By Category

Trading Places: Packers Swap CB Damarious Randall for QB DeShone Kizer

-- The cornerback position in Green Bay is going to undergo an inevitable makeover this offseason.

ESPN's Adam Schefter reported Friday evening that the Green Bay Packers had told cornerback Damarious Randall that he was sent to the Cleveland Browns in a trade that would mark the Browns' third of the day.

In exchange, the Packers will reportedly receive quarterback DeShone Kizer, who was drafted by the Browns at 52nd overall in last year's draft. The two teams also swapped fourth and fifth round picks, according to Schefter's report that was later confirmed in a Tweet from NFL.com's Ian Rapoport.

It would make all the sense for Kizer to become the new backup for Aaron Rodgers after a less-than-optimal season from Brett Hundley, the Packers' fifth-round pick in 2015. It could also mean the Packers intend on moving on from Hundley this offseason, which would free up $705,000 in cap space.

That's close to the base salary that the Packers are picking up from Kizer's contract, which is $689,928.

This isn't the first time the Packers have been connected to Kizer. In last year's draft, there was heavy speculation that they would take Kizer at 33rd overall once former general manager Ted Thompson traded out of the first round. That pick, however, would eventually be Kevin King, who is currently the only starting-caliber cornerback on the Packers' roster.

This was one way for new general manager Brian Gutekunst to kickstart his regime; an unexpected transaction involving the team's best cover cornerback. While Randall's departure frees roughly $1.5 million off the books, leaving the Packers with an estimated $21.2 in cap space, it also leaves them with a sizable hole at one of their primary positions of need.

Randall saw a promising start to his career after being drafted 30th overall in 2015, securing six interceptions in his first two seasons. Despite having a career-high four interceptions in 2017, a rough start to the campaign saw him benched in the week 4 game against the Chicago Bears.

Post-benching, Randall recorded an interception in three consecutive games and a pick-six the following week against the Dallas Cowboys. His play was ascending and his most notable performance came against his current team -- the Browns -- in week 14 where he held former All-Pro receiver, Josh Gordon, to a single catch for nine yards in the Packers' overtime victory.

Now, Randall's young career will continue in Cleveland with Gordon as his teammate.

This is a move that almost guarantees the Packers will be pinpointed on the cornerback market once free agency starts, or that they'll target one in the first round of the draft. Free agency starts on Wednesday, but teams can speak to the agents of players on Monday. Wednesday is also when the influx of trades will officially process.

__________________________

Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV and a contributor/analyst for the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (171) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Bure9620's picture

I might be in the minority of people that like this trade. I actually think Kizer can become a solid QB with a some coaching and development. He was thrown to the wolves last year as a rookie, Totally unprepared with no help or talent around him as a rookie. He was essentially set up for failure.

Richard Sherman???????

GBPDAN1's picture

There must be a plan to bring in a CB or two? We are awfully thin now. What sucks is the Rams are swallowing up the CBs.

gr7070's picture

They were ridiculously thin with Randall. And that statement had little to do with the rest of his backfield teammates. Randall hadn't been good.

Randall provided very little value at CB. His first 2.5 years he was pretty awful.

I fully expected the Packers to go CB in the first round again, with or without Randall. It's the second most valuable position position in football. None of our players there have turned out of late. We played large portions of games last season with ONE CB, in 2017 NFL! Randall has long stretches of games where he played near one of the worst CBs in the NFL.

This is a good trade for the Packers. Heck swapping 4/5 rounders alone may look great after Randall's play next year, and I look forward to seeing a young, 2nd round QB on the roster.

Cubbygold's picture

Hopefully GB gets something for hundley as well. Shoot, a 7th rounder is probably too much to hope for, but that would add to the value of the trade as well

gr7070's picture

Hundley is worthless.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

gr7070
I disagree with almost everything you wrote. 23 had a decent year and was our best player in the secondary. In 1048 defensive snaps last year, there may have been a few goal line plays where only one cb was on the field. No NFL team plays only one cb for "large portions of games." The Packers had boundry cbs lined up for every defensive snap, they usually played a nickleback, too.

Royalty Free GM's picture

We swapped two players we don’t need (hopefully) and got higher picks. Not aggressive but good deal I guess.

Randall was quite bad in bigger games.
Let’s hope Kizer never plays, that means Rodgers stays healthy.

Tundraboy's picture

I like this trade. Wonder, did he have a better year than Hundley? Clearly a move with an eye towards more.

John Kirk's picture

"That pick, however, would eventually be Kevin King, who is currently the only starting-caliber cornerback on the Packers' roster."

---Major bone of contention. What are you basing King being a starting caliber CB on? His draft status? There wasn't anything else. The revered PFF had him rated 115 out of 121 CB's. I don't have to tell anyone that's not very good. So, how is he a sure thing? He's not even close.

This move was akin to jettisoning Sitton. At least we got something this time and we all can debate if it was worth all that much, but I'd rather have Kizer than Hundley and or have nothing for Damarious. We probably could've gotten a mid to late pick for Randall and they opted for Kizer instead which I think was prudent.

Brian coming out of the gates in bizarre fashion. Confidence has to be shaken even in the most ardent supporters of the change.

Zachary Jacobson's picture

Lol, it's lose-or-lose with that one. People on Twitter saying that King was better than Randall -- which I highly disagreed with considering he played one injury-riddled season -- and now you're on here saying the opposite. He has the potential to be their best cornerback, and he showed flashes of that last season. I don't hold PFF grades on a pedestal and use them to base my judgments on.

John Kirk's picture

I'm not saying anything other than what PFF reported and questioning why you called him starting caliber? I think he looked way more bust than boom. Trying to get a handle on why anyone would think he's starting caliber? What is that opinion based on? That's he's a Packer and a high pick and we wish it to be true? Fair questions without answers. He tackled well, but I saw no ability to turn and run. I saw Bryce Treggs torch him live inside Lambeau. Bryce freaking Treggs left him in the dust. Speed a major issue for King despite his timed speed.

Oh, and I don't care for PFF, I just posted for those who value them that he was the 115th rated CB, yet, we have some saying he's starting caliber? I don't value PFF but I value less an opinion based on nothing as far as I can tell.

croatpackfan's picture

I remember 3 seasons ago, PFF was grading Palmer as top QB for the week even he lost the game with INT and 1 TD, while Aaron was somewhat 8th or 9th QB despite he won the game in which Aaron had 3 TD and no INT. PFF explained that Palmer was playing against stronger opponent...

After that, PFF has no relevance with me!

"And, I do not care for PFF..." still using them as argument. Ridiculous!

Bure9620's picture

I thought King was fine, actually we stopped getting torched by Julio when he finally got in that game and he was great in run support. He showed he knows how to use his length as well. Did he get burned a few times?? Yes he did. He was also a rookie corner. About what I expected.

Tundraboy's picture

Precisely. Only question is his health. He can play better than anyone else we have had since Shields.

