Woodson is out the door, Peterson on the way

[Angel]

Woodson is out the door, Peterson on the way
- Nancy Gay
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Al Davis always has loved having Heisman Trophy winners on his Raiders roster. Cornerback Charles Woodson has one of those on his resume, and for eight seasons he worked that bit of leverage with the big man upstairs for all it was worth.

But at a price tag exceeding $12.6 million -- the cost of a third consecutive franchise tag for an oft-injured defensive back who hasn't played a full 16-game season since 2001 -- Woodson's value as a collector's item has expired.

And his days in a Raiders uniform are over.

The deadline for NFL teams to place franchise or transition tags on players is Thursday, and neither Bay Area team will use the designation on its roster.

So prepare to say goodbye to Woodson and, in all likelihood, 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson. Both are free-agents-to-be and 2005 franchise players who would command 20 percent raises over last year's salaries, thanks to a stipulation in the soon-to-expire collective bargaining agreement.

Woodson cost the Raiders $10.529 million in '05 and played in all of six games because of a fractured fibula. He accounted for more than one-eighth of the team's entire payroll. Once a team leader, he completely disappeared from the locker room after being injured in an Oct. 23 game against Buffalo.

"He's finally gone. There is no value in bringing him back, period,'' said an NFL source, confirming that the Raiders will not tag Woodson a third consecutive year.

Peterson, who remains an influential, stand-up player among his teammates, started 14 games in '05 -- admirable after returning from career-threatening Achilles surgery. But a hamstring injury limited him last season. And he would cost the team $8.6 million in '06, including the built-in raise.

Mike Nolan, the 49ers' coach, has been up-front about his reluctance to invest so much cash in a single player, especially on a team with so many pressing needs.

"No player will be bigger than the team,'' Nolan said Tuesday, putting it as plainly as he could. "I don't think there's someone on the roster right now who I think is bigger than the team.''

Of course, Nolan has used that reasoning as a disciplinary tool (re: Jamie Winborn).

"But it's also important from a (salary) cap standpoint,'' Nolan said. "If you put so much into one player, that player becomes more important than the team. When it comes to franchise tags, you have to be careful who you put it on. And when it comes to a first-time franchise player versus a second-time franchise player, the numbers just get out of whack.''

Add to this the uncertainty of the NFL's labor situation with its players, and the once-liberal use of the franchise tag becomes a bigger risk -- especially for teams such as the 49ers and Raiders without fancy new stadiums and huge revenue streams.

The current CBA between the NFL Players Association and the league will expire after the coming season. Both sides are working to strike a deal before March 3 to avoid postponement of the free-agency signing period and the prospect of an uncapped '07.

That would mean no spending limits for big-money franchises -- think of the Redskins' Dan Snyder becoming another George Steinbrenner -- and tough sledding for the Bay Area teams, which depend on the current CBA's revenue-sharing scheme and salary cap to stay remotely competitive.

"You have to watch how you spend your money right now,'' Nolan said.

All of this means a probable end to Peterson's career as a 49er unless management can hammer out a deal to keep him from becoming an unrestricted free agent when that period is scheduled to begin March 3.

Woodson, whom the Raiders franchised in 2004 and '05, already knows he's outta there. His representative, the elusive Carl Poston, has not contacted the Raiders' front office once this offseason.

The days of begging Davis for a long-term contract are over. Woodson and his agent know it.

When he likely ends up in Tampa Bay -- the traditional repository for discarded Raiders players -- the Raiders will get a huge chunk of the payroll back. And a clean break.

Both are long overdue.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/22/SPG10HCBCB1.DTL

[CrossBones]

Not much of a surprise. No way can the Raiders pay that kind of money to a guy who has been on and off the field way to much in the last 4-5 years.

The stage is yours Fabs and Nnamdi!

[Rupert]

Yes indeed. Don't forget your boy Stanford.

[CrossBones]

Yes indeed. Don't forget your boy Stanford.D'oh.

Actaully I like Routt. (Still hated the pick at that point in time after we took Fabs).

Routt showed me a few things. His speed IS a huge asset. He can only get better IMO.

[Plunkett16]

D'oh.

Actaully I like Routt. (Still hated the pick at that point in time after we took Fabs).

Routt showed me a few things. His speed IS a huge asset. He can only get better IMO.
Wow! I am impress crossbones. I remember you really didn't like this kid and wow. see even fabian showed he wants to be raider

[Rupert]

D'oh.

Actaully I like Routt. (Still hated the pick at that point in time after we took Fabs).

Routt showed me a few things. His speed IS a huge asset. He can only get better IMO.
Routt was pretty good at man coverage. He just needs to learn how to play the ball better. Instincts. I think he thought he was in over his head and played a little desperate. Do you really need to swat the receiver when you're practically in his shirt? I don't think so. He's got to believe he belongs.

[TommyGirl]

Good point, Rupert, but until the Raiders can gel a defense where I can definitively say, "Yeah, they're in Cover-2...Now they're in 6-1, Cover 0," it ain't gonna matter who they have at corner.

In addition, aside from a solid pass rush, the safeties are a definite weak point on this defense. (I know, Crow. I shouldn't get started.) Until this glaring weakness is addressed, they could have Chris McAlister and Nate Clements back there and it still wouldn't matter.

