Safety concerns are changing the position - Boston.com In an article a few weeks ago, Greg Bedard argued: Intimidating strong safeties aren't as useful as they used to be due to player safety rules. Every safety needs FS-level coverage skills due to the growth of the passing game. In part because they need to be smaller, safeties are injury-prone, so you sort of need safety-by-committee ... ... which can of course also be useful in nickel/dime/whatever packages. Good points, although he forgot to add the wrinkle of BB trying to use big safety types as small LBs. He goes so far as to argue that teams might need to carry 5 safeties on their rosters routinely.