Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
Both Hayward and Hyde showed far more potential in their times in Green Bay than Randall.
Packers Depth Grades
- Thread starter RepStar15
- Start date
Both Hayward and Hyde showed far more potential in their times in Green Bay than Randall.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
I didn't realize we were talking about the Olympics. I was referring to football. If we're talking about Iron Man competitions then I'll agree that Randall is on the same level. On the football field though? Athleticism doesn't mean much when knowing where to be on a given play matter more.
Oh, silly me. If you can watch his rookie highlights and say with a straight face he showed nothing then this is the last I need to hear about it from you
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I definitely agree that Hayward showed more potential during his time in Green Bay than Randall did. This isn't true for Hyde though.
OldSchool101
Pack
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 15,876
- Reaction score
- 6,808
Good post I liked that. Of the wait n see players I really like Biegels chances of getting in there with that Montravious group. As long as his foot holds up I think his bloodline will begin to show true to form.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
So now potential is the equivalent of being the best defensive rookie in the NFL and playing pretty well at outside corner post-injury (Hayward) and playing well at multiple positions when called upon in Hyde. Somehow, the guy that got benched in the second half of a game in his last year in Green Bay and routinely ran around the field looking like a lost deer is something I'm supposed to be excited about?
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,810
- Reaction score
- 930
Hyde could be trusted to know his assignments. The coaches never knew what Randall was going to be doing from play to play. Yes, Randall had far more athleticism but that doesn't count for much if you don't know what to do with it.
B+ might apply if only grading Adams and Cobb. As for the rest, all question marks, even Allison. If Glute can afford it, and there is outside talent available, he should grab a proven receiver, basically the same thing he did with Tramon this year. I do like J’Mon Moore, but will wait as TC and PS progress. I don’t remember the last time I felt this concerned about WR depth for the Packers.
Hyde and Randall were both safeties converted to DBs. That’s why Hyde did so well last year with another team. As for Randall, regardless of his talent, the team is better off without him. As a position group, it’s gonna be boom or bust. I’m banking on boom.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
You have to realize that Randall's play significantly improved after he was benched vs. the Bears early last season. I expect him to perform at a better level if lined up at free safety in 2018.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 1,971
I too expect Randall to become a pretty good player if used correctly. He’s got very good ball skills and could become a significant play maker.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
With Clinton-Dix already having been on the roster it was most likely a mistake spending a first rounder on Randall after all.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Or just a mistake to try to play him at CB? I get signing UDFA's who have spent most of their time in football playing a certain position and trying to see if they might excel at another, but I will never understand using a first rounder on Randall and even a 2nd rounder on Rollins and watching them both flounder with Capers and Whitt. I don't know if people are really expecting to see Randall excel in Cleveland, similar to what Hayward and Hyde did with other teams, but if it happens once again, I'm going to be wondering why Gute and to a lessor degree, Pettine, didn't see his value either.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
In my opinion Randall is best suited to line up at free safety. Therefore it was a mistake drafting him in the first round as it seems the Packers never had any intention of lining him up there with Clinton-Dix manning the position.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I tend to agree with you and we may find out if that is true in Cleveland this year. If it does turn out to be true, this would be the 3rd guy from the secondary in 3 consecutive years, that the Packers dropped the ball on. Given the state of the secondary over those 3 years, not easy to swallow as a Packer fan. I would add Rollins to that group of mistakes as well.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Rollins definitely hasn't lived up to being a second round pick either.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
why would you call him a mistake? you guys are harsh. A mistake is drafting a guy like Manziel. A guy you can see has the maturity of an 8 year old and the who's greatest attribute was playing backyard ball throwing weak passes to wide open receivers in college, but still taking him before round 4. That's a mistake. Rollins came in, had a pretty good rookie season. Was part of the reason NOBODY said **** about losing Hayward and then played another year injured the entire time and then tore an achilles and missed an entire season again. I think it's a little unfair to judge a guy like that as a mistake. We certainly haven't gotten the production we'd like out of a 2nd rounder overall. But what was his PFF rating after rookie? what were people saying about him then? what did us as fans think of him then? 2 seasons pretty much lost or hampered by injury is what you use to call him a mistake? Man, harsh. He probably won't ever live up to it either. Ruptured achilles took down Revis Island to a mere mortal, Rollins wasn't Revis to start with.
as for Randall, i'm sure Gute did see Randalls value. They probably decided as a staff, they didn't want to deal with him. I'm not going to fault them for it either. I'm much happier with a respectfully confident Alexander and his athleticism and the polar opposite, but equally intense Jackson with King and Williams than any part of a guy I thought had the skills to be good and the mind to prevent him from being great. The Browns can have him. I don't care if he's successful or not. He had more success here than people want to give credit for, and he could play DB, and play it well. When he was actually playing within the scheme. People don't want to see it for whatever reason. That's fine I guess. He's gone.
as for Randall, i'm sure Gute did see Randalls value. They probably decided as a staff, they didn't want to deal with him. I'm not going to fault them for it either. I'm much happier with a respectfully confident Alexander and his athleticism and the polar opposite, but equally intense Jackson with King and Williams than any part of a guy I thought had the skills to be good and the mind to prevent him from being great. The Browns can have him. I don't care if he's successful or not. He had more success here than people want to give credit for, and he could play DB, and play it well. When he was actually playing within the scheme. People don't want to see it for whatever reason. That's fine I guess. He's gone.
