PDA

View Full Version : Siamese Safeties????


CloakNNNdagger
07-29-2011, 01:29 PM
One thing that I just started thinking about........and it started to bother me.

Is Phillips going to maintain the status that SS and FS safety duties will be interchangeable? I wasn't comfortable with that philosophy in the past. I'm not all that sure that I would feel good about that now.........despite our upgrade.

badboy
07-29-2011, 01:32 PM
One thing that I just started thinking about........and it started to bother me.

Is Phillips going to maintain the status that SS and FS safety duties will be interchangeable? I wasn't comfortable with that philosophy in the past. I'm not all that sure that I would feel good about that now.........despite our upgrade.I agree unless at least one can move forward aw well as cover and tackle well. This seems to be Manning. Quin can do both pretty well also. In Wade's defense the middle will be taken care of by linebackers. We really need safeties that cover & it appears we now have them.

The Pencil Neck
07-29-2011, 01:34 PM
One thing that I just started thinking about........and it started to bother me.

Is Phillips going to maintain the status that SS and FS safety duties will be interchangeable? I wasn't comfortable with that philosophy in the past. I'm not all that sure that I would feel good about that now.........despite our upgrade.

Well, the past couple of years, we moved away from the Siamese Safety concept. Pollard was our SS and Wilson was our FS.

According to the video that Vance put up on HT.com describing the secondary and responsibilities, we're back to the Siamese Safety concept because it allows us to disguise our coverages better.

And I'm totally comfortable with that with the safeties we've got: they're fast and they can hit.

Crushing56
07-29-2011, 01:39 PM
I'm pretty sure Glover Quin won't have ANY trouble at all covering a TE.
First post, btw :hurrah:

The Pencil Neck
07-29-2011, 01:44 PM
I'm pretty sure Glover Quin won't have ANY trouble at all covering a TE.
First post, btw :hurrah:

Welcome to the board, noob!

Rey
07-29-2011, 01:48 PM
Well, the past couple of years, we moved away from the Siamese Safety concept. Pollard was our SS and Wilson was our FS.

According to the video that Vance put up on HT.com describing the secondary and responsibilities, we're back to the Siamese Safety concept because it allows us to disguise our coverages better.

And I'm totally comfortable with that with the safeties we've got: they're fast and they can hit.


I'm thinking manning might have been almost as good a signing as Joseph.

He's really a unique player.

Very fast, can cover very well, can tackle, and he can return kicks. Lots of bears fans were sad to see him go and really felt like he was underrated. I think that a fan base feeling that way about a player is telling. Not many negative comments about the guy.

I even heard that they used him as a nikel corner quite often. That speaks to his coverage skills. That let's me know that te's aren't going to just have their way with us. Dallas Clark I'm talking to you.

At the end of the day we added two vet db's that are both very fast and very good. Both have been to the play-offs and I believe manning has been to the superbowl.

Both our safeties can tackle and cover so we should be able to do a lot of different things coverage wise.

I'm pumped. I really am.

DocBar
07-29-2011, 01:52 PM
I'm thinking manning might have been almost as good a signing as Joseph.

He's really a unique player.

Very fast, can cover very well, can tackle, and he can return kicks. Lots of bears fans were sad to see him go and really felt like he was underrated. I think that a fan base feeling that way about a player is telling. Not many negative comments about the guy.

I even heard that they used him as a nikel corner quite often. That speaks to his coverage skills. That let's me know that te's aren't going to just have their way with us. Dallas Clark I'm talking to you.

At the end of the day we added two vet db's that are both very fast and very good. Both have been to the play-offs and I believe manning has been to the superbowl.

Both our safeties can tackle and cover so we should be able to do a lot of different things coverage wise.

I'm pumped. I really am.I was on the Bengals boards and the only neg I could find on JJ (they call him J Joe) was injuries. I took that as a good sign also. I haven't been this pumped for a season since '02 I think.
One good thing about the lockout is that we don't have to wait months before we see what our new guys can do.
I don't have a problem with the twin safeties if you have the personnel. When we were doing it, we never had a legitimate NFL safety. The ones we had seems more adept at run support than coverage.

