Primarily, Let's Talk Secondary

Stitch01 · Mar 15, 2014

What's Dennard's role? Am I wrong in saying he's not particularly suited to play the slot?

dbn · Mar 15, 2014

Stitch01 said:
What's Dennard's role? Am I wrong in saying he's not particularly suited to play the slot?

Since having read some of the comments about how Browner is so well suited to playing on the corners on top of receivers (as opposed to as a SS) I've been thinking about this as well.

On a separate but very much related note, I've been thinking about "depth". Having 3-4 guys you can depend on to play outside CB who aren't named Arrington is a good thing. This isn't a dig at Arrington, either. When/if everyone is healthy, BB can scheme based on match ups, etc.

Reardon's Beard · Mar 15, 2014

What's Adrian Wilson's status and what are we expecting out of him. Any chance of a serious resurgence?

triniSox · Mar 15, 2014

Reardons Beard said:
What's Adrian Wilson's status and what are we expecting out of him. Any chance of a serious resurgence?

I'm holding out hope. I expect the Pats to give him TC to figure out if he has anything less. His effective cap cost is only about $250K so not much point cutting him without seeing what he's got.

Reverend · Mar 15, 2014

Stitch01 said:
What's Dennard's role? Am I wrong in saying he's not particularly suited to play the slot?

I'm finding a lot of people missed this great video posted by Jettisoned in the Browner Watch thread when everyone moved to the Browner is a Patriot thread. Saban talks about Belichick's more flexible position thinking at about 5:30 and then gets into skill sets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Ud3o60G00

Time to Mo Vaughn · Mar 16, 2014

SeoulSoxFan said:
Thanks for reposting that Rev. Off topic, if and when BB retires, I'd bet that's when Saban makes his return to the NFL.

Belichick is a year younger than Saban.

bankshot1 · Mar 16, 2014

Saban is the Emperor of Alabama, got things set-up the way he likes, makes a ton of dough, he's not going anywhere

dcmissle · Mar 16, 2014

Back to secondary. On PAPER is it our best since Haynes/Claiborne?

bakahump · Mar 17, 2014

How would you match up our Secondary to Denver?

Just a bit outside · Mar 17, 2014

bakahump said:
How would you match up our Secondary to Denver?

Revis on DT
Arrington on Welker
Browner on JT
Ryan on Sanders
McCourty playing center field

Collins and Mayo covering back and blowing up crossing routes.

Dogman · Mar 17, 2014

Is Dennard still in jail in your scenario?

bakahump · Mar 17, 2014

Even if Dennard is still in the clink....thats pretty good.

Just a bit outside · Mar 17, 2014

Dogman2 said:
Is Dennard still in jail in your scenario?

I forgot about Dennard. I like Arrington on Welker so I would put Dennard on Sanders if he is playing better than Ryan.

Leather · Mar 17, 2014

So, from the looks of the Revis and Browner deals, is it fair to say that the 2015 secondary will be without at least one of these guys, if not both?

It's a frustrating that we only have one year to look forward to.

Stitch01 · Mar 17, 2014

I think its unlikely either player is back on their current contract, but think there's room for the Pats to keep both players if they want.

Overthecap has the Pats at $94MM for '14 assuming just the Revis dead money and nothing for Browner and LaFell and no Hernandez relief. Preliminary projections have the cap north of $140MM.

The cap goes up in '15 and the cap number for '15 for Revis and Browner long-term deals for would probably only be a few million more than their cap numbers for '14 (call it $5MM for conservatism). Hernandez and Wilfork save $18.7MM or something from where the Pats stand today. Mankins cut would save $6.5MM with only $4MM dead money. Id hate to go this route, and its less likely unless he wants a ton of money, but McCourty is $5.1MM on the cap and a FA. Connolly and Ghost combine for $6MM under the cap right now, could both be gone next year if needed with no penalty. Plus the usual litany of possible smaller cuts or extensions to free up some space. Guys up this year are Wilfork, Ghost, Connolly, McCourty, Slater, Kelly, Vereen, Ridley, Aiken, Williams, Cannon, White and (I think) they need to option Solder. Only Vereen, Cannon and (maybe) Ridley stick out to me as guys that they might want to retain who will actually take up more cap space in '15.

Some inflation from existing contracts with Mayo, Gronk, and Vollmer standing out (Mayo is a likely restructure/extension candidate given his base jumps from $3.3 to $6.3)

Pats obviously can't retain everyone, but the space is there to keep Revis and Browner if they choose to go in that direction IMO.

RedOctober3829 · Mar 17, 2014

Doug Kyed ‏@DougKyedNESN 8s
Browner seemed to think the Patriots and Seahawks' defenses were similar. Told he'll be playing a lot of man coverage, his specialty.

Super Nomario · Mar 17, 2014

Mike Reiss ‏@MikeReiss 5m
Brandon Browner says the Patriots' coaching staff has not talked to him about playing safety. He says he is here to play cornerback.

Can we put "Browner as SS" to rest?

Jettisoned · Mar 17, 2014

Stitch01 said:
I think its unlikely either player is back on their current contract, but think there's room for the Pats to keep both players if they want.
Overthecap has the Pats at $94MM for '14 assuming just the Revis dead money and nothing for Browner and LaFell and no Hernandez relief. Preliminary projections have the cap north of $140MM.

The cap goes up in '15 and the cap number for '15 for Revis and Browner long-term deals for would probably only be a few million more than their cap numbers for '14 (call it $5MM for conservatism). Hernandez and Wilfork save $18.7MM or something from where the Pats stand today. Mankins cut would save $6.5MM with only $4MM dead money. Id hate to go this route, and its less likely unless he wants a ton of money, but McCourty is $5.1MM on the cap and a FA. Connolly and Ghost combine for $6MM under the cap right now, could both be gone next year if needed with no penalty. Plus the usual litany of possible smaller cuts or extensions to free up some space. Guys up this year are Wilfork, Ghost, Connolly, McCourty, Slater, Kelly, Vereen, Ridley, Aiken, Williams, Cannon, White and (I think) they need to option Solder. Only Vereen, Cannon and (maybe) Ridley stick out to me as guys that they might want to retain who will actually take up more cap space in '15.

Some inflation from existing contracts with Mayo, Gronk, and Vollmer standing out (Mayo is a likely restructure/extension candidate given his base jumps from $3.3 to $6.3)

Pats obviously can't retain everyone, but the space is there to keep Revis and Browner if they choose to go in that direction IMO.

They definitely need to keep McCourty, unless he wants some insane amount of money.

Stitch01 · Mar 17, 2014

Completely agreed, just laying it out as an available option.

Eck'sSneakyCheese · Mar 17, 2014

Super Nomario said:
Mike Reiss ‏@MikeReiss 5m
Brandon Browner says the Patriots' coaching staff has not talked to him about playing safety. He says he is here to play cornerback.

Can we put "Browner as SS" to rest?

Why don't we just call them all Defensive backs. Isn't that how BB sees them anyway?

Saints Rest · Mar 17, 2014

Super Nomario said:
Mike Reiss ‏@MikeReiss 5m
Brandon Browner says the Patriots' coaching staff has not talked to him about playing safety. He says he is here to play cornerback.

Can we put "Browner as SS" to rest?

Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Why don't we just call them all Defensive backs. Isn't that how BB sees them anyway?

I agree. What will be the harm in a base lineup without a true SS?

How are the tackling skills, esp against the run of the Pat's top 4 DBs (presumably, Revis, BB, Dennard and DMC)? Is there enough lumber bac there to live without a true SS?

Deathofthebambino · Mar 17, 2014

I just want to point out how ridiculous Brandon Browner is at stopping opposing receivers, after they make a catch. Looking at the first chart posted in the thread, he gave up 20 receptions, with a total YAC of 23 yards. An average of about 1.2 yards per reception. From another chart, 11 of those yards after catch came on the 2 slant passes credited to him, where there was likely another defender picking up the receiver after the reception.

Aside from those 2 plays, he didn't give up more than 1 yard after a catch to a receiver AT ALL. To put that into perspective, the only guy close to him is Byron Maxwell who gave up 40 YAC on 23 receptions. Revis gave up 159 YAC on 34 receptions, and that number, about 4.5-5.5 YAC is about the norm when looking across the spectrum.

Basically, we have a guy on one side of the field that doesn't give up receptions in Revis, and a guy on the other side that when he does give up a catch, he stops the receiver dead in his tracks.

The shit that these two guys are going to allow BB to do with his defensive schemes is going to be incredible. This feels like Ty Law/Asante Samuel, and in case anyone forgot, the two years they played together: 2003 and 2004. Those seemed to go pretty well.

Super Nomario · Mar 17, 2014

Saints Rest said:
I agree. What will be the harm in a base lineup without a true SS?
How are the tackling skills, esp against the run of the Pat's top 4 DBs (presumably, Revis, BB, Dennard and DMC)? Is there enough lumber bac there to live without a true SS?

If you're lining up 3 CBs and 1 S against "11" personnel (3 WR), you're basically trading your SS out for an extra LB. This was a package the Pats used in a couple games last year, though it wasn't a normal set. I think you're more likely to see Arrington or Ryan as the 3rd corner rather than Dennard, since one the CBs would have to line up in the slot.

If you're lining up 3 CBs and 1 S against "21" personnel (RB, FB, TE, 2 WR), then one of the CBs is effectively playing SS - he's going to be in an underneath zone, or in man coverage on a TE or RB in the middle of the field.

loshjott · Mar 18, 2014

Belichick may be the first coach in modern NFL history to take the title "Head Coach/Defensive Backfield Coach." Whoever has the DB coach job now may find a lot of time on his hands.

bakahump · Mar 18, 2014

I agree. What will be the harm in a base lineup without a true SS?
How are the tackling skills, esp against the run of the Pat's top 4 DBs (presumably, Revis, BB, Dennard and DMC)? Is there enough lumber bac there to live without a true SS?

Browner (as noted in the YAC post by Death) is obviously a very good tackler with serious size. Mccourty although on the small side is a pretty good tackler. Arrington is also fairly well regarded as a tackler for a DE.

Dennerd at least seems willing.

Not sure about Revis. Willing I guess with decent size.

Are they the Legion of Doom? no...

But Overall I think you could roll with those 5, Mayo and Hightower or Collins and have a pretty good tackling back 7. Especially knowing that the DL will be drilled to fill their lanes and do their part to contain the run.

Especially when we know this group was designed to (and should) do a very good job of limiting the passing game.

To "numberize it" maybe you give up a 20 more yards a game on runs.....but save 60 on passing plays.

mascho · Mar 18, 2014

A must-read: Patriots' Secondary Additions

Cover 1 (or any single-high-safety defense) should be at the top of the call sheet every week for the Patriots defense after picking up Revis and Browner via free agency, but there is always room to get creative and use game-plan-specific schemes when you have corners that can win in man coverage.

And that’s why Belichick’s decision to add the veteran defensive backs (and adapt his personnel to fit today's matchups) should be viewed as positive as the Patriots prep for 2014.

mascho · Mar 18, 2014

Yeah, I would definitely recommend following Bowen (@MattBowen41). He's been a wealth of knowledge re: schemes, how draftees might fit into systems, etc.

lambeau · Mar 18, 2014

More on-- you only need one safety when you visit Revis Island:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/03/13/revis-island-is-back/

Reverend · Mar 18, 2014

Super Nomario said:
If you're lining up 3 CBs and 1 S against "11" personnel (3 WR), you're basically trading your SS out for an extra LB. This was a package the Pats used in a couple games last year, though it wasn't a normal set. I think you're more likely to see Arrington or Ryan as the 3rd corner rather than Dennard, since one the CBs would have to line up in the slot.

If you're lining up 3 CBs and 1 S against "21" personnel (RB, FB, TE, 2 WR), then one of the CBs is effectively playing SS - he's going to be in an underneath zone, or in man coverage on a TE or RB in the middle of the field.

mascho said:
A must-read: Patriots' Secondary Additions

Beyond enjoying this, I've been thinking that we're going to learn a shit ton about defense this season. I'm psyched.

"Oh... so... you can do that? Intriguing."

soxfan121 · Mar 20, 2014

Kyle Arrington's best attribute is his ability in run support. He tackles well. He is better in zone, with the ball in front of him. And we all know that with his back to the ball and trying to cover, he's a nightmare. He's fifth on any five man depth chart at cornerback.

I think we'll see a lot of Kyle Arrington on early or obvious run downs as a "SS". Combined with Browner and McCourty, there's enough lumber to contain the run against most opponents. As the other team puts on more WR, the Pats just counter with Ryan and Dennard (or vice versa). If a team REALLY wants to run with FBs and multiple TEs, the Pats can bring on Adrian Wilson (or Beauharnais?/Ebner?Tavon Wilson?) or a guy who fills the role suggested by the interest in Wesley Woodard at the outset of FA. The Don Davis/big nickel guy. That guy will absolutely need to play on at least three ST units along with Arrington to carry so many guys who probably won't (like Revis and Dennard).

If they stay healthy, the talent can mix and match as the LEGO master builder desires.

Super Nomario · Mar 20, 2014

soxfan121 said:
Kyle Arrington's best attribute is his ability in run support. He tackles well. He is better in zone, with the ball in front of him. And we all know that with his back to the ball and trying to cover, he's a nightmare. He's fifth on any five man depth chart at cornerback.

I think we'll see a lot of Kyle Arrington on early or obvious run downs as a "SS". Combined with Browner and McCourty, there's enough lumber to contain the run against most opponents. As the other team puts on more WR, the Pats just counter with Ryan and Dennard (or vice versa). If a team REALLY wants to run with FBs and multiple TEs, the Pats can bring on Adrian Wilson (or Beauharnais?/Ebner?Tavon Wilson?) or a guy who fills the role suggested by the interest in Wesley Woodard at the outset of FA. The Don Davis/big nickel guy. That guy will absolutely need to play on at least three ST units along with Arrington to carry so many guys who probably won't (like Revis and Dennard).

Last offseason you were all about the three-safety D. Now you're driving the one-safety bandwagon.

Arrington's a good tackler for a corner, but I don't think he's a serious option at SS against most teams. SS end up matched up against TEs in coverage a lot, and Arrington's size is going to be a problem against most TE. He's at his best covering smaller, quicker guys. I think we'll still see him a lot against classic slot WR, like Welker or Andrew Hawkins. Dennard and Browner don't have the skill sets to cover players like that. Revis could play inside, but it's kind of a waste to put him there unless it's a team like the 2010 Pats that plays its best receiver in the slot. I think Dennard is the more likely candidate to lose playing time with the additional CB depth.

soxfan121 · Mar 21, 2014

Super Nomario said:
Last offseason you were all about the three-safety D. Now you're driving the one-safety bandwagon.

Arrington's a good tackler for a corner, but I don't think he's a serious option at SS against most teams. SS end up matched up against TEs in coverage a lot, and Arrington's size is going to be a problem against most TE. He's at his best covering smaller, quicker guys. I think we'll still see him a lot against classic slot WR, like Welker or Andrew Hawkins. Dennard and Browner don't have the skill sets to cover players like that. Revis could play inside, but it's kind of a waste to put him there unless it's a team like the 2010 Pats that plays its best receiver in the slot. I think Dennard is the more likely candidate to lose playing time with the additional CB depth.

No, it was the three TE offense. And that shit would have KILLED, man.

The only reason this idea has merit is because of Browner & Collins size and ability to play TEs. Arrington would then take the other WR in some sort of zone-pass off coverage with McCourty when the other team has a heavier personnel group on the field. I think they can mix and match against personnel and I was most definitely using "SS" in quotes because he's not suited to be a traditional strong safety, but does have some tools in his box (run support and blitzing ability, which are the best aspects of his game), plus a proven ability to be flexible in coverage situations. It's outside the box (ugh, sorry for the dumb pun) but it absolutely fits the stuff Saban is talking about w/r/t BB's positional flexibility.

Further, unless they are doing something like this with Arrington, he has no role (beyond ST) on this team. He ain't playing man-to-man CB over Revis/Browner/Dennard/Ryan. He is not as good in the slot as Ryan was last season and as you note, if the other team puts their best WR in the slot, Revis Island moves with him. Arrington is being paid a LOT of money and I do not accept that the Pats made all these moves as an acknowledgement that Arrington's extension was a mistake. They clearly like him. They think he can do some things. BB is best at letting guys do what they do best. A guy who stops the run, plays some zone coverage and blitzes off the edge is called a "Strong Safety". I don't think the Pats are so limited, nor do I think they'll just blindly put Arrington on a TE just because a SS covers TE.

I think they'll use the unique skills Arrington has (and again, shitty CB but a very good run support DB with good blitz skills) and find him a role/snaps in this secondary.

Super Nomario · Mar 21, 2014

soxfan121 said:
The only reason this idea has merit is because of Browner & Collins size and ability to play TEs. Arrington would then take the other WR in some sort of zone-pass off coverage with McCourty when the other team has a heavier personnel group on the field. I think they can mix and match against personnel and I was most definitely using "SS" in quotes because he's not suited to be a traditional strong safety, but does have some tools in his box (run support and blitzing ability, which are the best aspects of his game), plus a proven ability to be flexible in coverage situations. It's outside the box (ugh, sorry for the dumb pun) but it absolutely fits the stuff Saban is talking about w/r/t BB's positional flexibility.

I'm a little confused as to exactly what you're describing here. Who is the "other WR" you're talking about? Is he an outside receiver, or a slot guy. If he's taking the other WR, why is that a SS-esque role versus just a CB or slot CB role?

soxfan121 said:
Further, unless they are doing something like this with Arrington, he has no role (beyond ST) on this team. He ain't playing man-to-man CB over Revis/Browner/Dennard/Ryan. He is not as good in the slot as Ryan was last season and as you note, if the other team puts their best WR in the slot, Revis Island moves with him. Arrington is being paid a LOT of money and I do not accept that the Pats made all these moves as an acknowledgement that Arrington's extension was a mistake. They clearly like him. They think he can do some things. BB is best at letting guys do what they do best. A guy who stops the run, plays some zone coverage and blitzes off the edge is called a "Strong Safety". I don't think the Pats are so limited, nor do I think they'll just blindly put Arrington on a TE just because a SS covers TE.

I think they'll use the unique skills Arrington has (and again, shitty CB but a very good run support DB with good blitz skills) and find him a role/snaps in this secondary.

I think you're right that they value Arrington's non-coverage skills more than the average fan, but I also think they have a higher opinion of his coverage skills than you do, particularly in the slot. While you say "he is not as good in the slot as Ryan was last season," he did play there more than twice as much as Ryan. It's certainly possible Ryan passes Arrington this year, which is a good problem to have. In that scenario, though, I don't think they're going to invent a new role for Arrington. He's a good tackler for a DB, but he's not as good a run defender as a real LB, and he doesn't have the kind of playmaking ball skills to justify giving him a rover role underneath (just 1 INT in the past 2 seasons).

Talking about the "strong" safety position is kind of weird nowadays. Traditionally the strong safety by definition was lined up on the side with the TE, and so responsibility for the TE in the passing game was inherently part of the position. With more man-rover defenses now, the SS role is probably more accurate described as a "box safety." FWIW, PFF uses the same definition of SS that you do (it's any DB within 8 yards of the LOS that isn't in man coverage on someone split out). On different defenses, the SS can play quite different roles (or they might not have a defined SS at all).

Stitch01 · Mar 21, 2014

ST might be Arrington's main role when everyone is healthy and active. History says we wont have to worry about that for 90%+ of the games. We know we wont worry about it until week 5 this year at the earliest. I dont think the extension last year means much in terms of playing time next season. The Pats do clearly like Arrington, but not like they knew Revis and Browner would be available this year or Ryan would pan out when they signed the extension. Dennard has his own reliability issues as well of course. If Arrington ends up playing ST because better personnel are now available at corner, I think they are fine with that even though they like Arrington.

I do think the Pats end up playing with one real traditional safety on the field at times, but I think it happens more in sub packages than the base defense. Also not sure how much zone the Pats play with Revis/Browner healthy.

Agree with SN, I think Dennard loses playing time. Also want to emphasize that it probably wont matter, I expect at least one cornerback/safety is injured at all times.

Super Nomario · Mar 26, 2014

Guregian is reporting that the Pats are considering playing Logan Ryan at FS, McCourty at SS:
Guregian's article: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2014/03/patriots_may_take_look_with_logan_ryan_at_safety

I think Ryan would be fine at S, but this doesn't seem like a great use of McCourty's skills. Kyed thinks Ryan at SS, McCourty at FS would make more sense (and I agree).

Kyed's thoughts: http://nesn.com/2014/03/report-patriots-considering-moving-logan-ryan-to-free-safety/

tims4wins · Mar 26, 2014

Is there a difference in the Patriots scheme between FS and SS? I thought they played more left side and right side?

Super Nomario · Mar 26, 2014

tims4wins said:
Is there a difference in the Patriots scheme between FS and SS? I thought they played more left side and right side?

Historically, yes, but since acquiring Talib / moving McCourty to S they've played McCourty in the deep CF role most of the time.

Bedard's take:
Greg A. Bedard ‏@GregABedard 33m
I would say it's more likely Patriots use Ryan as a third safety for passing downs. That was sort of the original plan with Gregory

Makes sense to me - someone like Adrian Wilson at SS on early downs, then Ryan comes in on 3rd down.

Stitch01 · Mar 26, 2014

Makes a ton of sense, particularly in the sub package. Ive been trying to figure out why it matters if you call someone a safety or CB if they are going to play a ton of single high safety/man coverage outside defenses with Browner/Revis.

EDIT: makes more sense if Wilfork is around and effective. If NFL teams in a pass happy league want to try and run the ball more at a Wilfork anchored front 7 because the Pats are light at strong safety, that's fine by me.

mascho · Mar 26, 2014

Matt Bowen with another great read on secondary play. Note, he assumes here that DMC is at FS.

MainerInExile · Mar 26, 2014

mascho said:
Matt Bowen with another great read on secondary play. Note, he assumes here that DMC is at FS.

Given how well we've seen DMC play FS, and how we've seen him struggle whenever things weren't in front of him, I would be utterly shocked to see him move to SS. Makes no sense.

DJnVa · Mar 26, 2014

It will be awesome at BB's press conferences if some writer is smart enough to ask the right questions...

ZMart100 · Mar 26, 2014

It's a few years old, but I doubt the Patriots philosophy on safeties has changed that much from the September 6, 2011 Conference Call...

Q: How would you describe how the safeties are used? How do you view the way the Patriots' safeties are categorized?

BB: Well, I think that categorization, which I think is a very interesting question that you bring up. I think to put safeties in that category was the way it was many years ago when you had a lot of two-back offenses and one safety traditionally played closer to the line of scrimmage and another safety traditionally played in the deep part of the field – the Paul Krauses and the guys like that. As the game has evolved, over the last I'd say 20 years, offenses have done a much better job of trying to make your strong safety play free safety, make your free safety play strong safety, not let your defensive players get comfortable playing where they want to play and make them play where you don't want them to play. So defensively, that's kind of made the defenses transition into getting away from that a little bit because again, the more unbalanced you are, the more you have one guy who plays one way and the other guy who plays the other way, the more the offenses try to reverse that on you and formation you into situations where you play them the way you don't want to play them. Or you have to make tough adjustments to get it the way you want it and that causes some other problems. I'd say the short answer is I think that in our system we have always taught our safeties both positions. If they're on the strong side of the formation or on the weak side of the formation, to learn how to play of those because inevitably there are going to be times when the offenses are going to do that and force you to do that and then sometimes we, by game plan, adjust that from week-to-week on what specifically we want them to do. Sometimes we can control who is the strong safety and who is the weak safety but a lot of times we can't so they really need to learn both responsibilities for when it gets to that point, which like I said, inevitably it does.

Q: With the way your safeties are now, whoever winds up on the field, do both players have the potential to play both positions?

BB: Yeah I think that's the way it's been for – really I'd say about the last nine years or so. From when it was Rodney Harrison and Eugene Wilson, even though Rodney was more of a strong safety and Eugene was more of a free safety, both of those players could play both positions to a degree. Ever since then, we have always, again for the reasons I just talked about, we have tried to have players on our team that have some degree of versatility because the offense forces you to do that. Do I think it's perfect? I don't know about that. Do I think that all of our safeties have some degree of flexibility to do that? Yeah, I do.

The way I read that is those answers is that they don't want a pure SS or a pure FS, but they need people with some flexibility in the roles they can play.

My guess is the search for a big safety (think Tank Williams) has more to do with having someone to play a linebacker position in a sub package and safety in the red zone than someone to play a safety position in a base package.

MainerInExile · Mar 26, 2014

ZMart100 said:
It's a few years old, but I doubt the Patriots philosophy on safeties has changed that much from the September 6, 2011 Conference Call...

I think it actually has changed. If you look at the great Matt Bowen link upthread about Seattle's secondary, when you have a single high safety and one down in the box, that's two pretty different positions. If you're playing Cover 2, yeah, it's probably more Left Safety and Right Safety. Given the Patriots personnel right now, I'd be surprised to see much Cover 2. Even last year, DMC was playing a single high safety a lot.

Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt · Mar 26, 2014

There is very little chance that Adrian Wilson will be factoring into any plans that have anything remotely to do with making the Patriots' 53.

RedOctober3829 · Mar 26, 2014

I don't like this idea. I know they want to get Ryan on the field more, but why at safety? The majority of snaps will have 3 CBs on the field and I'd rather have Ryan at corner than Dennard or Arrington. I believe Ryan has the highest ceiling of the bottom 3 CBs. Ryan and DMC are redundant. If you need a safety to play in the box, Ryan is not your guy.

nothumb · Mar 26, 2014

I, too, worry that you risk stunting the development of a high-ceiling CB in Ryan by having him play a lot of safety. On the other hand, you could also stunt him by not getting him any snaps while he's young and cheap. So, in summary, meh. Good problem to have I guess?

Primarily, Let's Talk Secondary

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch

Member

Member

Member

Member

for king and country

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch

RIP Dernell

Member

Deflatigator

Well-Known Member

Member

Yukon Cornelius

Well-Known Member

Member

given himself a skunk spot

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Drive Carefully

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Kane is Able

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch

Kane is Able

Member

for king and country

JAG

Member

JAG

Member

Member

Member

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

Kane is Able

Well-Known Member

Dorito Dawg

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Member