Weighing in on the "extinction" of the shutdown corner...
It might very well be true, but the "shutdown corner" might have always been a myth. Ever since I was a kid I've heard "you just don't put him out there in man coverage..." The ideas always been that your shutdown guy did it by himself. Well, sort of. He's the guy with the best chance of making the play on the ball in man coverage, but that doesn't mean the team acquires a "shutdown corner" and abandons all concept of zones. "Oh yeah, [insert shutdown corner name here] made [star receiver] a non-factor!" Except three out of four plays, he wasn't the only guy on him, by virtue of positioning. Is the idea that everybody else plays a zone, and Shutdown Corner follows receiver X everywhere - possibly with a safety sitting on his ass and hoping receiver Y decides to also stray into his zone? I'm not a defensive guru, but it seems like the "shutdown corner" is just the guy with whom Receiver X gets shut down, and without whom Receiver X has a good day. That still happens, so in that sense we can still talk about the "shutdown corner."
Me? I prefer to think of "QB fear" corners and "Receiver Fear" corners.
There's the "QB fear" guy, who can be anywhere in the blink of an eye, who knows how to goad the QB into making the wrong throw, who always has an angle even when he looks out of position, and otherwise is covering his man like ESPN covers a rumor. QBs fear him because of the interception potential and the likelihood the ball will be batted away. He makes QBs stutter-step, take sacks, or make bad throws. For this reason I'll call him a Stutter Corner.
Then there's the "Receiver Fear" guy. I'm in the minority, but I love this guy. A good one will sometimes give up the catch, but only in exchange for a vertebra or two. It's not like he plans it - he's just beat sometimes. But by God, if you beat him, you better score, because it's the only escape. I'll call this guy the Suffer Corner.
That said, Stutter Corner and Suffer Corner don't really exist in a vacuum. Deieon Sanders is the only pure Stutter Corner I've ever seen - he flat out said he doesn't tackle. And a pure Suffer Corner doesn't exist, because if he never broke up the play or just plain made his man an unavailable target, he couldn't survive.
Hill is more of a Stutter Corner candidate, and that's my issue with him. Not just because I prefer watching Suffer Corners, but because Hill is still just a candidate. He's raw speed, versatility, and coachability. This is why I'm surprised to see the Pats' interest in him in the first round. He has high risk, high reward written all over him, like Pats draftees of old. But that's from a Fan view, not a Belichick/Pioli/Scout view. What I do like about him is, for a little guy, he really does tackle. He even wraps up. You have to love him just for the heart. But then, you have to love Dan Klecko just for the heart. For God's sake, Jim, BB's a coach, not a cardiologist.
Now as far as a Suffer Corner goes, I like Cromartie. The bonus regarding him is the hands (something Hill just doesn't have, and would have to develop.) Cromartie covers fine, but can't be called a "shutdown" type. The thing is, maybe nobody can. The beauty of Cromartie is if he gets a hand on a ball, as likely as not it's coming down with him. And if somebody else gets a hand on a ball, he's just plain going down.
Cromartie's a guy you plug in to have a high likelihood of a good player. Hill's the kind of guy you draft to have a medium likelihood of a good player, and a decent shot at a great player... looking through our draft history, I like the "low risk/decent reward" choices a lot better than the "high risk/high reward" guys.
Someone said the object is to draft stars, or preferably, superstars. I disagree. Even when the Pats turn up a superstar (Brady, Seymour,) their accomplishments are never recognized by the franchise's team-first ethic. TO could not have "blossomed" into what he is today, with the Pats. He is a great receiver that does not belong in our system.
I'm not arguing for mediocrity, just for team excellence. It's the superstar that's becoming extinct, not the shutdown corner. High risk for a superstar versus guaranteed contributor? Hmmmmm. What would BB do...
Of course my assessment might not match BB's, but were he given that choice straight up, I think he'd take the latter.
With the caveat that I might, once again, be wrong.
PFnV
