03-13-2017, 07:01 PM
(03-13-2017, 12:14 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I wasn't saying Dansby was a bad player. Not at all. I was just saying that he compiled a bunch of tackles in an unspectacular fashion. That's virtually all he did and since someone gets tackled on almost every play I think someone else on the Bengals would have made those exact same plays if Dansby wasn't on the field. The thing that will make a large contribution and denote a special, meaningful player would be if an LB had an incredible amount of tackles, a lot of passes defensed, INTs, sacks, or forced fumbles.
Here is a page of Bengals stats (defense is towards the bottom). http://www.nfl.com/teams/cincinnatibengals/statistics?team=CIN
NOTE: Burfict played in 5 less games yet only trailed Dansby by 13 tackles, had more SOLO tackles, more sacks, and more fumbles.
Burfict is a monster to be able to do that with 30% less games played.
I guess I just feel like Dansby did his job adequately, but I'm fairly certain someone else (younger) could do the same job just as adequately or better.
I don't doubt that a young buck might have had a greater impact than an over the hill Dansby did. I'm just saying that while his body is old, his head is still in the game enough to know how/when/where to be in position to make a stop. Even though his physical skills are greatly diminished, you'll never hear me faulting a guy for instinctively opportunistic. Hell, I'm not even saying that we should have made an attempt to bring him back, because they were smart not to. The thing is, he was a bridge, a bridge to allow Vigil to develop to the point of being ready for consistent reps. I'd say that by leading the team in tackles, Dansby filled his role.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
-Frank Booth 1/9/23