There are 86 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Which would you prefer at FS?

Which would you prefer at FS?

Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Well, if the Niner's want to go more physical (like Baalke alluded to and backed by CB's we've looked at in FA and Draft) they could go:

Culliver (LCB) - Brown (slot) - 1st round (FS) - Dahl (SS) - Nnamdi (RCB)

Whitner is cut to save 4M this year alone. Rogers' renegotiates and baks up both CB spots.


Whitner will not be cut this year.

If he is cut, fly down to Chile and I will buy two drinks.

Most likely not but what do you do as a FO? When a short SS gives up CRITICAL TD's on a regular basis the last two years (14 last year alone - lead the league) and this issue isn't a correctable issue (e.g. lack of height/coverage ability). And his issue had nothing to do with Justin Smith going down (he gives up TD's on a consistent basis). Teams will continue to target him in the passing game next season as well. He literally cost us the Superbowl (gave up 2 EASY TD's). Then you factor in we could save 4M alone by cutting him?

This FO really needs to consider all of these factors. Do they see Dahl as a viable SS replacement? Then you have an open competiton at FS with Culliver, Spillman and a top draft pick and let the vets fight it out at CB with Culliver, Nnamdi, Brown and Rogers. I said all along we'd see a totally different secondary this off season and so far, that is coming to fruition.

PS: "If" this happens, are you buying my round-trip ticket to Chile as well? LOL
Originally posted by JustinNiner:
Originally posted by Cooper22:
nnamdi would suck as a safety.


seriously he cant tackle

so why did we sign Dahl then?.........Dude cant tackle if his life depended on it

In order to get the best players on the field, I think we should move Cully to FS. First, it'd allow him to be on the field 100% of the time.
In this league, you need one of the safeties to be able to line up on the LOS to cover the slot or TE.

Still think we should draft a safety high, to replace Whitner next year, and to possibly replace him on obvious passing downs this year.

Also, as I recall, I remember in Fang's first year he liked to have 3 safeties on the field at a time ( Whit, Goldson, R Smith/M Williams )
Not sure if that had to do with his preference or lack of CB depth tho.
Originally posted by mtminer:
In order to get the best players on the field, I think we should move Cully to FS. First, it'd allow him to be on the field 100% of the time.
In this league, you need one of the safeties to be able to line up on the LOS to cover the slot or TE.

Still think we should draft a safety high, to replace Whitner next year, and to possibly replace him on obvious passing downs this year.

Also, as I recall, I remember in Fang's first year he liked to have 3 safeties on the field at a time ( Whit, Goldson, R Smith/M Williams )
Not sure if that had to do with his preference or lack of CB depth tho.

I'm not opposed to Culliver playing some FS, but not as a full-time "conversion" for the future. I think Rogers could be a good option back there in some situations as well.
  • mayo49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 21,930
What's with everyone's infactuation with Culliver at safety?
Originally posted by mtminer:
In order to get the best players on the field, I think we should move Cully to FS. First, it'd allow him to be on the field 100% of the time.
In this league, you need one of the safeties to be able to line up on the LOS to cover the slot or TE.

Still think we should draft a safety high, to replace Whitner next year, and to possibly replace him on obvious passing downs this year.

Also, as I recall, I remember in Fang's first year he liked to have 3 safeties on the field at a time ( Whit, Goldson, R Smith/M Williams )
Not sure if that had to do with his preference or lack of CB depth tho.

This is a very good point! The last thing I want to see again, if Whitner stays, is him covering ANY TE or bigger WR (e.g. Bolding) inside in the RZ!
Originally posted by Tru2RedNGold25:
so why did we sign Dahl then?.........Dude cant tackle if his life depended on it


Depth.
Originally posted by mayo49:
What's with everyone's infactuation with Culliver at safety?

With Brown, Rogers and Nnamdi capable of starting IMO, we have a log jam at CB, but a gaping hole at FS.
While there are a lot of starting caliber safeties in the draft, I think most are best suited for SS. It would also help
Baalke truly go BPA, instead of perhaps reaching for a starting safety.

I also believe Cully's biggest weakness is tracking the ball over his shoulder, which with time could improve, but
at safety, it would mask this problem better.

But, there is a down side, not gonna lie. Brown and Nnamdi are in their last years, and Rogers should be a cap
casuality next year IMO. And come to think of it, Cox and Brock are in their last years as well.

All I know is, training camp is sure going to be fun to follow
Originally posted by mayo49:
What's with everyone's infactuation with Culliver at safety?

He played FS in college and would allow us to get our best secondary players on the field
Originally posted by mtminer:
Originally posted by mayo49:
What's with everyone's infactuation with Culliver at safety?

With Brown, Rogers and Nnamdi capable of starting IMO, we have a log jam at CB, but a gaping hole at FS.
While there are a lot of starting caliber safeties in the draft, I think most are best suited for SS. It would also help
Baalke truly go BPA, instead of perhaps reaching for a starting safety.

I also believe Cully's biggest weakness is tracking the ball over his shoulder, which with time could improve, but
at safety, it would mask this problem better.

But, there is a down side, not gonna lie. Brown and Nnamdi are in their last years, and Rogers should be a cap
casuality next year IMO. And come to think of it, Cox and Brock are in their last years as well.

All I know is, training camp is sure going to be fun to follow

All true...we have always needed a FS with range who can FINALLY provide our CB's with some help over the top, sideline to sideline and ESPECIALLY over the top along the sidelines. Your points about Culliver are spot on...he plays CB like a S. If he had everything in front of him, he might be very dangerous and that missing piece Goldson never brought to the table.

Picture in your mind the times our CB's got beat and you'll be reminded our S's were either never in the area at all or were late to "help." It's THE problem we have on defense...coverage and range from both S positions. Period.
Originally posted by NCommand:
All true...we have always needed a FS with range who can FINALLY provide our CB's with some help over the top, sideline to sideline and ESPECIALLY over the top along the sidelines. Your points about Culliver are spot on...he plays CB like a S. If he had everything in front of him, he might be very dangerous and that missing piece Goldson never brought to the table.

Picture in your mind the times our CB's got beat and you'll be reminded our S's were either never in the area at all or were late to "help." It's THE problem we have on defense...coverage and range from both S positions. Period.

The myth of Goldson being a poor coverage safety continues. Him being one of the few free agents to get paid is not a accident. There aren't 5 safeties in the lg who cover more ground then him. His aggressive instincts and constantly looking for the big hit left him vulnerable for jumping the wrong read but the idea that he lacks " range" is one of the more silly things perpetuated in the zone.
Originally posted by natrone06:
The myth of Goldson being a poor coverage safety continues. Him being one of the few free agents to get paid is not a accident. There aren't 5 safeties in the lg who cover more ground then him. His aggressive instincts and constantly looking for the big hit left him vulnerable for jumping the wrong read but the idea that he lacks " range" is one of the more silly things perpetuated in the zone.

He gets to the ball, he just didn't always make the play. Goldson's problem was he was always looking for the big hit which sometimes led to him missing (what should have been) an easy tackle or batted pass.

I think the criticisms of his coverage are fair. He wasn't terrible, but he wasn't $8.25 mil per season good either.

If that were the case, we would have resigned him long ago.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Well, if the Niner's want to go more physical (like Baalke alluded to and backed by CB's we've looked at in FA and Draft) they could go:

Culliver (LCB) - Brown (slot) - 1st round (FS) - Dahl (SS) - Nnamdi (RCB)

Whitner is cut to save 4M this year alone. Rogers' renegotiates and baks up both CB spots.

cutting Whitner would be a colossal mistake, plus I don't want Dahl in the starting lineup, thx.
...