Three healthy starting safeties?
 

If Mel Mitchell has recovered fully by the beginning of the season, could we incorporate our three safeties into our nickle and dime packages? Would this be an improvement? Would it disguise or make up for the fact that we have no depth at corner?

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

The Patriots have employed a 3 Safety package for many years now and Tebucky would be very familiar with the concept. I still have high hopes for Mel Mitchell. As good a Jay Bellamy elevated his game last year, he is an exposed weakness in the secondary. Mitchell\'s athleticism and ability to stay with a man if required is a bonus over Jay. If Mel has an \"in-the-box\" presence similar to Bellamy of last year we are way ahead in coverage options given he can develop the ability to recognize play development.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

As I recall, our boys in B&G have used a third S in the dime package several times before - Chris Oldham was a S, and he played frequently in the dime package (and the nickle package on occassion). There is no mystery to using 3rd S in coverage - you do the samething you would with a CB there (perhaps you have fewer man or mixed coverage options, but usually not - depending on the Ss speed and coverage ability).

I think Bellamy was great last season, but I\'d be happy to have a starter who isn\'t a dinosaur. I have high hopes for Mitchell; it sounds like he has the heart of a competitor. Certainly having a Safety who can fly will help reduce depth worries at the Nickle and Dime positions, but I don\'t see how it can help if one of our \"starters\" (Craft and Thomas?) gets hurt. I suppose T-buck has played some CB...

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Hope Tebuckno can cover perfectly, because he can\'t make the tackle if the receiver catches anything......

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

i wouldnt mind seeing the saints use a nickel strong package. put bellamy and jones at safety and put mitchell at a 3rd corner who lines up almost like a olb but outside the dline with a reciever or tight end. on passing plays he would be marginal but better than an old and on running plays he is better than playing a nickel back. what do ya think?

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

You know, that\'s an interesting idea. If we assume that Thomas and Craft will be the starters at corner, then what it comes down to is would Bellamy or Mitchell be better in man-on-man pass coverage than Brown or Ambrose. I can\'t answer that question but my guess is probably not. Maybe in a dime package you might look at it, but in a nickel I think you run Brown on the field and let him do what he is paid to do - cover.

To me the problem with our corners becomes and issue if we have injuries. Additionally, I don\'t think we have any one guy who is really capable of sticking the true number 1 receivers one on one. Many people here contend that you don\'t need that. I won\'t get into that right now - my point is simply would you feel confident having any of our CBs sticking Horn man-to-man out on an island? What about our second CB sticking a healthy Stallworth? Or our nickel sticking Crowell or Henderson? Now take Thomas or Craft out of the equation and ask those same questions. To me, that\'s what\'s really scary.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

That\'s pretty much the crux of what I was asking. I don\'t know the answer either. My hope is that all of the warmandfuzzies coming out of camp about Brown are true, and he would be able to step into the starting lineup if Thomas or Craft went down.

How much do any of you know about Mitchell\'s ability? Can he play either safety position? How much of a liability would it be for Jones to play the nickle or dime in some situations and have Bellamy and Mitchell deep?

What about the Harper kid? He\'s listed as a safety/corner. Could he be quality depth at corner? He\'s got decent size (5\'11\", 187).

Also, (last questions) what about that Ahmad Brooks guy (NFLE) or the Montgomery kid (from the Voodoo)? Either of them stand a chance of making the team?

I\'m starting to think we won\'t bring any new cbs to the team. If I\'m right, I\'m just curious about how we can best utilize what we have right now.

**All of these thoughts are made with the assumption that we\'ve seen the last of Craver.

.02

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Good discussion.

I think ya\'ll are overlooking something though. And that\'s how and when to use to the proper defensive scheme.

I keep harping on how stopping the run makes it much tougher to pass the ball. Some seem to have just the opposite opionion. But, they are wrong.

Ever wonder how the dome patrol allowed the fewest points in the NFL with the less than stellar CB\'s they had? Well, that\'s because teams couldn\'t run the ball and they became predictable. When they became predictable, they were put in known passing downs. Then the proper defensive scheme would be called and more guys would drop back in coverage making it difficult for QB\'s to complete passes.

When you have 6 guys drop back in coverage and a good pass rush, then it\'s tough on a QB, brother.

Defenses aren\'t that complicated. Basically, you either play man-to-man or you give your CB\'s some help. If we have to man up our CB\'s, then we are in trouble. But, that\'s hardly going to be the case.

What everyone better be concerned about is whether we can stop the run and rush the QB. Cause, if we can\'t, we are screwed and I don\'t care if we had Deion Sanders and Champ Baily, we would still be screwed!!

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Billy, I think that it is equally correct either way you slice it. But you have the point that predictability in either rush or pass is bad news for an offense. If a defense knows you have to run the ball on first a second because passing is a bigger risk (insert the factor of your choice) your run game should be less effective as well.

