Patrick Chung - why the love

DBOY3141

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,340
Reaction score
5,955
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,340
Reaction score
5,955
Take away the return ability and it sounds like Roy's scouting report.
 

SLATEmosphere

Benched
Messages
9,633
Reaction score
2
DBOY3141;2694432 said:
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

Benched
Messages
9,633
Reaction score
2
JerryAdvocate;2694438 said:
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
DBOY3141;2694440 said:
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

SLATEmosphere;2694441 said:
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
SLATEmosphere;2694445 said:
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

Benched
Messages
9,633
Reaction score
2
JerryAdvocate;2694447 said:
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

Benched
Messages
9,633
Reaction score
2
JerryAdvocate;2694449 said:
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
SLATEmosphere;2694450 said:
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
SLATEmosphere;2694451 said:
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

Benched
Messages
9,633
Reaction score
2
JerryAdvocate;2694453 said:
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.
 

NeonNinja

Dash28
Messages
16,970
Reaction score
14,591
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

Benched
Messages
9,633
Reaction score
2
headhunterroy05;2694456 said:
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

Arch Defender
Messages
30,782
Reaction score
1
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
SLATEmosphere;2694455 said:
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
SLATEmosphere;2694457 said:
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
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

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
jday;2694464 said:
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
 

NeonNinja

Dash28
Messages
16,970
Reaction score
14,591
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.
 
Top