Patrick Chung - why the love

[DBOY3141]

I just picked up 3 draft magazines (little early but I like reading them) and all three state that Patrick Chung is more of an in the box safety and that he has trouble covering and locating the ball in the air. I see alot of folks on this board wanting him at #51. Sounds alot like Roy Williams who we just cut, why would we draft someone so similiar?

I haven't seen him play so I ask why all the love?

[Bob Sacamano]

Positives: Well-built, versatile athlete who has seen time at cornerback and as a returner. … Flashes explosive hitting ability. … Reads the action quickly and is seemingly always around the ball. … Good lateral quickness, acceleration and smooth change-of-direction agility while in zone coverage. … Attacks underneath routes and rarely allows the receiver to cross with the ball unscathed. … Closes quickly on the ballcarrier. … Receivers are cognizant of him when going over the middle. … Quick enough to hang with receivers for a few seconds in the deep half. … Among the more reliable open-field tacklers in the country and should be an excellent last line of defense at the NFL level. … Accomplished blitzer. … Few have Chung's ability to explode into ballcarriers while wrapping their arms securely. … Whether deep in coverage or attacking the line of scrimmage, he limits the yards gained at the point he meets the ballcarrier. … Consistently swarms to the ball. … Durable, consistent performer. … Instinctive defender. … Should be a leader on defense and special teams.

Negatives: Questionable deep speed and is a bit shorter than scouts prefer because of their coverage duties against tight ends. … Physical player who can get a bit grabby while in coverage, leading to some holding calls. … Attacks the line or underneath routes too quickly, leaving room for the deep ball behind him. … At his best facing the quarterback and running downhill toward the ball.

[DBOY3141]

Take away the return ability and it sounds like Roy's scouting report.

[SLATEmosphere]

I just picked up 3 draft magazines (little early but I like reading them) and all three state that Patrick Chung is more of an in the box safety and that he has trouble covering and locating the ball in the air. I see alot of folks on this board wanting him at #51. Sounds alot like Roy Williams who we just cut, why would we draft someone so similiar?

I haven't seen him play so I ask why all the love?

Oh I envy you so much. You should be lucky not to have watched that horrific safety get turned around and torched. He makes a few picks and people automatically forget that he got toasted 3 times before that. So basically he'll get beat 5 times then make a 1 play. Pretty much his ratio. It;s a complete waste of a pick and Sensabaugh has alot more upside than Chung.

Safeties are needed to cover nowadays, I'm tired of our safeties not making any plays and such a liability in pass coverage. There's a new regime in the NFL and you have to cover! No one will ever convince me that Chung is a 1-3 round safety because I've seen him play every snap for 2 years now and he's just flat out terrible.

[SLATEmosphere]

Positives: Well-built, versatile athlete who has seen time at cornerback and as a returner. … Flashes explosive hitting ability. … Reads the action quickly and is seemingly always around the ball. … Good lateral quickness, acceleration and smooth change-of-direction agility while in zone coverage. … Attacks underneath routes and rarely allows the receiver to cross with the ball unscathed. … Closes quickly on the ballcarrier. … Receivers are cognizant of him when going over the middle. … Quick enough to hang with receivers for a few seconds in the deep half. … Among the more reliable open-field tacklers in the country and should be an excellent last line of defense at the NFL level. … Accomplished blitzer. … Few have Chung's ability to explode into ballcarriers while wrapping their arms securely. … Whether deep in coverage or attacking the line of scrimmage, he limits the yards gained at the point he meets the ballcarrier. … Consistently swarms to the ball. … Durable, consistent performer. … Instinctive defender. … Should be a leader on defense and special teams.

Negatives: Questionable deep speed and is a bit shorter than scouts prefer because of their coverage duties against tight ends. … Physical player who can get a bit grabby while in coverage, leading to some holding calls. … Attacks the line or underneath routes too quickly, leaving room for the deep ball behind him. … At his best facing the quarterback and running downhill toward the ball.

Ummm so he's a in the box safety and big hitter..good for him. We just got rid of a player doing that exact thing. NEXT PLEASE!

Read the bold parts in the Negatives..couldn't have said it better myself..

[Bob Sacamano]

Take away the return ability and it sounds like Roy's scouting report.

I don't think Roy was ever described as quick, and Chung's burst is much better than Roy's was

Oh I envy you so much. You should be lucky not to have watched that horrific safety get turned around and torched. He makes a few picks and people automatically forget that he got toasted 3 times before that. So basically he'll get beat 5 times then make a 1 play. Pretty much his ratio. It;s a complete waste of a pick and Sensabaugh has alot more upside than Chung.

Safeties are needed to cover nowadays, I'm tired of our safeties not making any plays and such a liability in pass coverage. There's a new regime in the NFL and you have to cover! No one will ever convince me that Chung is a 1-3 round safety because I've seen him play every snap for 2 years now and he's just flat out terrible.

wow, did Chung beat the crap out of Louis Delmas?

[Bob Sacamano]

Ummm so he's a in the box safety and big hitter..good for him. We just got rid of a player doing that exact thing. NEXT PLEASE!

Read the bold parts in the Negatives..couldn't have said it better myself..

Good lateral quickness, acceleration and smooth change-of-direction agility while in zone coverage

and you do know that the time QBs have to get rid of the ball is 3-5 seconds right? yeah, that's a few seconds, but thanks for bolding that part for me

idiot

[SLATEmosphere]

I don't think Roy was ever described as quick, and Chung's burst is much better than Roy's was



wow, did Chung beat the crap out of Louis Delmas?

Your getting demolished in this argument. Your not going to win. Just quit while your behind..Your post about his positives and negatives just proved my point of what kind of player he is.

[SLATEmosphere]

Good lateral quickness, acceleration and smooth change-of-direction agility while in zone coverage

and you do know that the time QBs have to get rid of the ball is 3-5 seconds right? yeah, that's a few seconds, but thanks for bolding that part for me

idiot

Zone coverage!? too bad we don't play that in Wade's system. That means nothing..they went out of their way to say "zone" and not "man"..did you notice that genius?????