CloakNNNdagger
07-29-2011, 02:07 PM
I am reposting from a post in his original thread to show how this is confusing me. From his recent interview:

"They told me just free safety right now, but anything can happen. As you know, in my past, things have a tendency to change for me on defense."

beerlover
07-29-2011, 02:10 PM
I remember Wade saying he really wanted to see Quin enforce middle of the field. Manning already has experience doing that so yes they are interchangeable. Not sure about the Siamese thing however?

TheMatrix31
07-29-2011, 02:23 PM
Yeah, I think we have to see how Quin does in his position to know if we'll be doing any hybrid, interchangable stuff. I like the idea in theory, just need the players to make it work.

Dutchrudder
07-29-2011, 02:28 PM
It's really not that uncommon to have two free safety types playing together. I don't really care if he can't hit as hard as Pollard, but I'll be happy if he can cover and tackle well.

BigBull17
07-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Interchangeable is ok if it's two safeties that can cover and read and react. When their both linebackers like CC brown and whoever the other shitty SS was is where problems happen.

XI CMURDER IX
07-29-2011, 11:53 PM
Has anyone thought about the possibility of Manning playing free safety, and Quin still sticking at corner. Then have Nolan or someone they haven't signed possibly yet at strong safety? It could happen!

The Pencil Neck
07-30-2011, 12:07 AM
Has anyone thought about the possibility of Manning playing free safety, and Quin still sticking at corner. Then have Nolan or someone they haven't signed possibly yet at strong safety? It could happen!

It's a possibility.

DocBar
07-30-2011, 12:10 AM
Has anyone thought about the possibility of Manning playing free safety, and Quin still sticking at corner. Then have Nolan or someone they haven't signed possibly yet at strong safety? It could happen!Yes I have. IMO, the lineup will be very fluid throughout camp.

GP
07-30-2011, 01:15 AM
If you're an offense and you know Manning will stay at SS and Quin at FS, then that allows a guy like PEYTON Manning to toy with your safeties.

He's gonna' know the SS will tend to want to cheat down at snap and maybe wanna' sell out for a playaction play. He's going to know the FS will cover a receiver. That ends up making a good QB's job a bit easier.

But if on each snap the FS and SS could interchange duties/priorities, it causes a QB to have to spend extra split seconds to process the play as it progresses. Unless you develop tendencies (a "tell" in poker terms).

In the hands of a competent 3-4 d-coord, it can be used effectively. You can go grab two safeties who have CB'ish skills and trust them to make the right decisions as the game flow changes. Instead of staring at each other and shrugging shoulders and flipping a coin on what to do.

Pollard, IMO, got sniffed out by opposing defenses after his first here year. The next year (last year) he had problems. One-trick pony, to some extent. Being a specialist, like a 4-3 defense tends to ask of you, can funnel things badly if your guys can't excel at it.

Seems a 3-4 asks guys to think in broader terms; to adapt and cross over into areas from time to time. I think it makes guys more instinctual and more hungry to find ways to make plays rather than a 4-3 where the d-line rushes, the LBs plug the middle, the CBs play the wings, and Safeties try to be downfield and used as a "safety" measure in case the d-line fails, the LBs are trying to hit somebody, and the CBs got burned. To that extent, a CB in a 4-3 is not a thinker...he's a lifeguard waiting to be a last line of defense.

Someone tell me if this thinking is flawed; if so, what is and isn't right?

DocBar
07-30-2011, 01:24 AM
If you're an offense and you know Manning will stay at SS and Quin at FS, then that allows a guy like PEYTON Manning to toy with your safeties.

He's gonna' know the SS will tend to want to cheat down at snap and maybe wanna' sell out for a playaction play. He's going to know the FS will cover a receiver. That ends up making a good QB's job a bit easier.

But if on each snap the FS and SS could interchange duties/priorities, it causes a QB to have to spend extra split seconds to process the play as it progresses. Unless you develop tendencies (a "tell" in poker terms).

In the hands of a competent 3-4 d-coord, it can be used effectively. You can go grab two safeties who have CB'ish skills and trust them to make the right decisions as the game flow changes. Instead of staring at each other and shrugging shoulders and flipping a coin on what to do.

Pollard, IMO, got sniffed out by opposing defenses after his first here year. The next year (last year) he had problems. One-trick pony, to some extent. Being a specialist, like a 4-3 defense tends to ask of you, can funnel things badly if your guys can't excel at it.

Seems a 3-4 asks guys to think in broader terms; to adapt and cross over into areas from time to time. I think it makes guys more instinctual and more hungry to find ways to make plays rather than a 4-3 where the d-line rushes, the LBs plug the middle, the CBs play the wings, and Safeties try to be downfield and used as a "safety" measure in case the d-line fails, the LBs are trying to hit somebody, and the CBs got burned. To that extent, a CB in a 4-3 is not a thinker...he's a lifeguard waiting to be a last line of defense.

Someone tell me if this thinking is flawed; if so, what is and isn't right?Manning toys with any defense. He makes you react to him, regardless of scheme and style.
Other than that small fact, you can only pull off the twin safety idea if you have two supreme athletes at the safety position. They must be able to stuff the run or run with a WR on any given play. The individuals that can pull this off must be smart, physical and speedy. They don't grow on trees nor do the proven ones come cheap. A case of easier said than done.

TheMatrix31
07-30-2011, 01:25 AM
Agreed. And Wade Phillips' D is about versatility and different looks, from what I've gathered.

cland
07-30-2011, 01:42 AM
I think GP is right, the best explanation I've found is Vance Joseph's video. (http://www.houstontexans.com/tv-media/videos/Xs-and-Os-Joseph-on-secondary-/01fd92ca-8428-4d2d-8fba-b5b520ce1c09) He explains the twin safety/3-4 scheme at its best. If the front 7 are able to stop the run on their own, he's able to disguise his coverage scheme by lining up pre-snap the same way, every time: cover 2 shell with low corners to prevent easy slants and outs.

As part of the scheme/deception either safety can drop down to cover a blitzing line backer, both stay high to assist the corners, or move into various route specific zones.

To keep the scheme side and strength independent, both safeties have to be able to pass cover in order to complete their zone assignment. He also compares the cover 2 shell to the 4-3 SS in the box line-up that shows the QB pre-snap which corner-back will be one on one.

cland
07-30-2011, 01:46 AM
Manning toys with any defense. He makes you react to him, regardless of scheme and style.
Other than that small fact, you can only pull off the twin safety idea if you have two supreme athletes at the safety position. They must be able to stuff the run or run with a WR on any given play. The individuals that can pull this off must be smart, physical and speedy. They don't grow on trees nor do the proven ones come cheap. A case of easier said than done.

The only nice thing about the Colts, is that they never seem to put a decent run team together. As good as Manning is, the lack of run game allows teams to play nickel on all three downs. He can still pass the ball, but it hasn't been as ugly as Manning vs. base defenses could be.

DocBar
07-30-2011, 01:58 AM
The only nice thing about the Colts, is that they never seem to put a decent run team together. As good as Manning is, the lack of run game allows teams to play nickel on all three downs. He can still pass the ball, but it hasn't been as ugly as Manning vs. base defenses could be.The Colts had a terrific running game for several years. Who was the RB before Addai? I would rather not depend on the Colts developing an adequate running game to devise my defensive scheme.

The Pencil Neck
07-30-2011, 02:58 AM
The Colts had a terrific running game for several years. Who was the RB before Addai? I would rather not depend on the Colts developing an adequate running game to devise my defensive scheme.

Edgerrin James.

But even with James, they were never better than 15th in yards rushing under Dungy. One season with Mora, they were 9th rushing but that was with Rhodes as the main back.

Allstar
07-30-2011, 03:13 AM
Are you implying that our safeties will be stuck together at all times?

The Pencil Neck
07-30-2011, 11:48 AM
Are you implying that our safeties will be stuck together at all times?

At the brain.

DocBar
07-30-2011, 12:01 PM
Edgerrin James.

But even with James, they were never better than 15th in yards rushing under Dungy. One season with Mora, they were 9th rushing but that was with Rhodes as the main back.That's the guy. He put up numbers that were more than adequate. Take a look at his stats (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JameEd00.htm).

The Pencil Neck
07-30-2011, 12:11 PM
That's the guy. He put up numbers that were more than adequate. Take a look at his stats (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JameEd00.htm).

He was a sick player and a real threat. But the Colts didn't have anyone but him running the ball. He led the league in rushing and yet the Colts were still 15th (or worse) as a team in rushing. Which is just bizarre when you think about it but the same sort of thing happened to the Texans last year.