Packers trade Damarious Randall to Browns

[Dantés]

The Browns must really like Randall, they decided to exercise his 5th year option, which will be at an estimated cost of $9,069,000. Not sure I would have been happy to see the Packers do that had they not traded him.

It's kind of a double edged sword. You're committing a good bit of money, but it's cheaper than a franchise tag and gives you another year to see where you want to invest a long term deal.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's kind of a double edged sword. You're committing a good bit of money, but it's cheaper than a franchise tag and gives you another year to see where you want to invest a long term deal.

Given that they just drafted the top CB (Ward) in the draft and the $9M is fully guaranteed in the event of an injury, I would have rolled the dice and played out his rookie contract and re evaluate at the end of 2018. Not to mention if they are switching him to Safety, that is a big contract for a Safety.

 

[RepStar15]

Had the Packers exercised the 5th year option on Demarious Randall he would be the 7th highest paid player on the football team. Could not be more thrilled that we unloaded him, got a fourth round selection we turned into a 3rd. And do not have to be concerned one of our starters will walk off the field after getting torn up by a coach. A wise man once said, “Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Had the Packers exercised the 5th year option on Demarious Randall he would be the 7th highest paid player on the football team. Could not be more thrilled that we unloaded him, got a fourth round selection we turned into a 3rd. And do not have to be concerned one of our starters will walk off the field after getting torn up by a coach. A wise man once said, “Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”

Agree with what you are saying, but the Packers didn't get Kizer AND a 4th round pick in the trade. They got Kizer and swapped 4th and 5th round picks with the Browns, which moved the Packers up 12-13 spots in each of those rounds. I still like the trade.

 

[Dantés]

Given that they just drafted the top CB (Ward) in the draft and the $9M is fully guaranteed in the event of an injury, I would have rolled the dice and played out his rookie contract and re evaluate at the end of 2018. Not to mention if they are switching him to Safety, that is a big contract for a Safety.

Well sure. If it were me, I'd have traded that bozo to Cleveland.

Oh wait...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well sure. If it were me, I'd have traded that bozo to Cleveland.

Oh wait...

I thought all the Boz0's were in New York?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Dantés]

I do have to say, the Packers managed to pay Randall back for all his shenanigans in spades. Shipped him off to NFL Siberia. Still makes me laugh.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I do have to say, the Packers managed to pay Randall back for all his shenanigans in spades. Shipped him off to NFL Siberia. Still makes me laugh.

I realize that they are the Browns, but what makes GB superior, other than Aaron Rodgers?

 

[Dantés]

I realize that they are the Browns, but what makes GB superior, other than Aaron Rodgers?

Are you serious? They’re 1-31 the last two years. The Packers managed 3 wins just in this short stint sans Rodgers. And that was with QB play actually worse than Rookie Kizer.

I’m honestly in disbelief that I’m explaining to someone why the Packers are better than the most abysmal franchise in pro sports.

 

[gbgary]

It's kind of a double edged sword. You're committing a good bit of money, but it's cheaper than a franchise tag and gives you another year to see where you want to invest a long term deal.

yup. they've got money to burn so no biggie.

 

[gbgary]

I do have to say, the Packers managed to pay Randall back for all his shenanigans in spades. Shipped him off to NFL Siberia. Still makes me laugh.

not for long.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Are you serious? They’re 1-31 the last two years. The Packers managed 3 wins just in this short stint sans Rodgers. And that was with QB play actually worse than Rookie Kizer.

I’m honestly in disbelief that I’m explaining to someone why the Packers are better than the most abysmal franchise in pro sports.

I didn't realize that Randall was joining the 1-31 Browns. I could have sworn that he was joining an organization with a GM who immediately turned the last losing organization around into being a perennial contender. But I guess that Green Bay fans love reminiscing on prior events which are in no way relevant now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I realize that they are the Browns, but what makes GB superior, other than Aaron Rodgers?

The fact that most fans, even Packer fans, don't view the Packers as the Cleveland Browns with the addition of Aaron Rodgers as their Quarterback?

 

[Dantés]

I didn't realize that Randall was joining the 1-31 Browns. I could have sworn that he was joining an organization with a GM who immediately turned the last losing organization around into being a perennial contender. But I guess that Green Bay fans love reminiscing on prior events which are in no way relevant now.

I'm sorry you didn't realize that. It's public record, so I just assumed you would know. But as you are now aware, I'm sure you'll agree with me that comparing them to a perennial winner like the Packers is incredibly stupid.

 

[Dantés]

It's utterly pathetic that many supposed Packers fans will deride their own team despite its long run of success while being glowing optimists regarding the most wretched franchise in the game. I guess some people just get off on being irrationally negative?

 

[swhitset]

I realize that they are the Browns, but what makes GB superior, other than Aaron Rodgers?

it's Cleveland.

 

[Poppa San]

I didn't realize that Randall was joining the 1-31 Browns. I could have sworn that he was joining an organization with a GM who immediately turned the last losing organization around into being a perennial contender. But I guess that Green Bay fans love reminiscing on prior events which are in no way relevant now.

Depends on your view of the Chiefs.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I'm sorry you didn't realize that. It's public record, so I just assumed you would know. But as you are now aware, I'm sure you'll agree with me that comparing them to a perennial winner like the Packers is incredibly stupid.

I guess it depends on how you define the term "Winner". And just because they haven't won a championship, let's not pretend that the Browns win 0 or 1 game each year. That's just a product of their "Money Ball"/rebuilding experiment. They are typically a 4-5 win team, a winning percentage which is right in line with how the team performs without Rodgers.

 

[Half Empty]

I do have to say, the Packers managed to pay Randall back for all his shenanigans in spades. Shipped him off to NFL Siberia. Still makes me laugh.

