Texans sign safety Nick Ferguson

[beerlover]

Boulware was a coverage nightmare, always trailing play, had stiff hips, could not flip & go with very marginal make-up speed. he should stick with LB & special teams.

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.

Same hashmark, but CC is shaded to different areas...

but the one thing that has stayed consistent is that he is the deep guy...AKA his role hasn't changed...

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.

Please go back and find one post where I said that our safeties followed TE's or switched sides according to how the offense was lined up...

I think the term I used was roles and 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 responsibilitie.

Wrong.


If CC was the FS then CC was the free safety...He may have shaded to the middle or shaded to the far right, but you can go back and look at the games or photos and tell that our safeties are not switching "roles" or "responsibilities"...

The SS (regardless or what side he's on) is taking on the same responsibilities of a SS...and the FS regardless of where he's lined up is taking on the traditional role of a FS...They are not the same, and our safeties are not alternating roles because the offense lined up differently...

I don't think I've said anything about them "switching sides"...y'all said that...not me...

Our "FS" for the most part is going to be the deep guy and our "SS" is going to be the guy that comes down into the box a lot...

Otherwise when Von Hutchins was playing teams would have just lined up so that Von Hutchins (A freakin corner) took on the "SS role" and just pounded him to death...It make no sense to have Von Hutchins putting on the hat of a SS when he is not built for that...

It'd be dumb on the Texans part to make their defense that easy to exploit..

http://www.texansbullpen.com/07photo...efs-Texans.htm

Go back and look at the photos of the game and you will see that CC (when he ws playing FS) was always the deep guy no matter where he was lined up at...

The only time he came down into the box was when Von Hutchins came into the game...

Von Hutchins was always the safety responsible for the Deep stuff regardless of how the offense was lined up or where he was at on the field...He was always one of the last ones to come into the picture because he was ALWAYS the safety responsible for deep stuff...(unless of course it was a blitz or something)...

Instead of switching the safeties to the Strongside the Texans probably compensated by changing how the front seven lined up...

But whatever...

[Insideop]

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.

This sounds like the old "jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy. Is that what they want? I hope not! It just leads to mediocrity. JMHO!

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Polo

Same hashmark, but CC is shaded to different areas...

but the one thing that has stayed consistent is that he is the deep guy...AKA his role hasn't changed...

Go to second picture and see the guy standing with 1 on his jersey? That was our deep guy.

[ArlingtonTexan]

I appreciate you trying to prove an argument with facts,but those are two pictures of 800-900 defensive plays. Neither actually show the entire offensive or defensive sets...i.e. where the TE is or where's the other safety. Pretty inconclusive. I have no problem being wrong, but there not enough in those photos to do so.

Our SS and FS are not "changing roles"...

The FS is not going to all of a sudden start jamming TE's and coming up into the box playing agressively against the run...

It doesn't matter where they are "lined up" at...

When the strength switches the Texans probably compensate for it with the front seven and not the safeties....But at the end of the day their "roles" have stayed the same...

But anyways...y'all can believe what you want to believe...

If y'all think that they asked Von Hutchins to play the "SS role" when the strength rolled to his side....Be my guest....

[AustinJB]

Originally Posted by Polo

Our SS and FS are not "changing roles"...

The FS is not going to all of a sudden start jamming TE's and coming up into the box playing agressively against the run...

It doesn't matter where they are "lined up" at...

When the strength switches the Texans probably compensate for it with the front seven and not the safeties....But at the end of the day their "roles" have stayed the same...

But anyways...y'all can believe what you want to believe...

If y'all think that they asked Von Hutchins to play the "SS role" when the strength rolled to his side....Be my guest....

Well....maybe they didn't ask Von Hutchins to play the SS role when he was in the game. Perhaps that is the reason they let him go...b/c they want Safeties that can switch roles depending on the set of the offense.

I'm just sayin....just b/c they didn't practice a certain philosophy when Hutchins was in the game doesn't really prove anything. This is precisely what a few of the other posters were tyring to say when they said you can look at our roster and see what type of safety play the team desires.

Von Hutchins, more of a cover guy than enforcer....the team let him go. They've had the chance in the past to draft a protypical "cover" FS...passed it up.

