Packers trade Damarious Randall to Browns

[Rutnstrut]

At least they are doing SOMETHING. IMO it's a step in the right direction. TT would have just stupidly sat on his hands and tried to figure out how to acquire more late round draft picks for the 2027 draft.

 

[Packer46]

What did they get??? This leads me to think Richard Sherman might be coming

Grab DRC Now, no questions!

 

[AKCheese]

Last time we won the Super Bowl, we drafted Raji.... then traded BACK into the 1st to get Mathews ... and our D got Wayyyyyyyy better.

Perhaps a recipe for success instead of focusing on bringing a bunch of new bodies to camp

 

[Croak]

TT got ride of sitton when he was becoming a locker room problem. now Gute does the same with randall.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I think a lot of folks figure Randall would be gone. I thought the coaching staff would have requested something done about him. My point was squeezing the dollar until it screams and bringing in young mediocre talent to "develop", rather than making a bold trade for someone with experience at an area of desperate need, completely fits TT's M.O.

 

[wist43]

I don't know what you think Gute was trading away here....

Randall is a terrible football player, and I for one am glad to see him gone.

I think we easily won this trade.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If nothing else, doesn't everything you wrote show you just how little the Packers thought of Randall and his future in GB by making this trade? I think some want to think he was on the rise in Green Bay. However, trading him away for a 2nd year backup QB and improved draft positions in the 4th and 5th wouldn't be equal compensation if the Packer organization thought they were trading away one of their best future options of fixing a position that has been in need for far too long.

People may not like the trade, but I think those people had far more hope and confidence in Randall than the Packers did. I'm trusting that the end of year player reviews and probably input from Pettine, had Randall basically out of Green Bay once a decent trade could be had.

If Randall was a problem in the locker room and the team felt like it was passed the point of no return, he had to be dealt. I think that's a huge part of the equation that some are missing here.

I don't know what you think Gute was trading away here....

Randall is a terrible football player, and I for one am glad to see him gone.

I think we easily won this trade.

Once again, I don't think trading away Randall, an average player at best who never lived up to being drafted in the first round, is a problem by any means.

The Packers currently having only King, Rollins, Hawkins, Pipkins and Waters under contract at cornerback is frightening though.

Grab DRC Now, no questions!

There are better options than DRC available in free agency.

 

[rmontro]

It certainly looks like an unusual trade.
Cornerback is one of those positions that takes a few years to learn to play effectively, so you'd think they almost have to sign a free agent somehow.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Certainly did not see this one coming. A few thoughts, after the initial shock:

1) A thin secondary just got thinner.

2) Randall's walkout before the September game with the Bears was over was a big deal to the Packers, and that rift never fully mended.

3) Perhaps Mike Pettine didn't think the 5'11, 196 lbs. corner that lacks physicality fit into his plans.

4) Is Deshone Kizer better than Brett Hundley? Is this the 'veteran' brought in to back Aaron Rodgers?

5) Likely more moves to come. Trumaine Johnson?

6) Unless there's another trade, this will mark the second year in a row that the Packers own the first draft pick of day three of the NFL draft.

 

[Don Barclay]

One way of evaluating this trade before all the consequences play out: you can look at it through the lens of Josh Sitton's release before the start of the 2016 season. At that time, the Packers cut a guy they had identified as a problem in some way; and with an unproven replacement (Taylor). Many of us were aggrieved that Thompson got NOTHING in return for cutting him, bellyaching that at least he could've traded for a draft pick.

Flash forward: presume for a moment Randall was enough of a problem that the coaches knew he would not be part of the plans going forward, and only one year left on his current deal. Instead of cutting him, the team acquired a potentially promising QB and significantly improved draft position in two rounds.

Which looks better?

 

[wist43]

One way of evaluating this trade before all the consequences play out: you can look at it through the lens of Josh Sitton's release before the start of the 2016 season. At that time, the Packers cut a guy they had identified as a problem in some way; and with an unproven replacement (Taylor). Many of us were aggrieved that Thompson got NOTHING in return for cutting him, bellyaching that at least he could've traded for a draft pick.

Flash forward: presume for a moment Randall was enough of a problem that the coaches knew he would not be part of the plans going forward, and only one year left on his current deal. Instead of cutting him, the team acquired a potentially promising QB and significantly improved draft position in two rounds.

Which looks better?

I seem to be one of the few who thinks this trade makes all kinds of sense, and that we clearly came away from the deal better for it.

Randall simply is not a starting caliber DB in the NFL. If he is in your starting lineup, you should be constantly looking to replace him.

I didn't want him on draft day, and I'm glad he's off the roster.

Terrible pick by TT.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One way of evaluating this trade before all the consequences play out: you can look at it through the lens of Josh Sitton's release before the start of the 2016 season. At that time, the Packers cut a guy they had identified as a problem in some way; and with an unproven replacement (Taylor). Many of us were aggrieved that Thompson got NOTHING in return for cutting him, bellyaching that at least he could've traded for a draft pick.

Flash forward: presume for a moment Randall was enough of a problem that the coaches knew he would not be part of the plans going forward, and only one year left on his current deal. Instead of cutting him, the team acquired a potentially promising QB and significantly improved draft position in two rounds.

Which looks better?

The difference being that at time Thompson released Sitton he had confidence in a backup already on the roster in Lane Taylor. The Packers currently don't have any cornerback on the depth chart capable of adequately replacing Randall.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I seem to be one of the few who thinks this trade makes all kinds of sense, and that we clearly came away from the deal better for it.

Randall simply is not a starting caliber DB in the NFL. If he is in your starting lineup, you should be constantly looking to replace him.

