The Secondary

[pencilneckgeek]

PERSPECTIVE

EBNER
Personally, I don't consider Ebner a safety any more than I consider Slater a wide receiver. Others disagree. For me, we have 2 top special teams only players: Slater and Ebner.

I know Ebner is a pretty good ST player, is everyone's binkie, and has upside associated with him still learning the game; but is he really that special on ST? Chung and Wilson are both pretty solid ST players having played on all 4 units at times. Ebner is not that much cheaper than Wilson (more expensive in cap dollars, although not much). Is he really that much better, or is it more a question of bad feelings regarding Wilson and Chung not living-up to their higher expectations?

 

[Beasly]

I know Ebner is a pretty good ST player, is everyone's binkie, and has upside associated with him still learning the game; but is he really that special on ST? Chung and Wilson are both pretty solid ST players having played on all 4 units at times. Ebner is not that much cheaper than Wilson (more expensive in cap dollars, although not much). Is he really that much better, or is it more a question of bad feelings regarding Wilson and Chung not living-up to their higher expectations?

He's my anti-binkie, I've been hoping he gets cut since his terrible play against the Seahawks his rookie year. Didn't he blow some punt protection this year as well? He seems to have more bad moments than good. No idea why people are so obsessed with him.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Browner says hi to Welker

I used to hate watching that video
I've grown to like it
Baby steps

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

one thing is certain...i can't WAIT to see this secondary once Browner comes back...hell the first game with Revis!

 

[mgteich]

So, your position is that having NINE defensive backs who play the position isn't enough? Ok, so carry TEN.

We can afford to have 5 special teamers who are not expected to do anything else: P, K, LS, Slater and Ebner. We confuse the issue when we call Slater a WR or Ebner a S.
=================================
We have 7 players we can count on: the 5 corners, plus McCourty and Harmon.
=================================
The question then becomes how many other defensive backs to carry, and who. We could carry 0-3 additional defensive backs. I'm fine with Chung and Tavon Wilson being on the 53. With Ryan moving over, perhaps Belichick will prefer to keep only one of these plus an additional CB, perhaps Green. Perhaps Thomas will make the 53.
===========
I believe that Chung and Tavon WIlson are similar players. Neither is an NFL quality starters. Neither is even good enough to be our 7th DB or 3rd S. HOWEVER, both are fine as our 8th and 9th defensive back.

Folks confuse things when they say that Chung (or Wilson) is a lousy starter. We need a backup in case of 2 injuries.

If Chung and Wilson aren't enough, we can keep Green also, as we probably will for the first four games.

HOWEVER, it is disingenuous to discuss the specter of playing Ihedigbo, Slater and Molds. We probably have 12 defensive backs better than that group (certainly including Chung, Wilson and Green).

Can't see how anyone disagrees with this.



Well, that's fine, but when safeties go down, like they did in the Carolina Super Bowl, it's better to have an NFL player available, even if coverage isn't his strength, than guys flailing around, like when we had Slater, Idhigbo and Antwuan Molds running around like the Keystone cops.

There is a strange penchant on this board to purge any former draft picks, like the Russians used to purge history books while sending former administrations to Siberia.

Chung had his faults and a bad shoulder injury (I believe) but he was good on special teams and decent at safety while healthy with a good shoulder to hit people with. He certainly has excellent special teams credentials and we're foolish to not even consider him, if healthy, in a limited role for a bargain salary.

How often do we crow sign the beast about some player elsewhere with injury issues, who gets cut after years starting on two teams? Think about it.

He's 26.

 

[DaBruinz]

I say that drafting a SS high, and then expecting him to perform extensive FS deep coverage, is highly unlikely. BB drafted such SS high twice in second rounders Chung and Wilson. Both failed in the deep coverage aspects of RS and LS where you want a combo FS/SS. McCourty a CB/FS succeeded, and Ryan discussed as a CB/FS pre-draft may succeed too. But you don't discard such SS/LB hybrids, you re-purpose them in changed circumstances.

The improved Pass Rush, and better CB coverage, allows them to be little used in what they couldn't do. The usual image of Chung was his arriving a moment too late with deep Safety help. Ditto for Tavon Wilson in his rookie year.

There are many example of players who changed positions and then succeeding. McCourty was moved from CB to FS for example.

Tavon Wilson was drafted as a Free Safety, not a strong safety. He had played FS/SS/CB as well as Special Teams at Illinois.

Not sure how 5 interceptions translates into Wilson arriving too late with deep safety help. And before you point to Wilson coming off the bench and being behind McCourty, well, McCourty is one of the best Free Safeties in the league. It will be interesting to see where Wilson ends up this year. Whether it's strictly special teams, opposite McCourty, a back-up or cut.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Tavon Wilson was drafted as a Free Safety, not a strong safety. He had played FS/SS/CB as well as Special Teams at Illinois.

Not sure how 5 interceptions translates into Wilson arriving too late with deep safety help. And before you point to Wilson coming off the bench and being behind McCourty, well, McCourty is one of the best Free Safeties in the league. It will be interesting to see where Wilson ends up this year. Whether it's strictly special teams, opposite McCourty, a back-up or cut.

That is true if you think FS are typically 6'1" and 215-220 lbs. BB wanted a SS/LB hybrid for his Defense, when he was not satisfied with Patrick Chung another SS who he was not planning on resigning. Both couldn't handle the deep coverage needs of a FS. But they did fine in the box. BB drafted Tavon because he thought he had a skosh more coverage ability, then the typical SS. He did, but it was not enough for a RS, LS setup the Patriots were employing.

