Thomas Davis at SS

Quicker way to say all that is that the coverage and the front dictates the responsibility, not the position.

 

Speak of the devil and he is bound to appear. But fear not, I didn't come to rip you yet another asshole (given how many you've got now, you must be one giant anus). I just stopped by because I figured someone would have Pasquarelli's camp notes and I refuse to pay for Insider access (seems like everything on ESPN is Insider now). I would like to make one correction, though. I am the one who is "wrong"? Guffaw. Is Davis practicing at SLB or not? Is Davis even practicing at FS? I find it amusing that everytime I'm actually around to argue, I humiliate you in front of everyone you so desperately want to impress, but as soon as I'm gone, you start claiming that you were "right" and I was "wrong." Moreover, people are free to look through that thread where we argued so fervently about where Davis should play, and you did not say that you preferred him at SS. I was the one saying Davis is either a SS or WLB, as people can see for themselves. (Good times)

Here's one choice quote, but if you take the time to actually look through the thread (and I just did), you'll find that there isn't a single place where Magnus said he'd prefer for Davis to play strong safety. Not one. Granted, I didn't check all the threads he's ever posted, but I think ol' Magsy-boy is rewriting history once again to turn a clear wrong into his version of a "right." - "I think situationally having Davis at SLB, or at least starting him out as the nickel LB, would ease some of the void of Fields' explosiveness, and would give a role similar to what Cooper played in 03 @philly, only with talent and instinct."


You argued over and over again not only for the possibility of Davis playing SLB, but that you felt it's where he should line up. Now, once more, is Davis even being considered at SLB so far (granted, it's only been a mini-camp and now three days of training camp)? No. So who was correct? That's right; the guy who is pretty much always right when the two of us argue.


Oh, and our safeties aren't interchangeable, otherwise why would Minter be moved to FS? (Here's the thread where I originally made that statement, and if anyone is curious, no, Magnus didn't say he wanted Davis at SS in that thread either) If they actually are equal, wouldn't Minter stay at SS and Davis would just step in at FS? Wouldn't that be logical and less complicated? The "our safeties are interchangeable" line is just something Fox says to the media, like any number of smokescreens. The differences between the safeties are obvious on film, but for those who don't have easy access to a tape or DVD, our free safeties are far more likely to give deep help on the split end or flanker (depending upon how the coverage is assigned). The strong safety does do some of that too, which may be what Fox is referring to, but Minter is more often used as medium to deep pick-up on the tight end and backs. That leaves him with one on one responsibilities more often than the free safety, but he isn't covering wide receivers. When the free has man responsibilities, it's on a wide receiver. Additionally, I assume everyone knows that the strong safety plays closer to the line than the free safety, in part because he's viewed as another asset against the run (fantasy buffs know that SSs rack up far more tackles than FSs). As such, the SS mostly has short and medium coverage responsibilities (unless he's trailing a man into the deep zone), while the FS has mostly medium and deep responsibilities.

And here's a scary fact, HeadCase: Despite having deep coverage on about 1/3rd fewer plays than Branch, Minter was targetted nearly twice as often (21 to 11 - stats courtesy of K.C. Joyner's very interesting book: Scientific Football 2005). KC had them both with tight or good coverage about the same percentage of the time (36.4 for Branch, 38.1 for Minter), but Minter had two blown coverages to Branch's none, and four touchdowns allowed to Branch's two.

Interestingly, Branch was rarely targetted at any level (KC posits that the other members of the secondary were weaker and therefore offenses didn't get around to Branch often enough to judge whether or not he was as good as his stats look), but did respectably well on most of the plays where he was (his deep stats were his worst by far). Regarding Minter, he also said that he "can be moved out of position and is beaten on more deep plays than you want your SS to be beaten on." That said, he gave both players something of a pass since he considered our CBs to be so bad that it wasn't possible to definitively judge our safeties.

But for the record, Minter was tried briefly at FS during the Seifert era and failed miserably. He does have more knowledge and experience now, but he's also slower and didn't have good range even for a SS (the FS's coverage responsibilities require a great deal more range and reading than SS's). I am quite worried about him playing there this season, but I suppose the idea is that we'll play soft with our corners again (grrr) to limit the coverage responsibilities of our safeties, and that our defensive line should keep them from being too exposed.


And for those who attended training camp this weekend, if you saw a tall, big, bearded, sweaty guy in a grass-stained white t-shirt with a press pass on the field during the second practice on Saturday - that was me. I was also the one who threw the ball insanely far in the flag football games (where I got the grass-stains) for anyone who might have played or watched us play. Yasinskas kept giving me dirty looks, so maybe I smelled, but I got to meet Len Pasquarelli (the short, balding guy), which was one of my main goals on Saturday.

 

How good IS Lucas

Is a six year, 36 milion Dollar contract (Today's Herald) a good or bad thing
6 Years is a long time. If he is good, that is a fine deal, have him locked up for 6 years. If he is a bust....What then.....

That Old Coot named John, stirring up trouble already..

 

CBs are a difficult bunch to judge. In one of our many arguments, Mags correctly pointed out that Lucas lost his starting job to Trufant in 2003 (although more because Trufant played great than that Lucas was bad). Then in 2004, Lucas played far better than Trufant (who dropped from great to horrible in much the same way as Terrence Newman. No CB was targetted more in 2004 than Trufant.) Then you have your overrated supposed studs (Champ Bailey), your actual studs (Chris McAllister), your gone from overrated to underrated (Dre Bly), and others who emerge to become one of the better CBs in football (Ken Lucas).

Is he worth it? We don't know that answer for a couple of years. The good news is that he's never been bad during his four year career (a rarer feat for a CB than you would expect). The bad news is that he's only been great for one. We had to get someone, since Manning clearly couldn't handle outside responsibilities last year (I said all along that he should be ideal for nickel covering the slot), and CBs were going at a premium. Would we have been better served by saving some money and going with an Andre Dyson instead? Maybe, but while we paid out the ass, we got a hell of a lot better corner than anyone else got this off-season with the possible exception of Baltimore (if Samari Rolle comes back 100%, I prefer him). The added bonus is that Lucas is younger than pretty much everyone else who was on the market, so he's just entering his prime.

 

jesus i hate saying this but thank you collin for explaining the safeties ... i think. that's pretty much what i was thinking but wasn't sure.

certain things you say intrigued me, not that i want to encourage you but if you have the time:

>> but Minter had two blown coverages to Branch's none, and four touchdowns allowed to Branch's two.

this doesn't surprise me as it seem that they had Branch so worried about keeping his cushion, that i wouldn't have expected him to give up as many TDs

>> "can be moved out of position and is beaten on more deep plays than you want your SS to be beaten on."

i'd believe that. do you?

>> he considered our CBs to be so bad that it wasn't possible to definitively judge our safeties.

i don't think our CBs were that bad. do you?

>> (the FS's coverage responsibilities require a great deal more range and reading than SS's). I am quite worried about him playing there this season, but I suppose the idea is that we'll play soft with our corners again (grrr) to limit the coverage responsibilities of our safeties, and that our defensive line should keep them from being too exposed.

this is my worry. i'm actually wondering if he might not be starting ... though i haven't seen what else we have to plug in at FS. also worry that his aggressive nature to support the run will work against him at FS. odd that if Branch did as well at FS as KC deems that he would get switched to another position and a position we all expect he will quickly lose the battle to Davis.

 

he's fucking awesome and worth every penny

 

Thomas Davis = Alge Crumpler Killer

 

We need a Ron Mexico killer. Why couldn't we have drafted some guy by the last name "Valtrex"?

 

fixed

 

>>But fear not, I didn't come to rip you yet another asshole

K...sure. Just like how you ripped me ones when the LBs coach agrees with me on Davis, the team went and got another starting level WR, and so on. Yep. Allright.

'course, you couldn't even get right that the Joker spot isn't a WLB spot, nor that Davis had played SLB, not WLB, in college, and FS, not SS, in college. But you owned up to being wrong about the latter, since it's an actual fact, not an opinion. You busted my ass continuously over an opinion, which in this case Flajole specifically talking about matching him up against the TE reinforces mine. I guess if you need to declare yourself victor yet again for whatever reason, sure.

>> Oh, and our safeties aren't interchangeable, otherwise why would Minter be moved to FS?

Fox is wrong, again?

No. It's a basic point, and yes, they're interchangeable (not the same position, but with similar responsibilities). That Minter is "moved" to FS doesn't change the fact that they're interchangeable, and to move a career SS to FS suggests it's completely otherwise (if Minter and Fox each saying it didn't reinforce that).