Thebearsstillsuck's picture

I feel this was more on Mccarthy than gutekunst. It would be interesting to know who was the one that went to Murphy with this idea but Mccarthy said a lot of negative things about Randall. I don't really like the trade but I feel better about it seeing what we got. I was figuring a 5th or 6th at best. I really really didn't want to spend another high pick on a corner with everything that has been spent lately for such limited results and was hoping for a veteran to provide a little leadership back there, but pretty sure we'll be drafting one 1st or 2nd now (again)

RobinsonDavis's picture

Exactly. I totally believe this was a McCarthy move as well as a locker room deal. I am sure there were players who also did not appreciate Randall's antics last year. However, Randall was consistently challenged by opposing teams AFTER the incident, and frankly, he was solid for the most part. I did not see any other Packers producing the turnovers that he was.

To me, this is a trade of what would be a disgruntled Kizer for a disgruntled Randall whereby the teams are hoping they can recoup some value. What this does signal is that Gut & Pettine will now be able to put their mark on the type of DBs they want, and it appears to be THE positional priority they have chosen to change our defensive personnel. After this move, I am expecting another vet signing/trade at some point along with early draft selections to solidify our defensive backfield. The new salary cap adds a few $million, but as stated by many, there are other positional needs as well. So, I will be surprised if the vet signing will be a "splash" guy. Stay tuned!

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Packers take a cap hit on Randall's signing bonus now, as it all gets placed into this year's cap.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Correct. We ate $1M of Randall's signing bonus, but cap savings is $1.5M. Cleveland ate 3 yrs of Kizer's signing bonus, and we take on his $689K cap number. No idea if we are keeping Hundley and his $705K cap hit. We are ahead on the cap, $800K to $1.5M, depending on what happens with Hundley.

JDK52's picture

"confidence has to be shaken"

No it does not. Unlike you, evidently, many of us can imagine how Gutekunst isn't done building his roster with one trade. In fact, he may have solved one of the more difficult tasks for any team-getting a legit backup QB.

Let's see how this plays out.

Tundraboy's picture

That's how I, look at it. Do not have the added distraction of finding a backup QB, potentially anyway. Focus of draft and FA can now be where it is needed.

HankScorpio's picture

He may also have stopped wasting time with a player they have determined isn't going to help them win.

I thought Randall was their best CB in 2017. I thought Gunter was the best of 2016. I didn't pine for Gunter last year and can't see myself pining for Randall in 2018, no matter what happens with replacing him.

John Kirk's picture

I'm glad your confidence isn't. I'm not sure why it isn't though?

Right, he may have...may...have. May not have. I'm not panning the trade, and I stated that it's better than just getting a mid round or late round pick for him. Switching picks in 4th and 5th rounds is nice moving up 13 spots in each round all for a guy they probably were going to release due to attitudinal issues. We got something(s) for him. That's great.

Perception is always different for everyone. I do believe most have to be scratching their heads over this and lack any confidence in the change. You happen to not be one of them. I'm already convinced he's a weak guy and we're not in good hands and this trade has little to do with that opinion.

dobber's picture

It's sad that you've already mailed it in on Gutekunst. This will be a very unsatisfying period for you in Packers history.

John Kirk's picture

The list is growing for me to believe this...

1) He accepted the job after they told him he couldn't hire or fire a HC. Ron Wolf would not have even interviewed under that scenario, but Gute accepted the job. That is WEAK.

2) The structure itself with Brian as weak as he already is makes him as GM harder to trust. It's as though Murphy has training wheels on him and Mark is assuming big chunks of the GM job due to lack of faith in Brian...or the fact he really wanted Russ.

3) Russ Ball is still there and appears to be co-equal. Who accepts a job under this kind of murkiness and being stripped of traditional GM duties of hiring and firing? Again...weak.

4) Makes comments about wanting to keep our "good" players which is exactly the kind of thing Ted did. He appears to have the same mindset. Seems oblivious to the fact these good players are good but are paid as if elite.

5) He said he wasn't going to deviate from organizational established protocols on size and weight for certain positions. That is not being his own guy, he's weak so he just went with what was already there. At very least, his approach is not new or fresh. It's the same in regards to that issue.

6) We need CB help...badly. The Rams are out there aggressively doing things that Brian indicated we would be doing. No stone unturned is a nice catch phrase but seeing two guys who can play go to the Rams while we have literally nothing there is head scratching.

7) The gaping hole at CB appears, and I could be wrong, but I doubt it, to be getting addressed via more high picks. I'm feeling strongly Josh Jackson is now their guy knowing they can get a guy who ran 4.56 at 14 without issue.

8) He looks uncomfortable in front of the media...moves around a lot. A confident guy isn't rocking back and forth.

9) I believe he had a lot to do with how things were running under Ted so there won't be much new under the sun. I admit this is speculation but that is what I honestly feel.

10) Wilkerson left town without a deal. We have a guy who killed it under our new DC and it's obvious we need help on D. We've wasted high pick after high pick to fix it and it's still broken. We have a difference maker interested in us and he gets on a plane for New Orleans? Tell me Ron Wolf lets that happen. I don't believe it. There aren't many guys much less stars who want to come to Green Bay. We get one...we could use him...and we don't sign him.

My opinion can be argued and countered but it's based on some tangible evidence mixed with pure opinion, speculation and gut feel.

I'd rather discuss things like this than read...let's give Gute some time. No, let's talk about what has happened already, not push it off into some realm where we're not allowed to comment until months down the road because it's uncomfortable talking about what is.

HankScorpio's picture

"Makes comments about wanting to keep our "good" players which is exactly the kind of thing Ted did. He appears to have the same mindset. Seems oblivious to the fact these good players are good but are paid as if elite."

How in the happy heck does wanting to keep good players give you concerns about a GM? Would you prefer he said they should keep the bad players? Or that they should kick their good players to the curb?

You also mention the lack of depth at CB--a TT issue not one of Gute's doing. It seems perfectly obvious to me that cutting Randall loose is his first step in addressing the issue. You're right in saying that the Packers had weak CBs. Randall was part of the weakness. He may have been the tallest midget of the bunch but that didn't leave him shopping in the Big and Tall aisles. I won't miss him any more than I missed LaDarius Gunter. In fact, during the last NFL season, you admit to thinking he should be released outright. Instead the Packers acquired a player they were rumored to be eyeing @ 33 last year to address another major weakness--backup QB.

Gute has got a lot of work to do this off season. He's just getting started. I'll judge the work when the season begins.

John Kirk's picture

Hank...the part at the end is key. Yes, you want to keep your good players but you don't when they're paid as if they're elite. I think Dean Lowry is a good player...roster worthy. However, he looks a lot different to me at 10 million per. That's my issue. It's nice having good players, it's not nice commenting on keeping good players who are paid as if elite. Keep your good players at good prices. We haven't been doing that and it seems it will continue under Brian.

The cogent criticism is rich. I've detailed why I believe what I believe. You apparently value opinions that come from absolutely nowhere that flatter the org.

Let me do some of that and perhaps you'll like me better...

Hey, give Gute time he's new on the job.

There must be a plan. Gute's got this.

The new power structure just needs time to see if it's good or bad.

It just takes one draft to turn it all around.

Rodgers is back...we'll be in the playoffs. R E L A X

The above are mind numbing commentaries. Water is wet. Sky is blue. Real deep interesting perspectives.

chugwater's picture

The ability to type so much and not come up with a cogent point is mind boggling.

fastmoving's picture

kirk has a lot of time and likes to hear himself talk......

nothing more to say about that kind of stuff

fthisJack's picture

JK...always a negative spin on everything. what makes you think this is it for change on this roster? here we get a backup QB which we needed and gave up a CB of questionable ability that you never gave any ringing endorsements to. its obvious that nothing this GM does will be good enough for you.

