Jump to content
SportsWrath

Giants sign db


Lughead
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nothing more than depth/ST guys, though the 3rd S position is up for grabs with Deon Grant not being resigned. Kinda important with Fewell's 3 safety defensive package.

 

Wonder if the Groves visit is a move to kinda light a fire under Goff to get his ass back here and sign up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing more than depth/ST guys, though the 3rd S position is up for grabs with Deon Grant not being resigned. Kinda important with Fewell's 3 safety defensive package.

 

Wonder if the Groves visit is a move to kinda light a fire under Goff to get his ass back here and sign up.

 

You'd think Sash has the 3rd S pretty much locked up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called White DB Dismissive Disorder. It affects a huge portion of the football-viewing public.

 

lol...he's white? Not sure why the Giants signed/drafted him in the first place if that's the case....(I keed, I keed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget about Chad Jones.

 

It's a long shot, but it was also a long shot for him to ever run again. He's curretly in incredible shape and his athleticism is really coming back.

 

I really want to see Jones succeed. He's been working like a madman to get back on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget about Chad Jones.

 

It's a long shot, but it was also a long shot for him to ever run again. He's curretly in incredible shape and his athleticism is really coming back.

 

yep, and they should hire me or you to drive him so he's not running into anymore trolley car tracks or whatever they were...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gmenroc, to me, this whole 3rd safety thing is way overblown. Sure, you want a good 3rd safety, and 4th safety, for that matter, for depth. But keep in mind, the reason Fewell went to the 3 safety safety defense was because the personnel dictated that. Amukamara was hurt, we lost T2 for the season, we lost Witherspoon, we lost Coe. Not only that but we didn't have a strong middle linebacker candidate until Chase was signed. So really, it wasn't about a 3-safety system that Fewell likes, but it was because that was the way to get the best group of 11 defenders on the field. Really, Rolle was playing nickel corner a lot of the time, so it wasn't so much a 3 safety thing as much as it was a traditional nickel defense, with one guy playing out of position.

 

And when there was those 3 safeties on the field when the opposing offense really dictated the base 4-3 look, it was because Deon Grant was a better "linebacker" than the other choices we had at the time. I think we saw less and less of that look in those situations as Jacquian Williams' play improved late in the year, and when Chase Blackburn was signed and began to start again.

 

I don't think you will see a lot of Rolle, KP, and _______, whether that blank be filled by Sash or Chad Jones or any other candidate, on the field at the same time unless injuries to our db's and/or linebackers dictate that.

 

I'd much rather see Prince Amukamara in the slot in nickel packages next year, with Rolle and KP playing traditional FS/SS roles, with Boley and possibly Williams (Goff?) also on the field, and I'm pretty sure Fewell would agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree Jim

 

In todays NfL you want a 3rd Saftey to bring in the box for your one of your slower LBs in alot of situations.

 

It's a really nice luxary to have, especially if one of your Safteys get hurt. Reese learned his lesson in 2009, and he learned it good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gmenroc, to me, this whole 3rd safety thing is way overblown. Sure, you want a good 3rd safety, and 4th safety, for that matter, for depth. But keep in mind, the reason Fewell went to the 3 safety safety defense was because the personnel dictated that. Amukamara was hurt, we lost T2 for the season, we lost Witherspoon, we lost Coe. Not only that but we didn't have a strong middle linebacker candidate until Chase was signed. So really, it wasn't about a 3-safety system that Fewell likes, but it was because that was the way to get the best group of 11 defenders on the field. Really, Rolle was playing nickel corner a lot of the time, so it wasn't so much a 3 safety thing as much as it was a traditional nickel defense, with one guy playing out of position.

 

And when there was those 3 safeties on the field when the opposing offense really dictated the base 4-3 look, it was because Deon Grant was a better "linebacker" than the other choices we had at the time. I think we saw less and less of that look in those situations as Jacquian Williams' play improved late in the year, and when Chase Blackburn was signed and began to start again.

 

I don't think you will see a lot of Rolle, KP, and _______, whether that blank be filled by Sash or Chad Jones or any other candidate, on the field at the same time unless injuries to our db's and/or linebackers dictate that.

 

I'd much rather see Prince Amukamara in the slot in nickel packages next year, with Rolle and KP playing traditional FS/SS roles, with Boley and possibly Williams (Goff?) also on the field, and I'm pretty sure Fewell would agree.

 

I wasn't arguing for or against that package...simply stating that with that set, there would be a spot for Jones or Sash given Grant not being signed.

 

I too agree that Fewell adjusted based on what he had at the time. I also agree that with Prince, T2, and CWeb being healthy...that the 3 S look will be shelved. Any development by the young LBers and should Goff return...would only lessen the number of times we see the 3 safety approach....because we'd have guys who are NOT liabilities in coverage, yet have the size to play the run AND go up against the quicker, taller TEs in the game. That said, given we had success running the 3 safety package in the past...I don't know that we should completely do away with it. Keeping it in the rotation would not be a bad thing in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...