Malaki Starks-S-Georgia

Originally posted by FredFlintstone:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. He made that catch week 1 on a horrific team, where was that on a good team with s**t on the line?

Good point. I guess its fair to ask where was these interceptions from Stark during the 2024 season?

Originally posted by miked1978:

Originally posted by FredFlintstone:
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. He made that catch week 1 on a horrific team, where was that on a good team with s**t on the line?

Good point. I guess its fair to ask where was these interceptions from Stark during the 2024 season?

Safety is such an easy position to negate for an offense unless you're a Kyle Hamilton type. You can't disguise much playing deep as a Safety. Most of the interceptions from safeties isn't from them making a great play but from a QB making a bad play.

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Safety is such an easy position to negate for an offense unless you're a Kyle Hamilton type. You can't disguise much playing deep as a Safety. Most of the interceptions from safeties isn't from them making a great play but from a QB making a bad play.

As my DB brother on this board; I am disappointed with this post lol. Yes; safety can be negated from an offensive perspective, but it can also be targeted. Bad safeties lose games. Last line of defense.

As easy as it is to say that a safety is an easy position to negate; I can say the same for an edge rusher, who many would say is an "impact" position, "important" "most important" or whatever you want to call it.

Quick passes. TE/RB chip blocking. An edge missing a tackle in the run game; meh, someone behind him will get it. A Safety? TD. An edge miss a sack? Meh, someone else will clean it up. A safety blow coverage? TD

Not you, but whoever really thinks that a safety is not an impactful position can miss me with that b******t.

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Safety is such an easy position to negate for an offense unless you're a Kyle Hamilton type. You can't disguise much playing deep as a Safety. Most of the interceptions from safeties isn't from them making a great play but from a QB making a bad play.

As my DB brother on this board; I am disappointed with this post lol. Yes; safety can be negated from an offensive perspective, but it can also be targeted. Bad safeties lose games. Last line of defense.

As easy as it is to say that a safety is an easy position to negate; I can say the same for an edge rusher, who many would say is an "impact" position, "important" "most important" or whatever you want to call it.

Quick passes. TE/RB chip blocking. An edge missing a tackle in the run game; meh, someone behind him will get it. A Safety? TD. An edge miss a sack? Meh, someone else will clean it up. A safety blow coverage? TD

Not you, but whoever really thinks that a safety is not an impactful position can miss me with that b******t.

The biggest impact a safety makes is when he is bad. Great safeties like Reed, Lott, Polamalu, ET3 and Sean Taylor are great and clearly winning has followed the top safeties of all time minus Taylor. They can be the ultimate erasers for a defense but if it's safety or a trenches player who are the options I choose trenches. Sorry it tastes like vinegar saying that but it's the unfortunate state of the position.

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Safety is such an easy position to negate for an offense unless you're a Kyle Hamilton type. You can't disguise much playing deep as a Safety. Most of the interceptions from safeties isn't from them making a great play but from a QB making a bad play.

As my DB brother on this board; I am disappointed with this post lol. Yes; safety can be negated from an offensive perspective, but it can also be targeted. Bad safeties lose games. Last line of defense.

As easy as it is to say that a safety is an easy position to negate; I can say the same for an edge rusher, who many would say is an "impact" position, "important" "most important" or whatever you want to call it.

Quick passes. TE/RB chip blocking. An edge missing a tackle in the run game; meh, someone behind him will get it. A Safety? TD. An edge miss a sack? Meh, someone else will clean it up. A safety blow coverage? TD

Not you, but whoever really thinks that a safety is not an impactful position can miss me with that b******t.

The biggest impact a safety makes is when he is bad. Great safeties like Reed, Lott, Polamalu, ET3 and Sean Taylor are great and clearly winning has followed the top safeties of all time minus Taylor. They can be the ultimate erasers for a defense but if it's safety or a trenches player who are the options I choose trenches. Sorry it tastes like vinegar saying that but it's the unfortunate state of the position.

I choose trenches too. But this is more a question of importance. I take issue with the word "impact." It's just straight stupidity to think that a safety is not an "impactful" position; good or bad, IMO.

Originally posted by miked1978:
Good point. I guess its fair to ask where was these interceptions from Stark during the 2024 season?

He wasn't playing safety for much of 2024.

If the best offensive and defensive line guys are gone I'm ok with this guy being the pick. While I think he's worthy of #11. It still bothers me a lot to not build the TRENCHES. Building your backend to powerhouse levels can only get you so far. The game is won up front. Even defensive backs are better with an elite front 7. WR's are better with a great offensive line that gives them time. Everything starts up front. It will be yet another year that we ignored the TRENCHES. Which I think is terrible. But if he can be an Earl Thomas type. With speed and turnover capability and coverage. Maybe it's worth that.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by miked1978:
Good point. I guess its fair to ask where was these interceptions from Stark during the 2024 season?

He wasn't playing safety for much of 2024.

And INTs aren't a sticky stat year after year. The question is, does Starks have ball skills, or as it was worded "is he a ball hawk" and if you look past INT numbers from 1 year, the answer is a resounding yes.

Just because you are big and fast at Safety doesn't mean you are the best one. Just because you are an athletic freak. See Taylor Mays. Starks is still the best one.

Originally posted by adrianlesnar:
And INTs aren't a sticky stat year after year. The question is, does Starks have ball skills, or as it was worded "is he a ball hawk" and if you look past INT numbers from 1 year, the answer is a resounding yes.

I remember everyone and their mama wanted Malik Hooker a couple yrs back "he's our earl Thomas" ball hawk got 7 INTs his last yr in college yada yada yada.

sometime the scheme dictates if the S is gonna have a chance at INTs. Jimmie ward talked about it all the time and said that was part of the reason he didn't have those top end INTs here. This system and FO don't value the safety position as much as people think.

they've had all kinds of chances to get those type of higher end prospects at safety and said we're good. I don't see that magically changing, especially with a higher pick and massive amounts of issues in the trenches.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

If Nick Emmanwori does 11'4 Broad, 42" Vertical, 24 Reps 225 (his Freak List numbers)... he can walk the damn 40, this would be unreal at 6'3 225lbs.

Derwin James comps will be easy.

— Ben Fennell (@BenFennell_NFL) January 17, 2025

I feel like this is the workout Sean Taylor would've had at 2004 Combine....

— Ben Fennell (@BenFennell_NFL) February 11, 2025

Those are some Sean Taylor clone numbers for sure. Would be great if it was Gabriel Taylor putting up those numbers.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Just because you are big and fast at Safety doesn't mean you are the best one. Just because you are an athletic freak. See Taylor Mays. Starks is still the best one.

So you haven't watched Nick Emmanwori is what you're saying?

Guys like Derwin James and Eric Berry were big a fast and guess what they we're good. There are other good S in this draft class if folks are so hell bent on drafting one. Xavier Watts is good. I like Mukuba's coverage skills. Billy Bowman Jr Has some Tyrann Mathieu to his game.

Starks is better but SF needs to fix the DL

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Just because you are big and fast at Safety doesn't mean you are the best one. Just because you are an athletic freak. See Taylor Mays. Starks is still the best one.

So you haven't watched Nick Emmanwori is what you're saying?

Guys like Derwin James and Eric Berry were big a fast and guess what they we're good. There are other good S in this draft class if folks are so hell bent on drafting one. Xavier Watts is good. I like Mukuba's coverage skills. Billy Bowman Jr Has some Tyrann Mathieu to his game.

Starks is better but SF needs to fix the DL

Eric Berry big. You sure about that?

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

If Nick Emmanwori does 11'4 Broad, 42" Vertical, 24 Reps 225 (his Freak List numbers)... he can walk the damn 40, this would be unreal at 6'3 225lbs.

Derwin James comps will be easy.

— Ben Fennell (@BenFennell_NFL) January 17, 2025

I feel like this is the workout Sean Taylor would've had at 2004 Combine....

— Ben Fennell (@BenFennell_NFL) February 11, 2025

Those are some Sean Taylor clone numbers for sure. Would be great if it was Gabriel Taylor putting up those numbers.

I've read that some scouts have him as S #1