John Kirk's picture

Always negative? No. I don't have any agenda other than to type what I think, or to pose questions. Always positive spinning everything Packers is an agenda for some and is nauseating, at least to me. I don't follow Packers football or post because I want to feel good. I respond to what is there. If it's cold out, I say it's cold. If it's hot I say it's hot. If it's hot or cold I don't speak to how mild it actually is. I speak to actual temperature I feel and nothing more.

I posted that I'm thrilled Randall is gone. Thrilled. He should've been cut after the sideline incident. I was glad to read the players agreed. Of course, on another forum, I was hammered for suggesting we move on from Randall after that. Our org has looked so so weak over the years that it amazes me anyone found contentment for how we were run. I post about those issues and I will remain unpopular and undeterred.

There is plenty this GM can do that is good enough for me. Not being like Ted would be a very very good place to start.

Who said I thought this was it for change on the roster? Again, when something actually happens, some want to curtail the talk of the actual move and push it into the realm of...we're not done yet. Great. However, we did do something and we should talk about it as it appears for today. We all know there's a tomorrow nobody needs to type that. We all know there's a draft coming. We all know it's possible we might sign some guys. I'd rather talk about what actually happened when it just happened than put all these conditions on things when things don't appear to make much sense.

Chuck Farley's picture

Legit.? The guy can't read defenses to save his life. 22 interceptions last year. Really. Hundley wasn't that bad. This guy is too dumb to be taught anything. Disaster trade

worztik's picture

In last year’s draft mags, Kizer was rated as the #1QB AVAILABLE IN THE 2017 DRAFT!!! He may have had a problem develop around midsession but, look at his supporting cast! That and he came out as a red shirt sophomore!!! I like the trade and I really like the switches of picks in rounds 4 & 5!!! And we’re off... let’s see more trades like this!!! I’m excited!!!!!!!

Cubbygold's picture

Kizer was def not rated as the best qb in the draft

worztik's picture

Go back and read the reviews!!! You talk smart , so offer up the alternatives, bro!!!

The TKstinator's picture

Also
Maybe Pettine wasn’t in favor of 23?

jeremyjjbrown's picture

Awful. Even if you somehow like Kizer it's hard to believe that's all the value that could be had for Randall. He may have been immature but at least he could cover. The Packers don't have anyone who can actually cover now.

This falls in line with one thing I've been wondering, however. If Pettine is planning to play a lot of man coverage.

Bure9620's picture

Ummmm. I saw Randall blow LOTS of coverages, then blame it on his teammates.....

jeremyjjbrown's picture

You mean you couldn't see Brice vacate his spot becuase FOX doesn't show the safeties? And then Randall have a fit. Yeah he was really immature. But he didn't blow any more coverages than the other cornerbacks. Especially not as many as King did.

fthisJack's picture

like you know how many coverages King or Randall blew.....give me a break. i think the coaches and GM have a better handle on personell than you do.

Thebearsstillsuck's picture

Have you looked at this roster. You could have simply picked names out of a hat on draft day the last few years and have done better. The decision makers do not get the benefit of the doubt at all. Always building for the future. The future is now and it does not look real bright right now

Thebearsstillsuck's picture

Have you looked at this roster. You could have simply picked names out of a hat on draft day the last few years and have done better. The decision makers do not get the benefit of the doubt at all. Always building for the future. The future is now and it does not look real bright right now

Doug Niemczynski's picture

The DC sucked and we had NO PASS RUSH

HankScorpio's picture

"He may have been immature but at least he could cover"

Apparently, immature is bad to the Packers.

Weird, huh?

jeremyjjbrown's picture

They stuck with Adams and it paid off.

HankScorpio's picture

I missed the reports of Adams being so immature he was kicked off the field in the middle of a game.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

It was pretty close to that in the locker room from what I've read.

flackcatcher's picture

Yeah. Adams was so pissed off about his high ankle wasn't healing he took it out in the locker room. Both Cobb, Nelson and Rodgers told him to knock it off and grow up. Kid was having a nightmare 2015 season, it finally got to him. But he did grow up and had a fine 2016 and 2017 and got rewarded for it.

flackcatcher's picture

This is two men who know and trust each other giving a second chance to two players, who have suffered bad breaks early in their career. Football wise it is a win win for both teams, as it fills immediate needs for both. Long term is unknown, short term it helps both the young players and their new teams.

Cubbygold's picture

I like this trade, if only that its evidence that change will be allowed to happen. Pettine must have decided randall wasn't suited to start in his system and gute must feel Randall isn't mentally tough enough to accept a backup role.

I'm also in favor of any move that gets hundley out of town.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I thought Pettine was the master at adapting his scheme to the players on hand? Guess not.

Nick Perry's picture

^^^^^THIS^^^^
That's an excellent point Cubbygold......I'd feel pretty safe in betting an amount of money that mattered that McCarthy, Pettine, Whitt, along with Gutekunst feel Randall can be replaced easily and won't bring much to Pettines defense. I'm sure what Pettine saw on tape for a few games at the end of a season didn't make him feel Randall was all that after a couple of seasons of pretty poor play AND the finger pointing at his teammates.

I'm not crazy about Kizer but I also wouldn't look at last year as much of an example. A 0-16 team with no real receiving threats, at least until Gordon was reinstated, no running game, not much of any help really.

We moved up about 14 spots in the 4th and 5th. Hopefully are moving on from Hundley, and maybe just traded for a hell of a QB. I'm pretty sure Randall isn't a hell of a CB so at least they have a chance getting it right.

John Kirk's picture

Hey NP...Kizer had Njoku and DeValve at TE...both better than our best last season. Corey Coleman is nothing to sneeze at.

This is a throw to get excited about right here...pre-season but look at it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbDgx2jj35E

That ^^^^^ immediately came to mind when I heard we got Kizer...he has some tools. That play shows a lot. However, Hundley also looked fantastic in his first pre-season with us and it was all downhill from there.

Nick Perry's picture

That WAS a nice throw wasn't it. I've read several of your posts recently, especially the ones suggesting a trade of Rodgers to Cleveland. While I don't believe that one would happen I'm shocked you or others haven't looked at acquiring Kizer from another angle.

The Packers just acquired a QB they were to have considered using their first pick overall (#33) on last season. Are we so absolutely 100% certain Rodgers will even be here in 3 years? I mean if that rumor was really true about Kiser WITH the holes the Packers had before the 2017 draft, then I HAVE to wonder about Rodgers future in GB past 2020.

Personally it makes me sick to my stomach to think of the Packers without Rodgers BUT he has been nicked up a few times in the last few seasons. Even IF Rodgers were to sign an extension NOW, it would make trading Rodgers that much more appealing next season or the season after. Christ with the costs of QB salaries rising weekly a deal signed by Rodgers in 2018 might look like a "Deal" in 2020. Especially if Rodgers continues to play at a high level which everybody seems to think he will.

I'm NOT suggesting I'd be in favor of trading Rodgers. I'm just tossing out a idea on WHY we just obtained Kiser while giving up a player at a position where the words HUGE NEED doesn't even define the Packers CB situation.