He gets away with that crap in college because he's going up against a bunch of googlers, but lets see when Fitz,Moss,Andre and Calvin Johnson,Marshall just tear him to shreds..

[Bob Sacamano]

Your getting demolished in this argument. Your not going to win. Just quit while your behind..Your post about his positives and negatives just proved my point of what kind of player he is.

yeah, blanket statements and incorrect assessments are argument clinchers:rolleyes:

[Bob Sacamano]

Zone coverage!? too bad we don't play that in Wade's system. That means nothing..they went out of their way to say "zone" and not "man"..did you notice that genius?????

He gets away with that crap in college but lets see when Fitz,Moss,Andre and Calvin Johnson,Marshall just tear him to shreds..

safeties don't play man in our scheme tardo

the deep safety plays a zone

[SLATEmosphere]

safeties don't play man in our scheme ****tard

the deep safety plays a zone

Nice language..classy..there goes the little credibility you had to begin with.

The deep safety also covers the long ball..he clearly cannot do that.

[Dash28]

Slate, your love and agenda for Delmas is really showing in this thread, Chung is just as good safety prospect as your boy is.

[SLATEmosphere]

Slate, your love and agenda for Delmas is really showing in this thread, Chung is just as good safety prospect as your boy is.

How? I havn't mentioned Delmas once in this thread..I just don't like Chung.

Just because I have Delmas in my sig doesn't make him better than anyone else. He's just better suited to play safety on this team. We tried the Roy Williams experiment, it didn't work, let's try a new style.

[dbair1967]

I tend to think Chung would be a good fit, especially if we got him at 51. My preference would probably be for Delmas or R Johnson, but I think both may be gone.

[Bob Sacamano]

Nice language..classy..there goes the little credibility you had to begin with.

The deep safety also covers the long ball..he clearly cannot do that.

yeah, in a zone, which specifically states that he has the skills to

btw, Hamlin is our deep safety, so we need a guy who can cover TEs in the short area near the LOS, as well as being able to be a force against the run

[Bob Sacamano]

How? I havn't mentioned Delmas once in this thread..I just don't like Chung.

Just because I have Delmas in my sig doesn't make him better than anyone else. He's just better suited to play safety on this team. We tried the Roy Williams experiment, it didn't work, let's try a new style.

it's an agenda because you dont' want us to consider any safety other than your boy

and about changing the style at SS, Delmas won't see a down at that position

[jday]

My only issue with the idea of picking up Chung with our 51st pick is that he likely will never see any playing time, unless on special teams. Whereas, a NT or CB with our current depth chart would likely be regular contributors.

[Bob Sacamano]

My only issue with the idea of picking up Chung with our 51st pick is that he likely will never see any playing time, unless on special teams. Whereas, a NT or CB with our current depth chart would likely be regular contributors.

he'd battle with Sensabaugh to start at SS, not to mention Sensabaugh is only signed to a 1-year deal, and special teams could use another sure-tackling rocket, or 5

[Dash28]

I like Delmas and Chung and would take either. Their stats are pretty equal in all areas and Chung did face much better competition even though that doesn't always matter.

In 51 games Chung had 384 tackles, 17pbu and 9int.
In 45 games Delmas had 310 tackles, 18pbu and 12 int.

[Bob Sacamano]

I like Delmas and Chung and would take either. Their stats are pretty equal in all areas and Chung did face much better competition even though that doesn't always matter.

In 51 games Chung had 384 tackles, 17pbu and 9int.
In 45 games Delmas had 310 tackles, 18pbu and 12 int.

I don't dislike Delmas, but he would have to be a FS in the NFL, and I'm not sure I'm wanting Hamlin at SS

[jday]

he'd battle with Sensabaugh to start at SS, not to mention Sensabaugh is only signed to a 1-year deal, and special teams could use another sure-tackling rocket, or 5
Okay, but what about Corner and NT, where at the moment there is no competition to get involved in the Nickel and Dime defenses? I mean competition is great, but Junior Siavii, Tim Anderson, Alan Ball, and Michael Hawkins wouldn't really even be considered competition for players we could likely pick up in the 2nd and 3rd round. That's my only argument; well, that and Chung will likely not be available at the 51st pick.

[SLATEmosphere]

I don't dislike Delmas, but he would have to be a FS in the NFL, and I'm not sure I'm wanting Hamlin at SS

SS is like a FS in todays NFL schemes. Delmas could have the label "SS" but he'd be playing more of a FS type scheme.Put Hamlin more in the box and Delmas playing "centerfield" and covering the deep pass. Looks like we were doing that the latter part of the season..Problem is....We didn't have a safety to roam around back there and play "centerfield". We can't have 2 in the box safeties (Chung and Hamlin)..that's what linebackers are for.

[Bob Sacamano]

SS is like a FS in todays NFL schemes. Delmas could have the label "SS" but he'd be playing more of a FS type scheme.Put Hamlin more in the box and Delmas playing "centerfield" and covering the deep pass. Looks like we were doing that the latter part of the season..Problem is....We didn't have a safety to roam around back there and play "centerfield".

the SS position is changing, you need to be able to run in coverage, but you still need to be a force against the run there, be able to shed blocks, take down the ballcarrier most if not every time, which Delmas isn't

and are you sure you want Hamlin in the box? he's not a force against the run either, it would be a stretch to place him even above-average in that department, and he already fills our centerfielder position quite nicely, in fact the farther he is away from the action near the LOS, the better

[SLATEmosphere]

the SS position is changing, you need to be able to run in coverage, but you still need to be a force against the run there, which Delmas isn't

and are you sure you want Hamlin in the box? he's not a force against the run either, it would be a stretch to place him even above-average in that department, and he already fills our centerfielder position quite nicely

Ughhhh..there just isn't any hope for you. I'm sorry.

[Bob Sacamano]

Ughhhh..there just isn't any hope for you. I'm sorry.

no, I'm sorry, Delmas is pesky against the run, but he's no force

and Hamlin collected 6 INTs as our CF in '07, and was a complete wash trying to come up and support the run

[Dash28]

Is Delmas the one that tackles dangerously and puts his head down a lot? IMO we would be better off with Hamlin at FS and Chung at SS, but I won't argue one bit if we land Delmas.

[Bob Sacamano]

We can't have 2 in the box safeties (Chung and Hamlin)..that's what linebackers are for.

Hamlin, an in-the-box safety? are you seriously??

ah:lmao2:


that's why he's played SS all these years? right?? the Cowboys even played with the idea that he could play SS, and then they went and signed Sensabaugh

[Bob Sacamano]

Is Delmas the one that tackles dangerously and puts his head down a lot? IMO we would be better off with Hamlin at FS and Chung at SS, but I won't argue one bit if we land Delmas.

yeah, the dude hits, but as far as tackling, he's more pesky than anything else

[Bob Sacamano]

SLATEmosphere (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/member.php?u=23384)
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,212 of man-loving


blah blah blah
__________________
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b285/iveyman21/louisdelmas_Senior_Bowl_North_Pract.jpgOWNED

[Chris in Arizona]

I prefer Delmas but I could live with Chung. I just feel Chung is more of the same of what we've had at safety the last few years. If he became a Cowboy, I'd hope I was wrong about that.

The one thing I do like about Chung is that he is still young, he started college at 16, and is athletic enough to return kicks.

[SLATEmosphere]

I prefer Delmas but I could live with Chung. I just feel Chung is more of the same of what we've had at safety the last few years. If he became a Cowboy, I'd hope I was wrong about that.

The one thing I do like about Chung is that he is still young, he started college at 16, and is athletic enough to return kicks.

Chung is only 20??

[Chris in Arizona]

Chung is only 20??

He's 21, he may have redshirted.

Another thing about Chung, is that at 5-11, 205, 4.49 40 time, and a willingness to hit, he reminds me of another Pac-10 safety// I can't remember his name but he went to an amazing college and his hair is always covering up his name on his jersey.

I didn't know it but I just sold myself on Patrick Chung. I still like Delmas better but I feel he will go too high for us.

[Bob Sacamano]

he's gonna be 22 shortly

and it looks like he did redshirt, he enrolled in '04 when he was turning 17

[dbair1967]

My only issue with the idea of picking up Chung with our 51st pick is that he likely will never see any playing time, unless on special teams. Whereas, a NT or CB with our current depth chart would likely be regular contributors.

Actually I think Chung or any other safety we might pick at 51 would see quite a bit of PT. And there's a very reasonable chance they could start with a good TC and preseason.

There's zero chance a rookie NT or CB starts here, unless somebody gets hurt.

[Bob Sacamano]

dang, me and dbair agreeing on something

[dbair1967]

dang, me and dbair agreeing on something

thats impossible...I'm too negative and a blind homer

[Bob Sacamano]

thats impossible...I'm too negative and a blind homer

coming to grips with yourself is awesome

[dbair1967]

coming to grips with yourself is awesome

better quit, I'll start bashing Patrick Chung

[Bob Sacamano]

better quit, I'll start bashing Patrick Chung

hey, hey, hey now, let's not lose our coolz here

[dbair1967]

hey, hey, hey now, let's not lose our coolz here

give me the rest of your draft list...let me go to work on the bashing

then after I bash them, we'll draft them, I'll immediately state they are all the best players in the league because we have them

[TheCount]

Get a room you two, geez.

[dbair1967]

Get a room you two, geez.

after I've finished carving up JA, your next Count...

[Bob Sacamano]

you better watch out, theCount is feisty

[Fletch]

Ummm so he's a in the box safety and big hitter..good for him. We just got rid of a player doing that exact thing. NEXT PLEASE!

Read the bold parts in the Negatives..couldn't have said it better myself..

Umm, Roy Williams lost his nack for being a big hitter. Heck, he forgot how to tackle. How times have we seen Roy go in with a shoulder, not wrap up, and the would-be runner would bounce off and pick up another 5 to 10 yards? Good riddance.

[MichaelWinicki]

I'm not big on Chung.

Not good in coverage. And after he ages a little (ala Roy) and loses a wee bit of speed, he'll be even worse.

No thanks. I'm sick of watching safeties that can't cover.

[Chris in Arizona]

I'm not big on Chung.

Not good in coverage. And after he ages a little (ala Roy) and loses a wee bit of speed, he'll be even worse.

No thanks. I'm sick of watching safeties that can't cover.

I'm not that big on Chung but ...

unlike Roy he has real speed (4.49 40 time). He is athletic enough to return kicks at Oregon (who has their choice of athletes to let return kicks) and he's only 21. He could be "coached up" in the NFL.

[Texan_Eph89]

Sean Smith and Delmas are the best cover safeties in the draft. Sean Smith is a CB, but I see him switching pretty soon. He's built like a S, not a CB.

[sonnyboy]

SS is like a FS in todays NFL schemes. Delmas could have the label "SS" but he'd be playing more of a FS type scheme.Put Hamlin more in the box and Delmas playing "centerfield" and covering the deep pass. Looks like we were doing that the latter part of the season..Problem is....We didn't have a safety to roam around back there and play "centerfield". We can't have 2 in the box safeties (Chung and Hamlin)..that's what linebackers are for.


This is how I'm seeing it. Safties have to cover in today's game. The ones that can't are liabilities.

Of course they have to tackle, but so do CB's. Open field tackling has little to do with size and strength and everything to do with quickness and desire.

Give me safties with quickness, coverage ability and a willingness to tackle. They don't have to big hitters. They don't ned to have the size and strength to take on and defeat the blocks of TEs and FB's in the box. I'll keep them out of the box for the most part, positioned to run around those blockers.

I think today's safties have to have a similar skill set as CB's. Do you loose something when you need to drop a weaker S down in the box for run support? Of course. But your defense gains more in the pass defense.

[sonnyboy]

I'm not that big on Chung but ...

unlike Roy he has real speed (4.49 40 time). He is athletic enough to return kicks at Oregon (who has their choice of athletes to let return kicks) and he's only 21. He could be "coached up" in the NFL.


I don't think Chung is comparable to Roy. Any player who spent one play at CB shouldn't be. Come on, Roy was a hybrid LB in college.