[CrossBones]

This is exactly why I want Mario Williuams in the worst way. Sure Burgess was great last season but can we expect that kind of production from him again this year? And furthermore, when Derrick wan't harassing the QB most times nobody was and the safeties and corners were the ones being harassed!

Make that passs rush more effective and our secondary as a whole will be better.

Get me Archulta to play SS and that will help some too.

[Rupert]

TommyGirl: Let's get this started. Why don't you think having the best corners in the game wouldn't matter?

[Angel]

I imagine for the kind of money Woodson wants, most Raider fans are more than happy to watch him go!!

[TommyGirl]

TommyGirl: Let's get this started. Why don't you think having the best corners in the game wouldn't matter?
In my opinion, it wouldn't matter if the Raiders had the best corners in the game because they have mediocre safeties (at best). Until the safeties we have get some hella good coaching or until they get some with instincts, the secondary is still going to suck. I should, however, preface the following criticisms by saying that my standards for safeties are nearing the point of being unreasonable and unless the Raiders picked up the love child of Steve Atwater and Troy Polamalu, I'd probably not be happy.

But I digress. It's my belief that safeties are getting increasing responsibilities on the field and that the position is requiring some amount of intelligence and instinct. Teams can (and should) no longer scout someone who's simply a hard hitter. Those days have passed. I believe defenses have become more complicated, partly in response to offenses becoming more complicated, but probably equally because defensive philosophies have shifted. What I mean to say is that offense used to almost solely dictate how defenses were run. The philosophy has shifted to a degree. Now, defenses know they can often dictate what the offense does. We see offensive coordinators that have to plan for defenses instead of vice-versa. The best example I can give of this is probably Pittsburgh. You can pretty well bet that Holmgren's staff damn well had to account for Pittsburgh's D. Same thing with the Bears. This, of course, is a broad generality, but the point I'm trying to make is that the defensive scheming has become more complicated and if there are any weak links, the whole system fails.

In addition, I believe that we're seeing more and more complicated zone packaging in comparison to even five years ago. Five years ago, the most exotic and effective defense we saw was in Tampa with that notorious "Tampa-2." The safeties were critical in that scheme and other teams have followed suit. Why wouldn't they? Tampa's D dictated the offensive schemes being played against them. However, since then, the weaknesses in the Tampa-2 have been discovered. In essence, if you run straight at it and reconcile yourself to taking dumpoff passes, then it's less effective. That makes sense. When you have corners playing the run and safeties primarily in deep zone, there's some vulnerabilities. Consequently, defenses have evolved even in the past five years. Many teams are still using Cover-2 as their base package (Colts, Rams, Bears, Tampa, Baltimore, etc.), but there are multiple fronts and alignments that are thrown in for good measure not to mention that lots of teams are swapping in and out of 3-4 and 4-3. It takes a lot of smarts, particularly for linebackers and safeties since they have to read run and pass.

More directly to your request, Rupert, relates to my the last sentence. Corners almost exclusively read pass first as they respond solely to the opposing receiver. They only read run when the run has developed and the runner has penetrated to the secondary level (broad statement, but mostly true unless we're accounting for corner blitzing gone awry). Safeties, no matter WHAT package, have to read both. Not only that, how many times do you see a safety lined up against a slot receiver? I'd wager many. It's not a position where they can have a weakness and still be effective anymore. Imagine Cliff Harris in today's NFL...See my point?

Now, to show how and why I think the Raiders could have Clements and McAlister to no avail, I'll just point out the year that the Raiders started Dorsett and (gulp) Pope at safety. How good did Woodson and Eric Allen (arguably VERY good corners) look that year? When your corners have more tackles than your safeties, there's a problem. BIG problem. I can't tell you how many times I saw Woodson seemingly reluctant to release to the safeties and they were playing WAY deeper zone than they should've been in order to account for the weak-ass safety product the Raiders put on the field that year.

If another example is needed, look at Cincinnati last season. When Madieu Williams went down, the run defense and relative inexperience of the linebackers (rookies) was exploited. Add a good safety or two into that mix in Cincinnati and you have a Superbowl team. That's how important they are.

Anyway, I've gone a long way about simply stating that the Raiders have got to scout their safeties a whole lot better. It's a thorn in my side and has been for the past ten years or so. Rod Woodson was the only bright spot that lightened my bitching in that respect. Can I live with what's there now? Not really. Schweigert is fairly good in pass coverage, but is a horrible tackler. Jarod Cooper is better at tackling, but sucks in pass coverage. Until they're coached or until the Raiders get themselves some better-rounded safeties, it won't matter how well Scrabble and Fabian Washington play, not to mention that Scrabble's potential has been hindered by the bonehead decision to play him at corner, then safety, then corner. Ugh.

*Tommy crawls off soapbox*

Did this get it started? :D

Edit: P.S. I would be happy with Kenoy Kennedy at SS (too bad he's not available), but will settle for Adam Archuleta. They need depth. Ain't none now. And I will become a fan of the Arizona Cardinals if Al drafts Huff. So let it be written.

[CrossBones]

First..."rep" for that one Dr. Tommy! Solid stuff there.