Hyde was played out of position in GB. After the trade, he excelled at his natural position, safety. As for Randall, I think part of the reason they unloaded him was his maturity level. Now, Adams struggled with that for two seasons as well. GB needed to replace Hundley, and this trade was the easiest way. And no, Randall’s rookie season wasn’t close to Hayward. Then again, I don’t recall a rookie DB on any team who played as well as Hayward in year 1.
Nobody said he equaled Hayward. I said if he had held on to a couple more of those balls he had his hands on, it was debatable. You're telling me if he didn't hang on to 3 more of those balls he legitimately had his hands people wouldn't have been talking more than they already were?
Ifs and buts candy and nuts, I'm not trying to play revisionist history and what if here. Simply to illustrate he made some pretty athletic plays.
If GB never had another DB play any better or worse than Randall after his benching last year and take away the attitude, we'd never have another thing to worry about from that position.
Ifs and buts candy and nuts, I'm not trying to play revisionist history and what if here. Simply to illustrate he made some pretty athletic plays.
If GB never had another DB play any better or worse than Randall after his benching last year and take away the attitude, we'd never have another thing to worry about from that position.
All you say is correct. If Randall finishes the season with 7 or 8 pics, that trade for Kizer probably doesn’t get made. I do recall one, maybe two when he was just in the right place at the right time on a deflection. Hayward was, still is, a unique talent. But he trailed off after that stellar rookie season and the Packers, ever cautious, didn’t want to pay him. As for Hyde, the Packers simply played him out of his natural position, safety. To rub salt in the wounds, they picked Rollins with I think a #2 pick. That was a (so far) unsuccessful gamble on a guy who I think only played one year in college after being mostly a BB player.
Well, let’s hope the bad luck is over with King, Alexander, and Jackson. At least they all played CB in college, and will be asked to do the same in the NFL. With Rodgers likely to get an eye-watering contract, they need some inexpensive rookie help to keep the cap together.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Calling a player like Randall or Rollins a bust or a boom after 3 years is completely subjective. One can choose to look at the positives and the potential of each, subtract out the injuries and maybe bad coaching, toss in the what ifs and almosts and both guys probably don't look that bad. Or one can take the other side and point out what they didn't do, how they compared to other 1st and 2nd round picks, which seems to be a 50/50 proposition in GB lately. I am comfortable with calling Randall a bust and the only thing that changes that for me is another player, DeShone Kizer. If Kizer somehow turns into something, then I will say the Randall pick actually ended up somehow working its way out. But if Kizer isn't much and even if Randall turns into a ProBowler in Cleveland, I will always view him as a bust first round pick for the Packers. The book on Rollins isn't finished yet, but I'm really not that impressed with it thus far. Of course, that is my subjective point of view of both players.
I"m find calling Randall a bust, his attitude sucked. His abilities didn't. I can see why the pick was made, he has the talent. I can see why it was bad, his attitude wore out his welcome in 3 short years despite his talent. But Rollins? the dude had a strong rookie season. He limped around on the field the next because we had nobody with 2 good legs all year at DB and then tore his achilles and didn't play. You don't think he had a good season in his ONLY remotely healthy season in the pro's so far?
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I'm all for leaving the book open on Rollins, before his story is concluded. However, he has one more year to prove himself and with him coming off of a torn Achilles and as many guys they they have competing in camp, he has an uphill battle probably just to make the roster and because of this, I doubt he is out drinking beers with Khalil Mack. 
He has an enormous hill to climb. Personally, I'd like to see him have a healthy year, as healthy as can be after a ruptured achilles, and build from his rookie season. I"m not sure he even makes the team though given what he's coming back from. and if he doesn't, you'll probably call him a bust as you've already called him a mistake. I tend to be a little more forgiving. Kind of like when I didn't write Adams off playing in an injured year after showing he had the skills to be a player in the league. Adams could easily have come back in year 3 and blew out a knee and everyone would have carried right on beating the drum that he sucked and needed to cut. Rollins never had a chance to build on his promising rookie campaign. why can't people recognize that?