Now look at our safeties...all seem to be guys that can cover (this is definitely debatable w/ CC) but don't excel in coverage and they are decent tacklers but don't excel in stopping the run......hence the theory that this is the type of safety that our team wants; interchangeable parts. And it definitely seems that every time we target a new safety, they posses the same qualities.

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

..i.e. where the TE is or where's the other safety. Pretty inconclusive.

Be a skeptic. But if you look closely in the upper right corner of State's evidence known as pic #2, you can see the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll.

I rest my case.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Polo

It doesn't matter where they are "lined up" at...

Yeah, I am sure the coaching staff just tells Demps to ignore the TE when he lines up on Demps' side of the field.

A left safety and a right safety are called such when a team keeps its safeties on specific sides of the field. The left safety would always play on the left side of the field, which is generally going to be the strong side. He will generally be the better run defender and the more physical of the two. The right safety will generally play on the weak side of the formation. He would more often have more freedom to run, would have to cover more ground and would not have to be as physical as the left safety.

Link

More often would be translated as except when the O lines up with the strong side on their left and the D's right.

[Rex King]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

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.

I think we got our wires crossed. That's the point I was trying to make - that Polo was seeing the FS deep because the TE or strong side was most often to the defense's left. To wit, in the exhibits submitted, 77 is the LT. The strong side appears to be to the defense's left. CC appears to be the right safety, and thus is playing deep. I'm confused as to how these pictures are supposed to support the argument.

[The Pencil Neck]

Go watch the tape of the Denver game. I just skimmed through part of the first quarter and the beginning of the second.

With CC and Demps on the field, sometimes CC played back and Demps played up and sometimes CC played up and Demps played back. And it wasn't always strictly dictated by the alignment of the TE. But every time I see them line up, Demps is on the defense's right side and CC is on the defense's left side. Sometimes they'll man up on someone. There was a play where Demps was lined up outside of the corner.

Now, whether it's wise to play like this because it's easy to exploit is a whole different argument. And we've all expressed concern about it over the past season. But the fact is, they do play that way. Coaches have said it in several interviews. Players have said it in several interviews. I don't feel like digging back through all the interviews because it's not worth that much to me to 'prove' it to you because I don't think it's going to make any difference to you.

If you don't want to believe it, fine.

[Rex King]

Huh? Are you referring to me? If so, you must have misunderstood the post immediately above yours. I remember the issue of them playing right and left safety first coming up around the time Harrison was drafted.

TBH, I wasn't sure if they stuck with it with all of the injuries and subsequent change in defensive scheme.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Rex King

I think we got our wires crossed. That's the point I was trying to make - that Polo was seeing the FS deep because the TE or strong side was most often to the defense's left. To wit, in the exhibits submitted, 77 is the LT. The strong side appears to be to the defense's left. CC appears to be the right safety, and thus is playing deep. I'm confused as to how these pictures are supposed to support the argument.

Originally Posted by Rex King

Huh? Are you referring to me? If so, you must have misunderstood the post immediately above yours. I remember the issue of them playing right and left safety first coming up around the time Harrison was drafted.

TBH, I wasn't sure if they stuck with it with all of the injuries and subsequent change in defensive scheme.

Now I understand where you are coming from. I think the post above your last one was in response to Polo--the somehow the safeties don't switch sides but have no different responsibilities no matter who lines up across them advocate. How the heck is that supposed to work we don't know.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Rex King

Huh? Are you referring to me?

No.

[TEXANRED]

Chron is reporting they are expecting him to sign.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...t/5651344.html

[BSofA04]

Originally Posted by TEXANRED

Chron is reporting they are expecting him to sign.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...t/5651344.html

Great signing for depth. I'm still very intrested to see what our 2007 safety draft picks Brandon Mitchell and Brandon Harrison look like on the field. So I guess this is a sign that neither one of them are quite ready to be declared the next backup.

[Bubbajwp]

It doesnt even look like there is a TE in the game in the first picture.

[Brando]

We signed him.

Ferguson signed a one-year contract Wednesday with the Houston Texans

Denver Post