Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Depth at safety could become an issue for Panthers


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
35 replies to this topic

#31 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,637
  • Reputation: 2,291
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2010 - 07:54 AM

I agree that we do have young guys with tons of talent that need to step up.

But, your attempt to write off this season as a failure....or to assume that the guys we have are not of the caliber of the aging vets that they replaced....proves you are suffering from the "Chicken Little Syndrom". :nono:


No one is writing off this season as a failure. And it isn't a matter of talent. Everyone in the NFL who makes it to this level has talent or they don't get this far. What seperates guys at this level is game experience and time for the game to slow down and for them to understand the intricies of the game and various nuances. Instead of thinking they can just react. All of that takes times and in many cases years to learn.

Therefore putting in a backup who has played in 2 games for example and expecting them to respond as well as a veteran who has played in 100 games is unrealistic at best and naive at worst. You can call it anything you want but I have watched enough football and seen enough rebuilding projects to know that we are in for our share of blown coverages, poor run fits, and mistakes to know that this defense is going to struggle. Games usually come down to a few plays one way or the other. In the past we had veterans who would step up and perform. These guys will take time to figure out who that is going to be. I understand people don't want to hear the truth and want to write it off as a chicken little syndrome. That is fine. Frankly I won't be happy if what I think is going to happen comes to pass. But wishing for success won't make it happen. I hope in a month or two I am more positive. We will see.

#32 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,793
  • Reputation: 7,962
Moderators

Posted 21 May 2010 - 08:08 AM

how the f**k is a SS an undersized LB?

positions and responsibilities are pretty similar just with smaller guys (about 30 pounds lighter and maybe an inch or two shorter) and different parts of the field.

SS is used quite a bit on the field as another LB anyway and there is a lot of switching between LB and SS that goes on at different stages of players careers.

it makes sense. he explained it pretty well.

#33 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,793
  • Reputation: 7,962
Moderators

Posted 21 May 2010 - 08:24 AM

We are going to wish we picked up Aaron Webster as a UDFA. Ideal SS in our Scheme.

i don't think we are going to be using a SS much anymore...more a couple of FS.

aaron webster does have some pretty good pass defense skills, though so he might be a decent fit but i feel pretty good about who we have on the roster right now, esp. since they are generally solid STers.

i would rather have depth for safety come from guys who were good ST players first like we have right now.

#34 Peppers90 NC

Peppers90 NC

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 03-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,496
  • Reputation: 1,726
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:39 PM

I'm not trying to start any wars, I do love friendly disagreement, (and I assure you, "Madden" or whatever the other video games are, haven't had much input on my opinion of football) but the reality, pro or otherwise, is this: DB's are generally "frustrated RB's".

Furthermore, CB's are typically the fastest guys on D. A FS is the guy who couldn't live up to the CB standard, but could play DB. A SS is the guy who was a bit too small to play in the box. (Yes, that's at the lower levels of football, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.)

If the FS goes down, I don't look at my Safety depth chart of two guys and freak out... if I have a nickel corner who can play the position at a competitive level, and who understands the coverage calls. The FS makes all the coverage calls, so he's like the QB of the pass defense. If I want to run an underneath zone on the strong pass side, w/ a Cover 1 over the top, and a Man on the weak pass side in an audible area for defense, I need my FS to know when to make that call, and be confident in it. If my nickel-back is capable of doing this, and is the best athlete at that position, then he's the guy I put in to get it done, regardless of who is listed at 2nd string FS. The same applies for the mike in all the run adjustments, he's like the QB of the run defense. Same crap, different level.

This doesn't happen in a vacuum, and just because it's the pro level, coaches will put the most effective player at the best position. So, if my 2nd string SS isn't as good at the position as my first string Will, then Will is going to SS and 2nd string Will is coming in.

The point is, defensively at least, Safety is not a priority position (look at their pay). It can be covered from two different areas (LB or CB), because it's a hybrid position. That's not to say you can't have amazing, game altering, all-pro safeties running around, because you can. However, if they go down, they can be back-filled from several areas, and that's my point. I don't get freaked out over a Safety.


While your logic is there, especially at lower levels of football, the NFL is a different animal. I'm not sure we have any corners that can move to FS nor any LB's that can move to SS, unless you speak of TD but why move him out of the position he has been playing the last 4 seasons and is very good at it? Fortunately, safety is probably the least important non-special teams position in football, but a huge drop in talent can be damaging. I like Martin's awareness in the backfield and the athletic ability of Godfrey which makes me believe he can fill in at SS. In our system, typically the safety plays back to keep everything in front of them, and worse case scenario, we need our safeties able to tackle.

I am not arguing your logic, but the higher level of football, the more particular or specialized each position gets. So I would not expect to see any LB's play saftey.

#35 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,637
  • Reputation: 2,291
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:42 PM

positions and responsibilities are pretty similar just with smaller guys (about 30 pounds lighter and maybe an inch or two shorter) and different parts of the field.

SS is used quite a bit on the field as another LB anyway and there is a lot of switching between LB and SS that goes on at different stages of players careers.

it makes sense. he explained it pretty well.


So that is why it took Davis almost 2 years to make the switch from SS to linebacker and excel at the position.

:thumbsup:

#36 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,637
  • Reputation: 2,291
HUDDLER

Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:49 PM

i don't think we are going to be using a SS much anymore...more a couple of FS.

aaron webster does have some pretty good pass defense skills, though so he might be a decent fit but i feel pretty good about who we have on the roster right now, esp. since they are generally solid STers.

i would rather have depth for safety come from guys who were good ST players first like we have right now.


When he isn't using a Tampa 2 he uses a cover 1 rover. And yes the SS is the key to that defense. So he wants a SS with cover skills much like he had in Indianpolis with Bob Sanders. But that is a far cry from 2 FS who rarely play in the box and can't bring the wood on running plays.