[MichaelWinicki]

I'm not that big on Chung but ...

unlike Roy he has real speed (4.49 40 time). He is athletic enough to return kicks at Oregon (who has their choice of athletes to let return kicks) and he's only 21. He could be "coached up" in the NFL.

I don't have Roy's draft info in front of me but he was in that area (4.49) or he wouldn't have been drafted as high as he was.

Returning kicks is athletic, but athletic doesn't mean "good in coverage" either.

And I have no faith in this coaching staff being able to "coach up" anyone at this point.

Hey, if we had a decent coverage safety, I could get on this kid's bandwagon, but like someone else said, he's the same freaking type of safety who has permeated this roster for years now. A hitter who's coverage skills aren't anything to write home about.

[big dog cowboy]

If we go Chung at #51 (or at all really) then I will :puke:

[BAT]

Rashad Johnson cannot play SS. All reports, confirmed by your eyes if you've watched any games, is that he is built like a corner_very light.


Delmas is much more like Roy (and Hamlin) with his tackling style. If he doesn't blow you up, he will either bounce off, eat turf or injure himself. NONE of the safeties in this draft are as money in eliminating RAC than Chung is. Don't know about anyone else but I am sick and tired of all the frikkin missed tackles & bounce offs.


Chung not only hits hard, he wraps up, he is the best, most consistent form tackler available. He is a playmaker and his role was more like a rover at Oregon, emphasis on stopping the run. But his athleticism & speed, not to mention the most important factor_HIS INTANGIBLES (leadership, character, football IQ, work ethic, instincts & intensity)_will allow him to improve in coverage.


And if people are going to knock Chung's 4.49, then why the love for Delmas' 4.53?

[RESIN8]

Were these mags written before the Sensabaugh transaction?

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't have Roy's draft info in front of me but he was in that area (4.49) or he wouldn't have been drafted as high as he was.

Returning kicks is athletic, but athletic doesn't mean "good in coverage" either.

And I have no faith in this coaching staff being able to "coach up" anyone at this point.

Hey, if we had a decent coverage safety, I could get on this kid's bandwagon, but like someone else said, he's the same freaking type of safety who has permeated this roster for years now. A hitter who's coverage skills aren't anything to write home about.

Roy Williams, 6'1" 219: 4.53 40, 1.62 10-yard
Patrick Chung, 5'11" 212: 4.49 40, 1.49 10-yard

as you can see, Chung is a bit more explosive, and noone said Roy was quick anything coming out

the Roy comparisons are way off-base

[big dog cowboy]

Were these mags written before the Sensabaugh transaction?
I'll bet most were written before the scouting combine.

[MichaelWinicki]

Roy Williams, 6'1" 219: 4.53 40, 1.62 10-yard
Patrick Chung, 5'11" 212: 4.49 40, 1.49 10-yard

as you can see, Chung is a bit more explosive, and noone said Roy was quick anything coming out

the Roy comparisons are way off-base

I still don't like the guy at #51.


So there.

[Bob Sacamano]

I still don't like the guy at #51.


So there.

I know what you mean, I hate the idea of Ron Brace at 51

[MichaelWinicki]

I know what you mean, I hate the idea of Ron Brace at 51

Well there ya go! :)

[Dash28]

That's why it's difficult in the draft, just like we all have our certain guys we like more. But in all honesty none of us know which safety is going to turn out to be the best. I'm fine if we end up with Delmas or Chung amongst others safeties.

[RESIN8]

Please draft BPA. This Chung thing was written as a need. I like the guy, but I'm pretty sure he can be had later in the second round.

[TheCount]

Roy Williams, 6'1" 219: 4.53 40, 1.62 10-yard
Patrick Chung, 5'11" 212: 4.49 40, 1.49 10-yard

as you can see, Chung is a bit more explosive, and noone said Roy was quick anything coming out

the Roy comparisons are way off-base

You're wasting your time quoting numbers, most of these guys have already made up their mind.

I'm not sure people understand that if you want a SS that can cover like a corner, hit like a linebacker and runs a 4.3, you better have a top 10 pick, those guys aren't falling from the sky.

[jday]

Actually I think Chung or any other safety we might pick at 51 would see quite a bit of PT. And there's a very reasonable chance they could start with a good TC and preseason.

There's zero chance a rookie NT or CB starts here, unless somebody gets hurt.
It's called "Defensive Line Rotation." Jay Ratliff is not going to play every defensive snap, he needs someone who can fill in for him to keep him fresh and in Nickel and Dime defenses, to line up next to him. Do the math: At NT we currently have Jay Ratliff and Junior Siavii. To receive significant play time, a NT would only have to beat out Junior in training camp, which shouldn't be too difficult. At Corner we have T. Newman, M. Jenkins. and O. Scandrick. The Dime defense calls for 4 CB. The Quarter defense calls for 5. At Safety the Cowboys have Ken Hamlin, Gerard Sensabaugh, Keith Davis (for the momemt), Patrick Watkins, Courtney Davis, Jerome Carter, and Tra Battle. Granted, Patrick Chung may see playing time, but the odds are better for a NT or CB, IMO.

[Vinnie2u]

What about Macho Harris of Va. Tech.. He might be to slow to play DB on the next level but he can cover, tackles well, is a ballhawk and return kicks...

[Apollo Creed]

Emanuel Cook from South Carolina.

All SEC, Jim Thorp finalist, great special teamer, he's built like Bob Sanders and brings the wood. He also has a swagger about him that our secondary desperately needs.

I see him falling to the 3rd, but the Texans are really high on Gamecock DBs (no idea why) and Carolina has heard/seen a lot him, so I see him going to one of them in the 3rd or 4th.

