They become a lot less malcontentable when they play for the Packers.
Packdog posted:You gotta admit, it will be interesting to watch Randall and Josh Gordon go against each other in training camp.
Yeah they had a nice Twitter war after the Packers came back & won.
Josh Gordon opened the game with like 50 yards receiving & a TD until the "Wizard" put Randall on him.
BrainDed posted:This is what rebuilding looks like folks.
This is 1 of the more idiotic statements I've seen on X4.
Yes the entire roster is just $#!T. 
Jody posted:Herschel posted:Cleveland would appear to be out on Cousins and maybe in on Josh Allen (or Lamar Jackson?) with Tyrod Taylor in town as a bridge. Getting Jarvis Landry would appear to help every passer on their roster.
They just got Landry, why would they need another WR in Lamar?
On the cornerback front, has there been any news about King's shoulder?
As for this trade, I tend to think the pack was set on jettisoning Randall, rendering talk of his skill set less relevant.
I'm glad Packers addressing QB but Texans cut Matt Cassel, he would be a real backup QB.
Got a question on the swapping of picks with the Browns in the 4th round. Which pick do we get to swap for? Browns have two picks in the 4th round: #1 and #23. The Browns also gave up one of those picks to Miami when the Browns acquired Jarvis Landry. Which of the Browns two picks went to Landry and which do they swap to the Packers for Kizer? The Packers have two picks in the 4th round: #14 and #33. Which gets swapped to Cleveland? Am i missing something here?
101 and 138, which are the 1st picks in the fourth and fifth rounds.
I'm okay with picking up Kizer. Three years cheap, has seen some action, young, etc. So he didn't have the best stats. So what? He was in Cleveland, for pete's sake and tossed into a starter's role his first year. Not a lot of guys succeed right out of the gate their first year. Even Rodgers was 8-8 in year one. Gute may have tagged Kizer either as a QB who will be a good backup for his career, or a guy who could develop and then be traded. GB has basically picked up a guy who has some experience as a starter and who they see has more upside. And they got rid of a guy who was a pain in the rear.
Now if they could get something for Hundley... frosting on the cake!
Not really sure what you're getting with either Kizer or Randall. Think the Packers soured on Randall due more to attitude than talent and I like Kizer simply because I know Hundley isn't good enough and there's the possibility he might be.
The upside of Kizer of Hundley is obvious, what really has me panicking is how few cornerbacks we have on the roster with regular season games starting next week.
More disrespect for Lenzy Pipkins and Herb Waters 
Henry posted:Brown Paper Sack posted:DH13 posted:What the MIN slopdish doesn't seem to get is that this is the part of the year when teams adjust their rosters and address their weaknesses. You know the part MIN wins every off-season? It' March, dumbass. Go twiddle Same Bradford some more.
So, the "defense is fine"?
Eye Heart Green & Gold posted:DH13 posted:What the MIN slopdish doesn't seem to get is that this is the part of the year when teams adjust their rosters and address their weaknesses. You know the part MIN wins every off-season? It' March, dumbass. Go twiddle Same Bradford some more.
Trading your better defensive players for a guy you hope never sees the field is addressing weaknesses?
Psssttt......defense is the packers weakness.
What's the date?
You'd think you don't have to spell things out for the two slopdishes.
FLPACKER posted:Brown Paper Sack posted:How was Darsmarinous a cancer? I remember he was benched and he walked off the field or something, but is there more to it?
He ran his mouth on and off the field. When benched for poor play, his response was something to the effect "you'll have to ask the coaches why I wasn't out there". As LeRoy Butler pointed out in his film review, on many occasions Randall was not even in a stance on the snap of the ball. At the end of the season he made some remarks about "guys have to be accountable", which struck a nerve with MM, who responded that Randall had to "worry about himself". Seems like the classic case of a guy who thinks everyone else is the problem.....when in reality it is him.
Interesting, and thanks for the response.
Attitudes like that either need remedial leadership, or thrown off the boat.
I reckon this trade will have to be revisited after we see what the Packers do with those picks.
King, Rollins, Pipkins, FA, picks
That's how they'll start camp.
Goodson, Waters, Hawkins, Brown will be 4th Qtr preseason guys, and nothing more. I had hope for Hawkins, but he hasn't developed.
Let’s see what Hawkins, et al, do with Pettine vs Dom. Maybe a change in scheme will help. I’m willing to wait andsee, but the lack of CBs is a bit disconcerting right now.
michiganjoe posted:Not really sure what you're getting with either Kizer or Randall. Think the Packers soured on Randall due more to attitude than talent and I like Kizer simply because I know Hundley isn't good enough and there's the possibility he might be.
Agree completely.
Kizer was projected in the 1st or 2nd round coming out of Notre Dame and was the 52nd pick in the draft. He played in one of the worst situations possible last year. He was 21 years old last year and was thrown to the wolves.
Here was Mayock's comment last year on him from Nfl.com.
"In 23 starts, what I saw this year, was that when the game got into the fourth quarter and the pressure got on, I thought he played his worst football because I think he was trying to do much. What I'd like to see happen is no pressure. They're gonna expect him to come in and compete. ... But I'd love to see him have a chance to be in a really good quarterback room, take his time and learn how to play this game." -- Mike Mayock
Kizer was much higher rated coming out of college than Hundley. Maybe the scouts were too high on Kizer and he'll never be a quality starter or at least a serviceable backup, but I think it's clear that scouts were right about Hundley - he was a 5th round guy who was very likely to struggle in the NFL. Heck, even that assessment might have been too optimistic. Hundley had 3 training camps and 2.5 seasons of NFL regular season games to watch Aaron Rodgers and sit in a QB room with him. Kizer had one NFL season to participate in the cluster**** that the Browns were last year.
We got a guy in Kizer who may end up being a decent NFL QB - the jury is still out. We got him for a guy that it seemed like most of the veteran players wanted cut last fall. I'm hoping we ditch Hundley and sign a veteran stop-gap backup to help us stay competitive for a few games if Rodgers gets dinged up. Kizer sits and learns all year and then can be a decent backup next year.
Like Hank asked..."What is the date?"
El-Ka-Bong posted:Grave Digger posted:GB dumped their best CB for a lot less than they bought him for and everyone seems okay with it...but there was not a talent issue on this defense. Definitely not. I’m all for it, bring in some real talent and this D gets better quickly.
This is some "Brown Paper Sack/Eye Heart Green and Gold" level trolling
Doesn’t mean I’m wrong. We had some serious suck at CB and Randall was easily the best. King looked like the most talented at times, but he was also a rookie and hurt most of the year. Our only guys beside King were Randall, grandpa House, Josh Hawkins, and Leslie Pipkins, I think it’s obvious Randall is easily the top dawg there. Doesn’t say much about our talent level that we basically got Brett Hundley and the equivalent of a high 4th round pick for our best CB.
No, you've been very, very wrong. Tour timing was always impeccable, but you were just never accurate.
Kizer has talent and unlike Hundley he didn’t come from a strictly RO offense. He was asked to run a little more of a pro style offense, which helps the transition to the NFL just a tiny bit more. He’s also very young and has seen live action, so he knows what game speed feels like. I do cut Hundley some slack, becoming a reliable QB doesn’t happen overnight. Most QBs get a two or three year leash before true judgement is passed because there’s a steep learning curve...we’ve seen 10 games from him. I hope we see 0 games from him or Kizer, but at least both have seen real action and can learn from it.
El-Ka-Bong posted:No, you've been very, very wrong. Tour timing was always impeccable, but you were just never accurate.
So I am wrong that Randall was our best CB? And it doesn’t say anything that our #1 CB was traded for a minimal gain? Interesting perspective.
It'll all depend on what they draft with that 4th rounder. Do they get a TJ Lang/Mike Daniels/Taliban Bahktiari, or do they get Jake Ryan/Carl Bradford/Jonathon Franklin?
Grave Digger posted:Doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Don't need any context to know that, yes, you were wrong.
Grave Digger posted:GB dumped their best CB for a lot less than they bought him for and everyone seems okay with it...but there was not a talent issue on this defense. Definitely not.
You've defended Dom's honor from an accusation no one has ever made. What has been said consistently is that Dom did less with more for a long time, not the hallmark of an adequate coach. It will always be a black mark on McStupidface for not acting 3 years sooner. Dom Capers sucked. No other way to look at it. Folks wanting more talent on defense not is not a testimony that Dom was treated unfairly or had expectations that were to high.
Your take on Hundley, on the other hand, that's just weird.
I actually like the deal. I think we got a good trade for a player we might have cut (like Sitton) anyway. And some good draft picks to boot.
Grave Digger posted:
"GB dumped their best CB for a lot less than they bought him for."
...and if Kizer turns out to be a serviceable starter in the NFL, is that a "lot less than they bought him for"???
Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm
but I'll take the ceiling on a young QB vs. a malcontent DB & that's not even mentioning the first pick(S) (plural) of rounds 4 & 5
Tom Silverstein with an excellent overview at packersnews.com of where the Packers are in terms of being able to mine free agents at this point of the 2018 process. Also a nice crib sheet on available FA's.
El-Ka-Bong posted:You've defended Dom's honor from an accusation no one has ever made. What has been said consistently is that Dom did less with more for a long time, not the hallmark of an adequate coach. It will always be a black mark on McStupidface for not acting 3 years sooner. Dom Capers sucked. No other way to look at it. Folks wanting more talent on defense not is not a testimony that Dom was treated unfairly or had expectations that were to high.
Your take on Hundley, on the other hand, that's just weird.
So I am wrong that Randall was our best CB? And it doesn’t say anything that our #1 CB was traded for a minimal gain? Interesting perspective.
Brainwashed Boris posted:Grave Digger posted:"GB dumped their best CB for a lot less than they bought him for."
...and if Kizer turns out to be a serviceable starter in the NFL, is that a "lot less than they bought him for"???
Sorry if I don't share your
enthusiasm
I have no problem with the move. I think you’re absolutely right.
Sherman deal with SF is for three years up to $39 mil — for a guy who hasn’t even started running yet. Too rich for me...
Grave Digger posted:So I am wrong
First step man, first step
Grave Digger posted:El-Ka-Bong posted:No, you've been very, very wrong. Tour timing was always impeccable, but you were just never accurate.
So I am wrong that Randall was our best CB? And it doesn’t say anything that our #1 CB was traded for a minimal gain? Interesting perspective.
This whole #1 CB thing is an overstatement. I'd rather you say he was the most consistent CB last year. I won't even say by default because he played some decent ball. I sure the hell don't think it earns him the moniker of #1 CB.
Personally, I don't think all the talk about attitude, etc. really was the driving force here. As Dougherty pointed out, it may be he isn't a good fit for what Pettine wants. He's a midget who has trouble being consistent on the outside. Not a bad player but inconsistent.
As far as Kizer, it's a ****ing flier on a high draft pick with a move up in the mid rounds. I don't think anyone is going to argue he's not an upgrade even if it's a depth position. I also wouldn't argue that Dorsey got a guy he can plug in right away in some capacity. Maybe that wasn't the case in Green Bay.
Let's see who they do/don't sign in FA to get a better handle.
Oh so you agree with me Bong, but you just don’t want to admit it. That’s a shame, but I get it. You’re a proud guy, you don’t want to be seen agreeing with someone who dared to argue with you in the past about this super important topic that we all need to agree on. It’s okay, I won’t ask a 3rd time although I’m sure your 3rd witty deflection would be your best one yet.
Fandame posted:Sherman deal with SF is for three years up to $39 mil — for a guy who hasn’t even started running yet. Too rich for me...
Something tells me he wasn't looking to go to any other teams outside of the NFC West. Pretty clear he'll grind that axe.
You girls need to stop pulling each other's pigtails.
That Sherman deal looks more like 1 yr/$13 Million.
heyward posted:They become a lot less malcontentable when they play for the Packers.
Martellus was a primary example.....packer people.
$27 mil? lol.
Attachments
Images (1)
In this whole trade it should be noted we could be talking about GOC's opinion of Kizer. That worked out well the last time.