Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 74

Thread: Safety concerns

  1. #46
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    I disagree with this statement entirely. No team in the league has "first rate stud" players at every position on a unit. Rather, most great units are comprised of a few key great players and several average-good players. The great players draw enough attention to make the average-good players succeed (often to a point where they appear to be better players than they would on most other teams).

    Take the Bears defense from 2006, which ranked first in yards allowed and points allowed in the NFC and carried a relatively weak offense to the Super Bowl. Did they have "first rate studs" at every position? Not even close.

    They had a three great players (Tommy Harris, Brian Urlacher, Lance Briggs), a few good to very good players (Alex Brown, Adowale Ogunleye, Mark Anderson, Charles Tillman, Nathan Vasher) and some pretty average players (Tank Johnson, Ian Scott, Hunter Hillenmeyer.

    Here's a quiz: Who were their starting safeties for the bulk of the year?

    Answer: Chris Harris, Cameron Worrell and Danieal Manning (a group so "first rate" that, even with Mike Brown returning from injury this year, the team felt compelled to sign a big name FA this offseason to bolster the squad. You may have heard of him. Adam Archuleta)
    Well, since no one said you need stud defenders at every position, I wonder who you are "disagreeing" with.

    I think the way the Rams defense is set up and designed, it puts a lot of pressure on the safeties, and the better the strong safety is, the better the defense will be as a whole.

    Now you can take that to mean all 11 starters have to be first-rate studs if you want, but that's not what is being said.

    And the Bears safeties are smart, heady guys, especially Brown, who is described by the rest of the team as being the spirit of the defense. They obviously have the luxury of playing with a great front 7 (before the injuries). Even then, Brown is the very kind of tough, smart, instinctive, field-savvy guy I wish the Rams had at safety. I would take the Browns original starting duo over the Rams safeties.

    But even there, you seem to be answering everything but what was actually written. Cause no one even said that every single defense needs a stud SS to excel. Certainly the Bears got by with very heady, very instinctive guys who fit the Tampa 2 hybrid Chicago runs quite well, just as Lynch fit the original Tampa 2.

    But the minute you find a post that says any defense needs 11 all-pros to excel, then, you sure will have shown him what's what.


  2. #47
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,675
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach
    So I said WHEN THE FRONT 7 IS FIXED IT WILL BECOME MORE APPARENT THAT THE SAFETY SITUATION HOLDS THEM BACK. How that got turned into "the least of our worries" is beyond me, cause the phrase "least of our worries" does not convey what I said and I flat reject it as being what I meant.
    No, that's not what you said. You said...
    Quote Originally Posted by Zack
    I say after the front 7 and CB are addressed then safety becomes the next priority
    Well, after the front 7 and CB, the only position left is S. You say, the front 7 and CB are the top priority, therefore, you must believe that S is the least of our worries. Unless of course, there's a 12th position I'm not aware of. Kim Herring had 106 tackles and assists in 2002. Do you miss the great Kim Herring?
    Is he destined for your safety hall of fame? Jason Sehorn had 90 tackles and assists in 2003. Is Sehorn your idea of a great safety?
    If you're going to make comparisons, at least compare apples to apples. You're mistaken on Herring. According to ESPN, in 2002 Herring had 78 tackles, not 106. Atogwe in his first year of starting, outperformed any of Herring's 7 professional seasons, even more so than Herring's first year as a starter. In 2003, Jason Sehorn had a total of 18 tackles. You may want to re-check your numbers, then try again.
    As for which teams, if the Rams had a chance, they would trade for? Well since neither of us can mind-read the team, maybe the real question is, which safeties would YOU trade for or not? If it was up to me, I would say, for starters that each playoff team has at least one guy I would take over either Atogwe or Chavous-as-a-SS.
    I could supply (and will if you like), a short (very short) list of teams that I would swap safeties with. However, at that point, I would supply my statistical production reasons for those selections (and non-selections). To which you would supply a much grander list filled with safeties who won't have the production of our safeties, but will be more "heady", more "instinctive", and "tougher" or whatever other amorphic quality comes to mind. So really, is there even a point?
    I want guys who actually DO get the job done, not guys who are defended by stats only arguments...the limitations of which I pointed out
    Zach, I'm sorry, but you didn't point that out. Performance is measured by numbers. Be it wins, yards, touchdowns, or yes, tackles (or forced fumbles or interceptions or recovered fumbles or sacks or etc...), numbers are the measuring stick between players. Let's face it, when we talk about things like how instinctive a player is, we really have no clue what we're talking about. We may fancy ourselves football smart, but we're not. We're not on the inside, and we don't know the first thing about judging a player's intangibles. The best we can hope for is to find the opinions of those who do know what they talking about with regards to these players intangibles. And it appears that those who actually know about those sort of things (in this case, Linehan and Haslett) seem to be quite happy with our current safeties. If we're going to make any meaningful comparison between players, the best we can do on any knowledgeable level is relegated to their production numbers.

    Anything else, we're guessing at best, talking out our rectal cavities at worst.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  3. #48
    rammiser's Avatar
    rammiser is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,143
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Safety concerns

    Here is the question to all that want Atogwe gone. How good did you all consider Keith Lyle,Devin Bush,Billy Jenkins and Rich Coady. Do any of those names jump out at you as great? I'd say those names jump at me as servicale but replaceable. We won the Superbowl with those 4 playing safety. Our 3 best defensive starters were Kevin Carter,Grant Wistrom and London Fletcher. The rest of the players on that defense were NOT great they were serviceable. Atogwe I think is better than serviceable some of you may not but we dont need great safeties to win a Superbowl. We need a defense that doesnt beat itself. Last year our run defense ruined our season. Even teams that stunk running the ball ran on us. That is not either of our safties fault. If the front seven improves so does the rest of the defense.

    Are Renaldo Hill and Yerimiah Bell great safties? They were both on the 4th ranked defense last year in yds per game and 5th in points for the Dolphins. Are Josh Bullocks and Steve Gleason household names? Those were the Saints safties last year and the Saints were 11th in scoring and in total yds. Are Clinton Hart and Marlon Mcree great safties? Those are the Chargers safties who were 7th in scoring and 10th in yds a game. How about those great Cowboy safties Hamlin and Williams? If you've seen Williams coverage skills lately he isnt great. So my point is you dont need a great safety combo to make the playoffs or be successful in the NFL. Atogwe and Chavous are fine and if our front 7 improves so will the overall play of our defense.
    Just Fix It

  4. #49
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,944
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post

    I think the way the Rams defense is set up and designed, it puts a lot of pressure on the safeties, and the better the strong safety is, the better the defense will be as a whole.
    The stats don't lie- HUbison, Av rammiser and myself have already thrown them out there, so I won't bother repeating. The point is, Chavous was far from mediocre last season. So by your thesis, we can see that Chavous' play helped elevate the Rams defense last season.

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    And the Bears safeties are smart, heady guys, especially Brown, who is described by the rest of the team as being the spirit of the defense. They obviously have the luxury of playing with a great front 7 (before the injuries). Even then, Brown is the very kind of tough, smart, instinctive, field-savvy guy I wish the Rams had at safety. I would take the Browns original starting duo over the Rams safeties.
    How did you go from "Mike Brown" to the "Cleveland Browns" safeties? Have I misread?

    But what is more relevant is this-- Mike Bbrown missed out on almost all of last season due to injuries. No matter how Smart or 'heady' he may be, Mike Brown can't help Chicago on the field if he's On the sideline

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    Cause no one even said that every single defense needs a stud SS to excel.
    very clever- what you said was
    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post

    I think the way the Rams defense is set up and designed, it puts a lot of pressure on the safeties, and the better the strong safety is, the better the defense will be as a whole.
    And that's a gret way to cover your bases. But if we look at it in the contet of a Rams message board, this becomes irrelevant anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    Certainly the Bears got by with very heady, very instinctive guys who fit the Tampa 2 hybrid Chicago runs quite well, just as Lynch fit the original Tampa 2. .
    How is this different to 'Coach on the Field' Chavous, who put up some of his best numbers last season? As we've already learned from the gospel of Zach, the play of the SS in the Rams defense elevates the play of the team. The Rams safeties did more than just 'get by', and the statistics show it.

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    IF they can "get by" with what they have at safety though some day they are going to have to fix safety too cause it's just NOT a first-rate unit.
    Despite the fact that we had the most tackles from any starting tandem? That Chavous had what was probably his best year?
    That Atogwe had the most FFs out of any NFL Defensive Back?
    (You've heard those before, but repetion can't help but reinforce my point)

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    But the real actual (missed) point is this----flat stats arguments with a bad defense are meaningless. They simply are.... because tackle stats for safeties on a bad defense COULD mean anything, and so you can't just quote the stats without a supporting argument pointing to facets of the guy's actual play.
    Like it or not, statistics, (and I may well have beaten the horse to death) are a direct indicaor of a player's level of play. It's not as if we're trying to defend a 3rd year pro QB who threw INTs to TDs in a ration of 2:1.


    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    But I could name 5-6 plays at least that Witherspoon made against the run that made a difference in a drive.
    Go on. Let's se it.

    And before you turn it back on me, by asking us to...
    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    Name 5-6 plays Atogwe made against the run that made a difference in stopping a drive.
    I'll say this. I can't. But that's Not a bad thing. His consistency in making tackles speaks for itself. 130 between the two of them is outstanding.

    What you may be missing is the fact that they made 130 tackles, assisted by a front seven that culdn't stop the run. The fact that they made so many plays consistently, (FFs, Ints, Tackles) on such a poor run defense, as the last line of defense, is nothing short of miraculous.

  5. #50
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Safety concerns

    Man, a 3-post pile-on!

    Gee whiz, guys, I'm flattered, but I'm also going to bed.

    I will drum up a response or 2 later, okay?

    Or maybe we can trade off. One of you guys criticize a player, and the rest of us will pile-on.


    Kidding. Yuck yuck yuck.

    Be patient till I return. Sleep comes first. That's simply obeying the laws of nature.

  6. #51
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,952
    Rep Power
    170

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    I wonder who you are "disagreeing" with.
    No, you don't.

    I think the way the Rams defense is set up and designed, it puts a lot of pressure on the safeties, and the better the strong safety is, the better the defense will be as a whole.
    So, the Rams have a defense that is designed to put a lot of pressure on the safeties, but on the list of priorities, the position is after the front 7 and the CBs (as HUb noted, that's ALL the other positions on defense, unless you count the punter)? Pardon me if I feel compelled to scream "CONTRADICTION!"

    And the Bears safeties are smart, heady guys, especially Brown, who is described by the rest of the team as being the spirit of the defense.
    You do realize that the "spirit of the defense" played in only 6 games last year, don't you?

    But the minute you find a post that says any defense needs 11 all-pros to excel, then, you sure will have shown him what's what.
    Sorry, but you just can't escape your own words that easily. You said:

    1. The front 7 is the first priority;
    2. The CBs are the second priority;
    3. After those priorities are met, then the Rams need to get a first rate stud safety (because the Rams put a lot of emphasis on the safety position).

    The closest thing to a logical conclusion that can be derived from that non sequitur is that you want to get studs at every position on the defense. A nice goal, but not likely to happen.

  7. #52
    EvilXenu's Avatar
    EvilXenu is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tom Cruise's Basement, Planet Teegeeack
    Posts
    60
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Safety concerns

    z.nrd, why do you keep arguing? Its pretty obvious that you overstated your point and instead of just owning up to it, you just keep changing your argument to try to keep from being pinned into a corner.
    And you thought Mike Martz was "mad"!

  8. #53
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilXenu View Post
    z.nrd, why do you keep arguing? Its pretty obvious that you overstated your point and instead of just owning up to it, you just keep changing your argument to try to keep from being pinned into a corner.
    LOL.

    I over-stated nothing. For example, one post here assumes that fixing the front 7 and the CBs means fielding 9 all-pros. That was made up. I don't even know who would think that. Let alone anyone who said it. Now I can dash in (when I have more time) and try to point out the illogic of that assumption...but that has nothing to do with me over-stating anything. I wish the debate didn't include so many straw men, but it happens.

    So. I say Atogwe is mediocre to average at best as a player and that Chavous is better suited for FS. Haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise (and I wonder if anyone is even trying to convince people otherwise or, just objecting.)

    And my argument changed not one bit---people kind of misrepresenting it aside.

    Right now, just rest assured, I disagree flatly with anyone who sees it different...just as they disagree with me. I stand by what I said cause, fact is, I think it's true. Anyway, though....later. For real this time. It's a whole new day tomorrow.
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-29-2007 at 11:48 PM.

  9. #54
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,944
    Rep Power
    130

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    I say Atogwe is mediocre to average at best as a player and that Chavous is better suited for FS. Haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise (and I wonder if anyone is even trying to convince people otherwise or, just objecting.)
    I just don't see how you can make these judgements after watching the front seven the last few years. Our safeties have been constantly put under the gun and asked to perform in the most extreme conditions with little support at the point of attack. All things considered, Atogwe and Chavous have performed admirably IMO. I'm certainly not going to dismiss them until they have a chance to execute with a somewhat effective supporting cast. Hopefully, we can make that determination in 2007.

  10. #55
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,944
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    LOL.
    I stand by what I said cause, fact is, I think it's true. .
    Hah!

    Ladies and gentlemen, and interesting crossbreed. It's where fact and opinion meet back on the other side.

    Same goes for all of us, here, though.

  11. #56
    cfh128's Avatar
    cfh128 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Age
    31
    Posts
    783
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: Safety concerns

    Again, I think some people are getting too worked up about this.

    This year, we have tried to address our front seven and our corners through the draft and free agency. Maybe we could use another SLB, but aside from that, we have added players that will add quality depth if not new starters.

    Assuming we have fixed those problems, where do we go next year? Obviously we will still probably need to tweak the DL, at least adding some young blood to our DE rotation. Hopefully we have corrected the DT problems. We have spent a lot of money on our linebackers, so hopefully (again aside from maybe a SLB) those positions are set.

    This leads us to the safety position. Personally, I think z.nrd may be taking it a bit too hard on our safeties, because they certainly help our defense more than harm it. However, with that being said, I agree with him that it would definitely be beneficial to try to upgrade the position. Many have made the argument that our safeties are serviceable as is, fair enough. But do we have to settle for "serviceable"? While our safeties may be talented, I don't think anybody would argue that there's no room for improvement. Just because most NFL teams don't have a defense comprised of eleven pro bowl studs doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for that. Assuming we have made strides to correct the rest of the defense, does z.nrd not have a point that upgrading our safeties would be our next priority?
    Last edited by cfh128; -06-30-2007 at 11:17 AM.

  12. #57
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,675
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Safety concerns

    Assuming we have made strides to correct the rest of the defense, does z.nrd not have a point that upgrading our safeties would be our next priority?
    But that's not a "point", is it? To say that after upgrading every position BUT safety, we then need to upgrade safety.....that's not a "point", that's just simple math. So why pursue the "mediority" of Chavous and Atogwe based on unmeasurable qualitative opinion? I'm getting a gut feeling this is set-up for a "Sign Polamalu" campaign, but that's just my guess.

    I'll make a similar point.........after upgrading our OTs, OGs, C, TE, WRs, RB, and FB, we really need to upgrade our mediocre QB. I know his stats are pretty decent, but I don't like his mechanics. Just watch him, you'll see. Kind of silly, huh?

    As the argument has ducked and dodged its way through 4 pages, I'll return to the original question from our colleague, Crazyhorns:

    Quote Originally Posted by crazyhorn
    Should the Rams have tried to upgrade the safety position OR do you believe the Rams have the right personnel for the DC system.
    I believe we are fine with Atogwe and Chavous for now. Of course, Chavous will be 32 after next season, so we'll need to start thinking about younger blood next year, possibly. Some will disagree. But all indications are that Linehan and Haslett are pretty comfortable with our current safeties. Opinions will vary, but I figure they probably have a better feel for these players than we do.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  13. #58
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Safety concerns

    Okay, I am back. I won't get to it all, but this is a start. More later.

    1. Putting words in someone's mouth is a bad thing. I don't think safety is the least of the Rams worries, I think it's a lesser worry at this point, which is not the same statement. The traditional colloquial phrase "least of our worries" conveys the idea that it is not a real concern, or can be ignored. None of which I mean. It would be like someone saying "both arm and back surgery are necessary but with this budget I must prioritize and I care more about back surgery at this point," and then someone responds by saying "so you are saying you could care less about arm surgery." It's just baiting to do stuff like that. It's better to just agree a poster gets to mean what he means. That's a good rule of posting. Putting words in someone's mouth is a bad posting habit, when it's not just baiting. At the very least it expresses a refusal to discuss something in good faith.

    2. I disagree with the idea that Atogwe's youth gives him a break. Virtually every good safety in the league showed what they had early....and I think Atogwe has a fairly low ceiling. People of good faith can disagree about that (eg. CFH128 and I disagree about that) but, nevertheless, I went back and forth on this one for a long time but in the end I stand by what I've seen. If he does become an exception and improve a LOT then, I will be one happy Ram fan, but I don't expect it.

    3. My argument about stats stands. Stats cannot tell you if a FS on a bad defense was making effective plays or just tackling runners downfield and/or receivers after the catch without providing much in the way of pass defense or closer-to-the LOS run defense. Again, it's about reactions. Since I didn't say Atogwe is flat BAD, I would expect him not to miss a fair percentage of his tackles. But that doesn't answer the concern about his instincts or reactions. It doesn't answer the fact that he seems not to be a strong presence in coverage breaking up his share of passes, or a run defender who will KNOW will make a difference AS A DIAGNOSTICIAN at least a few plays a game. (Search your memory...how often does Atogwe shoot into the picture to blow up a play near the LOS? Yet that's what we get from good safeties.) He's just a tackler is all the stats mean. And if it were up to me and I could choose any safety to replace him, I wouldn't even look at stats. I would look at the player's play and see who is a first-rate presence on the field (a guy like Sanders or any number of players just a few steps down from Sanders). The fumbles are good, but, to me it is balanced out by his average-at-best field presence (again, instincts, reactions, anticipation, etc.). I would much rather have someone with good instincts who comes up and shortens the run more quickly when it's in his area.

    That's a start. More later.
    Last edited by z.nrd; -06-30-2007 at 12:34 PM.

  14. #59
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Safety concerns

    Quote Originally Posted by z.nrd View Post
    It doesn't answer the fact that he seems not to be a strong presence in coverage breaking up his share of passes, or a run defender who will KNOW will make a difference AS A DIAGNOSTICIAN at least a few plays a game. (Search your memory...how often does Atogwe shoot into the picture to blow up a play near the LOS? Yet that's what we get from good safeties.) He's just a tackler is all the stats mean.
    How many times did anyone on the defense blow up a play near the LOS? And I know you don't put a lot of stock in stats, but to be fair...you said that he doesn't break up his share of passes; his 7 last year is a pretty average number for free safeties around the league. Even Ed Reed averages close to that each year.

    I took an interest in this subject, so I thought I'd scan through the play-by-plays. One thing that stood out to me was that most of his interceptions and batted down passes were against teams' top receivers. For example, in the first game against the Cardinals O.J. had to cover Fitzgerald deep down the middle a number of times. He gave up two passes for 12 and 22 yards, batted one down, and intercepted one. As for his ability to make plays near the line of scrimmage, here are his tackles in run support based on where they were made:

    Yards | No. of plays
    0-2: 6
    3-6: 13
    7-10: 12
    11-20: 11
    21+: 9

    So obviously not all of his tackles are near the LOS, but it's not as if he can't do it.

  15. #60
    z.nrd Guest

    Re: Safety concerns

    Back for a quick one. Now, I am trying to go one pile-on post at a time, and answer every point. So far I have only done 3 points from PO post #1. I will get there, eventually, and try to answer a bunch of it. Won't get very far this post.

    For those who are not part of the discussion, lurkers and readers and such, the goal is to show an interesting discussion among Rams fans showing mutual respect yet differing over fundamental viewpoints and perceptions. Very thing a message board is s'posed to be for. Diversity of views.

    Okay. First though I will go to the last post cause at least it has the virtue of being fresh (and is a decent post from a guy who is obviously just interested in the discussion.

    Though I disagree with it.

    NOw saying he had 6 tackles within 2 yards of the LOS is not...impressive. In fact, it's pretty weak. The question had to do with HOW OFTEN he does it, and .... 6 times in a season is weak. So remember, I never said, he can't do it *ever*...I asked how OFTEN he did it, because plays like that might show how decisive, instinctive, and quick his reads and reactions are. It was just a way of asking, how many impressive, decisive plays does Atogwe make in run defense, plays that show his instincts and the quickness of his reactions?

    As far as covering Fitzgerald...yeah okay he makes plays against the best, but I would be more impressed if he LIMITED THEM. Can anyone think of a game where afterward they said "hey X got limited and it was cause of Atogwe." No just did he make some plays, which is what I would expect from a mediocre to average at best guy, but did he make a difference? To be fair...some of his FRs did precisely that. But in addition to his FRs.

    Even then, I misled the last poster with the way I put it. No good FS makes all or even most of his plays near the LOS. But a good FS will do that often enough for it to be noticed in a game. I didn't mean to make the LOS itself the issue. If anyone wants to, name the great run defense plays Atogwe made that impressed you---where he diagnosed quickly and shot into the picture to limit a gain. I'll expand this and say not just near the LOS, since that quite understandably got misunderstood, and so I have to clarify it....not just near the LOS, but AT ALL. As the final line of defense, near the LOS, anytime anywhere. Even Archuletta did that sometimes---you'd see him arrive to shut a play down even if the runner got past the DL and LBs. He would arrive decisively with authority. I don't know what happened to AA but he was capable of that his first couple of years...and AA was never all that great (deficiencies in coverage). The issue for me is instincts, reactions, and ability to diagnose. That may mean sometimes, depending on the play, that the FS would be deep and serve as the last line of defense, so to speak (and I should add that way too many other teams highlights show Atogwe being the culprit on a long run. The fact that Coakley and the DEs were bad too doesn't interest me in this discussion...a good FS can play like a good FS even in a bad defense. He won't make that much difference if the rest of the defense is bad, but, you can still tell how good HE is under those circumstances.)

    Back to one at a time from the beginning, where I left off.

    Okay, forward. Beginning with the point where PO poster #1 said I didn't point out the liimitations with stats. And of course obviously I did. I pointed out that stats are not meaningful in measuring Atogwe's performance because they do not say when he made opportune plays quickly based on effective reads. They could just mean that as a FS in a porous defense he got lots of chances and didn't always miss. I pointed out that the issue is instincts, reactions, and so on. So yeah I dealt with that stuff...typically for my posts in this thread, I repeated it several times. I don't see how anyone could miss that.

    And I *do* have a clue what I am talking about when I talk about instincts. "Instincts" is just a word people use to describe how quickly a player can process info in the middle of a play and respond with the right or appropriate response. It had to do with "not thinking"---or, in reality, thinking so fast it seems like you're not (ie. notoriously, in football, if you have to "think about it," you haven't reached the point yet where your reactions are quick enough.) Atogwe had problems with reads and responses and reacting quickly. That's WHY he takes bad angles so often---he can't process things as fast as players who ARE (what we call) very instinctive.

    Disagree if you want but I've always looked for that kind of thing watching the game, from a long time ago.

    Haslett may be quite happy but I don't take that as a final nail in the argument coffin, cause, in fact, Haslett has a long history of being weak at making good personnel judgements. Remember he defends Chillar too, and not everyone is convinced Chillar is the guy we need in his spot. He also stuck with Fisher long past the point where it was obvious Fisher was a liability. And so on. Like all coaches Haslett may have blind spots...and maybe the safeties is one of them. Doesn't matter. There's lots of ways to respond to that issue. Neverthless, I am claiming that eventually, they will reach a point where they have to improve at safety or accept a lower ceiling for overall defensive improvement.

    If I am wrong and Atogwe becomes a solid consistent pro who makes his share of key plays all season, then, fine...I'll be wrong. Shrug. But right now, I don;t see anyone saying "hey Atogwe can do this, he did that, he's good at this, watch him when XYZ happens, he got better at this n that, his game includes this and that skill"...it's all stats, "Haslett said," and a wee bit of baiting cause who dares question OJ Atogwe.

    IN other words, if I didn't voice my own view on the guy and just said "convince me Atogwe will be a first-rate FS in this league, describe his game"...so far, I wouldn't be all that very much convinced.

    There is the other argument which is more or less that he does more good than harm and being servicable is okay.

    Okay, but, to me, this defense looks like it needs a multi-tasking solid stud SS---who can play the run instinctively, play 8 in the box, blitz effectively, at least hold his own in coverage, AND zone up with good effect. Why? Cause that's the way this defense works. It's a high-risk, stunting, blitzing defense with fast but undersized LBs, and a defense like that will always be better off with a first-rate guy at SS, someone who can make a difference going back and going forward. Since Chavous has value as the brains of the outfit, plus is a scrappy guy who can contribute, I just thought he would be at least as good at FS as Atogwe....and keeping Chavous on the field means keeping the brains of the secondary on the field. Chavous can't be the SS they want. A bit too small, a bit too slow, a bit not physical enough---he would be better at FS, and the defense would be better with a really first-rate SS.

    Or short of that, something better than what they have. Maybe just someone faster. Maybe just someone stronger. Something.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FOX Fantasy Football is coming!
    By Ram Warrior in forum FANTASY
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -06-21-2006, 12:52 AM
  2. Free Safety Competition Heats Up - Wagoner
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -08-26-2005, 02:20 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: -07-31-2005, 05:37 PM
  4. Atogwe Hopes to Make the Grade at Safety
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: -06-24-2005, 01:32 PM
  5. St. Louis Searches for Stability at Safety
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -05-06-2005, 09:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •