Safety... The Defensive Equivalent of the Fading Role of Fullback

[Wood]

Hos your view point is completely contrary to what many "football" people are saying. The safety position used to be a "lost" position thats why when Dallas took guys like Roy Williams so high it was unusual. But teams are finding that what really is difference between winning and losing is turnover game. Ball Hawkin free safety can be as good as landing a top WR because they change of field position so dramatically. The gap between a ball hawkin free safety and CB is closing and the financial contracts are supporting this.

But...i really like the idea of moving Newmann to Free Safety....I just dont know if his shoulders can hold up to that considering he came into NFL with serious nerve damage in his shoulder.

 

[proline]

So what you're saying is that the numbers ARE readily available, but you just don't want to do the work?

I'm just joking man, relax!

"Readily available" to me means you run a simple query and POOF! out come the numbers.

Here's what I was able to get for 2001 - 2009*.

Season Tackles ..Sacks . Int ... PD
2001 ... 7199 ... 84.5 .. 187 ... 676
2002 ... 7341 ... 70.5 .. 212 ... 670
2003 ... 7159 ... 63.5 .. 200 ... 681
2004 ... 7135 ... 75.5 .. 158 ... 574
2005 ... 6548 ... 71.5 .. 159 ... 556
2006 ... 6868 ... 61.5 .. 161 ... 578
2007 ... 6385 ... 48 ..... 177 ... 551
2008 ... 6670 ... 45 ..... 155 ... 466
2009 ... 6829 ... 64 ..... 181 ... 555

As you can see (it's easier if you graph them but I don't have any way to grab a shot of the graphs to upload here), all of these categories have shown a decrease in production during this time period. This lends some credibility to Hos's premise, but I kind of thought that interceptions should be increasing if the safeties are playing in the box less. It may be due to fewer safeties in the game in pass situations, opting instead for using an extra CB.

*This info is from Yahoo! Sports and is for ALL safeties that played during that time period. I think the tackles include special teams tackles, but that should be fairly consistent from year to year.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

As coach of the Cowboys, Bill Parcells once claimed that changes in college football ultimately affect the NFL game. Specifically, he was referring to the emerging collegiate trend of using two "feature" backs rather than one--a trend that eventually carried over into the NFL.

Hos' post calls to mind a comment I heard during a college broadcast. About ten years ago, I was watching a Longhorn game, and the announcer pointed out that Mack Brown was specifically recruiting cornerbacks to play safety. Brown's reasoning was that, as college teams began transitioning to spread offenses, speed and coverage ability (rather than size) would become the most important assets in safeties. Brown would prove to be prophetic; every Big 12 team (and many other major college programs) run some variation of the spread.

As was the case with two feature backs, we're now witnessing players with cornerback attributes playing safety in the NFL.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

As coach of the Cowboys, Bill Parcells once claimed that changes in college football ultimately affect the NFL game. Specifically, he was referring to the emerging collegiate trend of using two "feature" backs rather than one--a trend that eventually carried over into the NFL.

Hos' post calls to mind a comment I heard during a college broadcast. About ten years ago, I was watching a Longhorn game, and the announcer pointed out that Mack Brown was specifically recruiting cornerbacks to play safety. Brown's reasoning was that, as college teams began transitioning to spread offenses, speed and coverage ability (rather than size) would become the most important assets in safeties. Brown would prove to be prophetic; every Big 12 team (and many other major college programs) run some variation of the spread.

As was the case with two feature backs, we're now witnessing players with cornerback attributes playing safety in the NFL.

That's one reason I think this "problem" will take care of itself. Safeties in college will already be more the cover type, so there won't be a need to take college corners and convert them to safety at the pro level.

 

[masomenos]

And so did your comments.

If the comments by Hos and me went without saying, why are you disagreeing?

 

[casmith07]

If the comments by Hos and me went without saying, why are you disagreeing?

That's his MO.

 

[proline]

"Readily available" to me means you run a simple query and POOF! out come the numbers.

Here's what I was able to get for 2001 - 2009*.