John Kirk's picture

Amen. I thought a lot about this Kizer at 33 talk. It may have been possible that was floated by the org to drum up trade interest from another team to move up with us to get Kizer when we had no actual interest in him at all. We didn't trade back, so either teams didn't believe we were really taking Kizer, or nobody cared, or this rumor is a total fabrication. I don't know which is true but taking the rumor as truth leads to many many tough questions.

The Kizer to Packers at 33 last year rumor should have it's own story here. That is mindblowingly huge. It certainly says something. I believe Rodgers can't stand MM. He's gotten snarkier and snarkier as the years roll by. MM loves his king of the castle perception but he always struck me as weak when it came to Aaron knowing his bread was buttered by him. Maybe, MM is tired of feeling like his butler and wants to prove he's a highly successful coach without him.

I'm fascinated by the opinion that Kizer was only acquired to just be a backup and that is the only possible reason this org traded for him knowing the rumor was out there that we almost took him at 33 last year. NOBODY is using 33 on a backup QB. Now, that we trade for him it was only for him to be a backup with no thought in our heads that he might be the future? Might be a replacement? I'm sure everyone by now has seen the link that Ron traded for Brett, Ted took Aaron, and Brian traded for Kizer. All three new GM's came in and did something unexpected at QB and for the first two their QB's turned into HOF'ers. We're to believe Brian, who seems so much steeped in Packers tradition and dogma did the exact same thing as two of his predecessors but he was only thinking I'm going to fix the backup position? Okay.

There's much to explore and to choose to ignore. I'd rather explore.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

NP, you took the words right out of my mouth. There are probably arena football and college team secondarys that play better than ours. Getting rid of our best secondary player, in spite of his limitations, doesnt make a lot of sense. We have nearly no $$ to throw at FAs, time to draft young, inexperienced CBs that get flagged at the worst possible times.

dobber's picture

"I'd feel pretty safe in betting an amount of money that mattered that McCarthy, Pettine, Whitt, along with Gutekunst feel Randall can be replaced easily and won't bring much to Pettines defense. "

Here's a guy who we all (and past coaches) have indicated is best suited to be a slot corner (or a safety)...which are pretty much a dime a dozen.

Kizer will have time to work on his game behind #12. If anything, that's what the draftniks and scouts were saying prior to the draft: he needs time. Instead, he got thrown into the fire by Hue Jackson (perhaps due to pressure from above) and yanked in and out of the lineup. I'm not saying he's going to be an all-pro, but I think he can be a guy who fills that role behind #12 for now and has better upside than Hundley.

Bure9620's picture

Significantly better upside than Hundley. You can't compare the 2, Hundley cannot run an offense he had been studying for 2 and a half years. Kizer was thrown to the wolves and almost everyone said he was not ready to start coming out of ND. He needs development. Hundley is done, I would be shocked if we can deal him for anything.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Slot corners are a dime a dozen. Fine to jettison.
Slot WRs are a dime a dozen. Fine to jettison.
Get what you can, though, which is nothing in our case. Least we got a little for Randall.

The TKstinator's picture

More moves to come, says the TKstinator.

Zachary Jacobson's picture

Has to be.

4thand1's picture

U- Haul business is picking up in GB.

4thand1's picture

Gordon may punch Randall in the mouth when they meet. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers deal Kizer later , maybe after pre season if he looks really good. It's getting interesting already and the real FA hasn't even started yet.

Cubbygold's picture

Lol forgot about that. Should be a fun training camp

Bert's picture

Given recent (2017) history with the effect a backup QB can have on our season, "if he looks really good" we better hang on to him with dear life.

Jersey Al's picture

Someone just whispered in my ear that the Titans were set to trade for Hundley but pulled out. (don't know for what). Oakland still interested in Hundley for a late pick.

HankScorpio's picture

How many picks would the Packers have to give Oakland for them to want to take Hundley?

John Kirk's picture

Ha ha ha ha ha. Hysterical. Another Brock Osweiler type deal.

Chuck Farley's picture

Anyone who wants hundley as a backup didn't see his film. I would be shocked anyone would want him

The TKstinator's picture

How come everybody want to keep it like the Kizer?

Jersey Al's picture

Better than giving it away, giving it away now.

Zachary Jacobson's picture

Chili Pepper references. My Friday is made.

fthisJack's picture

good one Al...didn't know you were a RHCP fan!

EdsLaces's picture

I realized I didn't wanna be a mizaaa.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

I can't tell if he's a Shawn King or Rick Mirer...

dobber's picture

I'm so darn glad He let me try it again,
'Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin.
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then.
Gonna keep on tryin' till I reach...Cleveland?

I bleed green more's picture

Never a boring moment, more will come looks like it's just beginning.

Ryan Graham's picture

Watch Randall be a stud in the slot or a corner/safety guy. Would make sense, another misused piece leaving GB to have career years elsewhere....

JohnnyLogan's picture

We now have the 1st pick on day 3, a very coveted spot to be in. We can trade it (maybe add a 5th) to move into the top 10 picks of the 1st round. That will likely get us one of the top 3 corners in the draft; Minka Fitzpatrick (probably won't get him) Denzel Ward or Derwin James. All three are tremendous players, potential All-Pros who will have careers far better than Randall. Gute may be playing chess and all we saw so far was pawn to King three.

Mojo's picture

Thinking the same thing about moving up. There are a lot of variables in play for Gute.

fthisJack's picture

they could stay at 14 and get either James or Ward. i love James and what he could bring with his size and speed at S or CB! he's my guy at 14.

JDK52's picture

The point was made that this seems more about personality than talent. I think I agree, because MM seemed really frustrated with Randall even after he turned his season around.

Plus we now have a guy who could be a serviceable backup QB. It's fun to speculate, at least.

HankScorpio's picture

i think a lot of people, me included, talked themselves into overlooking what happened in Chicago earlier this season. I don't think MM was as willing to forget.

Colin_C's picture

You might have hit the nail on the head. I didn't think it to be a big deal, but even after the season, MM said Randall needed to "clean his own house". I guess he'll be doing that literally now.

EdsLaces's picture

This is stupid. If we don't go pass rush first round and get a freaking corner like Jackson or Ward...this defense will look exactly the same. Better get to adding Tremaine Johnson asap.

stockholder's picture

I still believe they sign House. House and King and rollins are your CBs. I bet Anthony Averett is going to be a packer. Let's not rule out those Alabama players this year.

Mojo's picture

Could be Gute was the Packer who liked Kiser and Eliot liked Randall. Meet at the combine and put the wheels in motion,

Not a big fan of Randall myself, but man are we thin at corner. Hope this doesn't force them to take best CB available in the draft and not just the BPA.

Like moving up into the fourth plus we get a little more cap room so all in all, I'll take it.

If Gute really was on the Kiser bandwagon, they might not see the need to bring in a vet QB and can save some cap space there.

HankScorpio's picture

"Not a big fan of Randall myself, but man are we thin at corner. Hope this doesn't force them to take best CB available in the draft and not just the BPA."

Gute singled out the DBs in this year's draft class as being very good.