[MichaelWinicki]

It's called "Defensive Line Rotation." Jay Ratliff is not going to play every defensive snap, he needs someone who can fill in for him to keep him fresh and in Nickel and Dime defenses, to line up next to him. Do the math: At NT we currently have Jay Ratliff and Junior Siavii. To receive significant play time, a NT would only have to beat out Junior in training camp, which shouldn't be too difficult. At Corner we have T. Newman, M. Jenkins. and O. Scandrick. The Dime defense calls for 4 CB. The Quarter defense calls for 5. At Safety the Cowboys have Ken Hamlin, Gerard Sensabaugh, Keith Davis (for the momemt), Patrick Watkins, Courtney Davis, Jerome Carter, and Tra Battle. Granted, Patrick Chung may see playing time, but the odds are better for a NT or CB, IMO.


And god forbid that Ratliff got hurt-- We'd be up the creek without a paddle. I can't think of another starting position on the team where we have less adequate depth.

[AmishCowboy]

I'm for Ron Brace if he's there at 51 or Scott with our next pick.

[Apollo Creed]

And god forbid that Ratliff got hurt-- We'd be up the creek without a paddle. I can't think of another starting position on the team where we have less adequate depth.

Another reason I didn't understand just 'giving' Fergy away.

I hope we wait and not reach at 51 because we need DT depth though. There are going to be some really good WRs/DBs/ILBs on the board on the first day - and I think with Spears ability to slilde in or out, we'll wait until the 4th or 5th before we start looking for a big fella.

We also saw what happend when Kyle Kosier goes down, we need to get younger there too.

[MichaelWinicki]

Another reason I didn't understand just 'giving' Fergy away.

I hope we wait and not reach at 51 because we need DT depth though. There are going to be some really good WRs/DBs/ILBs on the board on the first day - and I think with Spears ability to slilde in or out, we'll wait until the 4th or 5th before we start looking for a big fella.

We also saw what happend when Kyle Kosier goes down, we need to get younger there too.


Well if Ferguson didn't have a cap hit of $5 mil and wasn't old and hadn't been injured for virtually an entire year-- he probably wouldn't have been given away.

But good depth doesn't mean keeping someone around whose long in the tooth and is chewing up tons of cap space.

Hey, we definitely need depth but a mid-30's Ferguson isn't the answer-- a 2nd, 3rd or 4th round pick in this years draft is.

[Double Trouble]

And god forbid that Ratliff got hurt-- We'd be up the creek without a paddle. I can't think of another starting position on the team where we have less adequate depth.Maybe left tackle.

The team is undermanned at both positions. I worry about LT even more than NT, given Adams' age.

[Double Trouble]

Another reason I didn't understand just 'giving' Fergy away.

I hope we wait and not reach at 51 because we need DT depth though. There are going to be some really good WRs/DBs/ILBs on the board on the first day - and I think with Spears ability to slilde in or out, we'll wait until the 4th or 5th before we start looking for a big fella.

We also saw what happend when Kyle Kosier goes down, we need to get younger there too.Ferguson made a lot of $$$ and they thought Tank Johnson would actually make an effort.

[TheCount]

Maybe left tackle.

The team is undermanned at both positions. I worry about LT even more than NT, given Adams' age.

Have we even really seen Free play?

[MichaelWinicki]

Have we even really seen Free play?


Umm. No.


And at least Free is a 4th round pick who showed a little in camp two years ago.

Behind Ratliff, we have no one who's shown anything.

[pgreptom]

Your getting demolished in this argument. Your not going to win. Just quit while your behind..Your post about his positives and negatives just proved my point of what kind of player he is.

Your shows possession.

You're is a contraction for you and are.

[Bob Sacamano]

Your shows possession.

You're is a contraction for you and are.

he gets marked down for content AND spelling?

dang

[TheCount]

Umm. No.


And at least Free is a 4th round pick who showed a little in camp two years ago.

Behind Ratliff, we have no one who's shown anything.

We can probably sign a guy or draft a guy later that is as effective as Tank was, only reason to take a guy early is if he's special, drafting for pure need is bad news.

If Brace is that guy, then so be it, but I wouldn't draft him out of fear.

[MichaelWinicki]

We can probably sign a guy or draft a guy later that is as effective as Tank was, only reason to take a guy early is if he's special, drafting for pure need is bad news.

If Brace is that guy, then so be it, but I wouldn't draft him out of fear.

I wouldn't draft Brace automatically in round 2 either (if he were available) but by the end of the 4th round-- I'd have a NT drafted.

[JonJon]

I would rather not draft Chung. You really have to see the big picture about him before forming an opinion about him. I agree that he is a big hitter, but when he is overmatched, there simply is no covering it up. He looks good blowing people up and against players that he is athletically superior to, but he will not be athletically superior to most of the NFL's talent. He will need help to disguise his coverage inabilities, but in today's NFL, the safeties need to be able to hold their own.

I would much rather have Moore, Johnson, or Delmas, in that order.

[SLATEmosphere]

I would rather not draft Chung. You really have to see the big picture about him before forming an opinion about him. I agree that he is a big hitter, but when he is overmatched, there simply is no covering it up. He looks good blowing people up and against players that he is athletically superior to, but he will not be athletically superior to most of the NFL's talent. He will need help to disguise his coverage inabilities, but in today's NFL, the safeties need to be able to hold their own.

I would much rather have Moore, Johnson, or Delmas, in that order.

I agree 100%..maybe not the Moore choice though..he's more of the same.

[JonJon]

I agree 100%..maybe not the Moore choice though..he's more of the same.
Moore is more athletic than Chung though and won't be as easily outmatched at the next level. He makes more plays on the ball and would be great at SS. The only thing that worries me about Moore is his injuries.

[BAT]

Moore is more athletic than Chung though and won't be as easily outmatched at the next level. He makes more plays on the ball and would be great at SS. The only thing that worries me about Moore is his injuries.

Moore sucked at SS. The thing that worries me about Moore is his lack of instincts. He is at his best playing downhill as a center fielder type FS, great size but his tackling is inconsistent and he is really not comfortable in man coverage.


Rashad Johnson, and Pat Chung, have the best leadership, instincts & work ethic of the bunch. Delmas is more dynamic, b/c he does everything at full-speed, but he is not as athletic as either Johnson or Chung. The bigger problem is that both Johnson and even Delmas are better suited for FS, not currently a need position for Dallas.