I can't tell you how many times I saw Woodson seemingly reluctant to release to the safeties and they were playing WAY deeper zone than they should've been in order to account for the weak-ass safety product the Raiders put on the field that year.This is sooooo very true.

Woodson would seemed trapped trying to look over his left shoulder to see if the safety was really there before releasing the receiver and in the mean time we get burned in the middle of the field or that side of the zone because C-Wood couldn't rely on the safety doing his job. Saw that a lot!

[TommyGirl]

You know, some of this stuff is better not seen live. Seriously. I went to the Minnesota game in Oakland that year (my first game at the HOT) and Woodson shut Moss down. And yet...I still wasn't happy because I saw the reluctance we just mentioned. Wow, we've had some bad safeties.

Then, the second game I see at the HOT was last year's Dolphins game. In that one, I was mad when I left because Collins and his inability to see wide open receivers all...day...long.

I think I'll never go to the HOT again.

[CrossBones]

I think I'll never go to the HOT again.Never say never...

If I get my second wind there may be another "Journey to the House of Thrills" in 2006! Stay tuned.

[Rupert]

TommyGirl: I agree, but I don't think you need great safeties to be successful, and in many zones, a common twist (to confuse the offense) is to use corner force with either a rotation or inversion.

As far as defenses dictating. That's a perception that's become almost universally true because of WCO principles, in other words - take what the defense gives you. The idea is to expect the defense to cover the deep and medium routes and give you the underneath route. When you have an offense that doesn't (or can't) throw deep, the Tampa-2 can shut it down because they can stop dropping Mike deep (just like they did against us in the Bowl).

Regarding the corners, particularly ours, releasing receivers to the safeties, there were waaaaaaaay too many double-takes and deep drifts by our corners because of the worthless safeties we've had back there.

Safeties don't have to be smart. Check the Wonderlic stats to see that. They simply have to be disciplined because they tend to be much farther from the LOS than the backers unless they have to split out and cover a slot receiver, when they essentially become CB's. Because they're farther back, they get more time to read the play and have a greater lattitude for errors than backers do.

I just don't think safeties need to be that good, but you definitely can't get away with crap back there. If you defense swarms, you don't need a big hitting safety because he'll wrap the guy while the rest of the D converges. Unfortunately, I don't remember a single Raiders D in recent memory that swarmed the ball. Do the Raiders play too much man? Possibly, and that could be part of the reason for a lack of swarming.

I think Schweigert will come around with his tackling. Dude has a lot of fire and pride, and I don't think he'll let that aspect of his game limit his performance on the field. But SS is a serious hole, and while Cooper played with a lot of heart, he didn't play with a lot of smart. And while Hill played with a lot of heart and smart, I think he'd eventually wear down because of his size if he had to stick his nose in too many times against the run. Now if we could transplant Hill's brains and heart into a guy like Gibson, we'd have something. Too bad that's not an option.

[TommyGirl]

Safeties don't have to be smart. Check the Wonderlic stats to see that. I did check the Wonderlic stats. Derrick Gibson's told me all I need to know. Safeties have to be smart and instinctive. I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
If you defense swarms, you don't need a big hitting safety because he'll wrap the guy while the rest of the D converges. Unfortunately, I don't remember a single Raiders D in recent memory that swarmed the ball. Do the Raiders play too much man? Possibly, and that could be part of the reason for a lack of swarming.So...what you're saying is that safeties don't have to be smart and you can have a mediocre safety IF you have a swarming defense, which the Raiders do not have. I'm confused. If that's the case, then the Raiders need smart safeties. Plus, I'm not always one on "big hitting" safeties. Dorsett was a big hitter. He just couldn't tackle. Give me a sure-tackler any day of the week.
I think Schweigert will come around with his tackling. Dude has a lot of fire and pride, and I don't think he'll let that aspect of his game limit his performance on the field. I don't disagree with this. If he's well-coached, I think he'll come along. Until he does, whomever he's paired with at corner is going to have to account for his poor tackling ability. I'll again refer you to Woodson's reluctance to release to Dorsett or Pope. But SS is a serious hole, and while Cooper played with a lot of heart, he didn't play with a lot of smart. B-b-b-but...Safeties don't have to BE smart, remember? ;) Hill at safety? Ugh. Double ugh.

[Crow]

Rupe, old boy...you are so gonna lose this one. :D

[Rupert]

Rupe, old boy...you are so gonna lose this one. :D
How so? Tommy Girl dissected my reply and did not reply to it in whole. So I guess it's easy to lose on someone elses terms. Just like I never defeated you on your terms, but always won on mine.

[Rupert]

TG: You blew it regarding, "Safeties don't have to be smart..." Read the whole paragraph, it's not an isolated thought. I talk about them playing at the 3rd level and not the 2nd. It's a direct comparison between safeties and backers. You also add "instinctive", and that's what I mean by "disciplined". If he makes his reads properly and doesn't jump the gun or take false steps he's where he needs to be and looks "instinctive". We use a different term, but mean the same thing. I still don't see smart as very necessary because of the distance a safety is from the LOS.

I'm not doubling back on Cooper. Cooper played rolled up like a backer more than a safety. Playing at the 2nd level requires better thinking than the 3rd level. And a true safety plays at the 3rd level. A SS rolled up is playing more of a rover role which requires that he think faster and therefore be smarter but also larger to take on the likelihood of larger blockers. So playing at the second level requires more smart. See what I was saying?