4thand1's picture

We should have a better back up QB. Got better late round picks, but your right about being thin at CB. I think a big FA signing is coming, just feels like it will happen.

dobber's picture

This just might be a matter of the GM who picked Kizer and the GM who picked Randall are gone, and the new GMs just don't value those players very much...but clearly, Dorsey liked Randall enough to not only deal a young QB for him but also drop 13 spots in the 4th and 5th.

John Kirk's picture

Randall gone. Hyde gone. Hayward gone. Hey, we kept the good ones...Rollins, Goodson, Herb Waters. We're good.

HankScorpio's picture

Don't sleep on Donatello Brown and Linzy Pipkins!!!

That's a joke, BTW, sarcasm is sometimes hard to project :P

The TKstinator's picture

Use this: ~~~~~

John Kirk's picture

The jokes almost write themselves. I love it, Hank.

The sideline incident had me advocating cutting him back when it happened. I thought we were weak for tolerating that from a guy who was injured all the time and erratic as could be. I'm thrilled he's gone...but worried about what this means for 14th overall.

Another need pick in the draft like Datone who went...bust. I fear another need pick coming at 14 on Josh Jackson.

What percent chance do you think we're setting MM up like Ted set up Sherman to take a fall? I'm really starting to wonder if that isn't the real plan in play here.

fthisJack's picture

here we go with the conspiracy theories now......

Oppy's picture

Like Ted set up Sherman to fall?

Bob Harlan himself has said that TT was fine with Sherman as HC, and wanted him to continue in that role, but Mike Sherman basically refused to work with TT, sour that he had his GM status removed. Harlan said Sherman basically forced their hand in letting him go.

John Kirk's picture

Yes. What do you think putting WR's like Taco Wallace on the roster was all about? Winning?

This is the first I've heard what you say of Harlan on the situation. That's odd given that he said this in 2012...

"I was concerned that if a new man came in from the outside, (Sherman) might have trouble getting along with him, (or) the new man might want to come in and want to totally change the scouting staff, which I thought was a capable young scouting staff. And so I decided to do something that I don't like to do -- give one man both jobs," Harlan said. "And (Sherman) didn't hurt us on the field -- we went 12-4, 12-4, 10-6, 10-6. (He) did a great job of coaching. But it got to the point when we started having problems with players that he almost seemed to be ignoring the team."

---Sounds like Bob knew bringing in an outside guy would cause issues for Sherman... that sounds like set up to fail to me.

McGinn wrote this of Sherman and TT:

Given the same uneven deck Sherman was dealt this season, it's conceivable the Packers could perform no better next season and maybe get worse. But even though Sherman did post a 59-43 record in six seasons, the Packers are better off with fresh blood, new voices and a different approach.

---Notice the words, "uneven deck".

Ted wanted his own guy...and he made sure he got him.

Oppy's picture

When reading between the lines, you might want to try some reading glasses.

Your first quote is simply a statement that being both a coach and a GM is not a healthy situation and one man should not hold both posistions. It is an admission that Harlan made a poor choice to give Sherman the GM role because he believed he was a great coach and deserved to stay on board. That's clearly not setting him up to fail, it's quite the opposite, but he realized his mistake as the personnel/front office side of the Packers was becoming unhinged. That's when the decision to strip SHerman of GM status was made and TT given the job. Again, not setting anyone up to fail.

Your second quote, from a Bob McGinn article, a is a reference to a losing record due to a team rebuild. That's not setting a coach up to fail, that's setting a team up to win, and I'm quite sure everyone in 1225 understood that there is going to be a drop in short-term winning during a rebuild. It simply doesn't imply TT and Harlan conspired to get rid of Sherman. It means they had to gut a roster that was a cap nightmare and build a young team to compete for the foreseeable future, not that they are sabotaging the head coach. Why would there even be a conspiracy to push Sherman out? They stripped him of his GM title, why wouldn't they just have fired him outright? Your scenario lacks substance and sense.

So, thanks for digging through your files in an attempt to build your case for the anti-Sherman conspiracy. I'm sorry that you haven't seen the quotes I'm referring to, and I can only assure you they were made. I'm not going to desperately read old articles and listen to old radio broadcasts trying to find them.

John Kirk's picture

I need reading glasses? Apparently, you glossed over the fact that Harlan gave the quotes i posted in 2012. There was no mention of Sherman not wanting to work with TT yet implied by the quote he did give. That seems a little odd to give quotes that he gave Sherman the dual role because he knew if he had an outside guy at GM it would cause problems for Mike.

You can say Bob said them...perhaps, he did...perhaps, he didn't. One thing is clear...he didn't say them in 2012 where he admitted Sherman wouldn't handle an outside GM well. So, he brings in Ted and what do you suppose Bob thought would happen there? You're smart enough to figure that out.

Oppy's picture

He said them in 2012.. in reference to the events of 2001 (the departure and replacement of Ron Wolf). Not 2005 (the stripping of Sherman's GM role / hiring of Ted Thompson).

Here's some reading in between the lines for you:

Considering the fact in those statements, Harlan specifically points to not only his fear that Sherman might not get along with an outsider, but also that an outsider for GM might dismantle a great scouting department... perhaps Harlan is implying that is the reason he decided on Ted Thompson in 2005 as GM- because he had already worked with Sherman in Green Bay prior, and obviously was a part of the brotherhood that was the scouting department assembled over the years by Wolf- so perhaps, the hiring of TT satisfied both the best chance for Sherman to remain on, and to keep the scouting department intact.

See, that's how you read between the lines. Lol. You do need in between the lines reading glasses. But I digress, I'm having fun. The point stands, you are taking a statement about 2001 and a completely different situation, and applying it to 2005.

John Kirk's picture

:) I'd still like an answer from you on the idea of taking the GM job away from Sherman specifically in light of Harlan saying he gave him the dual role in the first place because he didn't think he'd handle an outside GM well. Harlan KNEW that when he stripped Sherman of his duties it was going to be problematic. There is no way to conclude otherwise which fits in perfectly to they set him up to fail. Taking the GM title away and leaving him as HC was setting him up to fail in and of itself beyond what product Ted put on the field that year that was also setting him up to fail.

Mike Sherman was a mistake. I'm glad Bob realized it but he should've fired him completely as opposed to stripping him knowing he was creating a problem by doing so.

I'm not certain we aren't setting MM up to fail. We haven't seen what the big plan is for this season. It's possible the plan is to move on from him just like it was to move on from Sherman after a bizarre extension for both. MM got his only to avoid the lame duck appearance. Why not extend him for longer if he's really your guy? The short extension raises lots of questions that have gone largely ignored.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

This organization needs to hire outside consultants to manage, evaluate and coach defensive secondary players. Every single decision regarding this secondary has been wrong. These guys get paid mountains of cash to put together a secondary that actually works. Its as if the Packers are trying to fail.

Denise Chanterelle's picture

In Gute we Trust!

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Amen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rossonero's picture

I don't like the trade. Here's my takeaways:

1. We lose a starting CB and receive a back-up QB project...a guy who led the league with 22 interceptions. He wasn't ready to play, kinda like Brett Hundley. What's worse is, he likely won't ever see the field. The Browns also have three 2nd rd picks...why not try to get one of those in return? (Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but it's worth noting).

