Packers trade Damarious Randall to Browns

[Firethorn1001]

What I find most interesting with this trade is that many people were in on the evaluation of Kizer last year and many people were in on the true story with Randall. One group gave up on Randall to get Kizer and one group gave up on Kizer to get Randall.. looks like a difference of opinion for people that were in the same room last year discussing both players.

 

[GleefulGary]

Josh Gordon.

He played 5 games.

 

[gbgary]

This is about as un-Thompson as you can get.

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

 

[Dantés]

If this trade pans out the way some are reporting it, I think the real hidden value will be the 2 move ups in draft picks. Using one of the draft value charts, that has a value of around 35 points, which is the equivalent of an early 5th round pick. Having the first pick in any round is a nice place to be, but especially that 4th rounder, since it is the start of day 3. With as many picks as the Packers have, I expect them to be trading some of them in order to move up or maybe in a player trade. Gute just made his draft pick arsenal more valuable.

I like that aspect of it in that the Packers don’t really need more picks, but they could stand to enhance the ones they do have.

We were all hoping they’d get a 3rd round comp. Now their 4th is only a pick or two later than that one would have been.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

For those lamenting the loss of Randall and think BM made a bad trade, these 2 articles might help make you feel a bit better.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/20...ears-about-packers-trading-damarious-randall/

“There was strong sentiment in the locker room at that time to give Randall the boot — sources said McCarthy’s committee of veteran players suggested that Randall be released — but the Packers stood by him,” Demovsky wrote.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/20...wanted-damarious-randall-gone-after-benching/

 

[HardRightEdge]

He played 5 games.

Right. And how did Kizer improve with this addition?

http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/3129302/deshone-kizer

I think maybe the enthusiam for Kizer is based on his repsectable performance against the Packers. Uh huh. No comment.

He had a good game against Pittsburgh when they benched everybody going into the playoffs.

The other 3 games? Not good.

 

[gbgary]

Josh Gordon.

my a mile!!

 

[GleefulGary]

Really, it seems like a pretty low-risk trade from both teams. Browns weren't going to play Kizer and will draft a new QB, and the Packers didn't want Randall anymore. Both talented players, but for different reasons, no longer a fit on their current team.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I find most interesting with this trade is that many people were in on the evaluation of Kizer last year and many people were in on the true story with Randall. One group gave up on Randall to get Kizer and one group gave up on Kizer to get Randall.. looks like a difference of opinion for people that were in the same room last year discussing both players.

Well if I look at the success of both organizations, I would bank on the one in Green and Gold to have done the better evaluation.

It's been said many times already, but how can people really be so sure Kizer isn't going to be a good QB?

 

[HardRightEdge]

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

Different situation. The Packers were more cap strapped then than they are now. Sitton was going to be expensive and struggled with back problems for a couple of years. He could have been the picture of leadership and he still would have been gone. Stiffing up stuff in the locker room is just an extra reason.

 

[GleefulGary]

Right. And how did Kizer improve with this addition?

http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/3129302/deshone-kizer

I think maybe the enthusiam for Kizer is based on his repsectable performance against the Packers. Uh huh. No comment.

He had a good game against Pittsburgh when they benched everybody going into the playoffs.

The other 3 games? Not good.

Nobody is saying he had a good year. But look at the context.

Kizer was a very raw rookie who should have still been in college. So what did Hue Jackson (awful awful coach) do? He had Kizer run his full offense. Didn't dumb it down for him, he was running full tilt with an inexperienced team around him. Sure Josh Gordon is talented, but is he a leader? Nah. The Browns are full of talented players...but experienced leaders? Not so much. Don't discount how much that matters.

Now let's compare that to how McCarthy handled Hundley. He hardly let Hundley throw further than 5 yards half the time. We ran a dumbed down, check down offense. I'm sure you can see the difference that would make for a QB.

Kizer has a live arm, pretty solid mechanics, athletic, decent footwork, but needs to improve his reads. He showed more potential in a very difficult rookie year than Hundley did though, and I think he showed a lot more skill.

So Kizer didn't have a good year by any means, but there wasn't anybody helping him out either.

 

[GleefulGary]

Well if I look at the success of both organizations, I would bank on the one in Green and Gold to have done the better evaluation.

It's been said many times already, but how can people really be so sure Kizer isn't going to be a good QB?

Have to remember Cleveland does have a new GM, and a few recent Packer scouts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Do you really think that we traded away a starting CB for a guy that they don't think is better than Hundley? Really?? I'm sure there will be a competition bc cutting Hundley only saves us $700k and we need training camp arms, but I am 100% certain that Kizer will win that "competition" because he is the better QB.

Once again, it's a guess that Kizer will end up becoming a better quarterback than Hundley. Unfortunately a lot of front office executives have been proven wrong in such evaluations.