Once again, you have to consider the players currently left at cornerback on the depth chart though. The lack of talent is alarming.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Once again, you have to consider the players currently left at cornerback on the depth chart though. The lack of talent is alarming.

Some might say it was lacking talent even before Randall was traded This isn't much different than last year, but instead of your top CB on the roster being Randall, you have King.

I'm going to put my faith in the fact that Pettine has a plan and has let Gute know what that plan is and the types of players he needs to innact that plan, its pretty obvious that Randall wasn't a part of that plan. I very much doubt Cleveland approached the Packers and said "We really want Randall, what do you want for him?"

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Some might say it was lacking talent even before Randall was traded This isn't much different than last year, but instead of your top CB on the roster being Randall, you have King.

I'm going to put my faith in the fact that Pettine has a plan and has let Gute know what that plan is and the types of players he needs to innact that plan, its pretty obvious that Randall wasn't a part of that plan. I very much doubt Cleveland approached the Packers and said "We really want Randall, what do you want for him?"

Don't get me wrong, I definitely expect Gutekunst and Pettine to have a plan on how to improve the talent level at cornerback. Currently it's a huge concern though.

 

[Don Barclay]

The difference being that at time Thompson released Sitton he had confidence in a backup already on the roster in Lane Taylor. The Packers currently don't have any cornerback on the depth chart capable of adequately replacing Randall.

True, but at the time few of us thought Taylor was a sufficient replacement, and the plan in place did not appear likely to be successful. You yourself said "I would have been fine with releasing Sitton for cap reasons if the Packers had an adequate replacement for him on the roster as well as earlier in the offseason. Unfortunately the only other player on the roster best suited to line up at guard is Taylor and I don't have a lot of confidence in him."

I'm not calling you out above myself or others -- just pointing out that for the most part we lacked confidence in the succession plan following Sitton's release -- and at least in the current situation we received assets in exchange for unloading a player who apparently was not in the coaching staff's plans.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

True, but at the time few of us thought Taylor was a sufficient replacement, and the plan in place did not appear likely to be successful. You yourself said "I would have been fine with releasing Sitton for cap reasons if the Packers had an adequate replacement for him on the roster as well as earlier in the offseason. Unfortunately the only other player on the roster best suited to line up at guard is Taylor and I don't have a lot of confidence in him."

I'm not calling you out above myself or others -- just pointing out that for the most part we lacked confidence in the succession plan following Sitton's release -- and at least in the current situation we received assets in exchange for unloading a player who apparently was not in the coaching staff's plans.

True, just like many other posters I wasn't confident in Taylor's ability to replace Sitton but Thompson and McCarthy definitely were. I don't expect the front office or coaching staff feeling comfortable about the current depth chart at cornerback though.

 

[Don Barclay]

Probably true -- unless Herb Waters has really made the JUMP, ha ha.

 

[Don Barclay]

But if they knew they were gonna have to dump Randall, I think they did a pretty good job, compared to how they handled Sitton. Got on it early, and got good value in return.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But if they knew they were gonna have to dump Randall, I think they did a pretty good job, compared to how they handled Sitton. Got on it early, and got good value in return.

Once again, I prefer to wait until we have an idea on how the Packers address the cornerback position to evaluate this move.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have to think this decision to move on from Randall was made well before the trade. If you are going to move on from a starter, even at a position of obvious weakness, this is the time of year to do it. The Packers Salary Cap limit is about the only thing standing in their way of really improving the position, but even with that, they have options available to spend some money on FA CB's and pick a few in the draft.

I think if Randall had been cut in September and people found out that Gute could have traded him for Kizer and improved draft positioning, this place would have roasted Gute. Like many are starting to say now, good move IMO, get something for a player you had no plans for.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think if Randall had been cut in September and people found out that Gute could have traded him for Kizer and improved draft positioning, this place would have roasted Gute. Like many are starting to say now, good move IMO, get something for a player you had no plans for.

Gutekunst's ability to upgrade the cornerback position will turn out to be the deciding factor on how to evaluate this trade. If the Packers struggle defending the pass once again next season it might have been a smart move to retain Randall. Time will tell.

 

[wist43]

But parts of that equation are now with the Browns. It's not as if they don't have a pretty good idea of what Randall is too. Or do we believe that one of their top scouts and a guy who many wanted to be the new Packers GM were oblivious to what Randall was while they were here?

So why if he's such a problem do Wolf and Highsmith bring him on board? Obviously the Packers didn't want him or they would t I've traded him, but it's not as easy as, well he was a problem. Because that big of problems don't follow top front office guys to new teams

I'm beginning to think Wolf and Highsmith were a part of the problem along with TT when it came to player evaluation.

I'm glad all those guys are gone.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm beginning to think Wolf and Highsmith were a part of the problem along with TT when it came to player evaluation.

Once again way too early to analyze. The Browns success over the next few years will serve as an decent indicator of their work.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Gutekunst's ability to upgrade the cornerback position will turn out to be the deciding factor on how to evaluate this trade. If the Packers struggle defending the pass once again next season it might have been a smart move to retain Randall. Time will tell.

I agree to some extent. We will never know what Randall would have done in Green Bay had he not been traded. He could have had a Pro Bowl season, he could have been cut or he could have had another up and down season, along with not getting along with coaches. Watching what Randall does in Cleveland might shed some light on whether it was the player or where the player was.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Once again way too early to analyze. The Browns success over the next few years will serve as an decent indicator of their work.

I agree and people have to also take into consideration the mess these guys are taking over, Rome wasn't built in one day.