I think the big key to improving our coverage with the personnel we have is not just generating a strong pass rush and pocket pressure, but doing so without incorporating players from the back 7. If we can get consistent pressure from our front 4 it will do wonders for our entire defensive effectiveness. The moment you are forced to add 1 or 2 bodies to the attack you will have exposed areas to an offense.

I would really like to see this \"Delta\" package they have concieved in action. I believe that was a front 4 of Smith, Grant, Howard and Rodgers. A name that intrigues me is still Cie Grant. He has experience as a safety and could be a very effective nickle or dime LB.

Gotta agree with WhoDat in that our LBers in general are the biggest area of concern. There\'s a ton of hope with not much to base it on.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Everyone agrees tha stopping the run is a priority.

I also agree that if you can stop the run it is much easier to cover the pass (because it is predictable) - this means that you can have fewer guys rushing? Not exactly. It really depends on the opposing QB and OL - it is not like dropping extra guys in pass defense makes impossible to pass. QB\'s like Johnson and Delhomme will be able to make short range strikes unless the rush is there (which may well require more than four guys). Of course, we\'re gonna slaughter Vick though. Making a team one dimensional helps, but you still need to be able to cover once they give in and start slinging the ball all over the place. That said, I don\'t think the situation is dire (barring injuries to our DBs):

(1) I think if we need to man up a third guy in the nickle (for blitzing purposes or for short yardage), T-buck will cover the 3rd or 2nd WR - this will leave Bellamy and Mitchell at the S spots (Bellamy can play both and if Mitchell is any good, this should be fine).

(2) In the nickle zone and zone-blitz, Ambrose of Brown will be fine with the rest of the regular starters (prediction: Craft, Thomas, Jones, and Mitchell)

(3) It is clear to me that we won\'t be playing a lot of man to man in our nickle and dime packages, exactly for the reason that WhoDat points out above. Thus, it is not like we have to match up - we may actually excell in a zone coverage with smart players like Ambrose and Bellamy being able to anticipate plays rather than run to them. This, however, makes us a bit more one dimensional on defense - which is a problem. Not having the personnel to man up means that teams with QBs who can identify the zone will be able to have A BIT more success against us.

(4) Mixed coverages (ones where you play man on one to three receivers and zone in another area and deep) are not as easy without good coverage corners (like Bailey or Deon); thus, even if we stop the run, we are limited by not having a guy who can match up with even another teams #2 WR. If we could do that, then we\'d be able to drop only a S or even just a LB on the backside and run a zone cover accross the strong side - now that would limit passing and get us some turn-overs.

In the end, it is my view that our lack of depth and lack of a top 20 cover CB will make two things harder than they would be otherwise: (1) pass rushing - since we\'ll have to drop other guys, and (2) stopping the run - since that requires extra men in the box and fewer to help out our corners.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

lummOx --

Any success we might have on defense is dependent on a strong pass rush from our front four. Defenses blitz, not because they want to, but because they have to. At least in most cases.

If teams could rush the passer effectively with their front four, then why gamble rushing linebackers or any of the other 7-players? All you do when you blitz is create mis-matches in favor of the offense.

I\'m trying to find a way to make my point without making it sound too complicated.

First, all defensive schemes have their pros and cons. Defensive coordinators always want to play a defesive scheme that is the least risky.

What defense is that?

The one where you only rush 4 guys and let the other guys diagnose the play and play either the run or pass. But, the only way you can do that is have a dominant front 4.

So, who are the most important guys on a defense? The front 4, of course.

How important are cornerbacks? Important to be sure. But, they are way down the list in order of importance.

As I said, all defensive shemes have their pros and cons. It\'s not likely you will have a dominant front four and shut-down cornerbacks. You will probably have one or the other if you\'re lucky.

If you have shut-down corners and a weak D-line then your defensive scheme is very limited. You have to bring your safties up in the box and hope you cornerbacks can get the job done. The Redskins are a perfect example. We see how they did.

On the flip side, you had the Panthers. They had a weak secondary and a dominant front four. They were able to be much more creative in their defensive schemes. Worked well for them.

Ya\'ll will have to decide what\'s the best route to go. It\'s a no brainer for me.

If we have a dominant front 4.....Our secondary will be fine. If not, it won\'t be pretty to watch.