Season Tackles ..Sacks . Int ... PD
2001 ... 7199 ... 84.5 .. 187 ... 676
2002 ... 7341 ... 70.5 .. 212 ... 670
2003 ... 7159 ... 63.5 .. 200 ... 681
2004 ... 7135 ... 75.5 .. 158 ... 574
2005 ... 6548 ... 71.5 .. 159 ... 556
2006 ... 6868 ... 61.5 .. 161 ... 578
2007 ... 6385 ... 48 ..... 177 ... 551
2008 ... 6670 ... 45 ..... 155 ... 466
2009 ... 6829 ... 64 ..... 181 ... 555

As you can see (added graphs), all of these categories have shown a decrease in production during this time period. This lends some credibility to Hos's premise, but I kind of thought that interceptions should be increasing if the safeties are playing in the box less. It may be due to fewer safeties in the game in pass situations, opting instead for using an extra CB.

*This info is from Yahoo! Sports and is for ALL safeties that played during that time period. I think the tackles include special teams tackles, but that should be fairly consistent from year to year.

I added graphs (sorry, but I was no longer able to edit my first post, so I had to quote and edit that.)

 

[Everlastingxxx]

If the comments by Hos and me went without saying, why are you disagreeing?

I have no idea what you are even talking about. My point was simple and not complex. Add more speed at WR, but generally some just have to chime in and try to correct you as if you do not actually share the same thoughts on the situation.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

That's his MO.

And you are someone i have exchanged private messages with. For some reason you like to stalk me and make insults. Get a life big boy.

 

[TheCount]

I added graphs (sorry, but I was no longer able to edit my first post, so I had to quote and edit that.)

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:



The charts did it for me. Well played, sir.

 

[masomenos]

I have no idea what you are even talking about. My point was simple and not complex. Add more speed at WR, but generally some just have to chime in and try to correct you as if you do not actually share the same thoughts on the situation.

How do you not understand?

You said you combat speed at the safety position with speed at the WR position.

Hos and I disagreed and said that you combat speed with size.

You said that we were wrong, that you combat it with talent.

We said that the need of talent was obvious.

You said that what we said (the need of size) was obvious.


How can you say that what we said was obvious, if you disagree?

 

[proline]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:



The charts did it for me. Well played, sir.

I thought you'd like that!

For kicks, I did the same thing for cornerbacks.

First, the numbers:

Season...Tackles...Sacks...Interceptions...PD
2001.......5183.......33.5.........235............976
2002.......5697.......28.5.........194..........1034
2003.......5664.......32.5.........223..........1003
2004.......5946.......54............238..........1044
2005.......6230.......39.5.........237..........1106
2006.......6028.......29............240..........1104
2007.......6392.......26.5.........226..........1030
2008.......6076.......43............220..........1141
2009.......6197.......32.5.........244..........1091

Now, the graphs:

The cornerbacks have been busier, but probably not up by the LOS. More than likely the increased tackles are in the passing game. The scale I used for the Tackles graph is unfortunate because it masks the fact that there was actually an increase of nearly 20% from 2001 to 2009. Predictably, their PD's and tackles have increased, due to offenses passing more and the reduction in safety production in that area. Again, this is probably due to the safeties being replaced by CBs on more passing downs. Surprisingly, their INTs have stayed the same .... ?

 

[Everlastingxxx]

How do you not understand?

You said you combat speed at the safety position with speed at the WR position.

Hos and I disagreed and said that you combat speed with size.

You said that we were wrong, that you combat it with talent.

We said that the need of talent was obvious.

You said that what we said (the need of size) was obvious.


How can you say that what we said was obvious, if you disagree?

You listed big WRs as examples, yet you fail to see that they are big AND FAST. I thought that was obvious. And you and Hos are not 100% correct, because if it was just about being “big” then Mike Williams would be All Pro.

This is a silly discussion because to say you beat speed with size is not always true. There are plenty of exceptions to that. Desean Jackson tourched alot of secondaries. Sanatana Moss tourched the beloved Roy Willy many times. To catch a gazelle you need a cheetah. Ill take 5 fast WRs over your 5 big slow DBs.

 

[Hostile]

You listed big WRs as examples, yet you fail to see that they are big AND FAST. I thought that was obvious. And you and Hos are not 100% correct, because if it was just about being “big” then Mike Williams would be All Pro.