[Bob Sacamano]

Moore sucked at SS. The thing that worries me about Moore is his lack of instincts. He is at his best playing downhill as a center fielder type FS, great size but his tackling is inconsistent and he is really not comfortable in man coverage.


Rashad Johnson, and Pat Chung, have the best leadership, instincts & work ethic of the bunch. Delmas is more dynamic, b/c he does everything at full-speed, but he is not as athletic as either Johnson or Chung. The bigger problem is that both Johnson and even Delmas are better suited for FS, not currently a need position for Dallas.

if you read Moore's scouting report, he sounds alot like Ken Hamlin

but you got to like a big dude like him that can scoot

[Zaxor]

I am not a Chung fan

[RESIN8]

I am not a Chung fan


the question was are you a wang chung fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernCPFVe8wU&feature=related

[Zaxor]

the question was are you a wang chung fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ernCPFVe8wU&feature=related

LOL:bow: :laugh2:

[jterrell]

Chung looked good n coverage at the Senior Bowl. Certainly far better than William Moore did.

He was considered a stiff RW type prior to the Senior Bowl but covered well in practice man for man and looked surprisingly good at the game.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/2009/seniorbowl/stock.html

excerpted....

Patrick Chung, SS, Oregon � Chung earned the reputation as an in-the-box safety at Oregon. He was a physical tackler that would come down in run support. At the Senior Bowl, he showed just the opposite to be true as well. As he matched up with wide receivers on the outside in one-on-one drills, he showed tight coverage and a natural instinct to look for the football in the air. He played well all week and laid the lumber early in the game to mark his territory, letting receivers know he was on the field. Chung will compete with a couple names to be the first safety off the board, possibly in the first round.


Now all that said he'd rank for me after Delmas and Rashad Johnson. I like Delmas' coverage skills better and like both guys leadership better.

But I would take Chung easily ahead of Moore who is to me a boom or bust guy that can make plays but also will get burned badly.

[jterrell]

Moore sucked at SS. The thing that worries me about Moore is his lack of instincts. He is at his best playing downhill as a center fielder type FS, great size but his tackling is inconsistent and he is really not comfortable in man coverage.


Rashad Johnson, and Pat Chung, have the best leadership, instincts & work ethic of the bunch. Delmas is more dynamic, b/c he does everything at full-speed, but he is not as athletic as either Johnson or Chung. The bigger problem is that both Johnson and even Delmas are better suited for FS, not currently a need position for Dallas.

About 30 minutes after we draft a safety Jerry will tell everyone we took a safety who we felt could cover and we wanted to shore up that area of the field.

The Cowboys plays a safety position that is interchangeable. They do not have a true FS/SS setup. Both guys end up covering deep middle at times.

That's why they couldn't hide RW. At some point he had to man cover TEs and at some point he had to cover deep areas.

We are not drafting another strong safety, we are gonna draft a guy who can cover.

[BAT]

About 30 minutes after we draft a safety Jerry will tell everyone we took a safety who we felt could cover and we wanted to shore up that area of the field.

The Cowboys plays a safety position that is interchangeable. They do not have a true FS/SS setup. Both guys end up covering deep middle at times.

That's why they couldn't hide RW. At some point he had to man cover TEs and at some point he had to cover deep areas.

We are not drafting another strong safety, we are gonna draft a guy who can cover.


Then that will have to be either Chung or Delmas, Johnson would be manhandled by TEs. Heck, I'm not sure Delmas is strong enough to cover TEs like Witten, Shockey or Gonzalez. And I doubt he's athletic enough to stay with the Winslows, Gates or VDavis' of the NFL. That is why safeties are getting bigger (heavier), not necessarily taller. Lack of body mass is one of Delmas' weaknesses, never mind Rashad Johnson's.

[tomson75]

Then that will have to be either Chung or Delmas, Johnson would be manhandled by TEs. Heck, I'm not sure Delmas is strong enough to cover TEs like Witten, Shockey or Gonzalez. And I doubt he's athletic enough to stay with the Winslows, Gates or VDavis' of the NFL. That is why safeties are getting bigger (heavier), not necessarily taller. Lack of body mass is one of Delmas' weaknesses, never mind Rashad Johnson's.

Getting bigger eh? (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149234)

[reddyuta]

About 30 minutes after we draft a safety Jerry will tell everyone we took a safety who we felt could cover and we wanted to shore up that area of the field.

The Cowboys plays a safety position that is interchangeable. They do not have a true FS/SS setup. Both guys end up covering deep middle at times.

That's why they couldn't hide RW. At some point he had to man cover TEs and at some point he had to cover deep areas.

We are not drafting another strong safety, we are gonna draft a guy who can cover.

I agree somewhat but a strong safety who cant tackle jacobs,portis and westbrook will be useless to us.our SS has to be a good tackler foremost.

[BAT]

Getting bigger eh? (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149234)


Yes, getting bigger, as in heavier, b/c the TEs are already bigger, now they are getting more athletic. Safeties under 200 lbs have struggled / will continue to stuggle, mightily. I agree that the Safeties are also getting faster as well (hence some of them are shorter to compensate, but even the guys under 5'10 are still over 200 lbs).


But Vela's sample is skewed. It is not even an accurate conclusion. Roy was not in due to injury, Leonard was in only due to injury. Sean Taylor would also have skewed his results even further.



He makes a conclusion and tries to shoe horn the numbers to fit. It would have been more accurate if he showed a range of years. Next years' safety class will blow his hypothesis off the board.

[tomson75]

Yes, getting bigger, as in heavier, b/c the TEs are already bigger, now they are getting more athletic. Safeties under 200 lbs have struggled / will continue to stuggle, mightily. I agree that the Safeties are also getting faster as well (hence some of them are shorter to compensate, but even the guys under 5'10 are still over 200 lbs).


But Vela's sample is skewed. It is not even an accurate conclusion. Roy was not in due to injury, Leonard was in only due to injury. Sean Taylor would also have skewed his results even further.



He makes a conclusion and tries to shoe horn the numbers to fit. It would have been more accurate if he showed a range of years. Next years' safety class will blow his hypothesis off the board.

No, that's what you're trying to do.