The Browns must really like Randall, they decided to exercise his 5th year option, which will be at an estimated cost of $9,069,000. Not sure I would have been happy to see the Packers do that had they not traded him.

Not so much this particular situation, but what really has tempered my enthusiasm for professional sports over the years is the above. The Packers sure showed Randall, didn't they - shipped him off and he only makes more this year that any 4-5 of us make in a lifetime. I'd be happy to be shipped off to the real Siberia for a year if they'd pay me 9 mil to do it.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I guess some people just get off on being irrationally negative?

You will find alot of people being irrationally negative on this place called 'the internet'.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not so much this particular situation, but what really has tempered my enthusiasm for professional sports over the years is the above. The Packers sure showed Randall, didn't they - shipped him off and he only makes more this year that any 4-5 of us make in a lifetime. I'd be happy to be shipped off to the real Siberia for a year if they'd pay me 9 mil to do it.

Couldn't agree more. I have this argument with a buddy of mine quite a bit. Me being pissed off at sports and where salaries have gotten to in professional sports and him staying calm and saying "it is because the free market dictates it." While I know he is right, the amount of money that fans spend fuel major sports and create this grossly huge pot of money to be divided amongst a few. Yes, I would rather not see just the top brass of each team become multi-billionaires 5 times over from that money and prefer seeing it fairly distributed amongst it's participants. However, as I point out to him, it's not what they do with the money that is in that pool that bothers me, as much as the amount of money that ends up in that pool to begin with.

So as much as I don't like seeing average players becoming multi-millionaires with one sweep of the pen, it will never change unless fans stop tuning in, buying tickets, jerseys, Miller Lite, etc.

Yup, I understand "the dangers" of playing in Sports and that the money can stop abruptly, but that is what insurance is for. I don't see Firefighters, Police Officers, Military Personnel, etc. being paid anywhere near that money, while performing much more dangerous jobs.

 

[Dantés]

I guess it depends on how you define the term "Winner". And just because they haven't won a championship, let's not pretend that the Browns win 0 or 1 game each year. That's just a product of their "Money Ball"/rebuilding experiment. They are typically a 4-5 win team, a winning percentage which is right in line with how the team performs without Rodgers.

Well let's explore some various definitions for "winner," shall we?

How about Super Bowls?

• Packers: 4
• Browns: 0

How about winning percentage since this Browns organization was born in '99?

• Packers: .612
• Browns: .289

Percentages not your thing? Maybe we'll use the records themselves:

• Packers: 186-118
• Browns: 88-216

Wins in the last five years?

• Packers: 47
• Browns: 15

But Rodgers, you say. Ok, so wins last year w/out Rodgers:

• Packers: 3 in 9 starts with Brett Hundley
• Browns: 0. With anyone.

How else could we define "winner?" Playoff wins since '99?

• Packers: 12
• Browns: 0

Playoff appearances since '99?

• Packers: 13
• Browns: 1

Gee... I don't seem to be able to find a definition that fits the idea that the Packers are comparable to the Browns. You think maybe it's because that's a ridiculous thing to say? It's almost like the fact that bottom feeders like the Cleveland wanting our players, coaches, executives, etc. to come to their franchises is an indication that they know they're not as good and want to try to get a piece of a vastly better franchise to improve their own mess.

 

[Poppa San]

I didn't realize that Randall was joining the 1-31 Browns. I could have sworn that he was joining an organization with a GM who immediately turned the last losing organization around into being a perennial contender. But I guess that Green Bay fans love reminiscing on prior events which are in no way relevant now.

He did. See, you seem to conveniently overlook the stop after Green Bay because it doesn't fit your narrative. Before Dorsey, Kansas City went 4-12, 2-14, 4-12, 10-6, 7-9, 2-14 with one WC playoff game loss. Looks like perennial losers to me. Then Dorsey and Reid teamed up to go 11-5, 9-7, 11-5, 12-4. Looks like perennial winners to me. Playoff success has eluded them but I'm sure their fans will take the past 5 seasons over the previous 5. You just have an obsession to see the negative in the Packers. There are (legal) medications for that now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the OP was claiming that Dorsey WILL make the Browns contenders. However, that is an assumption and not a fact. Also, to assume that the Packers would be a perennial loser without Rodgers, is assuming that they would be perfectly happy to stick with Hundley at QB. Did the offense struggle without Rodgers? Yes. However, if Rodgers retired today, I am pretty sure the Packers would eventually find a much better option than Hundley and be nowhere near as bad as Cleveland has been.

 

[AmishMafia]

Well let's explore some various definitions for "winner," shall we?

How about Super Bowls?

• Packers: 4
• Browns: 0

How about winning percentage since this Browns organization was born in '99?

• Packers: .612
• Browns: .289

Percentages not your thing? Maybe we'll use the records themselves:

• Packers: 186-118
• Browns: 88-216

Wins in the last five years?

• Packers: 47
• Browns: 15

But Rodgers, you say. Ok, so wins last year w/out Rodgers:

• Packers: 3 in 9 starts with Brett Hundley
• Browns: 0. With anyone.

How else could we define "winner?" Playoff wins since '99?

• Packers: 12
• Browns: 0

Playoff appearances since '99?

• Packers: 13
• Browns: 1

Gee... I don't seem to be able to find a definition that fits the idea that the Packers are comparable to the Browns. You think maybe it's because that's a ridiculous thing to say? It's almost like the fact that bottom feeders like the Cleveland wanting our players, coaches, executives, etc. to come to their franchises is an indication that they know they're not as good and want to try to get a piece of a vastly better franchise to improve their own mess.

Ahhh, but they hired the son of the guy who traded for Brett Favre. That makes them winners.

The Packers still employ TT who refused to surround Favre with talent and then ran him out of town. That makes them losers.