This is a silly discussion because to say you beat speed with size is not always true. There are plenty of exceptions to that. Desean Jackson tourched alot of secondaries. Sanatana Moss tourched the beloved Roy Willy many times. To catch a gazelle you need a cheetah. Ill take 5 fast WRs over your 5 big slow DBs.

The silly thing is you're rambling and do not even know it. The last paragraph is taking the exact opposite approach to what the entire discussion was about. That big, slow DBs are going to be less and less utilized. Why? Because the speed and frequency of the current passing games. So you countered that the way to combat the speed being added on the Defenses is by adding more speed on the Offenses.

That is incorrect. By and large when you add speed in the D Backfield you take away size. So teams will look to add WRs who after the catch are hard to bring down. Thus creating a mismatch for the DBs due to broken tackles.

From there you went off on your add talent tangent. Newsflash, all of these guys have talent. Even the ones who do not make it in the NFL. It will always take talent. But the fact remains that if Defenses go small to cover more ground, Offenses will go big to try and create a physical mismatch.

That is all Maso and I were saying. It does not mean we are claiming that a Mike Williams is suddenly going to get it. Believe it or not, there have been other big WRs who have made it in the NFL and several played for the Cowboys. Our current starters are both big guys just as a point of reference.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

The silly thing is you're rambling and do not even know it. The last paragraph is taking the exact opposite approach to what the entire discussion was about. That big, slow DBs are going to be less and less utilized. Why? Because the speed and frequency of the current passing games. So you countered that the way to combat the speed being added on the Defenses is by adding more speed on the Offenses.

I do not feel i am rambling. I am doing my best to get my point across, if that appears as rambling, so be it.

That is incorrect. By and large when you add speed in the D Backfield you take away size. So teams will look to add WRs who after the catch are hard to bring down. Thus creating a mismatch for the DBs due to broken tackles.

So big and slow is the way to go to combat it? I disagree. Desean Jackson is hard to tackle and he is small. Welker is small and hard to tackle. Has nothing to do with size.

From there you went off on your add talent tangent. Newsflash, all of these guys have talent. Even the ones who do not make it in the NFL. It will always take talent. But the fact remains that if Defenses go small to cover more ground, Offenses will go big to try and create a physical mismatch.

I mentioned talent because that is what it eventually comes down to. Obviously. Just as big and fast wins. You also assume if a defense goes “small” they are full of poor tackling players. I can think of numerous smaller DBs that can tackle. Also, defenses have to match the formations. If you come out with a 2 WR, 2 TE set, have to come out with your big boys, ie LBs, DL. A defense shouldn’t rely on an in the box Safety to stop the running game. All they are is an extra LBer anyways.

That is all Maso and I were saying. It does not mean we are claiming that a Mike Williams is suddenly going to get it. Believe it or not, there have been other big WRs who have made it in the NFL and several played for the Cowboys. Our current starters are both big guys just as a point of reference.

Austin is big and fast. He does not fit your “big and slow” mold. The other guy does. And yes there are examples, but so are small and fast WRs that have been successful.

Ok rambling over...hope i can realise i just rambled!

 

[masomenos]

You listed big WRs as examples, yet you fail to see that they are big AND FAST. I thought that was obvious. And you and Hos are not 100% correct, because if it was just about being “big” then Mike Williams would be All Pro.

This is a silly discussion because to say you beat speed with size is not always true. There are plenty of exceptions to that. Desean Jackson tourched alot of secondaries. Sanatana Moss tourched the beloved Roy Willy many times. To catch a gazelle you need a cheetah. Ill take 5 fast WRs over your 5 big slow DBs.

We. Are. Not. Advocating. Slow. Defensive. Backs.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

We. Are. Not. Advocating. Slow. Defensive. Backs.

Yes, you are. Observe:

I, masmenos85, am a staunch advocate of slow defensive backs. In my infallible opinion, they are the most important component of a championship team.

:

 

[masomenos]

Yes, you are. Observe:



:

How did you get a hold of my pre-edited post!?

I am ruined!

Nooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Yes, you are. Observe:



:

lol. I knew i saw that somewhere.

 

[masomenos]

lol. I knew i saw that somewhere.

:laugh2: