That would be question, singular. Thought I'd chime in on the conversation about whether the Seahwks should make a change at strong safety (again). I think in general some people are overanalyzing the Boulware/Babineaux change and its impact. Here is why.
If that position is the reason the run defense allowed 262 yards Sunday, Micheal Boulware must be the type of safety opponents fear and game-plan for in the run game (if you think that, I hope you get your 6 percent the next time he does his contract).
I'm not trying to be dismissive, but run defense is most important in the front seven, starting with the front four, and more specifically the inside guys. Babineaux missed a couple of tackles when the RB had a full head of steam. He did not play those runs very well. He is not an outstanding run defender.
Should we assume another safety would have planted the running back for a 3-yard gain on those plays? When considering that question, remember that the TOP PRIORITY for the secondary has been to eliminate the long ball. In zone coverage, the safeties are absolutely most important in preventing the long ball. They are in support roles against the run.
A great strong safety clobbers people in the run game. I have seen Boulware play the run well, and I have seen him get run over by
Julius Jones Marion Barber of the Cowboys on a play 7-10 yards downfield. Putting him back in the lineup isn't going to automatically fix what is happening to Seattle's defense in the ground game. He's not going to bring a swagger to the defense. The team defense must improve. Boulware could be a part of that. He is better equipped than Babineaux to play the run. He is not Kenny Easley.
My overall point is not to take sides in the Boulware/Babineaux question. I can see reasons for playing each guy. There is a tradeoff in that decision, and any decision. My goal is to put the issue in perspective.