JKool - I wouldn\'t be too concerned about stopping the short passes if our front 4 and linebackers play well. You don\'t need world class speed at the CB position to stop short passess. That\'s more to do with the deep passes. The key to stopping the short pass is having enough guys in position to stop the play.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Billy,

I agree that stopping the short pass doesn\'t require world class speed, but it does require savy and quickness AND SIZE in in many cases (things that dominant - regardless of this BS idea of being \"shut down\" - CBs have!). While I agree with you that a dominant front four is key, it isn\'t all there is to the deal, and here is why:

\"Dominant\" is ambiguous - sadly, there are few DLs who are good for both pass rush and run stopping. This is largely because the physical skills and attributes for these needs are different. Thus, a dominant front four is a mix of both kinds of players (and occasionally a freak who can do both). When this is the case, it is not obvious that smart offensive schemes can exploit weaknesses - this is why defenses \"gamble\" and offenses \"execute\". Thus, in \"gambles\" you need guys who can perform solo (espc. your immediate pass protection - CBs and LBs). Also, you need to be able to disguise your gambles, because if they become obvious there is always an execution that will deal them a painful blow.

If I were going to rank the importance of defensive players, I\'d have to say that I wouldn\'t do it by position so much as role. Here is my ranking:
1. DL who can get after the passer.
2. DL who can stop the run.
3. LB who can tackle and make plays in space
4. CB who can take away one of the WRs.
5. DL or LB who can stop the run.
6. S or LB who can cover a LARGE amount of space and make plays in space.
After those six it drops off quickly (so long as they don\'t suck).

The reason I\'d but a CB at #4 in terms of importance is the number of options that this creates with respect to stopping the run and rushing the passer. When one of the targets is gone, that leaves extra players to take away other options (or blanket better options).

I never lobbied for a top speed CB; what I want is a guy who can legitimately take away the #2 WR of any team we face (at least on 6/10 plays).

Of course, as you pointed out to LummOx (who I\'m sure knew this), each scheme has its pros and cons, but what is important is the NUMBER OF SCHEMES YOU HAVE AVAILABLE to you - which is limited in a great extent by (1) your DL and (2) your CBs.

Anyway, I hope that made some sense.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

JKool --

Let me first say I\'m not trying to suggest that a dominant front 4 is the answer to everything. Because it isn\'t.

Let\'s face it. Our CB\'s are going to get beat some. But, I have no reason to believe they are going to be a big liability. Sure, I am concerned. But, we can\'t have play makers at every position on defense. Which is what some seem to want before they are satisfied.

Name me one team that doesn\'t have some weaknesses on their team? The Pats are the closest thing to not having any weaknesses. But, up until this year they didn\'t have much of a running game.

Carolina had weak CB\'s. Tampa had a weak secondary and running game in their super bowl year. The Ravens had major weaknessess during their super bowl year. So did the Rams.

Point is, we have enough talent across the board to make a super bowl run, IMHO. We just need everything to come together. If we don\'t make the playoffs, it won\'t be because of our CB\'s. I\'ll bet anything on that.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

I think that delta package sounds awesome also. I too forget who the last player is. I know Will Smith, Charles Grant, and Darren Howard are in it. Who\'s last? For some reason I thought it was Whitehead. That\'s who I would want. Got that just sounds absolutely nasty. Now THAT has me excited. :)

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Billy, I thinkwe are largely agreeing. :)

Of course, this made me chuckle, espc. in a discussiong between you and I: \"If we don\'t make the playoffs, it won\'t be because of our CB\'s. I\'ll bet anything on that.\" That is a pretty safe bet, isn\'t it? No one position could possibly be the cause of enough losses to keep us from the playoffs (unless you believe all this stuff about the QB...). ;)

Also, I agree that being weak at CB isn\'t the end of a team, it just makes some things much harder than people seem to be thinking.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

The \"Delta\" indeed includes Smith, Grant, Howard and Rodgers. lumm0x got it right the first time.

I agree with most posters that we should use our CBs first in nickle and dime packages.
JKool: Jones - if a third safety is in the game - shouldn\'t be playing near the line. He is most effective as the deepest man on the field.
Billy: You are implying that there is a trade-off between a good D-Line and a good secondary. With the salary cap and in theory this is true, but what rubs me the wrong way is that the Saints have money under the cap (and probably will have money left when the season starts) and the coaching staff apparently thinks our CBs are alright. I\'m okay with building a good D-Line first, but why not at least try to get a decent to good secondary at the same time?

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

That\'s a good point and a good question. I don\'t know why they weren\'t more aggressive in signing a free-agent CB. No one can make me believe they couldn\'t have signed one if they really wanted to.

You\'ve got to think they thought they would get one in the draft or they were pretty comfortable with who they have. Of course, that\'s what they said about our linebackers last year too. I\'m not happy they didn\'t address the CB positon properly. But, at the same time, I\'m going to give them the benefit of the doubt. At least until I see they screwed up.