I also switched gears when I said safeties "don't need to be that good" in a swarming defense. Good is different than smart. It's a specific difference, and why I used a different word. Don't go Crow on me. Eddie Anderson wasn't very fast at all, but he played a good safety because he wasn't overly aggressive and let the play develop. He didn't take too many false steps or bad angles. Eddie Anderson was a very good safety but he wasn't "that good" as far as players go. Do you see how I meant that?

So...what you're saying is that safeties don't have to be smart and you can have a mediocre safety IF you have a swarming defense
I didn't say that. Why does everyone assume if you're not great you're mediocre? Did you read what I said:
but you definitely can't get away with crap back there.
And when did I ask for Hill at safety?

[CrossBones]

The Wonderlic test seems to be in the news lately.

According to the rumor, Sean Taylor scored something like "8" on the test. Now I'm not sure that means he's smart or not.

But the point here is that I'd want Taylor playing safety on my team every day and twice on Sunday. Just some thoughts.

Include this into the debate however you think it fits. Carry on!

[Rupert]

Bones: I'll add this before TG's reply. All you have to do is look at the typical assignments and where the players are on the field.

Safeties often have to drop into zones. It's a VERY common responsibility. A SS typically waits in place a count or three to read the play before dropping or reads while dropping depending upon where his initial alignment was and his zone is. The FS is almost always dropping back FIRST and reading while he drops. If they're in man, they typically align deeper than everyone else and aren't supposed to break on the player unless the QB is looking that way and the player is making a hard outside cut. Safeties usually start 7-10 yards off the ball, giving them MORE time to read the play.

Backers on the other hand need to read their keys either 2 or 3 while making their initial move from a distance of 5 yards from the LOS, often closer. They often read a triangle of players to tell them what's going on. Safeties usually read the QB unless they're in man coverage when they shadow their primary assignment until they come deep when they tighten up on them but stay deep.

It's easy as pie to see which position requires more brains. It's also cake to see why safeties do NOT have to be that smart. It's also easy to see why corners are more critical because they have to be better athletes. They can be even dumber than safeties if you play a lot of man, but they have to be excellent athletes whiles safeties, again, do NOT.

Is it GREAT when a safety is smart, you bet! Is it great when they're great athletes? Does Sean Taylor answer that question? But as I said, it's not necessary for them to be smart or great athletes for them to be good safeties. And a defense can be very good without great safeties, but they need at LEAST one good one and one average one (just in case someone thinks I think a defense can be good with crap safeties - I do NOT).

[Angel]

Well Vince Young scored a 6 on his first test and a 16 on the second....on ESPN they were saying basically that a single digit score means you're illiterate!!

[CrossBones]

Well Vince Young scored a 6 on his first test and a 16 on the second....on ESPN they were saying basically that a single digit score means you're illiterate!!No actaully it means youy're retarded and dumb as a fence post.

Like I said...Tags must like this guy so he adjusted the first score. Sigh.

[Angel]

No actaully it means youy're retarded and dumb as a fence post.

Like I said...Tags must like this guy so he adjusted the first score. Sigh.
Lol Bones....well that may be true, but they were saying a good score for a QB should be between 18-24 at least, so the 16 isn't good either!! ;)

[TommyGirl]

Jeez-o, Bones...This isn't a competition for one to lose and the other to win. I'm just a dumb girl who loves her some safeties.

Maybe we should define what we mean by "smart." I'm not a huge one for measurables, so the Wonderlic means nothing to me outside of using it to make fun of Derrick Gibson. Frankly, I could not care less if these guys can read a book or not, but they better be able to read run or pass and they better be able to anticipate routes as well.

That's the part of the equation that I think you seem to be leaving out, Rupert. You mentioned twice that the safeties have longer than linebackers to make their reads. That much is true, but it's a sad day indeed when an outside linebacker is having to anticipate a receiver's route. My scenario for safeties in zone specifically related to Cover-2 (and other increasingly complicated zone packages) where they were not in what was a typical safety zone. Can we agree that safeties of yore were primarily responsible for two things: The run and over-the-middle passes. This is how Jack Tatum earned his bread and butter. My point was that the safeties absolutely must be smarter (read: more knowledgeable of offenses) than they used to be. The fact is that the typical assignments have changed since the days of safeties like Cliff Harris and Jack Tatum. We're getting into the Michael Boulwares and the Lawyer Milloys. Smarts are as important as tackling ability. I stand by that assertion.

Can instinct make up for a lack of knowledge? You betcha. However, even instinct and athleticism is going to get these guys so far. We need look no farther than Charles Woodson to see how a DB won't reach their full potential unless they commit themselves to...you got it...studying the game and becoming much smarter football players. As an aside, I should note here that in both cases I saw the Redskins play live last year, every moment of Sean Taylor being off the field was accompanied by him conversing with coaching staff while looking at pictures, the playbook, and the whiteboard. Can he read? Damned if I know. But he's studying. He's getting smarter. He NEEDS to be smarter.

Having said all of this, I think we've strayed from my main point which was that the Raiders corners are not going to look very good until they get what is needed at safety. I'm not sure how logic can dictate otherwise, particularly when you're looking at zone packaging. Does every safety need to be a Lawyer Milloy or a Dawkins? No. But there's nothing even close on this team right now.