Roy, even if he were the safety that he onc

[BAT]

No, that's what you're trying to do.

Roy, even if he were the safety that he onc


LOL. I don't think so. I am not making any sweeping claims. I am only saying that even the short speedy safeties are getting bigger (Polamalu, Sanders, Reed, are speed/coverage guys who are at least 200 lbs). Once upon a time, the FS could play under 200 lbs. No longer.


Vela uses 2008 as his sample, too limited, any researcher knows that a larger sample size will produce more accurate results.


Besides, in any era, the LB sized safety that could run/cover like a corner was a precious commodity. There were less in 2008, not just b/c teams wanted cover safeties, but because they were rare players to begin with. If a team had a choice of Jim Leonard and Adrian Wilson, I think 99.9% would choose Adrian Wilson.

[Bob Sacamano]

LOL. I don't think so. I am not making any sweeping claims. I am only saying that even the short speedy safeties are getting bigger (Polamalu, Sanders, Reed, are speed/coverage guys who are at least 200 lbs). Once upon a time, the FS could play under 200 lbs. No longer.


Vela uses 2008 as his sample, too limited, any researcher knows that a larger sample size will produce more accurate results.


Besides, in any era, the LB sized safety that could run/cover like a corner was a precious commodity. There were less in 2008, not just b/c teams wanted cover safeties, but because they were rare players to begin with. If a team had a choice of Jim Leonard and Adrian Wilson, I think 99.9% would choose Adrian Wilson.

:hammer:

[jterrell]

LOL. I don't think so. I am not making any sweeping claims. I am only saying that even the short speedy safeties are getting bigger (Polamalu, Sanders, Reed, are speed/coverage guys who are at least 200 lbs). Once upon a time, the FS could play under 200 lbs. No longer.


Vela uses 2008 as his sample, too limited, any researcher knows that a larger sample size will produce more accurate results.


Besides, in any era, the LB sized safety that could run/cover like a corner was a precious commodity. There were less in 2008, not just b/c teams wanted cover safeties, but because they were rare players to begin with. If a team had a choice of Jim Leonard and Adrian Wilson, I think 99.9% would choose Adrian Wilson.

Polamalu and Sanders are both smallish overall and play strong safety. They are outstanding tacklers who take on guys that outweigh them by 30 pounds easily.

Polamalu really doesn't play safety he plays a free lance position LeBeau created that allows him to just run to the ball. Sanders plays a SS position in a tampa cover 2 that Roy Williams dearly wants to play because it requires less man coverage.

Ed Reed is the best ballhawk in football but an average at best tackler so your examples are all over the place.

But Vela's numbers are right on the money. He just took the facts as they are which is that current Pro Bowl safeties are no longer 6'3" and 240 pounds.

I agree that the guys who are massive and can cover are rare. The key is you have to have a guy that can cover nowadays moreso than a tackler.

Jacobs, Portis and Westbrook are all different players. Laron Landry can't tackle Brandon Jacobs but how many teams would bench Laron Landry? And Portis is a speed guy with toughness that 200 pound safeties can tackle. Portis himself is only 220.

Polamalu is 207, Sanders 208.

That is light for a safety. Landry is 230 and got trucked by Jacobs.

End of the day this is just common sense. The NFL is more pass-oriented than ever and thus defenses have to focus more and more on defending the pass.

But safeties should be able to play coverage and tackle. That is what the position entails. Its just nowadays that safety has to be more Darren Woodson and less Roy Williams.

[BAT]

Polamalu and Sanders are both smallish overall and play strong safety. They are outstanding tacklers who take on guys that outweigh them by 30 pounds easily.

Polamalu is 207, Sanders 208.

That is light for a safety. Landry is 230 and got trucked by Jacobs.


You do realize that Sanders is 5'8 and Polamalu is just over 5'9, right? That is NOT light for their size.

[jterrell]

You do realize that Sanders is 5'8 and Polamalu is just over 5'9, right? That is NOT light for their size.

How does that matter at all?

Its small for a safety period. If they came out now and when they did come out that size was factored against them. Polamalu is generally listed at 5'10" and fell to pick 16 even after starring at USC on teams considered some of the most talented in college football history. 5'10" and 207 isn't very big.

How do I know? Because I am currently just a hair under 6 feet and weigh 210. Its not very large. I have a workout buddy who is 5'7" and 235. That is large.

Sanders fell to round 2 because he is a midget being listed at 5'8". A midget who is listed at 206 pounds. But again that's just small period. And is why he fell to round 2 after starting and starring ever since the end of his freshman year in college.

Again the point is what you have to have now that you didn't need before is man coverage abilities. At least if we are going to continue to play the schemes we want to.

If Darren Woodson and Ronnie Lott were both in their prime right now Woody would be a first ballot unanimous Hall of Famer and Lott would be playing weakside linebacker for some 4-3 team.

[Bob Sacamano]

How does that matter at all?

Its small for a safety period. If they came out now and when they did come out that size was factored against them. Polamalu is generally listed at 5'10" and fell to pick 16 even after starring at USC on teams considered some of the most talented in college football history. 5'10" and 207 isn't very big.

How do I know? Because I am currently just a hair under 6 feet and weigh 210. Its not very large. I have a workout buddy who is 5'7" and 235. That is large.

Sanders fell to round 2 because he is a midget being listed at 5'8". A midget who is listed at 206 pounds. But again that's just small period. And is why he fell to round 2 after starting and starring ever since the end of his freshman year in college.

Again the point is what you have to have now that you didn't need before is man coverage abilities. At least if we are going to continue to play the schemes we want to.

If Darren Woodson and Ronnie Lott were both in their prime right now Woody would be a first ballot unanimous Hall of Famer and Lott would be playing weakside linebacker for some 4-3 team.

a guy who is 5'8" 200 is pretty stout, esp. if you look at Bob Sanders, who is pretty thick, which I think is the point that RS12 is making

the only disadvantage he has is his small stature, not size, would preclude him from being able to effectively run and cover TEs who stand 5 or 6 inches above him, who could use their 240-250lb bodies to block him away from the path of the ball

[jterrell]

a guy who is 5'8" 200 is pretty stout, esp. if you look at Bob Sanders, who is pretty thick, which I think is the point that RS12 is making

the only disadvantage he has is his small stature, not size, would preclude him from being able to effectively run and cover TEs who stand 5 or 6 inches above him, who could use their 240-250lb bodies to block him away from the path of the ball

Witten is 6'5" and 265. That is 8 inches in height and about 60 pounds in weight.

