FS vs. SS rules change dictate need for 2 FS?

[optimist4720]

Does the new helmet to helmet and lowering of the helmet now suggest that the emphasis should be toward selecting more of a coverage FS and perhaps 2 of them vs. a FS and SS? I know our system was built around interchangable safeties theoretically but last year it looked more like we had 2 SS as Goldson tried for the big hit and has been just OK in coverage over the last few years. My impression is that he is more of a hitter SS type. Should we be migrating toward drafting a physical FS type x2 given that big hits will be penalized with increasing frequency as Goldson showed this year. Your thoughts?

 

[optimist4720]

What Im getting at is should we be drafting physical Coverage safeties instead of hard hitting physical SS types?

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

I dont think the rule change has an impact on this.

I think this changed years back when the league went to a high passing league.

 

[optimist4720]

Actually,the evolution of a more passing dominated style is not the primary cause. Its the evolution of a anti concusion system that is causing football to become more passive in respect to defense in general. First, more passing ..then no helmet to helmet contact..then no hitting the defenseless reciever (which we got flagged a bit on last year). Now, no lowering the helmet in anticipation of being hit.

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

I think everyone's been in agreement for the past 10 years that coverage skills over a hard hitting safety are much more important.

I dont think the helmet to helmet hits or lowering of the helmet recent rules changes this.

 

[deep9er]

I dont think the rule change has an impact on this.

I think this changed years back when the league went to a high passing league.

yep, so now the goal is for two complete safeties - tackling and coverage - as opposed to a SS and FS.

there are few players very good at both, so guess the better way to look at it is.......the goal is to seek the two best balanced safeties?