Which safety would you take for the NEP?

[ctpatsfan77]

I honestly don't know at this point. . . .

But if you had free choice of Mark Barron or Harrison Smith, which one would you take?

 

[Sciz]

While my dislike for Barron in the late 1st has been fairly constant, I've gone back and forth on Smith. As of right now, I'd rather have the starting FS be one of Gregory, a converted CB, a mid-round pick, or something like that and aim for a legitimate FS next year as opposed to spending a valuable pick on a square strong safety, hoping that he somehow fits into the round free safety hole.

 

[mgteich]

I'd rather have Martin with our #62 than use a 1st or mid-second for Barron or Smith.

 

[dryheat44]

I'd rather have Martin with our #62 than use a 1st or mid-second for Barron or Smith.

Yep. Actually, I'd rather have Martin than Smith straight-up.

 

[WhiZa]

Can Baron or Smith even play free safety? Actually, how do you differentiate between a free safety and a strong safety in the draft?

 

[captain stone]

I'd rather have Martin with our #62 than use a 1st or mid-second for Barron or Smith.

You might be able to get him with our #93.
The word is, that although Martin can run fast (when healthy), has good hands & is a good kid,
his tackling & angles are too poor too often. As the last line of defense, those are bad traits.
He also didn't work at the combine or at OSU's pro day on the 9th. Does anyone know if he
has performed a personal workout yet?

As for the poll, I chose Barron, because Smith hasn't proven that he can play a better FS either.

 

[manxman2601]

You take Mark Barron every day - huge gap between him and the rest. But if, as likely, he's not available to us, my second vote would go to Alfonso Dennard. Might not be good enough as a boundary corner, but I love his feistiness, is perfectly good enough to play coverage in the safety slot and is a good tackler and at #48 is really good value. I like Harrison Smith but there's not enough there to justify the high second round position he'll likely go - just doesn't impact plays enough and is too soft a tackler.

Stay away from Markelle Martin - there's a reason he's got a third round grade, he's not good enough. fine as a double dip, but not our number one safety taken in the draft.

Exit question - If Kirkpatrick falls into the 20's, do you trade up for him. Could be a quality FS in the NFL.

 

[Gronkandez]

You take Mark Barron every day - huge gap between him and the rest. But if, as likely, he's not available to us, my second vote would go to Alfonso Dennard. Might not be good enough as a boundary corner, but I love his feistiness, is perfectly good enough to play coverage in the safety slot and is a good tackler and at #48 is really good value. I like Harrison Smith but there's not enough there to justify the high second round position he'll likely go - just doesn't impact plays enough and is too soft a tackler.

Stay away from Markelle Martin - there's a reason he's got a third round grade, he's not good enough. fine as a double dip, but not our number one safety taken in the draft.

Exit question - If Kirkpatrick falls into the 20's, do you trade up for him. Could be a quality FS in the NFL.

I picked Barron. Though a free safety would be a better fit, there aren't any free safeties as good as Barron IMO, plus Barron plays good STs.

FWIW Mayock has Gilmore ranked ahead of Kirkpatrick so I say no. Also, I don't like drafting a guy in the first round to play a new position (assuming the play would be to put him at FS)

 

[Merril Hoge's Tie Knot]

Everytime you guys differentiate between free and strong safeties, it's like a giant neon sign that says "I don't know what I'm talking about"

 

[Sciz]

Everytime you guys differentiate between free and strong safeties, it's like a giant neon sign that says "I don't know what I'm talking about"

Call them what you want, but the less often Chung is back in deep coverage, the better. And the best way to make him play deep coverage less often is to get somebody on the roster who's better at it than he is. Basically, I want the "right safety" to be exactly what people think of when they think of a "free safety." Both safeties need to be able to do basically everything, but the coaches are smart enough to put them in positions to succeed, and I'd really like to see a guy who can succeed in deep coverage.

 

[manxman2601]

Call them what you want, but the less often Chung is back in deep coverage, the better. And the best way to make him play deep coverage less often is to get somebody on the roster who's better at it than he is. Basically, I want the "right safety" to be exactly what people think of when they think of a "free safety." Both safeties need to be able to do basically everything, but the coaches are smart enough to put them in positions to succeed, and I'd really like to see a guy who can succeed in deep coverage.

Which is why I don't get your Barron dislike. Because of his instincts, he excels in that deep safety role (with the added ability to knock people out of their shoes when he hits them).

 

[Sciz]

Which is why I don't get your Barron dislike. Because of his instincts, he excels in that deep safety role (with the added ability to knock people out of their shoes when he hits them).

Well another big part of that role is the ability to turn and run with a WR when he gets deep. That's where my biggest concern is.

 

[manxman2601]

Well another big part of that role is the ability to turn and run with a WR when he gets deep. That's where my biggest concern is.

My argument in response to that is that his instincts and football intelligence allows him to take the right angles so that he's never in a position to be beat deep. seriously, in all the games I watched of alabama this year, I don't remember him being beat deep once.