Another look at the coverage in the secondary

strngplyr said:

Browner's skillset does not translate to safety, though, let alone at an extremely high level. He has the size, not the athletic ability.

His skillset translates to brutalizing receivers at the line and destroying the timing of their routes, basically making them no longer an option for the QB in the time he has, it isn't his coverage that made him succeed, it's his disruption.

I don't know what tape you're watching that makes you think he should be our safety.

We signed a cornerback, he's playing cornerback, we didn't sign him to a multiyear deal to play a new position, and don't use drafting DMC and moving to safety as a counter.

Edit: And I'll openly admit that I was part of the BB to safety camp early on due to his size, my mindset changed pretty quickly after learning more about him, his skillset, and where hes most likely to project to in our defense.

Click to expand...

What exactly does not translate to safety about his skillset?

Height: 6034
Weight: 221
40 Yard Dash: 4.63
20 Yard Dash: 2.70
10 Yard Dash: 1.67
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 13
Vertical Jump: 36 1/2
Broad Jump: 10'03"
20 Yard Shuttle: 4.24
3-Cone Drill: 7.20

He certainly has the size, the coverage ability, the vertical and lateral speed, and the ball skills to play safety.

We signed Browner to play defensive back, where ever he fits is where he will play. If he returns in week 5 and the Revis/Dennard tandem is playing lights out, but Harmon is struggling at safety next to McCourty why in the world would they take the successful Dennard out of the lineup, insert Browner and leave the struggling Harmon in the lineup.

He never saw time at SAF in Seattle because they had the best SAF tandem in the NFL, if they had not who knows if they would have used him in that role, they played a lot of cover 3 in Seattle, which is similar to playing safety.

In addition, here are a few other safeties who were once corners.

Earl Thomas
Devin McCourty
Charles Woodson
Antrel Rolle
Aaron Williams

Brady6 said:

What exactly does not translate to safety about his skillset?

Height: 6034
Weight: 221
40 Yard Dash: 4.63
20 Yard Dash: 2.70
10 Yard Dash: 1.67
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 13
Vertical Jump: 36 1/2
Broad Jump: 10'03"
20 Yard Shuttle: 4.24
3-Cone Drill: 7.20

He certainly has the size, the coverage ability, the vertical and lateral speed, and the ball skills to play safety.

We signed Browner to play defensive back, where ever he fits is where he will play. If he returns in week 5 and the Revis/Dennard tandem is playing lights out, but Harmon is struggling at safety next to McCourty why in the world would they take the successful Dennard out of the lineup, insert Browner and leave the struggling Harmon in the lineup.

He never saw time at SAF in Seattle because they had the best SAF tandem in the NFL, if they had not who knows if they would have used him in that role, they played a lot of cover 3 in Seattle, which is similar to playing safety.

In addition, here are a few other safeties who were once corners.

Earl Thomas
Devin McCourty
Charles Woodson
Antrel Rolle
Aaron Williams

Click to expand...

Did you buy a subscription to a combine numbers website? You seem to base every opinion you have on combine numbers as if you're justifying a payment you made or something of the sort.

I also have trouble believing those numbers taken in 2005, 9 years ago, are still relevant to a player in 2014.

Brady6 said:

In addition, here are a few other safeties who were once corners.

Earl Thomas
Devin McCourty
Charles Woodson
Antrel Rolle
Aaron Williams

Click to expand...

McCourty has pretty much the exact opposite playing style as Browner. What does his safety conversion have to do with Browner? That's like using Jason Peters' TE to OT conversion as reasoning that Hernandez should have too.

Sciz said:

McCourty has pretty much the exact opposite playing style as Browner. What does his safety conversion have to do with Browner? That's like using Jason Peters' TE to OT conversion as reasoning that Hernandez should have too.

Click to expand...

Huh? Have you ever watched Browner play? The comparison you made is just moronic it makes zero sense.

Browner could play safety, most CBs in the NFL could play safety in the current league landscape of pass first offenses.

Sciz said:

He played safety during training camp in 2005 with the Broncos. Nine years ago, and never in a regular season game. So technically he's played safety, but I'd hardly consider it any amount of experience.

Click to expand...

In other words Brady has more experience as a punter than Browner does at safety.

strngplyr said:

Browner's skillset does not translate to safety, though, let alone at an extremely high level. He has the size, not the athletic ability.

His skillset translates to brutalizing receivers at the line and destroying the timing of their routes, basically making them no longer an option for the QB in the time he has, it isn't his coverage that made him succeed, it's his disruption.

I don't know what tape you're watching that makes you think he should be our safety.

We signed a cornerback, he's playing cornerback, we didn't sign him to a multiyear deal to play a new position, and don't use drafting DMC and moving to safety as a counter.

Edit: And I'll openly admit that I was part of the BB to safety camp early on due to his size, my mindset changed pretty quickly after learning more about him, his skillset, and where hes most likely to project to in our defense.

Click to expand...

Right on the money. You are looking at it from the perspective of his playing style and strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to reducing him to his measurables, which is the fantasy PFF approach to this question.Just as moving McCourty covered his weaknesses and played to his strengths keeping Browner at CB appears to do the same.

A

Sciz said:

McCourty has pretty much the exact opposite playing style as Browner. What does his safety conversion have to do with Browner? That's like using Jason Peters' TE to OT conversion as reasoning that Hernandez should have too.

Click to expand...

Agree completely, it is about playing style.

Brady6 said:

What exactly does not translate to safety about his skillset?

Height: 6034
Weight: 221
40 Yard Dash: 4.63
20 Yard Dash: 2.70
10 Yard Dash: 1.67
225 Lb. Bench Reps: 13
Vertical Jump: 36 1/2
Broad Jump: 10'03"
20 Yard Shuttle: 4.24
3-Cone Drill: 7.20

He certainly has the size, the coverage ability, the vertical and lateral speed, and the ball skills to play safety.

We signed Browner to play defensive back, where ever he fits is where he will play. If he returns in week 5 and the Revis/Dennard tandem is playing lights out, but Harmon is struggling at safety next to McCourty why in the world would they take the successful Dennard out of the lineup, insert Browner and leave the struggling Harmon in the lineup.

He never saw time at SAF in Seattle because they had the best SAF tandem in the NFL, if they had not who knows if they would have used him in that role, they played a lot of cover 3 in Seattle, which is similar to playing safety.

In addition, here are a few other safeties who were once corners.

Earl Thomas
Devin McCourty
Charles Woodson
Antrel Rolle
Aaron Williams

Click to expand...

3 words

Hips

In

Space


Browner doesn't have great hips and when he doesn't have his hands on a receiver he's vulnerable. I can certainly envision situations where Browner is playing "safety" in that he isn't matched up on a wideout but rather a TE off the LOS possibly or similar to what Talib did against Graham but I don't see Browner actually playing safety. The term "DB" has never been more appropriate than in todays NFL.

I'm sure that any one of our corners would be options in times of emergency due to injury, but I think Browner was brought in for his ability to jam receivers at the line with his physicality and size; something that we've been missing for awhile now.

For whatever it's worth, Belichick stated that Browner was brought here to play the position of CB, not safety. As others have mentioned there are times when those mesh a bit, but in terms of a flat out change, I'm not expecting it myself.

And coincidentally enough, here's tomorrow's Herald article about Browner and his play so far: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patr...andon_browner_has_size_power_to_help_patriots

Brady6 said:

Browner has the size and skillset to play safety at an extremely high level. If you don't think he is capable of playing safety you have not watched enough of his tape.

Click to expand...

Now you are simply making it up as you go along, B6. Browner has NEVER had the skill set to play Safety in ANY system, let alone the one the Pats would like to run. EVERY single report I've read about Browner states EMPATICALLY that he has trouble in open space and doesn't do well against smaller quicker WR's. These are the exact skill necessary to be a S in the Pats system.

Show me some tape where he fares well in open space and shuts down the smaller quicker receivers. Show me reports that state that he has the kind of skills that would make him an effective safety in the Pats system. THEN and only then would you have given your position any credibility. Based on what we know now, [putting him in the middle is a recipe for failure and BB doesn't do that. The only time Browner is going to see the middle of the field is if he's matched up on a TE, and even then he'll be positioned right on him.

Browner is a good, but not great CB, who best thrives when he's asked to play press man and has help over the top. Just because someone is over 6' tall and over 200 lbs does NOT make them a candidate for safety. I only wish it was that easy.

Not to beat a dead horse or be redundant but I just want to expand on what others have said.

Browner's main strength is his physicality and he can best utilize this when he's closer to his man. He's struggles the further away he is from his man. If you've watched football for an hour you'd know S's often have to play in space. You would be putting him in position where he can't do what he does best. And that's get his hands on a WR. When he does that there's tons of evidence to suggest that the WR/route is doa. I have no doubt BB will move guys around depending on the match up thats in front of them. Basically people get way too caught up in titles and "we play this defense" or "who's our #2 CB" etc. Watch game film, read about the player. Listing his combine #'s from years ago to make a case for a position change years later is utterly pointless.


And not to be a **** but all the people that I talk with, that think he can play S. Seem to be people who haven't a clue about football. People know I'm somewhat of sports geek and will talk about different sports, players etc. Literally all of the people who bring up that idea say the same thing. He's big, physical and can hit people. Haven't a clue about positional responsibilities or what it takes to play a specific position.

SmellsLikeGrundle said:

You would be putting him in position where he can't do what he does best. And that's get his hands on a WR.

Click to expand...

SmellsLikeGrundle said:

I have no doubt BB will move guys around depending on the match up thats in front of them. Basically people get way too caught up in titles and "we play this defense" or "who's our #2 CB" etc.

Click to expand...

2 excellent points.

As we know, anything is possible--so not meaning to pile on vs. Brady6's thoughts. I personally don't see Browner playing much safety though, for the main reason you've listed above.

I'm not in the Browner to safety camp, largely because I think that BB likes his new players to learn the system from a position of comfort, and because Harmon, Ryan, Wilson, Chung, and Ebner have to get their snaps in during TC. If Browner is trying to learn a new system at a new position, he will be second guessing himself and reacting slowly. However, if he can make himself comfortable by brutalizing an opposing wide receiver (I hear he finds it soothing), while learning the new terminology and limited number of adjustments that CBs need to now, he might later have the flexibility to play safety, likely starting when he will be playing primarily man coverage on a receiving TE. If a need develops after that, he might make the switch, or it might be something they try in TC 2015, but I doubt it is a priority for Coach Belichick.

TriplecHamp said:

3 words
Hips
In
Space
Browner doesn't have great hips and when he doesn't have his hands on a receiver he's vulnerable. I can certainly envision situations where Browner is playing "safety" in that he isn't matched up on a wideout but rather a TE off the LOS possibly or similar to what Talib did against Graham but I don't see Browner actually playing safety. The term "DB" has never been more appropriate than in todays NFL.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "hips in space" means. Bad hips is one of the limitations that causes a CB to have to transition to S. In space, it's less about hips and more about ability to read defenses, identify responsibilities in a zone, and get leverage to make a play on the ball or the man.

patfanken said:

Browner has NEVER had the skill set to play Safety in ANY system, let alone the one the Pats would like to run. EVERY single report I've read about Browner states EMPATICALLY that he has trouble in open space and doesn't do well against smaller quicker WR's. These are the exact skill necessary to be a S in the Pats system.

Click to expand...

Browner certainly won't be dropping down into coverage on little, shifty guys. Belichick has already shown that he will go to 3 CBs in situations where coverage skills are at a premium in the base defense, and he certainly wouldn't match-up Browner with Welker, but I'm not clear on where in the Pats system it requires the safeties need to cover smaller quicker WRs. I'd be interested in hearing how that works.

I haven't seen enough tape or seen detailed enough reports to know what his problems in space are. It could be a matter of getting beat out of the break when playing off the line of scrimmage. That wouldn't be as much of an issue at safety, where he would likely be in a deep zone (which is further downfield than most of those shifty moves are made) or in man on the TE. It could also be a problem with recognition and inability to get leverage in non-contact situations, and that would certainly put him on a steep learning curve for somebody getting paid as much as he is.

TriplecHamp said:

3 words

Hips

In

Space


Browner doesn't have great hips and when he doesn't have his hands on a receiver he's vulnerable. I can certainly envision situations where Browner is playing "safety" in that he isn't matched up on a wideout but rather a TE off the LOS possibly or similar to what Talib did against Graham but I don't see Browner actually playing safety. The term "DB" has never been more appropriate than in todays NFL.

Click to expand...

I do not see that with Browner, he moves just fine in space, is he Edelman, no but he does not have to be. I am not saying Browner will be a safety but I am saying if Dennard is playing well at RCB and Harmon is playing like **** at SAF then I would not be at all surprised to see them insert Browner in place of Harmon.

I expect Belichick to put the 4-5 best DBs on the field at once and not be handcuffed by “positions”.

DarrylS said:

Remember when BB used to pick up ex NFL guys off the street and try to plug them in?? Or having offensive players play DB?? I think he has changed in how he values the position and how important it has become... I like the depth, but never can have enough quality depth.

It also has been said when Revis is on the field everyone on the team becomes better... that may be a "Revism" but he probably will.

Click to expand...

Slater and Edelman at saftey, hilarious in retrospect.

This question doesn't justify having it's own thread, so I'll just ask it here: Do any of you see Collins playing some safety in different sub-packages this season? He has the speed and movement ability to do it, but his coverage ability was still a little raw... even at the end of last season.

patfanken said:

Now you are simply making it up as you go along, B6. Browner has NEVER had the skill set to play Safety in ANY system, let alone the one the Pats would like to run. EVERY single report I've read about Browner states EMPATICALLY that he has trouble in open space and doesn't do well against smaller quicker WR's. These are the exact skill necessary to be a S in the Pats system.

Show me some tape where he fares well in open space and shuts down the smaller quicker receivers. Show me reports that state that he has the kind of skills that would make him an effective safety in the Pats system. THEN and only then would you have given your position any credibility. Based on what we know now, [putting him in the middle is a recipe for failure and BB doesn't do that. The only time Browner is going to see the middle of the field is if he's matched up on a TE, and even then he'll be positioned right on him.

Browner is a good, but not great CB, who best thrives when he's asked to play press man and has help over the top. Just because someone is over 6' tall and over 200 lbs does NOT make them a candidate for safety. I only wish it was that easy.

Click to expand...

Watch this video, Browner makes many plays in space both in the running game and in the passing game.

Brady6 said:

Watch this video, Browner makes many plays in space both in the running game and in the passing game.

Click to expand...

Basing your argument on a highlight video is never a prudent idea.

KontradictioN said:

This question doesn't justify having it's own thread, so I'll just ask it here: Do any of you see Collins playing some safety in different sub-packages this season? He has the speed and movement ability to do it, but his coverage ability was still a little raw... even at the end of last season.

Click to expand...

I was talking to my brother in law yesterday about that, and I think we could see it against some run heavy teams, though not on an every down basis. I think if BB feels confident that a combination of McCourty, Revis, Browner, and Dennard/Arrington can handle the receivers, but the running back has some ability, you could see Collins as the second "safety".

It leads me into a technical question I was thinking of the other day actually: What is the definition of a safety? Obviously players have to be designated as one position or another, but when someone like Polamalu for example, plays down nearer to linebacker depth, is he no longer a safety on that play?

I think sometimes we get caught up too much in what position a guy is playing, when what really matters is what his assignment is on any given play.