I don't really think any one of us has even seen Richardson in coverage more than a handful of times a year in his entire NFL career so far.
Originally Posted by: steveishere
Last year at times he played more snaps than S Jennings. He's been in coverage more than a handful of times in a few (very few) games.
At least according to PFF he's only been targeted in coverage 5 times as a pro.
Originally Posted by: steveishere
And what does that mean? Only 5 times he's been in man to man coverage when targeting? are they counting zone coverage when the LB sits short and he sits deep? Packers did play a lot of cover 2 last year where the Safety the "target" would of most likely been on someone underneath and not the Safety.
I don't really know how anyone can say he's too stiff or he's awful or anything in coverage.
Originally Posted by: steveishere
I didn't say he was awful in coverage just not sure I want him man to man with a WR... and can say it by watching him play (though limited snaps and he hadn't had a full healthy offseason to that point yet, which as I said a full healthy offseason can sometimes help a ton).
He does look like he can play downhill, tackle and hit well though which are good traits for a SS.
Originally Posted by: steveishere
With out a doubt, yes! Richardson fits the perfect mold of the old school SS/LB tweener like Bigby was but Bigby lacked a lot in coverage which people often times overlooked because of his big hits (and Bigby at times did an amazing job of dislodging the ball to break up the catch at times.
Even if Richardson were to play a lot against NO I would bet my money on Hayward or Hyde spending the most time covering him.
Originally Posted by: steveishere
That's my thought too... but the problem there is height different... 6'6" against a sub 6' guy... I'm sure the Saints are looking at how that match-up worked for Martellus Bennett when the Packers played the Bears. But of course he might of had better WRs on the outside than Graham and more focus MIGHT be on Graham than it was on Bennett.