What I really believe is Loomis and co. are \"bargin\" free-agent shoppers. Sometimes you have to overpay though. Especially when your team is so close to being a complete team.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

I think the two weakest positions in terms of depth is the safety positions and LB. I don\'t see us employing the 3 safey formation until we improve depth, or consistently prove we can get to the QB. As for as Tebucky Jones goes, I expected a lot more big plays from him. But in retrospect his presence did limit the deep ball thrown down field, and the secondary had a respectable rank in Pass D last year. Hopefully he can wrap up this year and make more plays around the ball.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

I think this point about T-buck\'s inability to tackle needs to be put in perspective. I have to admit that Bellamy is a stud tackler, but that is actually fairly rare at the FS position (though Bellamy played SS last year). The thing is Safeties have to make plays in space - where tackling is harder, there is little help, big plays follow misses, and offensive players have the upper hand (as opposed to close to the line where LBs make most of their tackles). Thus, when T-buck misses there are two problems: (1) it was a much harder tackle to make, and (2) when he does miss, we are more likely to remember it, since he is the last line of defense. As has been pointed out several times, our DBs had a lot of tackles last year - this means that LBs are not making the \"easy\" tackles and leaving the harder ones to the Ss (noteably, it is easier to make a tackle on the corner, where you have a sideling to help - so CBs don\'t get as much credit in my book). Thus, complaints about T-buck\'s tackling are blown out of proportion AND our LBs are more to blame than he is.

I think our depth at S is a problem too. However, in the dime package - unless Brown is all that, I think we will use one of our S (probably not in the nickle though) in place of a CB - our starters would just be better - Bellamy, Mitchell, Thomas, Craft, Ambrose, Jones - that sounds like a fine cover package to me. Slip out Bellamy and insert Brown - sounds less strong to me (at least for zone and mixed coverages).

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

I rarely disagree with you, JKool. But, I do this time. I don\'t think Tebuckys lack of tackling skills have been overblown at all. Jim Haslett doesn\'t either, since he sent Tebucky to tackling school.

I also disagree that most safties aren\'t good tacklers. I think tackling is a lost art in general but I don\'t think you can single out the safety position.

Tebucky needs to make the tackles he needs to make. Which he did not do last year.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

I have to say something about that overspend comment. If you overspend its just going to create problems in years to come when you\'ll have to settle for players who are worth or not worth league min. 8-8 will be something we could only aspire to instead of playoffs. I think we are fine in the secondary. I only support bringing in someone who is better but for the right price.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

You\'re right Billy, I was just getting a bit cheezed.

Of course, T-buck\'s tackling needs to improve, but how much is not clear to me. Also, it depends on the scheme how good a tackler your Safety needs to be. SS - tackle or get off the team. FS - make a play on the ball G-d Damn-it, that is why you are so far downfield (it is not clear that this guy hast to be in the top 5 tacklers on the D). If you play with Bi-lateral Safeties (which the Saints did with Kinight and Bellamy, then both need to be able to tackle); but that isn\'t what we did last year - we played more of a traditional FS/SS design.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

JKool: Generally I agree that a FS has to have the following qualities (especially in a classic FS/SS setup):
1. Able to make plays in space and take away the deep passes
2. Be a decent tackler
The problem in this special (Jones) case is that he was anything but decent. I said before that I believe that he helped our secondary - often away from the TV cameras - and he didn\'t get enough credit for that, but it\'s a good thing he has to take some mandatory tackling classes.

Euphoria: Teams are getting used to working with the salary cap. Apparently Loomis is a specialist in this regard. The Saints won\'t wind up in cap hell if they overspend on one corner. I wouldn\'t know where to get comparisons, but when you look at next year\'s cap numbers for all teams and how many players will be under contract I think the Saints would be sitting pretty.

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Excellent work guys. I think I\'ll have to revise my view a bit.

Here is something that gets confounded all too often - bad tackling and having to make really tough tackles. It seems to me (and this may be independent of Jones) that FS shouldn\'t have to be the best tacklers on the team - SS and LB are supposed to do that. In the system I played in for a long time, the FS was used primarily to take away the deep ball or give the corner the opportunity to play the ball (while the FS played him over the top). We all know that it isn\'t that hard to tackle a guy who is busy making a catch. Thus, our FSs were no where near as good at tackling as the rest of us slogs.

Perhaps the rigors of the NFL make it the case that your FS must be the most athletic, the smartest, and the toughest player on the defense (not to mention the fastest), but I doubt it. Maybe all I\'m saying is that I would list tackling around the 4th or 5th skill for a FS, whereas it would be 1st for Mike (ILB) and 1st or 2nd for SS.

I may have to grant that Jones is an exceptionally poor tackler, but I think I\'m going to stick with my view that tackling is not one of the top skills required for a FS (at least for now).

Three healthy starting safeties?
 

Also, if Jones is as bad a tackler as everyone claims, that just makes my earlier idea that he should play the dime spot with Bellamy and Mitchell over the top all the more plausible. In that system, Jones would be able to use his exceptional athletics and not get exposed for poor tackling.