[CrossBones]

Why do I get picked on? Sheese.

"Smart" in football terms is what we're really talking about here. Safeties are different than QB's IMO. Quarterbacks have to have some higher level of intellect to succeed at the NFL level (that's why6 I am totally off the Vince Young jihad). I'm not sure safeties do but they have to be football smart. Gibdson apparently is neither. :)

[Rupert]

TG: Even in today's more complex zone schemes a safety doesn't have to be that smart. What does a safety have to learn? From X formation (post shift of course), after Y motion, there are R route combinations to the right side and L route combinations to the left side of the formation (depending upon where the safety plays they need to know one or both), A number of receivers will be threatening your zone. If the QB is looking your way tighten the zone and watch for the throwing motion.

There are very few ways an offense will threaten deep, ever. There are only 5 areas they will threaten deep, ever.

I'll tell you what Sean Taylor is talking about with coaches on the sidelines. He's telling them what combinations he's seeing on the field. He's telling them what he's reading and why he's going where he's going. The coaches are telling him what they're seeing from above, and what they want him to do. Taylor is not really getting smarter, he's getting on the same page with his coaches. He's already football smart (regardless of the Wonderlic) and he wants to do a good job, he wants to shut down the opponent.

That's where Taylor is really different from Gibson. Gibson doesn't care. He lacks desire, and so does Woodson. They both got where they are by cruising on physical talent, and neither of them cares about being the best in the game or winning. If they did, they'd worry more about their responsibilities.

Again, safeties don't have to be that smart. Nothing in the game plan requires it. Nothing yesterday and nothing today.

The reason I asked you to define what you want at safety is to see what you think a safety must be. If you think a safety must be like Taylor, you're never going to be satisfied with who the Raiders have, because Al Davis won't spend the kind of money it takes to get and keep that type of safety (or linebacker for that matter).

To your new point of corners looking good with bad safeties. I've never seen a corner look bad because the safety played poorly. NEVER. I've always been able to assign the blame where it belongs, the safety. When a corner drops coverage and the safety doesn't pick it up, I don't blame the corner. When a corner has coverage and the safety is simply that, additional coverage deep, and the corner's guy gets open and the safety can't stop the completion, I don't blame the safety. Corners are either good or bad on their own, as are safeties. A defense is either good or bad based upon the entire unit. If the question was: Do the Raiders need better safeties? The answer is a VERY simple yes. But the suggestion was that the best corners in the game wouldn't have been any good with our safeties, and that implication is erroneous.

But to the original point of a secondary looking good or bad based upon it's corners AND safeties, your original point was correct. Any bad link is going to screw up the whole works. I think Schweigert will be a good to very good safety because he has the desire to be one, and I believe he will work on his game until he becomes one. As far as the strong safety, maybe Cooper will become one, I don't know, I've only seen him in one isolated, and very bad, situation. I don't expect much from him because he hasn't proven to be very good in his career, adequate? maybe. So, yeah, like any Raiders fan, I want better safeties, but I'll accept just a good SS and allow Stu to develop a bit (but I'll have to see improvement this season).

[TommyGirl]

Good point, Rupert, but until the Raiders can gel a defense where I can definitively say, "Yeah, they're in Cover-2...Now they're in 6-1, Cover 0," it ain't gonna matter who they have at corner.

In addition, aside from a solid pass rush, the safeties are a definite weak point on this defense. (I know, Crow. I shouldn't get started.) Until this glaring weakness is addressed, they could have Chris McAlister and Nate Clements back there and it still wouldn't matter.
I quoted myself to show that my INITIAL point was that the Raiders could be starting McALister and Clements and it wouldn't matter, precisely because the safeties suck. It isn't a new point, Rupert. It's the point I made from the beginning.

I'll deal with the rest point-by-point since it seems you want me to look at and counter each one instead of responding to what I find arguable and/or relevant to what I was trying to say in the first place.

First, your comments about Taylor. I'm familiar enough with the game to understand what it was they were doing on the sidelines, believe it or not. Simply, he was on the sidelines studying...sharing information...engaging in discourse about the game...to LEARN...to get smarter about the game he's playing. It's on-the-field schooling, so to speak. I brought it up because there were people stating that Taylor isn't a smart player. That may have been true initially, however he's elevated his game and IS becoming smarter. You call it "getting on the same page." I call it getting smarter. Are we really very far apart on this? Split hairs much?

You've never seen a corner look bad because of a safety? Wow. I can name half a dozen times that it appeared Woodson got burned on plays only to see in replay or on tape that he didn't release to Dorsett. I gave that example very early on in this thread. You'll not convince me that a corner won't look less stellar when they're accounting for weak safeties. YOU may be able to assign blame where it belongs. *I* may be able to assign blame where it belongs, but the corner's performance as a whole and the defense as a whole will not be good if there's that link missing.

You and I differ in our approach to cohesive defenses, it appears. I don't really care if a corner is good on his own, nor do I care if a safety is good on his own. What difference does that make if the defense is weak because of a gkaring weakness? I'd rather have mediocre football players that function well as a whole than I would elite athletes that are awesome stand-alone players. C'mon. Gregg Williams put together a damn good defense without his star linebacker. It can be done.

