Sam Shields

[vince]

I can't see Bush replacing Shields as an outside cover man. He's been playig pretty much excusively in the slot and blitzig more often than not. At the end of the article in the JS, Whitt says that they have been putting Bush in positions where he can be successful, and outside coverng isn't that position.

Asked if he'd really consider playing Bush outside in nickel, Whitt said, "It's my job to make sure he's in the right position to be impactful. How we've used him this year, he's been impactful."

[Packers4Glory]

I can't see Bush replacing Shields as an outside cover man. He's been playig pretty much excusively in the slot and blitzig more often than not. At the end of the article in the JS, Whitt says that they have been putting Bush in positions where he can be successful, and outside coverng isn't that position.

Bush plays the mini-woodson role on defense. He does a lot of the same things woodson does in the defense when he's out there...granted not as well as woodson, but he's done a pretty good job in his own right.

[mraynrand]

Bush plays the mini-woodson role on defense. He does a lot of the same things woodson does in the defense when he's out there...granted not as well as woodson, but he's done a pretty good job in his own right.

He has very good speed and athleticism, just not great cover skills - either in zone or man. He's probably best playing W.

[pbmax]

He has very good speed and athleticism, just not great cover skills - either in zone or man. He's probably best playing W.

Actually, I think he CAN cover. But he has never been able to turn good position into defense against the reception. He makes it a tight window, but that's it. Because of that, he is better facing forward in zone. I think the one thing that could turn him around is a lot of playing time. But on a team this good with CB depth, its the one thing he is not going to get.

[Packers4Glory]

Actually, I think he CAN cover. But he has never been able to turn good position into defense against the reception. He makes it a tight window, but that's it. Because of that, he is better facing forward in zone. I think the one thing that could turn him around is a lot of playing time. But on a team this good with CB depth, its the one thing he is not going to get.

yeah. He's better blitzing or playing in space in zone and closing on a ball. He's got a lot better and I don't cringe as much when i see him out there. I'll make the obligatory Bush jokes, but I have a level of confidence in him now that didn't exist at the beginning of last season.

[smuggler]

I agree with pbmax. Shields could be good for us, though. He can makes plays on the ball.

[rbaloha1]

I agree with pbmax. Shields could be good for us, though. He can makes plays on the ball.

Shields needs to take his position more seriously -- does not seem to have the same angst as last season.

Agree that Bush functions best in a Woodson type role -- blitzing and covering in the middle of the field.

Should SS fail JB could win the position by default. Obviously JB could require more safety help (not a bad thing since even Revis gets more safety help than advertised).

After all who else is there -- Pat Lee. IMO Davon House once he gets pt could replace SS -- dude is long and skilled.

[superfan]

I have a rules question on the Shields INT. He catches the ball, takes two steps in the field of play, and his momentum carries him into the end zone. If he had downed the ball or been tackled in the end zone, would that have been ruled a safety? Or would it be ruled forward progress, with GB ball at the spot of the interception, which would have been about the 2 yard line?

[Upnorth]

It would have been a touchback. That was a beautiful play, when he first started running back I was yelling at him, but man did he have great blocking.

[Guiness]

I have a rules question on the Shields INT. He catches the ball, takes two steps in the field of play, and his momentum carries him into the end zone. If he had downed the ball or been tackled in the end zone, would that have been ruled a safety? Or would it be ruled forward progress, with GB ball at the spot of the interception, which would have been about the 2 yard line?

I think I can answer part of your question - it would not have been a safety, because Denver had possession at the start of the play. Can't have a safety on a turnover, can you?

[KalamazooPackerFan]

I have a rules question on the Shields INT. He catches the ball, takes two steps in the field of play, and his momentum carries him into the end zone. If he had downed the ball or been tackled in the end zone, would that have been ruled a safety? Or would it be ruled forward progress, with GB ball at the spot of the interception, which would have been about the 2 yard line?

I believe since his momentum carried him into the end zone he could have kneeled down and we would have had the ball at the 20. I'm betting that's what he is coached to do as well and Whitt and Perry may have some words withihim about his decisionmaking. I mean, it's not like he's Randall Cobb!

[pbmax]

I have a rules question on the Shields INT. He catches the ball, takes two steps in the field of play, and his momentum carries him into the end zone. If he had downed the ball or been tackled in the end zone, would that have been ruled a safety? Or would it be ruled forward progress, with GB ball at the spot of the interception, which would have been about the 2 yard line?

I think you get leeway when momentum carries you into the endzone on such a play. There is a term for it (more specific then leeway) and it came up somewhere recently in one of the other games, but its escaping me right now.

[rbaloha1]

SS continues the matador defense -- anyone notice the apparent one play benching for a matador tackle on the sideline?

[rbaloha1]

I agree with pbmax. Shields could be good for us, though. He can makes plays on the ball.

Converted wide receiver which shows in SS's ability to catch the ball nicely and run.

[pbmax]

SS continues the matador defense -- anyone notice the apparent one play benching for a matador tackle on the sideline?

Did not see it. Will be interesting to see if it gets discussed.