Are FS and SS necessary in todays pass happy offenses?

[bcbud]

I am asking this because it seems that configuration was born from the days of the big running games. I wonder if todays defense would be better served with 3 CB's and a SS. I know that nickle and dime defenses abound but I wonder if there will be a transition to starting 3 CB's as the basic defensive configuration.

[Painter]

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! 

[Gmo11]

I think quality safeties are more important than ever in today's NFL.  The thing is that they have to be GOOD safeties.  Painter's point is that with the offenses running 4 and 5 wr formations, safeties could/should be CB really but that does not tell the whole story.  Any team with a good to great RB can exploit that defense without adequate safeties and line backers to stop him.  Thats why the Pats have been as successful as they have been.  They have a 1st round draft pick in Maroney running ball so if teams, like Jacksonville, dare them to run then can do it and do it effectively.  Maroney is a great back and they have the best qb in the game and 3 top wrs on top of that, thats why they are without question the most prolific offense in NFL history.  There is no way to really shut them down but this Giants defense matches up about as well as any other in this league and if they can put together a solid game plan and execute it properly they can win this game.  There are only a couple teams in this league that can even HOPE to play with these Pats, but the Giants are one of them and if they play up to their capabilities they can win this game.  I'm ready for Sunday lets see what they can bring at us.

[MightyGiants]

Painter is correct the names are defined by the roles in the defense more than a player's attibutes.   While I don't have hard numbers to back this up, it seems to me we have seen safeties get a little smaller and faster over the past decade or so.   So in  way they are adopting to the trend you have noted BCBud.   
Still in most defensive schemes the tackling ability of a safety is challenged far more than that of a cornerback.     In most between the tackle runs, the safeties are the last line of defense.  A missed tackle by either on of them, can result in a long gain and touchdown.   
They are also the player that is brought down closer to the line of scrimmage to take on duties, similar to a linebacker, when you put 8 men in the box.   So again the safety needs to be stronger tackler.   
On the passing side of things, I think you see corners used in M2M far more often than you will see a safety being called on to do so.  When safeties are called on to cover M2M, it's usually a running back or TE.   These are players where a little more size and strength are helpful.  So there is another reason why safeties need to be a little bigger and stronger than a corner.
It's my opinion that the need for quality safeties has grown over the years.   They are needed to handle the increasing numbers of big athletic TEs, to handle the good running teams and provide much needed help in covering the pass happy offenses.   

[vette5573]

Excellent replies.
                                                                                                                                                                      I don't know if the running game is any less important in this era of Football. What I think is worth noting in addition to what was already said is the Hybrid TE and what this pass catching threat has brought to offenses. As well as the use of tweeners between the Linebacking and Safety positions and between the Linebacking and Defensive End positions. Ask yourself why there is a need for smaller and faster men in the front seven. It's for coverage responsibilities and zone blitzing packages as well as being able to get to the sidelines if the ends are sealed off properly by the OT's.

I think that we still need to have this larger DB in base formation, especially when playing teams that feature a Brandon Jacobs.

Good topic BCBud. Take a look at Little Bill's defense and his use of tweeners. Do you think it would be as successful if the back 4 were all corners? The safeties when used in conjunction with the tweeners confuses the offense because they become interchangeable.

[MightyGiants]

This is a good topic.  Once it falls off the front page, I am going to move it over to the Chalk Talk board.  This is a perfect topic for that new board.

[thatsnotgross]

Yes, I do believe safeties are as important to the defense than ever before.  While CBs value has been declining due to the rules safeties must have that complete package.

Are they instinctive during a zone scheme?

Can they tackle?

Can they cover TEs that looks like Olineman from 20 years ago?

When in doubt, can they put fear into the eyes of receivers?

Overall, I wouldn't say safeties were the biggest jump in value for a defensive coordinators.  I truly believe that pass rushers are the new CBs (or trend).  Because of the 4 to 5 WR sets that teams are employing, it is more important to have a good front four to get to the QB without any extra man.

When LT came in, no one has ever seen a LB lke LT before.  Speed, agility and just a beast then the NFL started to catch up and at least emulate what the Giants were doing with the LBers.  They were the "hot" trend during the LT era.  Only a few have really pass the mustard since LT left which is saying a lot about no.56.

[Painter]

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!

[bcbud]

Is it possible to move McQuarters or Madison to Safety if they are somewhat interchangeable?

[MightyGiants]

In general the safety position requires the following dimensions, to handle the different role.   They need to be 6 foot or taller (although 5-11 isn't uncommon).  They need to be 200+ pounds.   They need to be good tacklers (hard hitters prefered).   Finally they need to be skilled in zone coverage, as that is the primary coverage most safeties will use, the majority of the time.

When you look at Madison: 5-11 180 lbs   Not big enough.  Plus his strength is M2M rather than zone and he is an average tackler

When you look at McQuarters: 5-10 194 lbs  again he is under sized.  He is an average tackler and his coverage skills are unremarkable.