Hamlins arent' the ball hawks needed at FS

[NeonNinja]

The only reason Hamlin only saw 41 attempts in 2 years is because teams could complete passes to the middle of the field with ease because Hamlin was too far back.

Your stats ring hollow. And you know it.

Exactly, Hamlin takes deeper depths than most safeties. It takes him a bit longer to see the play and react, that is why he doesn't make any plays.

 

[Nightshade]

Awesome, to prove that a safeties 40 time means anything, you listed a bunch of wide receivers.

Keep up the good work.

Thanks,

I didn't mean to be vague. I'll help you. My point was those recievers in our division are fast. So it'd probably be better to have a fast DB covering them.

But I understand that Mike Hamlin hasn't had a fair opportunity to prove himself. The profile said he's got great instincts and is an intelectual player that can line up the secondary.

He seems like he could be a good player for the Cowboys one day. However, I loved the Jenkins / Scandrick competition and I don't see how drafting a Potentially GREAT safety like Thomas would hurt Mike Hamlin's development.

Exspecially since Thomas is supposed to have 4.4 speed.

I'm a Cowboys Fan guy. I'm greedy. Only the best for the Star.

1st Safety / O-Line
2nd O - Line / Safety
3rd Dexter McCluster

:starspin

 

[CATCH17]

Exactly, Hamlin takes deeper depths than most safeties. It takes him a bit longer to see the play and react, that is why he doesn't make any plays.

And rumor is he conistently gets froze on play actions.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And rumor is he conistently gets froze on play actions.

And doesn't provide deep help.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And misses tackles.

 

[CATCH17]

And gets overpaid.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And sucks.

 

[gimmesix]

Hopefully but they want him as a strong safety so that doesn't get rid of Ken.

I've written before that I think it's doubtful the Cowboys view Mike Hamlin as a strong safety in their current defensive setup.

Our strong safety draws man-to-man matchups with tight ends and sometimes even wide receivers, which does not play to Hamlin's strengths.

Our free safety doesn't have to possess real good speed or man coverage skills because he roams the back end as a center fielder type. He's a help player who should be in good position to make interceptions because he gets more opportunities to read the quarterback and receivers. This role fits Hamlin's strengths.

 

[21Savage]

I've written before that I think it's doubtful the Cowboys view Mike Hamlin as a strong safety in their current defensive setup.

Our strong safety draws man-to-man matchups with tight ends and sometimes even wide receivers, which does not play to Hamlin's strengths.

Our free safety doesn't have to possess real good speed or man coverage skills because he roams the back end as a center fielder type. He's a help player who should be in good position to make interceptions because he gets more opportunities to read the quarterback and receivers. This role fits Hamlin's strengths.

You say all that but that will be ignoring at least 2 occasions this season when Wade was asked the question in PCs and said he sees Mike more as a SS type. He also mentioned this when Ken went out.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Who said Mike Hamlin is a FS? I think he'll be a nice SS along with a guy like Antrel Rolle at FS!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree. Because our safeties are all the time running in a straight line, in shorts, during games.

When they run from the hash to the sideline in deep coverage that is exactly what they are doing. Hamlin is not a free safety.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Cowboys consider their safeties as interchangeable. Both MHamlin and Sensabaugh are capable of playing either spot.

That was Zimmer not Wade.

 

[speedkilz88]

That was Zimmer not Wade.

They still consider them interchangeable with Wade.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They still consider them interchangeable with Wade.

I don't recall him saying that and they certainly do not play like that. Sensabaugh plays up more and Hamlin covers the deep zone. For example it would be Hamlin in the middle on a cover 3.

Zimmer likes the cover 2 and thats why he said that. We don't play much of that with Brooking and James at ILB.

 

[gimmesix]

You say all that but that will be ignoring at least 2 occasions this season when Wade was asked the question in PCs and said he sees Mike more as a SS type. He also mentioned this when Ken went out.

He simply doesn't fit what we are doing at strong safety right now. You can't use a player who lacks one-on-one skills in the role Gerald Sensabaugh is playing.

Now, Mike Hamlin is strong against the run, but Phillips would have to make some alterations to the way he's using his safeties if he puts Hamlin in the strong safety spot. Or Hamlin will have to really improve on his man cover skills

 

[TheCount]

You do realize that INTs aren't the only coverage statistic don't you?

Per Profootballfocus.com (over the 2008 and 2009 seasons):

Rolle - 72 Targets, 686 yards given up, 5 TDs given up, 3 PDs
Hamlin - 41 Targets, 335 yards given up, 4 TDs given up, 3 PDs

Of course you don't. Interceptions from safeties are big. But they're by and large luck. The safety most often just happens to be in the right place at the right time. A true "ball hawking safety" is a pretty rare find.

Why Profootballfocus? Are they more reliable than anywhere else? I've never used them. I've seen several sources that have Rolle at 13 PD's over than span though, not 3.

The problem with bringing up any numbers like these to counter an argument is that neither side has context. Your numbers don't neccesarily mean he is closer in performance to Hamlin than someone just quoting ints and tackles. Maybe he is, but those numbers don't prove it.

 

[theogt]

Why Profootballfocus? Are they more reliable than anywhere else? I've never used them. I've seen several sources that have Rolle at 13 PD's over than span though, not 3.

The problem with bringing up any numbers like these to counter an argument is that neither side has context. Your numbers don't neccesarily mean he is closer in performance to Hamlin than someone just quoting ints and tackles. Maybe he is, but those numbers don't prove it.

They're the only public source with all of the information in one place. They could be completely wrong. I have no idea and don't have the time to verify all of their facts, so go ahead qualify every statement I make regarding statistics with "assuming the statistics are true." But I thought such a statement would be obvious so I don't include it in every post.

The idea that football statistics don't "prove" anything isn't exactly a novel argument and certainly isn't a statement I pay much attention to. Coverage statistics are the best evidence we have for comparing defensive backs. If you ignore them, that's fine. I don't.

 

[Dodger]

I'd wager there's far more than 2, when it's all said and done.

There are, but those are the only two that I think could improve this team. As I've said before, if they're going to draft a safety, I want someone who will eventually, likely be better than what we have.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They're the only public source with all of the information in one place. They could be completely wrong. I have no idea and don't have the time to verify all of their facts, so go ahead qualify every statement I make regarding statistics with "assuming the statistics are true." But I thought such a statement would be obvious so I don't include it in every post.

The idea that football statistics don't "prove" anything isn't exactly a novel argument and certainly isn't a statement I pay much attention to. Coverage statistics are the best evidence we have for comparing defensive backs. If you ignore them, that's fine. I don't.

Thats not his argument. The argument is that their numbers are out of context. I have gone to their website and looked to see how they determine their statistics and if they correlate to anything specifically the various ratings and there is nada.

 

[TNCowboy]

There are, but those are the only two that I think could improve this team. As I've said before, if they're going to draft a safety, I want someone who will eventually, likely be better than what we have.

I'd also wager there's others than those you mentioned that will be better than our safeties.