It seems Gutekunst didn't consider Randall a starting caliber cornerback and will hopefully address the position adequately within the next few weeks.

Of course it’s guesswork, but it isn’t random.

Kizer was evaluated as a borderline 1st/2nd round prospect with starting level talent. Hundley was an athletic project that went in the fifth round. They played comparably last year, but Hundley was much deeper in the system on a much better team. Kizer was a rookie who the evaluators actually said wouldn’t be ready to start.

Kizer might have a higher ceiling than Hundley but as I've mentioned before repeatedly tht doesn't mean he will fulfill expectations. His stint in Cleveland and the Browns giving him up after only one season doesn't seem to be promising.

i hope we move up.

I don't expect the Packers to move up in the first round as it would take a significant investment to make it work.

We were all hoping they’d get a 3rd round comp.

That was completely unrealistic to begin with.

Well if I look at the success of both organizations, I would bank on the one in Green and Gold to have done the better evaluation.

It's been said many times already, but how can people really be so sure Kizer isn't going to be a good QB?

The Browns currently have a lot of executives working for them who have been partly responsible for the Packers success.

On the other hand, how can people be sure Kizer will develop into a good quarterback at the pro level???

 

[Dantés]

Once again, it's a guess that Kizer will end up becoming a better quarterback than Hundley. Unfortunately a lot of front office executives have been proven wrong in such evaluations.

It seems Gutekunst didn't consider Randall a starting caliber cornerback and will hopefully address the position adequately within the next few weeks.



Kizer might have a higher ceiling than Hundley but as I've mentioned before repeatedly tht doesn't mean he will fulfill expectations. His stint in Cleveland and the Browns giving him up after only one season doesn't seem to be promising.



I don't expect the Packers to move up in the first round as it would take a significant investment to make it work.



That was completely unrealistic to begin with.



The Browns currently have a lot of executives working for them who have been partly responsible for the Packers success.

On the other hand, how can people be sure Kizer will develop into a good quarterback at the pro level???

Me: “Yes, it’s a guess but it’s not random.”

Captain: “Once again, it’s a guess.”

Hmmm.

In any case, what is sounds like is that Gutekunst didn’t consider Randall a part of the plan for the long term. That his teammates were asking for him to be released probably factored into that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You don't have any facts supporting your claim that Kizer is any better than Hundley therefore it's a guess on your part.

The Packers haven't released or traded Hundley therefore I expect him and Kizer to battle for the backup spot all offseason long. That doesn't mean that Gutekunst considers Kizer an upgrade over Hundley but simply that he brought in competition for the roster spot.

Right. This was a trade for the pick upgrade as much or more than a trade for Kizer.

So, nearly every QB that plays as a rookie starts out sucking. Most of these guys never took a snap under center, never took a 7 step drop, threw exclusively out of pistol, to receivers running mostly rudimentary timing routes, with a bunch of read-option stuff thrown in. Few colleges prepare QBs for pro style play. It's interesting to note that's pretty much what Cleveland had Kizer do against Capers.

What you see from the guys who eventually get good is improvement as the season wears on. I did not see that from Kizer.

Whether he or Hundley can improve is guesswork. A competition is in order. Or the thinking may be you're not going to win many games with either, and Gutekunst tries to get something for Hundley becuase he views the water as poisened. The fact Hundley has one year left, Kizer has three on the rookie contracts. At least with Kizer, if you can polish him up over the next year you get a return over the next two years. Fixing Hundley would accrue to somebody else.

 

[gbgary]

I don't expect the Packers to move up in the first round as it would take a significant investment to make it work.

i agree...i can still hope though.

 

[Mondio]

“There was strong sentiment in the locker room at that time to give Randall the boot — sources said McCarthy’s committee of veteran players suggested that Randall be released — but the Packers stood by him,” Demovsky wrote.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/20...wanted-damarious-randall-gone-after-benching/

That may be, there were also guys saying this too "That was a big play for us, man, and it turned the game around for us. That just goes to show the guy has the most talent on the team on the back end. He’s capable of doing whatever he wants to do. It’s all up to him.

Most talented DB we’ve got. That’s the truth.”- Ha Ha Clinton Dix

 

[Dantés]

I really don’t get why everyone is dismissing the reality that Kizer was way more highly regarded coming out than Hundley and is two years younger in his development. Statistically, it’s way more likely that Kizer rebounds and proves valuable than Hundley. It’s irrational to consider them equally likely to be successful. Just seems like more of the same willful pessimism parading as objectivity.

 

[sschind]

That may be, there were also guys saying this too "That was a big play for us, man, and it turned the game around for us. That just goes to show the guy has the most talent on the team on the back end. He’s capable of doing whatever he wants to do. It’s all up to him.

