NFL Draft Prospect Profile: Rueben Randle, WR LSU All Green Bay Packers All the Time
NFL Draft Prospect: LSU WR Reuben Randle
LSU WR Reuben Randle

Green Bay Packers draft prospect profile: Rueben Randle, WR, LSU

Player information:

  • Rueben Randle, WR, Louisiana St.
  • 6-foot-3, 208 lbs
  • Was nearly drafted to play baseball.

NFL Combine:

  • 4.55 40yd dash
  • 4.36 20 yard shuttle
  • 6.99 3-cone drill
  • 121″ broad jump
  • 31.0″ vertical jump
  • 15 bench press reps

News & Notes:

Didn’t fare well in the 40-yard dash at the combine, but showed good hands. … Unimpressive college stats due to LSU’s focus on the running game. … Averaged 18.1 yards per catch in 2011. … Savvy route-runner, good size. … Strong work ethic, willing to put in the time to get better. … Might lack the speed necessary to get past top CBs in the NFL.

What they’re saying about him:

Mike Detillier ( “Fall in love with the football player. Don’t fall in love with the workout guy. That workout guy is going to get your a– fired. That football player is going to help you win a lot of games. Rueben Randle is a football player.”

Ian R. Rapport ( “Rueben Randle certainly didn’t hurt his stock by his performance at the combine. He’s still considered one of the top five receivers in the draft, likely to be taken late in the first round.”

Doug Farrar (The Shutdown Corner):  “Tends to disappear against stronger defenses, through this is due in part to LSU’s generally conservative game plans against such teams (19.9 passes per game for LSU in 2011, versus 42.2 rushing attempts per game). Doesn’t have elite speed, but his sense of the field should make up for that. Occasionally gets too acrobatic when an economy of motion would serve him well; NFL technique work should help a lot.”


Video analysis

  • Reminds me of James Jones, good size, a little clumsy, talented
  • Goes up and gets the ball nicely
  • Most reports I read knocked his lack of speed, but defenders appear to play off of him, respecting his speed
  • Then again, this was a highlight video. Highlight videos don’t show WRs getting blanketed by CBs
  • The Packers will always need WRs, especially if Donald Driver is let go.
  • Fans might grumble if Ted Thompson takes this kid late in the first round, but if he’s the best player out there, I say go for it

Adam Czech is a a freelance sports reporter living in the Twin Cities and a proud supporter of American corn farmers. When not working, Adam is usually writing about, thinking about or worrying about the Packers. Follow Adam on Twitter. Twitter .


14 thoughts on “NFL Draft Prospect Profile: Rueben Randle, WR LSU

  1. no more WR’s in round 1/2/3 for a few years. defensive players please teddy.

    that is all.

  2. Why would we add another reciever to a team that has other organizations begging our practice squad WR’s to join their active roster? We’re so stacked that I think we need to trade or cut a couple of our current recievers. I’d go even further bearmeat and say no recievers period for 2 years.

    1. Thompson will, and should, draft the best player avalaible when it’s the Packers turn to pick.

      You would really want Thompson to pass on a WR that’s at the top of his draft board in favor of a defensive player that’s further down?

      1. The WR situation is a rare case… we have so many good players at that position that we don’t know what to do with them. our practice squad guys that everyone is so excited about including me are getting offers from teams like the vikings. the packers aretalking seriously about restructuring DD. JJ has a few years left on his contract. What would we do with another reciever? We literally don’t have the roster room… It would be a waste of the pick. Yes even if a WR is more talented player he shouldn’t pick him. He shouldn’t draft best player available in the case of WR. You’re acting like this philosophy: BPA is a set in stone absolute when it comes to actual drafting strategy I would say that it’s a general guideline and can be abandoned when common sense applies.

        1. I’m sure need is factored in when Thompson sets his draft board. If there’s a WR that he feels is so good that he must be picked if he’s somehow still around for the Packers, Thompson will, and should, take him.

          I think we’re worrying way to much about a couple of guys on the practice squad. Yes, they appear to be talented. But it’s the practice squad.

      2. Adam, have you ever heard of the “Law of Diminishing Returns?” A higher rated WR added to an already highly rated wide receiver group will provide less of a return to the team than a lesser rated, let’s say, DE who is much better than the existing DE stable on the team.

        Incremental improvement is the real measure for the draft.

        1. I disagree. If I’m the GM of a team that has a stud stable of WRs and horrible DEs, I’d gladly take another WR if I felt he was a game-changer over a DE that would take that position group from horrible to not-as-horrible.

          You try to hit home runs w/ your first-round picks. Incremental and depth guys can be had later in the draft.

  3. They already have two young guys on the practice squad, who they’re interested in upgrading. Too much talent at WR indicates that need trumps best at this position.

    1. I’ll take a WR that Thompson views as a first-round talent over a couple of guys on the practice squad every time.

      1. And just how much playing time will this guy get that will add to the Packer offense?

  4. To be clear, I’m not advocating that the Packers draft a WR. All I’m saying is that Thompson might have a WR on his board that he views as a game-changing guy. If that WR is still around, Thompson will, and should, draft him over a lesser DE or pass rusher.

    Do I think that type of WR will be around when the Packers pick? Probably not, but who knows.

    If it comes down to drafting a halfway decent WR or a halfway decent DE, by all means, Thompson should take the DE.

    1. In the unbelievably rare case that a 1st or 2nd round caliber reciever falls to the 4-7 rounds I’ll concede but beyond anything bizzare like that happenning I’m sticking to my guns, no recievers for 2 years.

Comments are closed.