2. Another indictment of the draft and develop philosophy. Two out of our last four 1st rd picks aren't even on the team anymore (Datone Jones being the other one).

3. Is it just me, or does McCarthy struggle to manage personalities? Josh Sitton speaking out? Cut him. Demarious Randall? Trade him. The Patriots are successful because they take risks on guys and then force them to conform to the Patriot way. We just give up.

4. The underlying assumption is Kizer improves and we can trade him later on. However, I don't have any trust or confidence in the so called, "Mike McCarthy QB School," which hasn't produced diddly squat.

5. Financially, it doesn't make much sense to me. Randall has a $1.4M cap hit this year and Kizer has a $1.1M cap hit....so we saved $300K unless I am missing something.

JDK52's picture

*except for Rodgers, but yeah.

Honestly though, given this is stunning yo so many of us, do you really think Gute is done? Maybe he's building up the capital to do some sweet moves in the draft and get us a top-10 DB.

Rossonero's picture

I knew someone was going to mention Rodgers. He's moreso natural talent than coaching. The things he does you can't coach.

JDK52's picture

You can't throw out data just because it doesn't fit your narrative. Rodgers came out of MM's QB school. You can't say that doesn't count.

Rossonero's picture

Every data set has outliers, so yes, you can. Michael Jordan and LeBron have received some coaching, yes. But the things they do / did cannot be taught.

Oppy's picture

Look at Rodgers' mechanics coming out of the draft.

Look at Rodgers' tape when he first got his chance to play- played half of that dallas game (and almost pulled it out.)

I won't take anything away from Rodgers' natural talent- but there is zero, zero, zero denying that MM and the Packers training staff completely deconstructed Rodgers' mechanics and rebuilt him into an NFL QB... regardless of the success or lack thereof of any other QB that has come through the program.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

he did have a weird throwing style in college

Minniman's picture

Given that the Packers have 12 picks in the upcoming draft, I'd say that's exactly what he's doing

dobber's picture

"Another indictment of the draft and develop philosophy. "

Perhaps an indictment of the drafter more than anything else.

"Financially, it doesn't make much sense to me."

For contracts of that level, I doubt finances really weighed into it, but if the Packers were laboring under the decision of whether or not to give Randall his 5th year option (which seemed like a no-brainer to me, but who knows?) or even an extension?

HankScorpio's picture

"Another indictment of the draft and develop philosophy. Two out of our last four 1st rd picks aren't even on the team anymore (Datone Jones being the other one)."

Not really. More of an indicator that the Packers have been drafting poorly of late. That's not part of 'draft and develop' philosophy. The philosophy is sound. The execution needs to improve. By a lot.

It's really hard to win in the NFL without getting big contributions from guys on rookie deals.

Rossonero's picture

Hank and dobber: Fair enough about the drafter / execution. We must draft better.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Randall had a $2.518M cap hit, but we eat his $1M signing bonus proration, so cap savings is $1.518M. Kizer has a $690K cap hit (Cleveland ate his remaining signing bonus). Hundley has a cap hit of $761K and a cap saving of $705K - but we don't know if that matters at this point. So, potentially some noticeable cap savings, somewhere between $818K to $1.533M.

Cap savings, despite how cheap most think I am, isn't going to make me like this trade.

Cubbygold's picture

Randall isn't a starting CB. He played because the starters, on a bad defense, were injured.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Nonsense. Who got injured? Rollins? You think House is better than Randall? Now that he isn't a Packer, suddenly Randall is chopped liver.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

I bet Demarious Randall's reaction to being huge out to dry by Brice in Capers shit scheme was no worse than the reactions of most of the people commenting on this story at some point last season. The difference was he was on TV. I know I've had some rare explosion watching that secondary play myself. I'm glad nobody was recording.

flackcatcher's picture

That was a night I'll never want to see again. Came close to full out brawl on the sideline. Randall actually did the smart thing in leaving the bench. Brice was a real piece of work that night. I saw veteran players pushing their younger ones back over the crap he was saying. Had veteran players tell me how shocked that this happen. We now know, this was an early sign that their were serious problems in this group last year.

Rossonero's picture

Haha!

Oppy's picture

A lot of people don't seem to realize that the last collective Bargaining agreement basically crippled MM's QB school, greatly restricting the ability for players and coaches to spend time together at team facilities.

As far as people taking pot shots at MM's ability to coach QB's, Rich Gannon says MM's tutelage and school are unique and the best teaching he had ever had, Matt Hasslebeck swears MM is the reason he had a successful career, and of course, Rodgers sweared by the QB school as well.

flackcatcher's picture

I disagree, but your comment is quite reasonable in the context of last season. In the aftermath of last season, the coaching failures on both sides of the ball are becoming clearer. McCarthy's failure in dealing with his assistant's cost this team last season in ways we do not yet know. Most of this about rebuilding the roster, but some of this is clearing away Packer coaching and leadership failures. That falls squarely on Mike McCarthy. Someone had to go. This time it was Randall. Next time.....

TXCHEESE's picture

GB move up a total of 26 spots. I wonder if they're going after Johnson from the Rams. Looks like the wheeling and dealing has commenced. Should be an exiting next few days.

Ryan Graham's picture

TXCheese, Im right there with you after looking at this more. humor me for a moment.

trade that 4th rounder and their current 14 pick to move up into the top 10 for one of Fitzpatrick, Ward or Jackson. Cobb (better market value than Nelson) and one of their 3rd round picks to move back Into the first. Maybe get Davenport or Landry in the mid to late first round? Looks like there's potential for this to turn out okay...

Cubbygold's picture

Im curious about the potential here as well. The value of GBs 12 picks just went up. It would be nice to see 3-4 of them cashed in to move up.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

We could package #14 and the 4th. Might get us to #12. Conceivable that Ward is there. For Jackson, probably don't have to move up. I think Jackson is a reach at #14. Hell, I think we can trade back from #14 and get Jackson.

Cobb and a first rounder will get us into the first. Cobb has zero value.

Hagster's picture

Very interesting move, and a sure sign of moves to come.

Couple takeaways

Coaching staff must have faith King will be healthy and be a legitimate starter.

Also I’d pray this shows that Gute is going after a top guy in FA (Sherman, Johnson, Butler??)

Finally with all the talk about the new power structure, was this a move from MM? Who has said few good things about Randall.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I am stunned by the reaction. Well, folks here have always been pretty supportive of the people occupying the FO, and that remains a defining characteristic.

We had a need at CB with Randall, King and hopefuls. Now we have a gaping, festering, gangrenous wound at CB. Kind of reminds me of Monty Python - lop off an arm and the knight thinks he is still fine. I actually liked Kizer and wondered if he would have a Goff-like turnaround. But Randall for a guy we hope never sees the light of day (even if he is talented).

This move makes it harder to imagine taking Roquan Smith and then a 2nd round WR, or a variety of other permutations. This seems to restrict both draft and FA options.

I am sure there are moves to follow. Has to be. Either that, or Pettine's new scheme is a 5-5-1.

HankScorpio's picture

The needle didn't move that much on the need at CB with Randall's departure. They needed help with him and need help without him. His play was no small part of the reason they needed help.

I don't think anyone is happy about the current state of the CB group. It's just some are less melodramatic about losing an inconsistent, immature player that they obviously wanted no part of having around anymore.

