Found a website with some posts concerning Culliver, mentioning the obvious weaknesses already pointed out on our board. One poster defends him, however:
"paying special attention to the game day open threads, and no where was Culliver singled out for criticism anywhere by anyone except for the two or three personal fouls he committed. He had an awful game against Tennessee where we, including myself, criticized him for several big gains, but he was playing that thing injured. Folks, if he was blowing coverages I would’ve been the first to mention it in an open thread. I pointed that stuff out all the time about many players, as did you all. Me, and others, praised Culliver for a few great plays. I just don’t see where all this negativity is coming from. Culliver didn’t have an All-SEC performance at corner this season, but I think you all are being a bit harsh. I personally thought he was the only member of the secondary, outside of Swearinger (also Allen if you count him), who was consistent enough to relax my nerves every time the ball hit air."
There is a reason why WRs like DeSean Jackson and Steve Smith are also great returners and vice versa, that is to say they possess great instincts that allow them to score; just as Ed Reed needs instincts as a ball-hawking safety, he is an extremely talented pun returner. Culliver's inability to score on his kick returns (one poster said he would just run into the opposition's wall instead of finding seams) reflects his poor choice of angles, his hesitancy when coming in as safety support for the pass, etc.
The same poster further defends Culliver, saying: "Culliver isn't about picks, he's about making highly athletic deflection. He’s not typically close enough to his man to get a pick, but he has great recovery ability to make the tip regardless. He had as many deflections as Gilmore last season, despite only playing half as many games. He led the team in that statistic in 2009."