Texans sign safety Nick Ferguson

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

I am not just making these determiniation blindly on personnel. There have been quotes from the team and coaching staff that claim that the responsibilites are similar. I want to say this was discussed heavily around time earl and simmons getting hurt last year.

Oops. I posted a response before I saw yours.

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

Well, it's not a bold statement since the coaches have been saying this for the past couple of years. One of the Brandons we drafted last year even said that he had been in a similar system in Stanford (two interchangeable safeties) and that was why he expected to fit in quickly even though he had to miss a lot of the training camp because of Stanford's late graduation date.

????

Keep up, yo'....

A guy being able to play multiple positions has what to do with the scheme the Texans use ?

Seriously, I've yet to see something from the Texans saying that our safeties are switching roles during the game....

I'm not saying that they don't...

I just haven't seen it and I really don't have a reason to believe it...

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Polo

????

Keep up, yo'....

A guy being able to play multiple positions has what to do with the scheme the Texans use ?

I wash my hands of you.

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

I wash my hands of you.

You're right...my bad...

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Polo

The same thing can be said for most of the players they aquire...

It's no secret that they like guys who can play multiple roles...Especially...O-line and defensive players...

But what does their choice in personnel have to do with actual player roles within the scheme ?

This same logic could be applied to the O-line...They like guys who can play different positions...ok...

The two scenarios are not analogous. Traditionally, the SS could be weaker in pass protection because he was going to consistently float to the side the O picked as the strong side for that play. The Texans have not been having their safeties switch sides. That means if they swap the strong side to Demps side of the field, he now has to take on more of the traditional SS responsibilities. In short hand, there are two safeties on the field who depending on how the O lines up shift the emphasis of their responsibilities instead of shifting their side of the field and maintaining the same responsibilities in order to always have the same responsibilities. That isn't anything like saying, well if Dunta or CC Brown went down, we could have Simmons come in for either.

[Lucky]

Ferguson was a pretty good safety for the Broncos, a couple of years ago. Not so good, recently. I think fans tend to think that just because a player is signed, he's a lock to make the team. I don't think that's the case here.

[b0ng]

Originally Posted by Lucky

Ferguson was a pretty good safety for the Broncos, a couple of years ago. Not so good, recently. I think fans tend to think that just because a player is signed, he's a lock to make the team. I don't think that's the case here.

It feels like when we signed Keenan McCardell last off season. He's going to push the other safeties during camp and probably get cut.

Also, Polo, the Texans are probably designing their scheme to fit the players. So pretty much, the players, their skill sets and traits are what make up the Texans schemes. This is why most people are trying to tell you that the Texans are running a 2 safety scheme rather than a FS/SS scheme.

[Ole Miss Texan]

Originally Posted by b0ng

It feels like when we signed Keenan McCardell last off season. He's going to push the other safeties during camp and probably get cut.

I think that's a perfect analogy!

You never know when a player is going to stick that you weren't really expecting (Andre Davis)... but for every Davis there are 10 McCardells. I think bringing Ferguson (McCardell) in only helps our competition but I don't see him making any sort of big impact when all's said and done.

[Rex King]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

The two scenarios are not analogous. Traditionally, the SS could be weaker in pass protection because he was going to consistently float to the side the O picked as the strong side for that play. The Texans have not been having their safeties switch sides. That means if they swap the strong side to Demps side of the field, he now has to take on more of the traditional SS responsibilities. In short hand, there are two safeties on the field who depending on how the O lines up shift the emphasis of their responsibilities instead of shifting their side of the field and maintaining the same responsibilities in order to always have the same responsibilities. That isn't anything like saying, well if Dunta or CC Brown went down, we could have Simmons come in for either.

None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC. However, I think I remember Demps making a couple plays in the run game on the left side (o-line's right). I'd have to go back to see where he lined up to start the play.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Rex King

None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC.

Did I imply 50/50% somewhere? Teams still line up more traditional strong side and still run more to their strong side than not so the safety playing on the traditional strong side will still end up closer more often. The point is when the TE flips sides, the safeties don't flip sides.

[TK_Gamer]

Originally Posted by Rex King

None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC. However, I think I remember Demps making a couple plays in the run game on the left side (o-line's right). I'd have to go back to see where he lined up to start the play.

Exactly, the problem with all this right and left thing is it means very little as far as assignments go. With the semi-zone, and disguised coverages, it matters very little where a safety lines up. Personally I think as someone else mentioned , the Front office disigned a system here based on the skill sets of the personnel. Since our coverage skill across the board has almost always been weaker, they went more towards the cover 2 idea with the idea of keeping all the action in front of the secondary, so they could still make the tackles and limit the damage, without giving up as many big plays. I think we are still seeing that now and will continue to see it for quite some time. We would virtually have to revamp the entire secondary to switch to a more coverage type system. They may however look for the cover minded prospects in later rounds of the draft to slowly shore up this weakness. Until then they depend on the front seven to create enough pressure to cause turnovers/checkdowns and limit the passing game that way. just my oppinion.

[CloakNNNdagger]

It's difficult enough to find a SS and FS that perform their respective positions well. What you don't want is to have hybrid safeties that do their respective jobs equally poorly...........except for "flashes," we've had a tendency thus far to the latter.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by TK_Gamer

Exactly, the problem with all this right and left thing is it means very little as far as assignments go.

No that is exactly what it means in a true left right system (like AT said, it is hard without game tape or purposefully watching that one issue in person to tell if the Texans are consistent in their system). The LS will more often be on the traditional strong side with run and TE coverage responsibilities. But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilities. Obviously the group of safeties is overall carrying out the same assignments but as opposed to a traditional system with a consistent division of assignments, the responsibilities shift around.

[TK_Gamer]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

It's difficult enough to find a SS and FS that perform their respective positions well. What you don't want is to have hybrid safeties that do their respective jobs equally poorly...........except for "flashes," we've had a tendency thus far to the latter.

yeah, it's like a damage control thing where the safeties just add another tackler. I really think we had so many holes on the team, to really develop a top notch secondary we just didnt have the prospects nor the money to upgrade. Maybe they were afraid to commit to the learning curve required, I don't know.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Rex King

None of this contradicts what Polo is saying he is seeing (and what I saw) - that when Demps was playing FS, he was more often deeper than CC. However, I think I remember Demps making a couple plays in the run game on the left side (o-line's right). I'd have to go back to see where he lined up to start the play.

Well, if you have the Denver game recorded, take a look at that. IIRC, Demps was always lined up on the defense's right side. I'll go back and take a look later tonight.

People are always wondering why we aren't going after "real" free safeties and why we seem to get strong safeties and put two strong safeties on the field at the same time. It has nothing to do with the personnel available. It's a conscious decision about the personnel that they go after and sign. They are consciously going after "tweeners", guys that are between a strong and free safety.

Last pre-season, people on the board were talking about CC being a better SS than Earl and when Earl went down, were surprised that they left CC on his side and then moved Simmons up into Earl's spot. They did that because Simmons and CC were the two best safeties.

They do the same things with the cornerbacks. They put Dunta on his side and whoever else on the other side. They don't put Dunta on a man and have him follow him over the field.

I'm not saying this is the best approach or anything. It's just the way they've been doing it.

[TK_Gamer]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

No that is exactly what it means in a true left right system (like AT said, it is hard without game tape or purposefully watching that one issue in person to tell if the Texans are consistent in their system). The LS will more often be on the traditional strong side with run and TE coverage responsibilities. But when the TE lines up on the left of the O he doesn't sway positions with the RS, the RS takes over responsibility for the traditional strong side responsibilities. Obviously the group of safeties is overall carrying out the same assignments but as opposed to a traditional system with a consistent division of assignments, the responsibilities shift around.

I said assignments, my mistake, I meant responsibilities, more what they do rather than who they do it to. But considering over 75% of the time safeties are in zone coverage, it could mean both.

[ObsiWan]

I don't get why the didn't try harder to keep Boulware if they wanted flexibility.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

I don't get why the didn't try harder to keep Boulware if they wanted flexibility.

Well, as a follow through on the discussion above, what the Texans appear to be looking for is tweeners between SS and FS, not tweeners between LB and SS. Kind of telling that Rhodes was on the staff and no attempt (at least reported) was made to re-sign Boulware.

[mussop]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

It's interesting to note that he was nicknamed "train wreck" while in NFLE when he mowed over one of his own team mates on his way to a tackle................sort of gives me flash backs of Spencer........

Reminds me of Cochran running down Dunta Robinson.