I want to caution you guys who think that a high priced FA Safety could now be in their sights. Per Demoff on more than one occasion, this staff just does not put a high value on the Safety position, especially in terms of spending FA $$$ for over priced talent.
They may/will address the position in a similar way to this past year, and find someone comparable to McDonald. The other thing that keeps being brought up in here, is posters continuing to clamor for a FREE SAFETY. Fisher does not differentiate between the two positions, so that being said, whoever is considered for that other safety spot, will have a similar skillset to what you see in McDonald.
Whether it is McLeod, Cody Davis, Matt Daniels or yet another young draft pick, the one thing that Williams will demand is better tackling.
The one thing that will be interesting to see.... with the complexity of Williams' scheme, is just how much he is able to incorporate with such a young group at Safety.
You probably know all this already, but worth expanding on for the thread...
Good point, like we don't use conventional 4-3 designations of WLB and SLB at times, instead RLB and LLB. Usually SLB denotes lining up over the TE, but in our case, we don't shift according to formation. Actually, with some teams lining up two TEs flanked on opposite sides, not sure what strong side would even mean in the context? For practical purposes, some teams might be "right handed" in the run game, in which case, our RLB and LLB might effectively end up in the typical specialized roles which we would usually refer to with weak and strong side designations.
I think Griffin has played SS and FS in TEN (?). The days of David Fulcher and late Roy Williams-type in the box thumpers in run support are largely over and they have become dinosaurs. If they can't cover, OCs will expose them. If safeties are better in coverage but can't tackle in run support, they can be targeted as well. The ideal is interchangeable skill sets. Earl Tomas is the best currently. Polalmalu in his prime could line up anywhere, blitz, in the box, cover. Thomas probably is best as a FS due to his over the top range, though he is tough and can come up in run support, Chancellor is a king-sized SS and basically LB size so great in the box, he can blow up blockers better, but he is fast, athletic and agile and can cover when called upon.
That said, it is hard to find callege safeties that are great at both run support and coverage. Some college safeties that are conventionally designated FS may be better tacklers than others, and SSs better in coverage than others. I'm not sure at his size, Pryor couldn't play both. Cyprien had an interchangeable skill set, I'd say Vaccaro and Reid do. Elam was thought to be replacing Pollard's role as an ostensible SS, but he ended up filling more of a FS role.
The obvious advantage of having two safeties with interchangeable skill sets (like SEA) is that it makes it hard for opposing OCs and game plans to exploit weaknesses in one area or the other, to the extent they don't have any. Also, the defense doesn't need to scheme around weaknesses, so everybody can do their job and cover their area.
IMO, coverage is not as strong a suit with McDonald as run support. If for intance, Clinton-Dix were to drafted, he would be better in coverage than McDonald, and I'm not sure he wouldn't be better in run support to, but that isn't our concern here. In a two deep look, they might have equal run support and coverage responsibilities, not sure if they would move around to have one cover a TE like Vernon Davis? In a one deep look with a single safety over the top (like Thomas is used at times), I think Clinton-Dix (for example, or Pryor) would be more likely to be that safety if he indeed has superior pass coverage instincts and range compared to McDonald.
So while nomenclature may not be that important and safeties are merely designated symmetrically R/L like LB, FUNCTIONALLY, I think the kind of safety that would HISTORICALLY and CONVENTIONALLY be called a FS (like Clinton-Dix or Pryor) based on skill set would be a better complement to McDonald than a (to use a veteran example) Bernard Pollard-type. In that sense, the old definitions could still hold some meaning and usefulness.
But as long as we know what we are talking about (and I mean this to the thread/board), it doesn't matter if we call the safeties the Walrus and the Carpenter or Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum?