Now they are playing more Man, and the CBs are better, and the coverage time is reduced, with the better pass rush. It was Chung who was constantly criticized for arriving with deep safety help, a moment too late.

 

[supafly]

That we'll see, but just being glib and calling him Tebow is kind of beneath you, I'm sorry to say. I always thought you appreciated a guy could be a role player even if he's not a complete player.

Of course, the alternatives might be guys who won't play a snap in the league, but i guess fairness and perspective can't be taken for granted.

The only reason I brought up Tebow--or any other player who had lots of NCAA awards and honors such as the ones you posted, was to point out in a tongue in cheek kind of way that the NCAA means nothing at the pro level. That's why I included the winking emoticon.

We all know that he was a high draft pick who has basically sucked during his pro career. Can he be our 4th or 5th safety? Sure. Time will tell if he beats our Tavon Wilson/Nate Ebner, depending on who else is brought into the mix. It's not really a conversation for the month of May, but it's also a slow time so we have little else to discuss at the moment.

I think you mistook the joking manner of my post, and took it way too seriously. At any rate--I apologize for the misunderstanding, I suppose.

 

[supafly]

It's called perspective. If he's healthy, you mean to tell me the players we have there are head and shoulders better? Only because people hate Chung.

I was an advocate for the idea of keeping Chung when his pact went out as a depth player at a reduced rate, however that did not happen. In the meantime, our horrid situation at safety has improved from that time (in my opinion). It certainly has nothing to do with "hating" Patrick Chung or anyone else, I can assure you of that 100%.

If the reports are true and Logan Ryan is a strong consideration for the role of safety, then I would say that yes--we can certainly assume that a starting 3 of McCourty, Ryan, and Harmon are easily head and shoulders above Patrick Chung since they offer both ST only skills AND better on the field skills as well.

Throwing the rookie Thomas in the mix is also a must, as are any other future moves that will be made--which is why it's extremely difficult to try and predict anything in the month of May.

 

[RayClay]

The only reason I brought up Tebow--or any other player who had lots of NCAA awards and honors such as the ones you posted, was to point out in a tongue in cheek kind of way that the NCAA means nothing at the pro level. That's why I included the winking emoticon.

We all know that he was a high draft pick who has basically sucked during his pro career. Can he be our 4th or 5th safety? Sure. Time will tell if he beats our Tavon Wilson/Nate Ebner, depending on who else is brought into the mix. It's not really a conversation for the month of May, but it's also a slow time so we have little else to discuss at the moment.

I think you mistook the joking manner of my post, and took it way too seriously. At any rate--I apologize for the misunderstanding, I suppose.

You entirely missed the point of the post. He was a superior special teams player, in addition to having played defense, unlike Ebner.

 

[supafly]

You entirely missed the point of the post. He was a superior special teams player, in addition to having played defense, unlike Ebner.

Not meaning to sound sarcastic, but I think it would have helped if you had included a quote from mgteich to let us know who you were responding to, instead of "just" posting a bunch of stats about Patrick Chung's NCAA awards with no heading as to where you were going or whom you were responding to.

At any rate, it was a misunderstanding for which I already apologized for-- when I probably didn't need to. That's the best you're going to get from me in this case

 

[Kontradiction]

Don't know and I don't know if his shoulder ever healed. Philly has had a lot of formerly prominent players not work out in the secondary, so maybe they don't judge or use them right.

There's no doubt coverage isn't Chungs strength, but which safety besides McCourty can cover? I'm just saying that, if healthy, Chung should at least be considered as a role playing in the box type and special teamer compared to very unproven guys for doing both those roles.

If there was ever a team and system that Chung could have success in, it would have been Philly since they're the same defensive system he played in at Oregon. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he looked even worse there than he did here.

 

[RayClay]

If there was ever a team and system that Chung could have success in, it would have been Philly since they're the same defensive system he played in at Oregon. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he looked even worse there than he did here.

Couldn't say either way on that, but he's competing for a role player/special teams part here and I'm just pointing out, he's a pretty good bet against the competition for that diminished role.

My personal opinion of his last two years here was that he had a mushed shoulder and couldn't hit like he used to. we all agree his coverage wasn't his strength, so if he has a chronic shoulder problem that would explain the last three years and probably doom his career.

Still, healthy, compared to players who've never played, much less started in the NFL, it would be crazy to discount him for cheap money.

 

[Huckleberry1]

If there was ever a team and system that Chung could have success in, it would have been Philly since they're the same defensive system he played in at Oregon. He didn't. As a matter of fact, he looked even worse there than he did here.

The difference is that Chung was looked at as a starter in both Philly and his prior stint in New England, whereas now he is being looked at depth, and he is certainly good enough to fill that role imo.

 

[mgteich]

I agree. Chung is being asked to be our #4 S. I don't understand why folks don't think that he can succeed in that role, or even as our #3.

The difference is that Chung was looked at as a starter in both Philly and his prior stint in New England, whereas now he is being looked at depth, and he is certainly good enough to fill that role imo.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I agree. Chung is being asked to be our #4 S. I don't understand why folks don't think that he can succeed in that role, or even as our #3.

Belichick is great at using players for their strengths in defined roles and I think that Chung may actually thrive in a lesser but better defined role.

 

[ripatsfan91]

In 2011, people were calling for McCourty's head. Chung was probably the best player in our secondary that year.

I don't see why Chung can't be a back up safety for us who can play in a pinch.