Looking for clarity: Field Corner and Boundary Corner

Looking for clarity: Field Corner and Boundary Corner

Submitted by Mich1993 on July 9th, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I’m trying to understand the difference between field corners and boundary corners to understand whether Michigan’s current abundance of field corners (Countess, Avery, Taylor, Hollowell, T Richardson) and lack of boundary corners (Talbott + freshman in 2013) makes much of a difference after this year.  For 2012, it seems that Floyd should be fine as the primary boundary corner.

What I’ve learned so far is that the boundary corner plays the short side of the field and the field corner plays the wide side of the field.  Also, typically the better of the two corners play the field corner.  The field corner tends to have more coverage responsibilities while the boundary corner has more run responsibilities.

My hunch is that this isn’t a big deal and that if you’ve got 2-3 corners or more that can cover you should be ok.  It seems that the strengths of the field/boundary corners can be accomodated by which safety plays deep.  If the field corner can cover but not play the run, then the safety on his side plays closer to the line of scrimmage.  Same goes for the boundary corner.  Even if both corners struggle against the run, you can still bring one safety up and play 8 in the box to stop the run.

It seems to me if Courtney Avery (or Taylor, Hollowell or Richardson) is better in pass coverage, but not as stout against the run as Talbott then we’d want Avery and Countess starting at the corners in 2013.  What about Countess?  Do we play him at the boundary corner in 2013?

Another question, which was Charles Woodson’s primary position?  He had the size to play boundary corner, but he was clearly our best DB so that would push him toward field corner.  I suspect he played both depending on where the other team’s best receiver was.

Can someone help me out?