Quote:
Originally Posted by O.city
That would go against what they've done up to this point, in terms of safeties in subs.
From my POV, if they wanted safeties they should have taken safeties instead of potential conversion guys. They did take them late though so I doubt they're planning on counting on many of them to do much this year.
|
I disagree. We end up having a lot of safeties in man coverage in our sub packages. I'd rather have a corner (that can tackle) there than a safety that isn't as comfortable in man coverage. It's not like we're asking them to play centerfield or in a SS/LB hybrid role.