Most talented DB we’ve got. That’s the truth.”- Ha Ha Clinton Dix

but did HHCD leave out the rest of what he was thinking? Most talented DB we've got...but as a teammate he sucks and is bringing everyone down. We don't need attitudes like that.

Now I'm not sure if HHCD thinks that or anything close to that. We are all familiar with coachspeak but there is such a thing as playerspeak as well. I'm skeptical of what anyone, teammates, coaches , GMs, whoever, say about other players to the media. Very few are going to come out and say what they are truly thinking especially if it is negative.

The thing that gets me is that so many people are now speculating that Randall was a bad influence in the locker room and that is why he was sent packing and yet they are all in on Richard Sherman who is rumored to be anything but an angel himself. I will be honest if locker room politics had anything to do with Randall being gone I don't see BG turning around and bringing in someone like Sherman.

 

[Veretax]

Reading some of this made me laugh.. Thanks guys.

I'll admit when I saw this on the wire, I started looking for spyware on my local network. I traded Randall in Madden this year too. I think also to the browns. Now was it for Kizer? I don't remember trading for a player. All I know is I also traded Nelson to the Steelers, and Matthews to Cleveland to clear his cap off.


Here's my thinking though. Word was we were trying to extend Rodgers, what if the early talks weren't going well? What if we aren't convinced he will be healthy this year?

Having a backup you can count on to at least evaluate people is important. Did Hundley even play well enough to evaluate the rest of the offense? I don't believe so.

So, possibilities:

1. We want to clear salary from the Cap for Rodgers Extension (or Free Agent that's coming no idea what position)
2. We want to push Rodger's confidence up, so he does come back, brought in someone who can play well enough for a game or two, but not enough to replace him if he gets injured.
3. We might be looking to do more than Kizer at QB... May be we are going to look to take a QB in the 1st, and want to be ready to trade up if that's what it takes, to groom Rodgers replacement. (Especially if recovery or contract negotiations have gone sour.)
4. It would be severely ironic, if Rodgers refused to agree to a deal in time to help the team, and ended up traded to the Jets for their high pick.

So what Rookie QB do you like best? Rosen? Darnold? Allen? Rudolph?

no idea.


(note I"m in no way advocating we trade Rodgers, but is entirely possible this pick is entirely about the Vikings. If they are landing Cousins, we need more firepower on defense, and Randall was going to be a liability.)

 

[Dantés]

We’ve known that Randall is super talented since the day they drafted him. That’s never been his issue. It’s between the ears and, apparently, in the locker room. He was very good down the stretch last year. He was also dreadful for portions of the season. But since he’s the guy that we traded away it’s going to be taken as a foregone conclusion that he’s going to be great forever. Just as Kizer, being the guy we traded for, is never going to be good and it’s a random spin of the wheel to even suggest he could even be better than Brett Hundley.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I have no idea how Kizer, Randall or Hundley will end up in their NFL careers, but based on the number of years in the league for all 3, I would say there is a potential bigger upside on Kizer. Sure Randall had a decent 2nd half of the season, but he also had many not so good games on and off the field. There has been talk about what coaches and players said about Randall. I think one of the most telling statements about Randall was made at the end of the season by McCarthy, who normally is more supportive of his players, when McCarthy stated that "Randall needed to clean his own house." Looks like the Packers decided to clean it out for him, at least in Green Bay.

 

[Dantés]

Packer fans for years: Randall is a TT bust but we’re stuck with him because he’s too loyal to his picks.

*Randall traded*

Packer fans: This has TT’s finger prints all over it.

 

[PackerDNA]

Packer fans for years: Randall is a TT bust but we’re stuck with him because he’s too loyal to his picks.

*Randall traded*

Packer fans: This has TT’s finger prints all over it.

It's fun stuff, ain't it? Heh.

 

[Divot]

Reasons I like the trade
- Kizer can be our backup. The Browns were a disaster. I think he has a chance to develop into an ok qb here
- I like the pick swaps. Nice value for a guy like Randall who didnt have much value
- I think even those who rated Randall as an average cb overrated him. He looked better because toward the end of the year we had no one. He was soft, small, and not super fast. Very replaceable

Reasons i dont like the trade
-Back up qb wasnt the position I would have targeted. TE or guard or even slot wr would have made way more sense
-CB depth was already bad. Even though I didnt like Randall he would have been fine depth

Great post. One thing to add to your first point under "reasons I don't like the trade" is that........if we had a better back up QB last year and he won just one game for us we would have made the playoffs. We need an upgrade of #2 QB just a badly as a TE or Guard.

Also, we have ammo and look for someone (like Buffalo) to be on the phone for pick #14. By ammo i mean, Buffalo now needs a QB. Browns will pick one too.