I can't help but laugh at you saying that I won't be happy with the Raiders safeties unless they're like Taylor. I think I prefaced my entire opening diatribe by saying I wouldn't be happy unless I see the love child of Atwater and Polamalu on the Raiders. I've since re-thought that stance. I'd be happy if the Raiders had the Lawyer Milloy of old. Will Al find and pay to keep a safety like that? Hell no. I know this. However, I will still be unhappy about that fact and will likely continue to bitch about it.

I have more to say on this, particularly on your idea that there's only five deep ways a field is threatened. That may be true, but a safety isn't required to just know about the deep zones either. I'm not sure where I'm not being clear on what I'm saying. The role is more difficult than it used to be. I told you why I think so. Offenses aren't as vanilla. Neither are defenses.

More x's and o's tomorrow as I have to assist with homework and carting kids around, but here's a little bit of clarification on my thoughts.

[Crow]

Just for shits and giggles, and because I still think the CB position is as overrated as the safety position is underrated, I wanted to get some thoughts on this:

During our Superbowl run, we lost our top three corners. I can't even remember the names of the two bastards we trotted out there. That sucks, because I really liked one of them...the other being the journeyman we got from SD who fancied himself worthy of starters pay.

Anyway, our pass defense barely seemed to miss a beat with those two knuckleheads out there. Why? Simple. We had a damn fine safety back there covering their rears and keeping them clear on where they needed to be. Safeties have a much better view of what's going on in front of them and need to communicate these things to their corners. Hot Rod was outstanding in this capacity.

In contrast, when our corners were all healthy and Rod went down...well...seems to me that our pass defense fell apart. Damn funny how that worked out, eh?

New England fans can tell a similar tale. Randal Gay? Troy "I was a WR last week" Brown? Thank you, Rodney Harrison. Even Belichick said they would have been screwed if not for Harrison's presence. Losing Ty Law? Didn't even phase them. Amazing, or just the way this stuff works? Hmm...

[Rupert]

TG: Hah! That's funny. We really aren't that different in our approach to defense. It's funny you assume that I want star players when you're the one who made statements to that effect.

Of course offenses aren't as vanilla, nor are defenses. It's part of the point Crow is missing when he thinks safeties are more important than corners. The point I'm certain you understand is that you build the defense around the talent you have or the talent around the defensive scheme. I've always believed the latter is harder to do than the former, but we have an owner who works toward the latter.

The reason I'm discussing it is to discover what your thoughts are. Most people, like Crow, are too concerned about individual talent and individual positions, and I've had to fight against that kind of thinking for some time. Whenever people have said so-and-so sucks, I ask them why, and they come up with all sorts of defense-related reasons that have little to do with the individual. It's like trying to explain to Crow why New England got away with what they did. It's like people saying corners are devalued in today's defenses. I don't see a corresponding drop in their salaries or draft position or teams trying to find or develop great corners, so that kind of thinking doesn't reflect reality.

A defensive scheme requires all 11 players to be able to perform their tasks. I think it was Bill Arnsparger who said a defense should have 13 players to defend a modern offense effectively. Since that's not possible, the defense should take away the things an offense wants to do, and leave the things that will hurt it the least.

Players like Taylor and Harrison (etc.) can allow a defense to either act like they've got more than 11 players on the field or free up other players (like emergency corners) to worry about fewer responsibilities. But as we've seen those players are few and far between. And as we've also seen, those players aren't typically made at the NFL level. They either get it or they don't.

Who knows. Maybe Al Davis doesn't want to have to rely on having that kind of player in the secondary. Maybe he understands too well that having that kind of player on the roster allows the other defenders (todays defenders) to rely on that crutch. I don't know. Personally, I'd continually draft that kind of player at every position I could find them. It's nice to find some guy with a great hip snap, lightning 40, and ankle-breaking (not his own) change of direction, but if his brain doesn't point him in the right direction what's the use? He'll react slower than the guy without the great hip snap, lightning 40, and ankle-breaking COD.

I'd rather have a football player than a workout warrior. I'd rather have the kid who grew up with the game than the phenomenal athlete who just picked it up in college (huge generalization - guys like Anthony Dorsett grew up with the game). There are positions where you can get away with it (mostly on offense), and there are athletes who can pick up some of the finer points, but more often than not it doesn't work out. But when you find a football player AND a phenominal athlete you need to draft that guy and let him walk when his ego becomes bigger than his cap value, like Woodson. Just make sure you get 4 or 5 years out of him before he goes FA on you, and have someone waiting in the wings to take over when he makes the inevitable push for the dough.

[CrossBones]

If it's OK I'll throw my 2$ into this discussion...

I quoted myself to show that my INITIAL point was that the Raiders could be starting McALister and Clements and it wouldn't matter, precisely because the safeties suck. It isn't a new point, Rupert. It's the point I made from the beginning.Quoting ones self? :eek: Are you any relation to Vince Young? :p

First, your comments about Taylor. I'm familiar enough with the game to understand what it was they were doing on the sidelines, believe it or not. Simply, he was on the sidelines studying...sharing information...engaging in discourse about the game...to LEARN...to get smarter about the game he's playing. It's on-the-field schooling, so to speak. I brought it up because there were people stating that Taylor isn't a smart player. That may have been true initially, however he's elevated his game and IS becoming smarter. You call it "getting on the same page." I call it getting smarter. Are we really very far apart on this? Split hairs much?Taylor is probably not the best example. the best safety to come out of college since Ed Reed...dude might end up being better in the long run. Fact is even though Taylor might not be "book smart" the kid loves to play and wants to get better, unlike a certain corner we have.

