BB, again, on the leading edge of innovation?

[BostonTim]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/f...nHerald.com%29

When BB is done, and it's all said and done, when we look back and analyze, his impact will be staggering and unprecedented.

Cheers, BostonTim

[O_P_T]

McCourty wasn't the first CB he moved to safety. He did the same thing with Eugene Wilson in '03.

Yes, I know that was done primarily because of the Milloy situation, but I recall reading at the time that it gave them an advantage that they didn't have to substitute to go nickel.

[Taint Ed Love]

Why was he (DMC) so bad last year compared to his rookie year? Was it because of a lack of FS helping him, or, was he also trying to learn the role later on? Or, just lapsed?

[BostonTim]

In part, scheme. But the one thing that gets me is that as rook, he seemed to be tracking the call constantly. In 2011, he was constantly Back to the LOS and couldn't seem to ever get his head around.


Cheers, BostonTim

[MaineMan]

Wilcots seems to be overstating the "revelation" a bit here and may be a bit behind since teams have been drafting corners and converting them to safety almost right out of the chute for a at least a few years now. IIRC, there were maybe a half-dozen college CBs drafted in the later rounds in 2008 who made the switch in their first or second seasons, most with fair success.

More to the general point, with a greater emphasis on passing in general and if a multiple TE passing attack becomes a widespread (and successful) trend, of course it's going to require some changes in some coverage roles to adapt and, thus, present different requirements for the players who are to inhabit those roles - and that's not merely limited to "a new breed of safety". There, for instance, may be more demand for "coverage LBs" who are sort of safety/LB hybrids. A big part of Buffalo's successful pass defense (and, consequently, their awful run defense) from a couple-three seasons ago was that they were well-stocked with coverage LBs (converted safeties, a couple of them) as well a couple really good all-around safeties (Byrd and Wilson).

The "changes" then also affect scheme and re-emphasize questions such as: how do you cover five legitimate passing targets if one of those is also a legit running threat (e.g., Ray Rice, Matt Forte, etc.), especially if the TEs can block like an OL and catch like a WR?

Rodney Harrison was perhaps a kind of prototype portion of at least one answering strategy - a SS who covered well, but often played as sort of an additional LB. Jeff Tarpinian may fit this general type as he converted from safety to "coverage LB" at Iowa and, at 6'2"/238, posted ProDay numbers better than most safeties at the Combine [4.56/40, 1.54/10-yd, 37.0 vert, 1005 brd, 4.10 ss, 6.78 3c]. We'll see if he can stay healthy. Josh Barrett 6'2"/225 and also with very good Combine numbers (including a 4.35/40) certainly hasn't been able to.

But Wilcots using McCourty as an example of a guy who can "match up in man-to-man, turn his hips and go" kind of misses what happened with him. McCourty had done much better in zone where he could keep stuff in front of him (like a "traditional deep cover safety" might do), but wasn't very successful in man coverage, especially press-man. He does, however, have the speed and tackling skills required.

I'm not really sure how much BB has personally contributed, "innovation-wise" to this part of football's evolution. I'm not even sure that any of this is "news" to him. He and Dimitroff both commented, independently, that the roles of safeties were becoming more interchangeable, that they'd all need to be able to cover well and defend the run well. And that was in 2009, shortly after Dimitroff took the ATL general Manager job, so they'd probably been discussing it at least in 2008. But finding enough of those guys has proven fairly difficult.

Bottom line is that there's a lot more to this than simply needing some "new breed" of hybrid CB/Safety all of a sudden.

Plus, there will always be more required of DBs than just speed and good hips - like smarts (a guy who takes a false step loses most of whatever speed advantage he might have had). There will always be questions about whether a guy can mirror on the right side as effectively as he might on the left. And then there's that pesky zone/press-man thing.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Wilcots is "wrong", just that he's presenting only a part of the picture, is kinda vague on the details and may be a little late to the party.

[OSUBuckeye]

Originally Posted by MaineMan

Wilcots seems to be overstating the "revelation" a bit here and may be a bit behind since teams have been drafting corners and converting them to safety almost right out of the chute for a at least a few years now. IIRC, there were maybe a half-dozen college CBs drafted in the later rounds in 2008 who made the switch in their first or second seasons, most with fair success.

More to the general point, with a greater emphasis on passing in general and if a multiple TE passing attack becomes a widespread (and successful) trend, of course it's going to require some changes in some coverage roles to adapt and, thus, present different requirements for the players who are to inhabit those roles - and that's not merely limited to "a new breed of safety". There, for instance, may be more demand for "coverage LBs" who are sort of safety/LB hybrids. A big part of Buffalo's successful pass defense (and, consequently, their awful run defense) from a couple-three seasons ago was that they were well-stocked with coverage LBs (converted safeties, a couple of them) as well a couple really good all-around safeties (Byrd and Wilson).

The "changes" then also affect scheme and re-emphasize questions such as: how do you cover five legitimate passing targets if one of those is also a legit running threat (e.g., Ray Rice, Matt Forte, etc.), especially if the TEs can block like an OL and catch like a WR?

Rodney Harrison was perhaps a kind of prototype portion of at least one answering strategy - a SS who covered well, but often played as sort of an additional LB. Jeff Tarpinian may fit this general type as he converted from safety to "coverage LB" at Iowa and, at 6'2"/238, posted ProDay numbers better than most safeties at the Combine [4.56/40, 1.54/10-yd, 37.0 vert, 1005 brd, 4.10 ss, 6.78 3c]. We'll see if he can stay healthy. Josh Barrett 6'2"/225 and also with very good Combine numbers (including a 4.35/40) certainly hasn't been able to.

But Wilcots using McCourty as an example of a guy who can "match up in man-to-man, turn his hips and go" kind of misses what happened with him. McCourty had done much better in zone where he could keep stuff in front of him (like a "traditional deep cover safety" might do), but wasn't very successful in man coverage, especially press-man. He does, however, have the speed and tackling skills required.

I'm not really sure how much BB has personally contributed, "innovation-wise" to this part of football's evolution. I'm not even sure that any of this is "news" to him. He and Dimitroff both commented, independently, that the roles of safeties were becoming more interchangeable, that they'd all need to be able to cover well and defend the run well. And that was in 2009, shortly after Dimitroff took the ATL general Manager job, so they'd probably been discussing it at least in 2008. But finding enough of those guys has proven fairly difficult.

Bottom line is that there's a lot more to this than simply needing some "new breed" of hybrid CB/Safety all of a sudden.

Plus, there will always be more required of DBs than just speed and good hips - like smarts (a guy who takes a false step loses most of whatever speed advantage he might have had). There will always be questions about whether a guy can mirror on the right side as effectively as he might on the left. And then there's that pesky zone/press-man thing.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Wilcots is "wrong", just that he's presenting only a part of the picture, is kinda vague on the details and may be a little late to the party.

David Fulcher would be stud in today's NFL.

[MaineMan]

Originally Posted by BostonTim

In part, scheme. But the one thing that gets me is that as rook, he seemed to be tracking the call constantly. In 2011, he was constantly Back to the LOS and couldn't seem to ever get his head around.


Cheers, BostonTim

Yeah, I think the scheme change from 2010-2011 sorta set him up. In 2010, he was playing almost exclusively zone-read, back off the line. From there he was able to track a lot more of what was unfolding over more of the field. He could hesitate a half-beat on potential run-fakes because he had some cushion and he was still good in run-D, even from further off the LoS because of his quick CoD and raw speed (all qualities that enable him to play deep safety pretty well). So, when he did have to run with a receiver, he didn't have as far to go to catch up - partly because of the cushion, and partly because safety help over the top was more consistent and helped shorten routes some. He could get his head around in time to track the ball because he knew he was (and the safety was) close enough for him to turn his attention away from the receiver to the incoming pass.

In 2012, he was asked to press much closer to the line and man-up more frequently. When he hesitated on potential run-fakes (which he seemed to a lot), he had no cushion and he started his "recovery" on the receiver from much further behind. Also, the safety help was often not even close, so receivers were able to run freer. McCourty's speed DID allow him to catch up most of the time, but often just a fraction of a second too late for him to get his head around.

So, IMHO, the "fix" for him includes:
- less reason for him to be concerned about run-support (= more consistently effective run containment by the front seven)
- developing better press-man technique and timing
- getting more consistent safety help over the top

If these three things can be accomplished this off-season, we may see a 2012 McCourty who's even better than the 2010 version.

[Smudger]

I have a question for those that watch more non Patriots ball that I do:

Are there any free agent DBs out there that fit the type of player Wilcots describes for S with the Pats?

[The Hoodie]

The scheme change can be attributed towards Devin's slump, but also the poor safety play behind him.

[Taint Ed Love]

Originally Posted by The Hoodie

The scheme change can be attributed towards Devin's slump, but also the poor safety play behind him.

That is what I think. It could be some lapse too.

So is BB going to draft a corner, or a safety? Sounds like he will look for another corner who can make the hybrid switch. Maybe he could utilize both of them?

[MaineMan]

Originally Posted by Smudger

I have a question for those that watch more non Patriots ball that I do:

Are there any free agent DBs out there that fit the type of player Wilcots describes for S with the Pats?

Seems to me that everybody is looking for a guy who can line up in the deep zone, quickly and correctly diagnose the play, get where he's needed on time, fight off a block and make a solid, wrap-up tackle - and pick up a potential target in a shorter zone, turn and run with him closely enough to discourage the QB from throwing his way and with enough timing and athleticism to be able to break up a potential catch.

Actually, everybody's probably looking for at least TWO of those and they probably have been for quite awhile. But such guys are extremely rare.

As always, it's about what a guy can DO, not where he came from. Maybe a guy who's converted to safety from CB has a better chance of being able to do these things. IDK. Maybe a smart, athletic WR would be better. Maybe a smart, quick former QB.

Who knows? Maybe Edelman turns into a great coverage safety next season. If so, I wonder if Wilcots will opine about THAT being the next trend.

[Sea'sBiscuits]

Prime Ed Reed could start for any team at corner, free. And does.
I dont think McCourtey can play any position as well as him. Thats where your hybrid comes from.

[king of kings]

Mccourty could stay at safety. He had a lot better season at safety then CB.That was a major weakness all year. BB still going to need to adreess it in FA or the Draft. WE do have Ras-I dowling returning next year at CB. I thought Moore and Arrington did a good job.

[dchester]

Originally Posted by king of kings

Mccourty could stay at safety. He had a lot better season at safety then CB.That was a major weakness all year. BB still going to need to adreess it in FA or the Draft. WE do have Ras-I dowling returning next year at CB. I thought Moore and Arrington did a good job.

I hope they figure out why McCourty regressed. For all I know, maybe he was playing hurt. In any case, I'd rather have him playing corner the way he was the 2nd half of his rookie season, than playing safety. These days, you need 3 CBs, so if McCourty can resume his #1 corner role, then with Arrington on the other side and Moore playing the nickel, we should be in good shape. Then just figure out whether Dowling can play, or if we need to get a safety to go with Chung. Either way, we still need some depth back there.

[midgar8784]

Originally Posted by dchester

I hope they figure out why McCourty regressed. For all I know, maybe he was playing hurt. In any case, I'd rather have him playing corner the way he was the 2nd half of his rookie season, than playing safety. These days, you need 3 CBs, so if McCourty can resume his #1 corner role, then with Arrington on the other side and Moore playing the nickel, we should be in good shape. Then just figure out whether Dowling can play, or if we need to get a safety to go with Chung. Either way, we still need some depth back there.

This, I would rather have him playing well at corner, he was not wonderful at safety and I am not sure he is that type of player. I would rather have another safety next to chung at this point.