Cubbygold's picture

Exactly. If GB opened next season with king and randall lining up at CB the offseason would have been a failure. Not great to lose the depth, but I imagine several new DBs are on their way to GB in the next month

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Well Hank, in one way I agree. See the Demovsky tweet below. We were going to part ways with Randall one way or another, I guess. Per usual, the WI media tells us after the player is gone. And now I've read Nagler tweeted out some time ago that Randall was on the trading block, so that means it was fairly common knowledge among NFL insiders and other GMs. Within that context, Gute probably got a good deal (since I liked Kizer better than most, even wondered if he'd make a Goff-like turn around given time and some receivers). The net is Kizer and the equivalent of a high 5th (35.5 points on the trade chart) for Randall.

But, exactly how many reasonably good CBs does a team need? How many do we have now? How many do we need to acquire? Do we need to acquire one more now than before we traded Randall? Just yesterday most folks thought Randall was a decent starting CB, and now, well not so much.

As to the tweet, did GB "stand behind" Randall against the veterans. or just decline to start Donatello Brown and Pipkens? Heck, they had Burnett play some snaps at boundary CB.

GB keeps chucking players MM can't handle. That's one way to keep the locker room.

https://twitter.com/RobDemovsky/status/972294150950408192?s=20

HankScorpio's picture

" Just yesterday most folks thought Randall was a decent starting CB, and now, well not so much."

How much conviction did anyone have in arguing that? There was always the "if the play like the end of 2017..." qualifier on that. And a lot of acknowledgement that he was far from a sure thing. It's pretty easy to let go of something you don't believe that strongly.

At least that is the way I'm looking at Randall. I was one who would have been ok with rolling the dice on him. But I always knew it was a roll of the dice. So now it will be rolling the dice on someone else. As long as they add some legit names to the mix, I'll be content to watch it unfold before judging.

JDK52's picture

Certainly not happy to lose Randall. I thought he was starting to look like a starter out there. That said, I also think Gute is trying to do more than just throw resources at the roster in hopes of it all working out. There were big personality issues with Randall, and clearing him out might be a necessary step to improve the locker room.

Now Gute has to go get some talent for the DB group. Sherman? Johnson? Gotta be someone with actual NFL experience unless we want another dumpster fire...

Colin_C's picture

Obviously this deal isn't about the money. And it's hard to argue it's about talent either. We don't have a surplus of CB's, and Randall was arguably our best cover guy last year. My guess is it comes down to three factors.

1. MM still has a serious problem with Randall's attitude. Kind of a Belichick move here.
2. Pettine likes to use bigger corners typically in his schemes, so maybe they didn't think he'd transition well (though you still usually have a smaller guy in the slot, so who knows).
3. Gute must have taken the Tyrod Taylor trade as an opportunity to try and fill a position of need with a guy they liked already and had done research on.

This move really shocked me, and leaves the secondary in critical shape, but I'm sure there will be more moves to follow. Here's hoping Kizer is the Farve trade 2.0 :-)

Chuck Farley's picture

They got rid of Randall because of his attitude and run in with the coaches. He was s marked man. More than likely the pack were forced to take Kiser off their hands as part of the deal.

arthurl's picture

Like the trade. Randall wasn’t very good and wasn’t consistent. Kizer’s play was clouded playing for the Browns. Feel pack has to go FA now for CB. Suspect they could go hard for Sherman. If we don’t sign Wilkerson, draft Vea to plug the middle. Bring back Tramon to play the slot if he’s available. Either way need another FA at CB

Qoojo's picture

I thought Randall had turned it around after the Bears game, and I was looking forward to seeing him improve on the second half of last year. Cupboard is really bare at CB now.

I have to wonder if this was in anticipation of a FA CB signing to come because it seems strange to think they can draft 2 starting CBs from the draft. Definitely a DB/CB with that first pick unless Chubb drops.

Doug_In_Sandpoint's picture

Last time a new Packers GM traded for a second year second round QB it worked out pretty well.

Since '61's picture

Trading Randall is fine with me. I'm hoping this means that Gute is serious about improving our CB situation. As for Kizer, he should prove to be a better backup than Hundley. Maybe now we can trade Hundley for a pair of cleats. If not chuck him.
Keep trading dead wood for more picks.
Thanks, Since '61

Fordham Ram's picture

"now we can trade Hundley for a pair of cleats. If not chuck him." Nice line my friend, got a chuckle out of that.

Johnblood27's picture

If you traded Hundley to a semi-conscious GM you would still only get one cleat...

Chuck Farley's picture

This deal is very bad when you consider the browns knew what they had and didn't even want him as a backup and we take the guy and give up defense. Not good. 22 interceptions says he can't read complicated pro defenses at all, just what we want when Rogers goes down again.

stockholder's picture

The report on Kizer was he can make all the throws. The problem is he holds onto the ball to long. He's suppose to be a smart fellow who didn't get along with his coach. So new coaching should help.

HankScorpio's picture

"This deal is very bad when you consider the browns knew what they had and didn't even want him as a backup and we take the guy and give up defense. "

Sounds like an argument to never trade for a player.

stockholder's picture

To many people wanted a CB taken @14. To many people wanted a FA CB signed. They must have a plan or he just could get along with the Witt. I like the fact we moved up in the draft. This makes the deal!! I believe they have gotten numbers on House. Maybe even Williams comes back. Why were they not interested in Shields or others already traded? A Qb makes a lot of sense. And Kizer must have wanted out of cleveland!! Everyone is expecting them to take another. Kizer is a young man that will be better than Hundley. I believe the packers move Kizer again next year.

Johnblood27's picture

not at all.

Cleveland will go QB this draft.

They brought in Taylor to be the vet stop-gap.

The new draftee, round 1, top pick, will be the golden boy to develop.

Why keep Kizer as a 3?

Think it through...

This isnt clv saying Kizer has nothing (like it IS GB saying Hundley has nothing), but just an admission on the part of Clv that Kizer did have some value.

fthisJack's picture

i like this trade. we get a back up QB on the cheap and get rid of a questionable talent. plus we get the first pick in the 4th round on day 3 which is huge. after teams study their boards there will be teams wanting to move up if Gute wants to wheel and deal. also the first pick in round 5 is sweet. Gute has a lot of ammo in this draft and i think this is just the start of more trades and a FA signing or 2!

stockholder's picture

I don't get this trade by cleveland. Seriously. I would have taken Ward first. To swap picks and throw Kizer in, just looks more like Dorsey won't keep his job long. I'm sure Randall will play great. But the packers already were looking at declining the option on him. Seems like a lack of vision to me. Really a shocker by cleveland. Regardless, we should thank Randall for his services, and helping get rid of Capers.

Oppy's picture

Unless there was some seriously negative interaction between Pettine and Randall over the role he was told he was going to play.... I don't get this move at all.

We trade a talented (albeit immature) CB for a talented backup QB who needs a lot of development.

The Packers, currently, do not have a good enough defense to win games with a inexperienced back-up QB at the helm. They need to improve the defense.

Trading away Randall does not improve the defense, it weakens it. So, great, we have a prospect back up QB that we hope doesn't see the field for at least the next four years... And now our backs are somewhat against the wall at the CB position.

Only thing I like about this is moving up in the 4th and 5th rounds. Hope I'm wrong. Maybe the Packers have an inside line on Sherman or ????

williewood's picture

As was noted by Rob Demovsky on ESPN, veteran players wanted him removed last year, so to get this player off team maybe assign the new Packer leadership is listening to the veterans. also, with the 12 draft picks, would not surprise me if packers trade for players during draft. Packers are always quiet about moves, people wanted change from last year, wanted aggressive moves, we have had change this off season, we had an aggressive move yesterday in the trade and we have not even entered free agency or the draft yet!

stockholder's picture

Character! It's such a big deal now. Nobody wants to work with some guy that can go postal.

dobber's picture

I think you need to look into the phrase "going postal" and what it implies.

worztik's picture

Yes!!! Doesn’t apply here at all!!!

Royalty Free GM's picture

Browns took Randall? Please, can they take Cobb too? This was a good little move by Gute.
And let’s hope that we never need Kizer.

Fordham Ram's picture

It was decided the guy's a problem, and a move was made. The bait was cast and the hapless Browns bit. We got more than we bargained for. Good move, now let's find that pass rusher who will make the secondary look great.

Oppy's picture

The hapless browns are now under the control of two Packers personnel men who were directly involved in the scouting and drafting of Damarius Randall, and both were in the Packers' front office while Damarius was playing here in green Bay.

The Packers don't have anyone on staff with hands-on experience with DeShone Kizer outside of pre-draft interviews and potentially a pre-draft workout.

Who is more likely to be hapless in this deal?

dobber's picture

True, but the Packers have Randall's position coach and head coach, who worked with him on a day-to-day basis. There are still misses there, but I think that trumps a 4-year-old scouting report.

Johnblood27's picture

Channeling my inner Allen Iverson...

Were talkin Cleveland here...
Cleveland...

C'mon man!
we dropped an attitude problem which supercedes a thin CB room.
There is still free agency and the draft as well as the possibility of trades involving players, 2018 draft picks and 2019 draft picks.

Let Gute do his thing and have a little faith.

Like the draft, it takes some time to fully evaluate these kind of moves and they cannot be fully understood without all of the context both current (including past influence) and future.

R-E-L-A-X

Oppy's picture

Dobber, Elliot Wolf (Edit: AND Alonzo Highsmith) were with the Packers the entire time Randall was playing in Green Bay, so I'm guessing any information that Gutenkunst and the current Packers have on Randall would have also been available to Elliot and Alonzo who are now with the browns. My point being, the Browns are more informed on what they are getting out of the trade than the Packers are by way of the real-world, hands on experience with the player that Wolf/Highsmith have with Randall (which nobody in GB has with Kizer).

I hope it all works out, and I'm not saying Kizer is a flawed player.. Only that to assume the Packers have pulled the wool over the brown's eyes on this trade seems unlikely.

John Kirk's picture

Remember, Dorsey, Alonzo and Eliot weren't there when Kizer was selected. What does Dorsey know about Kizer, personally? He's the GM. He's the one who made the deal, not Eliot or Alonzo. He saw Kizer in a few games. He looked good against us and Pittsburgh where he had his two highest QB ratings. He also saw him vs. Bal and Chicago two tough defenses. So, Dorsey saw him for 4 games two of which he posted QB ratings in the 90's and moved on.

Dorsey wants his own QB which is understandable. Kizer reeks of Browns failure whether no matter his upside or downside. I admire Dorsey for moving on. He also shipped off Shelton which rid the org of all their 1st rounders in the last 7 drafts. He's starting fresh. It's too bad for him he was told he couldn't fire Hue until next season.

So, the Browns current regime outside of the inept coaching staff knows nothing more about Kizer than Brian did. We very well may have pulled a fast one as many have on the Browns.

Pretty obvious Brian was one who was among those who wanted Kizer at 33, if that rumor is true.

Oppy's picture

You are being either ridiculous or disingenuous if you want anyone to believe John Dorsey didn't consult the Browns personnel dept, scouting reports, training staff, and coaches about their current players on the roster before making moves.

Let me state this again: The Browns have complete information on the players involved in this trade-Kizer and Randall- complete scouting reports, first hand knowledge of both players' work habits, attitudes, how they go about their business, dental records, how do they like their steaks done. The Packers have no such luxury with Kizer, because they have no personnel that have worked with him in practice, in the film room, or on the field.

You saying the browns current regime knows nothing more about Kizer than Brian did is nonsense.

croatpackfan's picture

Oh, very few has the right sight on the problem...

Try to see bigger picture:

1. Possible trade 14 and one of 5th rounder with Bills for 21 and 22 pick in the forst round - to get pass rusher as well as CB...

2. Maybe they are really high on Herb Waters (I remember Whitt was so dissapoited with Waters injury!)...

3. We might see some trade involving Randall (Cobb) and top CB...

4. Maybe Sherman is coming to town?

There is so many options today to call this move mistake...

You cann't ignore Al's suggestion about trading Brett Hundley - additional low pick to be paired with one of the players for trade...

stockholder's picture

I don't see any of this happening! Think about it. Randall was traded and it ended all speculation on a QB. The DL is Ended. ( Richardson will be signed! ) The packers will trade down yes. For a 1st and 2nd. Langley is the target! The packers will take a BPA and CB in the 2nd round. House will be signed. The numbers are on Gute's desk.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

These are true enough, but all these things were contemplated and even advocated for when most of us were penciling Randall in as the starting slot receiver.

It is just one more hole to fill. If Randall was that much of a cancer, so be it. This is damage control, and Gute got the most he thought he could get. Kizer and the net of a 5th rounder (by points on the trade chart the net is pick 140) is what we got: I am often surprised by how little it takes to trade for a decent veteran player.

stockholder's picture

Just one more Hole. = I think the hole was obvious when everyone wanted a cb for the secondary. More people wanted Jackson @14 then Davenport etc. The hole got larger with no faith in Rollins or resigning House. The Hole was made larger yet, when everyone commented on a Veteran CB. Regardless of cost! I'm sure that had a lot to do with trading Randall. Gute deserves praise on not giving up more than what was obvious.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Now we definitely have to go out and get a CB.

Did we solve a need in this trade. The answer is
No.

Now we need a CB and still need a backup QB

worztik's picture

I think we’ve beat this dead horse into oblivion!!! Let us all suggest improvements or say nothing at all!!!

flackcatcher's picture

Got to get a bigger stick.....

John Kirk's picture

You're born with, what you're born with...

worztik's picture

Now that’s a mouthful... and that’s what she said!!!!

4zone's picture

I figured Randall as our #3 CB in the slot with King our #1 or #2. We just needed an edge CB to go with King. Now we need a #3 as well. We better get at least one CB in FA or we are toast.

Kizer, not exactly who I would have targeted, but he has to be better than Hundley.

Definately not your run of the mill Packer off season, you go there "I Am Gute!"

Chuck Farley's picture

My take is they had to take Kiser as part of the deal thinking that he probably wont make it past the Pre Season.
I do not beleive any stories that the pack were interested in him. My recollection is that he was benched a few times at ND for tossing interceptions and was an in accurate passer?
Hate to say it but I dont think this guy can uproot Hundley and thats not good.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook