Big Blue Huddle

Even the terms, Strong Safety, and Free Safety don't tell all of the story. The term, Strong Safety derives from the fact that he lines up on the strong side to support run defense, and may have man-coverage responsibility for the TE. The Free Safety has no man-coverage responsibilty and is thus "free" to roam.

Of course, in a Cover 2 Zone both safeties defend the deep areas (halves) of field.  In such case, they could just as well be referred to as strong and weak safeties or, as in the manner of CBs, just left and right safeties.

In a Cover 3 Zone, which divides and defends the deep area in thirds, it is not unusual for a Cornerback to be positioned to the outside third which is most likely to be challenged by the opponent's deep threat, or fastest WR on a 9 route Go.

And finally, when the Strong Safety is playing close to the LOS, perhaps in the box, on an expected running play, the Free Safety is likely to be playing in a single high safety position to protect against a deep throw off play action.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

-Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

[Cheers!

The terms, Cornerback and Safety are simply terms which defines the areas of responsibilty which those players have. It doesn't matter what you call them, the responsibilties are still the same. If you can put 4, 5, or more players in the Seconday on the field who can who defend the run and cover Tight Ends as well as Wide Receivers, you can label them on the roster any way you wish. There roles and responsibilities don't chance.

You've actually answered your own question when you mention Nickle and Dime. That as much as anything has been the response to the more pass oriented offense. So also have zone defenses.

If you can find a guy with the speed and coverage skills usually associated with a CB who you can play in high coverage like a FS, then great. But he'll still be called a Safety because he does have, among other things. a deep pass coverage responsibility.

We could call them all DBs, but they'd still have the same kinds of positioning on the field and roles in the game as they have now.   

Cheers! 

Once again a thread which has meandered far from its subject and intent. But no harm done, I suppose.

Cheers!

It's never entirely fair to compare one unit of a defense to another while ignoring the influence of the other seven or eight players such as in the case of the Giants and Saints four man LB corps, or pre-Cowher Steelers' 3 man.

However, while I think that it could be a toss up between those Giants and Steelers units, I can pick the Giants without any hint of embarassment. However, as much as I appreciate the talent of that Saints unit, I have to consider that they never quite got it done. Perhaps, it's unfair to them, but that's the way diddly poo crumbles, sometimes.

The problem inherent in all such comparisons is that in elevating one, it can't help but appear to slightly diminish the others. Of course, the purpose is to engender a bit of harmless controversy, not to trigger some long forgotten bonus clause in those player's contracts.

Cheers!