Offseason answer at safety?

G08 · Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:35 am

I say you lace 'em up WABster. You can be our own Vince Papale

Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:51 am

Sure thing...I'm pretty good at not being able to tackle. I can take bad angles and get toasted with anyone on this team.

Fumblebuck · Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:01 pm

The reason I think we should move Graham to FS is because it's easily the most important position in the secondary for the defense we run. Cover 2 corners are pretty much a dime a dozen...

Why do you think the FS is the most important position in our defense WAB? Even if we did play standard Cover 2 most of the time a FS job would be almost identical to the SS and probably still less important then having a good run supporting CB who can jam the WR.

Pagan · Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:25 pm

I've heard it said on a number of occasions that the Sam linebacker and the FS are the playmaker spots on this defense. Obviously you need everyone else to do thier part.

As far as Blache' saying that sacks dont matter, he was right (IMO), in so much that it's pressuring and hitting the QB consistantly that is the real affect of what you want. Also, that was a year where the Lineman and backers werent getting a lot of sacks and he had to say something.

pagan

Halas85 · Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:31 pm

wab wrote:It was Blache that thought Peanut would be a pro bowl FS. Blache also said "sacks don't matter"....soooooo.....

So it was Blache who said it. Do you disagree? I didn't think much of the guy, either, but I do happen to think it doesn't automatically disqualify anything that comes out of his mouth. Maybe Peanut wouldn't have been an immediate Pro Bow-caliber guy at FS, but he sure would have been pretty darn good back there ... just like I believe Graham would be. They're both naturally aggressive guys with above-average coverage skills who fit the mold size-wise to the position. If shoving one of them back to safety allows the Bears to put the best 11 guys on the field, then I say do it.

Pagan · Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:38 pm

I dont think it would happen Halas, but if we had the CB depth it would be a great move- imagine all the picks Tillman would get from back there.

pagan

Halas85 · Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:03 pm

Pagan wrote:I dont think it would happen Halas, but if we had the CB depth it would be a great move- imagine all the picks Tillman would get from back there.

pagan

Vasher, Graham/Tillman, Bowman, McBride. I'm willing to call this a bad year for Vasher and see if he can come back from it next season. Graham/Tillman (whichever remains a CB) would take the other side. McBride has some starting experience and played okay, though he was passed up by Graham. And Bowman seems like he could be a wildcard ... a guy who could be a real playmaker someday. This doesn't even include Daniel Manning, who seems like a serviceable (not necessarily ideal) option at nickel back.

Then let's not forget that we have a draft and a couple of free agency periods to add depth at the CB position should we feel the need. When was the last time Angelo didn't pick up a DB or two in the draft? And strengthening the safety position with a guy who's good in both tackling AND coverage will only make the job easier for the corners.

Depth is important ... we're Bears fans, so that should go without saying ... but our best players can't make an impact when they're on the sidelines waiting for the guy in front of them to get hurt.

Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:44 pm

Halas85 wrote:
So it was Blache who said it. Do you disagree? I didn't think much of the guy, either, but I do happen to think it doesn't automatically disqualify anything that comes out of his mouth. Maybe Peanut wouldn't have been an immediate Pro Bow-caliber guy at FS, but he sure would have been pretty darn good back there ... just like I believe Graham would be. They're both naturally aggressive guys with above-average coverage skills who fit the mold size-wise to the position. If shoving one of them back to safety allows the Bears to put the best 11 guys on the field, then I say do it.

Oh no, I completely agree that Peanut would be a fantastic FS, I would rather try Graham out there first...mostly because he wouldn't have as many tendancies to "unlearn".

Halas85 · Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:54 am

wab wrote:Oh no, I completely agree that Peanut would be a fantastic FS, I would rather try Graham out there first...mostly because he wouldn't have as many tendancies to "unlearn".

True ... very true.