[SamuelMcF]

Michael Thomas has played in the NFL for years. At Stanford he was 5 11 and 180. You don’t have to be 200-210 you just have to be football smart and aggressive.

Exactly.  Plus the game generally has gotten smaller and faster.  With teams moving away from power running to spread and air raid offensive schemes, there's a premium on safeties that can cover.  The problem with our safeties is not that they are undersized; it's that they are slow (or play slow).  They are consistently behind the receiver.

BC

This has been a problem for years with everyone not named Justin Reid.

[SamuelMcF]

Michael Thomas has played in the NFL for years. At Stanford he was 5 11 and 180. You don’t have to be 200-210 you just have to be football smart and aggressive.

Exactly.  Plus the game generally has gotten smaller and faster.  With teams moving away from power running to spread and air raid offensive schemes, there's a premium on safeties that can cover.  The problem with our safeties is not that they are undersized; it's that they are slow (or play slow).  They are consistently behind the receiver.

BC

This has been a problem for years with everyone not named Justin Reid.

[Goose]

 With teams moving away from power running to spread and air raid offensive schemes, there's a premium on safeties that can cover.  The problem with our safeties is not that they are undersized; it's that they are slow (or play slow).  They are consistently behind the receiver.


BC

Exactly so. We have heard lots of comment on the safeties being converted CBs. Given that, it was feared they would be vulnerable to the inside running game and poor at run support in general. The fact they can't cover is, I think, a bit unexpected. Granted, our pass rush has been a problem as well, but many of the plays that "burned" us were going to happen even with an good to average pass rush. Open receivers are always going to be a problem.

[Goose]

 With teams moving away from power running to spread and air raid offensive schemes, there's a premium on safeties that can cover.  The problem with our safeties is not that they are undersized; it's that they are slow (or play slow).  They are consistently behind the receiver.


BC

Exactly so. We have heard lots of comment on the safeties being converted CBs. Given that, it was feared they would be vulnerable to the inside running game and poor at run support in general. The fact they can't cover is, I think, a bit unexpected. Granted, our pass rush has been a problem as well, but many of the plays that "burned" us were going to happen even with an good to average pass rush. Open receivers are always going to be a problem.