Malcolm Jenkins at Free Safety

by John Morgan on Mar 13, 2009 2:39 PM PDT

This past week has been my vacation, believe it or not. I haven't posted quite as frequently because I kind of wanted to take advantage of the time off. Well I'm doing something like that tonight and tomorrow night, so I won't be around. Don't worry, it's back to work slave for me Monday morning.

Let's open this up to discussion. Most think Seattle needs a safety. And most agree that a strong safety would be best. Malcolm Jenkins, according to SI via PFT, "seemed resigned that he’ll likely make the move to safety in the NFL." If Jenkins is universally considered the best cornerback in this year's draft, and if we assume that safety is a step down the cover spectrum from cornerback, and therefore that Jenkins would make an elite, perhaps super-elite, free safety, should Seattle target him at four?

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Only if an elite-caliber tackle isn't available

My personal belief is that Seattle more desperately needs a young OT to groom. If none is available by four (Jason Smith, in my mind, is the only exciting OT prospect), then I’d target Jenkins.

The thing is, I don’t think he’s worthy of a #4, but he certainly won’t be available after the first round. So trade down for him? I don’t know.

by Nick Andron on Mar 13, 2009 2:42 PM PDT reply actions

I do think Locklear, Willis and Jones if he's healthy

expect to start. And Willis and Locklear are both young and under contract for at least two seasons.

by John Morgan on Mar 13, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions

The idea of grooming offensive lineman is odd to me

First round o-lineman don’t tend to spend a lot of time backing up other players. They’re able to step in and play well usually right away.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 13, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions

As sad as it is to say

I think it would be a smart move to let Walter Jones go and draft Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe. Those two guys are the only elite left tackle prospects available, and to make a move now while we have a top pick in this year’s draft would be smart in my opinion. We don’t have too many other needs besides safety, and that can be addressed later in the draft.

by SoCalHawksFan on Mar 13, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I say no

Not unless you’re convinced he can play CB.

IMO, Top-5 territory is reserved for the elite S’s when they are available. Guys that can cover and run-stuff. Jenkins may be able to convert to FS and be elite at coverage, but will he be elite in run support? And it seems to me that the cover-2 is a system that puts less an emphasis on a S being great at one aspect, and but instead needs him to be above average at both.

If we were a team that played a ton of cover-1 and needed a CF-type at FS, then I’d re-think it. But with our system, I think we’re better suited getting the S talent that’s available in the later rounds.

by jteckmann on Mar 13, 2009 2:49 PM PDT reply actions

absolutely correct here. . .

IMO, Top-5 territory is reserved for the elite S’s when they are available.

Yes, and YES, but it does make alot of sense at say 8 or 9. If stafford were to drop to #4, or if say the Jags or Raiders were thinking Crabtree, I could see teams wanting to jump up and grab one of these guys. For monetary/risk management reasons, I think Jenkins starts to make more sense in the 8+ range. We then pick up a very valuable additional 2nd rounder in which we go after our OT in a guy like Beatty.

by iverson2169 on Mar 13, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed.

At 4th overall (or even top-5 like jteckmann said):

Elite CB, yes. Elite S, maybe. Guy who isn’t elite at either: pass.

by Misfit74 on Mar 14, 2009 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Working under the premise that all of the listed assumptions are true,

the pick is still tricky. Drafting a FS may mitigate some of the value of a safety pick in that it would fail to liberate Grant from his out-of-position woes. Long term, Jenkins would be a better safety than any other selection coming out of this draft. While the expected payoff (in terms of some unmeasurable quantity of value) of a guy like Chung may be equal in the short term (Jenkins + Grant at SS = Chung + Grant at FS), Jenkins should have a higher ceiling.

If the second round pick nets some offensive line depth or a QB, I’d be perfectly happy with Jenkins.

by abender20 on Mar 13, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions

All of this, of course, assumes that Grant has more value as a FS. Quantifying football is a tricksy hobbit.

by abender20 on Mar 13, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Than at SS?

Or more value than Jenkins as a FS?

by jacobstevens on Mar 13, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Intriguing thought

Antrelle Rolle has really started to bud as a safety for the Cards. Is the pick for him still considered a success?

Sean Taylor, LaRon Landry. Care to project Jenkins as a safety compared to them? If it’s roughly comparable, that sounds worth it, to me.

When highly rated prospects like Andre Smith, or Jenkins, are talked up even further by amateur draftologists on account of their potential to workout at a fallback position if they bust at the premier value position, I tend to dismiss it. If you want a guard, and see the guy there, draft him, at guard value. So the Jenkins @ FS thought has come up before, and I hadn’t liked it, in principle, but maybe I didn’t think it through good enough. Initially, this is kind of an exciting thought.

by jacobstevens on Mar 13, 2009 2:58 PM PDT reply actions

Jenkins will surely drop on teams' boards if he's thought of as a safety.

So I can see us taking him, but only if we can move down first and he’s still around.

by djafrot on Mar 13, 2009 3:29 PM PDT reply actions

I'm all for it, then we would get to keep Brian Russell!

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 13, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions

Jenkins would immedaitely cost Russell his job.

by abender20 on Mar 13, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions

i know, just making a joke based on pure logic

FS replaces FS, but obviously we’d keep Grant and then still have a FS out of position. Which is probably why this won’t happen.

And on a side note, I have a feeling Ruskell’s lying to us and there’s one possibly two players they really want. Just need to figure out who.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 13, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions

He could be a great asset

Not just for his safety skills, but for his likely ability to play corner in a pinch. If he projects out to be a super elite safety, and the tackle we like is unavailable, I think Jenkins could be a great pick.

by Mr_Nate on Mar 13, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions

Maybe

If he is going to lead to more wins over the next decade then Crabtree, Orakpo or the best OT available, then you have to add that to the equation. Does a safety have that sort of impact?

by germpod on Mar 13, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions

I would be a little disapointed

I trust Ruskell, a lot. But I would still be a bit dissapointed. As just a fan who reads draft sites, I would prefer Crabtree, Orakpo, Moreno, Stafford, or Sanchez..

by germpod on Mar 13, 2009 4:25 PM PDT reply actions

Hell no.

A decent strong safety would improve our secondary more than an elite free safety.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 13, 2009 4:26 PM PDT reply actions

Enjoy your vacation John, thanks again for all the work you do here

I don’t know much about corners transitioning to safety but I think I’d be disappointed if we spent a top 5 pick on a player who can’t cut it at his position and has to move to one he hasn’t played before while keeping our good safety playing out of position. Seems like a lot of risk to take for something that would still handy cap the team.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 13, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions

Vacation

This past week has been my vacation, believe it or not. I haven’t posted quite as frequently because I kind of wanted to take advantage of the time off.

I have not noticed a drop off in articles to be honest. Bender posts something every morning, and you post one or two things every night, and then Doug posts something every once in a while. This site just keeps churning out gems.

by LantermanC on Mar 13, 2009 4:47 PM PDT reply actions

I would just stop gap safety and take one in next years draft

Eric Berry, Taylor Mays, Morgan Burnett, Deunta Williams, Major Wright, Earl Thomas, Myron Rolle, Kam Chancellor.

by puerto on Mar 13, 2009 6:40 PM PDT reply actions

Eric Berry

Now that’s an elite safety.

by SPENCEMAN on Mar 13, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I thought Berry was a corner

by Nate Dogg on Mar 13, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions

He's a SS

by redwolf75 on Mar 14, 2009 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions

And an awesome one at that.

He makes William Moore look average.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 14, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Regarding safeties and a Morgan approved prospect

Looks like Bradley ran the defensive drills for Oregon’s pro day. Chung was apparently impressive, although I don’t tend to take much stock in the pro days. I’m not sure how much that ultimately affects Jenkins but it certainly doesn’t help.

Not regarding safeties, Solari got a first hand look at Unger as well.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 13, 2009 10:24 PM PDT reply actions

nice find

its interesting to see how active our coaches have been with the draft players. I don’t think i’ve ever seen Seattle coaches this involved before.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 14, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Yes.

I have wanted a dominant safety for the Seahawks for a very long time, whether free safety or strong.

He can also play CB, so that gives him added versatility.

by Carl Shinyama on Mar 13, 2009 11:11 PM PDT reply actions

I think we should be clear.

Malcolm Jenkins can not ‘also play CB’; he IS a CB who can hypothetically play safety if he isn’t capable of playing CB at the next level. We don’t know how well he could play safety.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 14, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Good distinction Frog...

The two positions require different skill sets that “one” cannot simply assume the two positions automatically share.

by iverson2169 on Mar 16, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions

One more point

I think the net gain of OT/QB/WR early and S in rounds 2 or even 3 are a real key. We stand to improve our team more utilizing the talent at S available in later rounds and using our 1st elsewhere.

by Misfit74 on Mar 14, 2009 7:43 AM PDT reply actions