Randall & Rollins; or Rollins & Randall ?

[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

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.

[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.