You've never seen a corner look bad because of a safety? Wow. I can name half a dozen times that it appeared Woodson got burned on plays only to see in replay or on tape that he didn't release to Dorsett. I gave that example very early on in this thread. You'll not convince me that a corner won't look less stellar when they're accounting for weak safeties. YOU may be able to assign blame where it belongs. *I* may be able to assign blame where it belongs, but the corner's performance as a whole and the defense as a whole will not be good if there's that link missing.I agree Dr. Tommy. Actually I think the play of our safeties has affected the corners. When a guy like Woodson is reluctant to release the receiver to the safety and is trying to hedge that causes problem in the corners play. So a safety who is football smart is important in my view. He has to be able to read the play and be in the right place. Guy like Gibson just hasn't been able to do it. Dorsett (UGH) was another prime example. And I remember well how many times I watched Woodson do that very thing...he was scared that the safety wouldn't be there if he let the receiver go.

Frankly I think safeties have to be smart. Defining "smart" seems to be the crux of the debate here. Sometimes I think we're talking about "Wonderlic Smart" and other times about "football smart". These cats aren't QB's and for my money I want a football smart safety who is willing to study, learn and be in the right place at the right time. If the guy is a dumb fuck I think it can hurt the corner play unless the corner in question just doesn't care...the 'ol ``it's ain't my job" routine.

Anyway…I might have gotten of track but that's my take.

[Rupert]

Bones: My point was, and still is, that safety assignments do NOT require much smarts at all. They didn't in the past, and they do not currently. The number one quality a safety needs is discipline.

When you talk about zones and affecting corner play: In my opinion the corner has to only care about his assignment. The moment he tries to compensate for someone else's assignment he can no longer take care of his own and the defense breaks down. It's a lack of discipline (strange that Woodson exemplified this isn't it?). The defensive coordinator has to know how to deploy his people to get the most out of them (or get hurt the least). It's my opinion that deploying our secondary the way we have in the past was not working toward our strengths and was actually exposing our weaknesses. We should have cut down what Dorsett had to watch and limitted the decisions he had to make. Any decent offensive coordinator would have attacked him when they expected us to be in a zone because everyone (including Woodson) knew he'd commit to the first person in his zone instead of remain neutral and deep. The deeper the route the more likely that he'd be able to break on the ball if it was thrown deep. Simple execution of physics principles.

It's in that respect that TG complains that until she can definitely tell what we're running on defense, she can't tell if we're doing any good at it or who's screwing up. And in that she's absolutely correct. If we're playing an inverted zone and the corner and safety drop to the same zone, unless you know it was an invert, you don't know which player screwed up. Just like there were times last season that I thought we played a strong rotation three deep and Asomugha should have had the deep third but stayed shallow. Fortunately for him the QB never looked his way or there would have been more TD's to the WR on his side.

The other point that TG talks about Taylor getting smarter. I call getting on the same page because the DC is asking Taylor what he's doing because he is relying on Taylor's skill. The DC is calling coverages to account for how Taylor is playing and tweaking Taylor in other situations. That's getting on the same page, not necessarily getting smarter since it's both coming together not just the player following the coordinator. Since players like that can change how an offense reacts, the DC will use that to his advantage and the DC wants to learn what the player is doing. In that case the DC is learning as much as teaching. In that case the player is adding information that either wasn't in the pre-game scouting report, or that has changed based upon field conditions.

Again, that's why I say safety takes more discipline than smarts. They aren't required to know a whole hell of a lot, they just have to know how to play what they're given. Call it football smarts if you will, but I call it discipline. When your assignment says stay with the deepest man until the QB commits, it's the undisciplined player that breaks the rule. That may seem like a stupid act, but it's truly a lack of discipline. And that's a hair I'm willing to split because the distinction is VERY important. Because the player may know the rule and can recite it the moment you ask, but until you know why he broke it, you cannot teach him how to correct it. If he's anticipating, guessing, impatient, or "trying to make something happen" it's a lack of discipline. If he blew the read (in other words thought the QB went into his throwing motion when he actually just had to dodge a DL) that's teaching, that's learning, that's getting smarter. Tackling isn't about getting smarter, it's about disciplined performance of the basic skills of football.

[Crow]

Most people, like Crow, are too concerned about individual talent and individual positions, and I've had to fight against that kind of thinking for some time.

There you go, talking out your ass again. I love how you assume to know what I think. Next time you want to use me as an example, don't. You've clearly missed what I've been talking about. But, that's no shock. You tend to miss a lot, I've noticed.

[Rupert]

You know Crow I can only go by what you say. If you don't make your point so that other people can understand it, you should accept when you're misunderstood and make more of an effort to be understood. It's a little concept called communication. This isn't the first time you've been misunderstood by me or others is it? That should send a signal to you. But you continue to miss it.

