Jump to content

Why is the safety market so slow?


SmittyBacall

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Scout said:

Safeties are dime a dozen. I don't think there any in the league currently that truly change a game. 

Malik Hooker is the only guy I think has game changing potential. Perhaps Derwin if LA allows him to be a versatile chess piece and play more than 1 role. 

I don't think Minkah is a safety. He's a nickel which IMO is far more valuable than a safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are pretty much hitting it. I liked the RB comparison. There are elite guys who do change the games but in general they can be lumped together. The Bears have a quality duo who are young and I really cant think of a safety who we could plug in that would CHANGE the whole defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Smith is probably the closest thing to a "game changer"

Like previously stated, the rest can be lumped together as long as they have the awareness to avoid blowing coverage and can tackle decently. 

 

Not a OSU or Colts fan but I hope Hooker can bounce back from injury and reach his potential  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2018 at 12:08 PM, TheVillain112 said:

I think we're reading into this too much.  We've seen a lot of overpaid safeties in the past, Adam Archuleta probably being the most infamous.  The Eric Reid story is probably overblowing this a bit...

he probably is, unless that tiny part of our brains that contemplate conspiracy theories kicks in.  The easiest way for the owners to disprove the collusion suit is to not sign any of the big name players at the position.  But i digress.

 

But the truth is that safety is not a valued position.  Yet these guys, and their agents, see the salary cap increasing rapidly every year, but safety contracts are not keeping up with the escalating salaries of other positions.  They want theirs, and teams aren't giving in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2018 at 9:18 AM, INbengalfan said:

he probably is, unless that tiny part of our brains that contemplate conspiracy theories kicks in.  The easiest way for the owners to disprove the collusion suit is to not sign any of the big name players at the position.  But i digress.

 

But the truth is that safety is not a valued position.  Yet these guys, and their agents, see the salary cap increasing rapidly every year, but safety contracts are not keeping up with the escalating salaries of other positions.  They want theirs, and teams aren't giving in.

But that would in and of itself require collusion as teams that believe they would benefit from signing Vaccaro or Boston would have to not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2018 at 8:47 PM, Scout said:

Safeties are dime a dozen. I don't think there any in the league currently that truly change a game. 

Mike Mitchell and Sean Davis were absolutely game changers for the Steelers last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sp6488 said:

But that would in and of itself require collusion as teams that believe they would benefit from signing Vaccaro or Boston would have to not.

I'm aware.  A thicker web than it first appeared.  But since I don't believe that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Mike Mitchell and Sean Davis were absolutely game changers for the Steelers last year.

I see what you did there.

As said earlier, top end safeties are game changers but it's also one of hardest positions to master in all facets and so finding one that fits that bill is tough. Some are good in coverage but not so great in run support or vice-versa. Very few can do both consistently at a high level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I see what you did there.

As said earlier, top end safeties are game changers but it's also one of hardest positions to master in all facets and so finding one that fits that bill is tough. Some are good in coverage but not so great in run support or vice-versa. Very few can do both consistently at a high level.

I agree.

However, it depends how you look at the term "game-changer".   Yes, the best players are game changers....but so are very bad ones, and there more terrible safeties in this league than there are great safeties or even good safeties.  

Mike Mitchell and Sean Davis were two of the worst safeties in the league last year, and they were horrible in all phases of the game.   Losing Shazier exploited them even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I agree.

However, it depends how you look at the term "game-changer".   Yes, the best players are game changers....but so are very bad ones, and there more terrible safeties in this league than there are great safeties or even good safeties.  

Mike Mitchell and Sean Davis were two of the worst safeties in the league last year, and they were horrible in all phases of the game.   Losing Shazier exploited them even more.

I get your point in literal terms but personally when I say or hear "game-changer" I'm thinking positive effects and not the negatives, meaning top tier guys.

I would never call a bad player a "game-changer" when talking sports. Which is why I took your comment as satire when referencing both Mitchell and Davis. Trust me, I know how awful they were.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I agree.

However, it depends how you look at the term "game-changer".   Yes, the best players are game changers....but so are very bad ones, and there more terrible safeties in this league than there are great safeties or even good safeties.  

Mike Mitchell and Sean Davis were two of the worst safeties in the league last year, and they were horrible in all phases of the game.   Losing Shazier exploited them even more.

Not sure Edmunds solves anything 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I get your point in literal terms but personally when I say or hear "game-changer" I'm thinking positive effects and not the negatives, meaning top tier guys.

I would never call a bad player a "game-changer" when talking sports. Which is why I took your comment as satire when referencing both Mitchell and Davis. Trust me, I know how awful they were.

 

Obviously, in the traditional sense, "Game changer" refers to a great player who affect the game in positive ways.

All Im saying is that terrible players, in their own way, are game changers as well.    Would I refer to them as "game changers"?   No....but when someone says something silly like "Safeties are a dime a dozen", I feel the need to point out that there are alot of bad safeties in this league and that the bad ones absolutely have a huge affect on the overall quality of the defense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...