Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Sure, but there's a lot of 'if' there.
It would be like taking a road grader of a guard with that pick.
Sure, 5 years ago you take a solid starting guard who's excellent in the running game but has limitations in space with a 2nd and consider it a win if he's a solid every down player for 4 years.
But now I think the priorities are reversed there and if you're gonna lean on a single strength, it can't be the ground game in the 2nd round.
You just have to be a lot more comfortable with his range than I am there. To my eyes, the guy you're describing that I'd be annoyed about in real time but likely ultimately accepting of would be Hooker.
If he turns into a 'solid player' he'll be a solid coverage safety with some deficiencies in the box. Okay, it's not perfect but with a late 2nd it's good enough.
|
Yeah, I think we've kinda had our fill of "box" safeties around here, but if you play them right they can really help.
Look at San Diego this year.
The problem is that at some point, you've gotta be able to do the other thing, whichever that is.
Like you, i'd prefer to have a guy that may have to come up and tackle everyonce in a while but is really good in the secondary than the alternative.