[Rupert]

Just for shits and giggles, and because I still think the CB position is as overrated as the safety position is underrated, I wanted to get some thoughts on this:

During our Superbowl run, we lost our top three corners. I can't even remember the names of the two bastards we trotted out there. That sucks, because I really liked one of them...the other being the journeyman we got from SD who fancied himself worthy of starters pay.

Anyway, our pass defense barely seemed to miss a beat with those two knuckleheads out there. Why? Simple. We had a damn fine safety back there covering their rears and keeping them clear on where they needed to be. Safeties have a much better view of what's going on in front of them and need to communicate these things to their corners. Hot Rod was outstanding in this capacity.

In contrast, when our corners were all healthy and Rod went down...well...seems to me that our pass defense fell apart. Damn funny how that worked out, eh?

New England fans can tell a similar tale. Randal Gay? Troy "I was a WR last week" Brown? Thank you, Rodney Harrison. Even Belichick said they would have been screwed if not for Harrison's presence. Losing Ty Law? Didn't even phase them. Amazing, or just the way this stuff works? Hmm...

Okay, here's where I'll break it down. There is a certain physical requirement to play corner. Period. Almost everyone who plays safety cannot play every down as a corner because they lack the physical talent whether through age or just their makeup. So, when you say we lost a couple very good corners, but made due with average corners, it's not a big surprise since they were able to cover the WR's man up. We didn't get many INT's from our starting corners, so there was no noticeable drop-off when they left.

However, you have to remember who replaced Woodson at safety. That's right, Dorsett. Do you really think we weren't going to notice losing a guy who picked off three passes in one game for a guy who's probably never picked off three in a season? That's just a ridiculous comparison.

Guys like Taylor and Reed would be exposed at corner if they had to play it every down. Why? because they don't have the ability to cover the best WR's one on one. Period. That's why they're safeties. Why didn't Ronnie Lott remain a corner for too long? Because he got beaten too often. Moved him to safety and he shone. Why did Rod Woodson move to safety as he got older? Injuries and loss of speed made him unable to continue to cover WR's one on one. Rodney Harrison would get torched at corner.

In man coverage a safety does absolutely nothing for a corner, nothing other than tell him run or ball. A good corner should be able to read that a WR is looking for the ball himself and doesn't need the safety to tell him squat.

In zone defense the safety (free safety typically) is responsible for telling the under coverage what routes are happening behind them so they can adjust if they need to (or can).

I still don't see what great intelligence it takes to do any of this. And I don't see how a safety "helps" a corner play the position. They don't. They help the coverage in general.

The Raiders crappy safeties made the coverage look worse, not any position in general (Sir Charles made himself look bad by breaking his assignment not Dorsett by making him need to - it also reflected poorly on Bresnahan to call or allow that coverage when the results were obvious on the field), every position in general.

So when you keep talking that a safety means more to a defense than corners, and great safeties are more important than great corners (supporting your position by comparing replacing a great safety with a below average one to replacing above average corners with average ones) led me to my conclusion that you value positions and players over total defense. It's not a great leap in logic since you had no facts on the defense being run in those situations only on the players.

[Rupert]

As far as Randall Gay and Troy Brown. First Randall Gay was at least an average corner, and Troy Brown had the physical requirements to play corner (it's hard not to be able to stay with a WR in trail coverage when you run the routes yourself).

And you say losing Law didn't phase them? If you call going from 29 INT's with him healthy for the 15 games in 2003 to 20 when he only played 7 in 2004 to 10 without him in 2005 not phasing them, then they weren't phased by losing him. I call that a significant loss of defensive turnovers.

[CrossBones]

Bones: My point was, and still is, that safety assignments do NOT require much smarts at all. They didn't in the past, and they do not currently. The number one quality a safety needs is discipline.I think this is the key phrase. Discipline. Smart. Semantics. We agree. :)

[TommyGirl]

You can't stay disciplined if you don't have the smarts to know your assignment in the first place.

Rupert, you're making it sound like any idiot can walk on the field and play corner or safety and we all know that's not the case.

[Rupert]

Bones: Semantics? Yeah. But that's what precision is all about. Using the right word in the right place at the right time. It may not be important to everyone, but as you can see, it's critical to me. It ensures understanding between people. So no, not smart, disciplined. TG understands, even if she's polarizing my position needlessly, that there's a difference when she says the player needs to know the assignment in the first place.

TG: Not at all. I never said that. That's the same kind of thinking that says if a guy isn't great he sucks. There are varying degrees. It's not a simple black and white proposition.

Knowing the assignment is a given. And as I said, the assignments and the reads for safety are slightly more complex than DL and nearly identical to CB but unlike DL or CB they get much more time to read and/or react. Additionally, they get to see the whole picture develop, where no-one else (with the exception of a deep dropping Mike in a Tampa 2 or CB in a 3-deep) does. It gives them an advantage that other players do not have. That means, by default, they can take more time to decide what's going on (not that it's a lot more, but it's more). And if you can take more time to recognize what's going on with more information, you don't need to be as smart in the first place. Do you see what I'm saying about them not needing to be that smart? It's relative to other positions. An idiot couldn't learn or remember the assignments in the first place, so why would you suggest it?