[BAT]

If Darren Woodson and Ronnie Lott were both in their prime right now Woody would be a first ballot unanimous Hall of Famer and Lott would be playing weakside linebacker for some 4-3 team.

And this is why we are going to have to end this discussion, if these are going to be your examples. Besides, the obvious "wha tha fug??" not sure what you are intimating, Lott was good enough in coverage to play corner AT A PRO BOWL LEVEL. And Woodson was BIGGER than Lott.

In fact, Woodson (at 6'1 228 4.45) is a very good example of the RARE player who has the speed/coverage ability of a corner and the size/thump of a LB. Thank you for proving my point.

[Bob Sacamano]

Witten is 6'5" and 265. That is 8 inches in height and about 60 pounds in weight.

which is why putting a smallish safety on them is putting them at a disadvantage

[tomson75]

LOL. I don't think so. I am not making any sweeping claims. I am only saying that even the short speedy safeties are getting bigger (Polamalu, Sanders, Reed, are speed/coverage guys who are at least 200 lbs). Once upon a time, the FS could play under 200 lbs. No longer.


Mmmm...OK. So now you're just limiting it to FS? There are still plenty of FS playing under 200lbs, but you're right, they are typically getting slightly bigger because the two positions are becoming more versatile and interchangeable. There aren't, however, very many 220+ lb SS that used to be a dime a dozen in the league. There just aren't very many guys that size that can match up with todays passing attacks. Let's try and stick to the safety position as a whole, rather than sway the argument to FS just to suite your side of the discussion.

Vela uses 2008 as his sample, too limited, any researcher knows that a larger sample size will produce more accurate results.


He uses 2008 because we're talking about the latest trends in the uses of the safety position. Why wouldn't he? He uses the playoff teams because he wants to show what trends the successful teams were using. It's common sense.

I would've been more useful if he had given a comparison year however, say....2001.

Besides, in any era, the LB sized safety that could run/cover like a corner was a precious commodity. There were less in 2008, not just b/c teams wanted cover safeties, but because they were rare players to begin with. If a team had a choice of Jim Leonard and Adrian Wilson, I think 99.9% would choose Adrian Wilson.

No, 210+ lb (not so long ago, that was "LB size) safeties have been around for quite some time, and they have been used with great success in various eras of the NFL. It's cyclical. When the NFl was dominated by big OLines and bruising RB's, the Roy Williams of the NFL were the ****. Guess what? He's not anymore...and it's not because he's getting bigger.

Overall, the safety position is getting smaller and faster.

[BAT]

Mmmm...OK. So now you're just limiting it to FS? There are still plenty of FS playing under 200lbs, but you're right, they are typically getting slightly bigger because the two positions are becoming more versatile and interchangeable.

Overall, the safety position is getting smaller and faster.

So you agree that the FS safety is getting bigger, but you conclude that "overall" the position group is getting smaller (and faster, but I already agreed with this)? Which is it?


If you are saying that the SS position is getting smaller and faster, your argument (though not necessarily correct) would make more sense.

[BAT]

There aren't, however, very many 220+ lb SS that used to be a dime a dozen in the league.

LB sized safeties may have been MORE common, but LB sized safeties who could cover like a corner, have NEVER been a dime a dozen, in ANY league.

He uses 2008 because we're talking about the latest trends in the uses of the safety position. Why wouldn't he? He uses the playoff teams because he wants to show what trends the successful teams were using. It's common sense.

Trend is a PATTERN, one year does not a pattern make. For now, it is a coincidence, or an emerging trend. Like I said, next year's draft will blow this hypothesis out of the water when Taylor Mays & others (LSU Chad Jones, Ole Miss Jamar Hornsby, ARK Anthony Leon, etc.) come out. Not to mention, Vela's results would have been significantly different if Sean Taylor were still alive and playing.


I would've been more useful if he had given a comparison year however, say....2001. No, 210+ lb (not so long ago, that was "LB size) safeties have been around for quite some time, and they have been used with great success in various eras of the NFL. It's cyclical. When the NFl was dominated by big OLines and bruising RB's, the Roy Williams of the NFL were the ****. Guess what? He's not anymore...and it's not because he's getting bigger.


???

Size AND speed (you keep leaving this out) combo at safety is less common simply b/c it is uncomon. Josh Garrett is going to be a player in Denver (and he is LB sized w/DB speed), same w/Sabby Piscatelli in Tampa Bay. What happens to your "trend" then? Or even sooner, when William Moore, Chip Vaughn & Bruton line up at safety for whichever team that picks them (they will not be NFL LBs).

Bottom line, Vela's "trend" is premature. Lets see what happens with a sampling of a season, or two, more.

[tomson75]

???

Size AND speed (you keep leaving this out) combo at safety is less common simply b/c it is uncomon. Josh Garrett is going to be a player in Denver (and he is LB sized w/DB speed), same w/Sabby Piscatelli in Tampa Bay. What happens to your "trend" then? Or even sooner, when William Moore, Chip Vaughn & Bruton line up at safety for whichever team that picks them (they will not be NFL LBs).

Bottom line, Vela's "trend" is premature. Lets see what happens with a sampling of a season, or two, more.

I've been referring to the Safety positions as a whole form the beginning of this discussion. The entire premise of my original post with the link suggests as much.

I never said that LB sized safeties that could cover were common. They still aren't. Hence the current trend of very few LB size safeties....due to the current need for safeties to cover far more than in the past.

SS in general are 10-20lbs lighter. FS in general are 0-10lbs heavier.....see what I mean? They're meeting in the middle...but overall, they're getting lighter.

...at least that's what the current facts suggest, and that's what I was attempting to convey.