that is going to look like Woodson moving around this year.

With Bush gone, would love for one of the DBs to become a threat on the blitz.

Micah Hyde?

[pbmax]

Micah Hyde?

He and Hayward showed a little of it.

[mission]

Looks like Randall is doing exactly what a first-round CB should be doing in his first camp. Looking the part so far.

[mraynrand]

I'm with vince in spirit but I think its Matthews that is going to look like Woodson moving around this year.

SPH is liking his chops at using CM everywhere. But will CM be ready? I suspect the 'sore knee' is really 'we have our top tier guy who we are depending on as the cog of the defense and he isn't gonna see the field at all until the regular season, except for absolute bare minimum to get in the flow.'

[call_me_ishmael]

Looks like Randall is doing exactly what a first-round CB should be doing in his first camp. Looking the part so far.

Yep, I think he is going to end up playing starters reps w/ Casey Hayward playing in the slot most downs.

[smuggler]

Hoping Randall or Gunter can keep it going during preseason games. (And then real games.)

[Upnorth]

What's the odds of haha making a second year leap and taking a bit of pressure off the rookie cb's?

I'm not asking much, just the second coming of Collins

[Cheesehead Craig]

2012 the overall numbers weren't so bad, even though I couldn't stand the fact that dunderdummy was still allowed to remain on this planet - as he and anyone with even remotely the same DNA should have been put into a capsule and shot into space!!

Oh please let it come out on Ancestry.com that wist and Capers are related. LOL

[Patler]

What's the odds of haha making a second year leap and taking a bit of pressure off the rookie cb's?

I'm not asking much, just the second coming of Collins

Problem is, Collin's "second year leap" didn't happen until his fourth year!

[ThunderDan]

Problem is, Collin's "second year leap" didn't happen until his fourth year!

Kind of like Sharper also in that he didn't make his "leap" until his contract year. I am hoping their "leap" was later because they went to small schools and could dominate games on athletic ability alone.

[Joemailman]

All rookies have to prove it on the field of course, but Randall was a major reach.

There was a lot of talk that other teams liked him in the 1st round, but I sure never saw it on any tape I watched, and mid-season and into the post-season he was considered a mid-late round pick.

He flashes plays when he's facing the LOS, which is most of what you see on tape b/c they had him playing S most of the time; but to project him outside?? and think he can turn and run with elite receivers in the NFL?? That is a huge leap of faith by TT and Capers.

Add to that the guy tackles like a Barbie Doll, and you have the makeup of a mid-round pick. He's going to struggle mightily at the next level, especially if they try to play him outside.

TT and Capers will never change though... tackling and forcing punts aren't as sexy as picks.

Was Wist right?

[KYPack]

No.

BC of spelling.

It's "Babre Doll".

[pbmax]

Was Wist right?

No because man coverage* is the thing he does the best. Having been a safety doesn't seem to have given him good reactions to the ball when facing the LOS.

*relatively speaking

[Fritz]

We will see next year.