PDA

View Full Version : Andre Dyson


jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:03 AM
I've noticed a lot of people jumping on the Dyson bandwagon since Rolle dropped off the list. I honestly don't understand why. The guy is a marginal, one-dimensional CB. While he's fast, and pretty solid against the pass, he's nothing special. He's short (5' 10") and small-framed (183). He's a liability against the run, and gets easily shoved off by bigger WRs.

This guy is not the answer. If you think McCleon was a bad aquisition, then you shouldn't think much more of Dyson. He's faster and younger, but not much better. I question whether he would even bump Warfield out of the #1 spot. He definately does not fit the Gunther prototype for CB.

Considering that some of you are still clinging to the idea that we are going to get two more FAs, maybe he fits simply due to his price tag. Other than that, I see no reason to be interested. He may be an upgrade over McCleon and Bartee, but in a year or two, you'll be wishing we could upgrade over Dyson. We need an impact CB, not a band-aid.

Mark me down as a card carrying memberof the "We Don't Want Dyson Club".

tyton75
03-09-2005, 09:09 AM
1 simple reason... he's BETTER than anyone we have now!

milkman
03-09-2005, 09:10 AM
Actually, I've been on the Dyson bandwagon since the start of FA.

And I understand his limitations, but my belief is that you improve the D most dramatically by improving the front 7.

Our LB corps, even with the Bell signing is just not good enough.
We still need to add talent there.

Fix the front 7 first, then fix the secondary, where Dyson is an affordable option.

Gaz
03-09-2005, 09:14 AM
In a year or two, Dyson will be the least of our worries. We will be in a bottom-up rebuild. Our Offensive stars will be gone, or OL will be retiring and the new coaching staff will be putting their stamp on the team.

xoxo~
Gaz
Dismissing that argument.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 09:14 AM
1 simple reason... he's BETTER than anyone we have now!

nodding in agreement

Mark M
03-09-2005, 09:17 AM
He's worked out well for me on Madden '05 ...

;)

Seriously, though, Surtain would be my first choice at CB from those who are left, with Law being #2.

Of course, I still want Hartwell, but I ain't holding my breath.

MM
~~:arrow:

NY CHIEF
03-09-2005, 09:18 AM
Can he turn his head?? ROFL If so sign him!

jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:21 AM
1 simple reason... he's BETTER than anyone we have now!

McCleon was better than Bartee...are you glad we got him?

IMO, Dyson should be a "last resort" signing. If Law doesn't pass the physical, and we can't get a contract deal with Surtain, then maybe we look at Dyson.

I honestly believe the same people that are clamoring for him now will be cursing the signing later.

jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:22 AM
Actually, I've been on the Dyson bandwagon since the start of FA.

And I understand his limitations, but my belief is that you improve the D most dramatically by improving the front 7.

Our LB corps, even with the Bell signing is just not good enough.
We still need to add talent there.

Fix the front 7 first, then fix the secondary, where Dyson is an affordable option.

That's an argument for a different thread....

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 09:23 AM
Dyson would be an upgrade over Warfield. The McCleon/Bartee comparison is invalid: BOTH of those guys suck. ;)

jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:24 AM
Dyson would be an upgrade over Warfield.

Nonsense. What are you basing that statement on? I'm curious where everyone got the idea that Dyson was so good.

FWIW it's worth, I think it's all just arguement for the Fans's sake. There's no way Gun brings in Dyson.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 09:29 AM
Nonsense. What are you basing that statement on? I'm curious where everyone got the idea that Dyson was so good.

FWIW it's worth, I think it's all just arguement for the Fans's sake. There's no way Gun brings in Dyson.

1) He's a TRUE CORNER (not a converted safety? wow, novel concept)
2) 6 INTs last season; 4 the year before that; averages are nearly identical/a bit above Warfield's and equal to ROlle's (you know, our missed saviour) across the board
3) Won't have to sit out games due to the inability to call a cab
4) Doesn't puss-out on tackles like Mr "Excuse me, would you please step out of bounds now?" Warfield

Lzen
03-09-2005, 09:34 AM
He's worked out well for me on Madden '05 ...

;)

Seriously, though, Surtain would be my first choice at CB from those who are left, with Law being #2.

Of course, I still want Hartwell, but I ain't holding my breath.

MM
~~:arrow:

Heh, my secondary in Madden consists of Fred Smoot at one CB, Duane Starks at the other CB spot, Lance Shulters at FS, and Greg Wesley at SS. :D

Of course, on my game Mitchell has improved a lot and Barber is a stud. I suppose that part is not realistic. :(

jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:34 AM
1) He's a TRUE CORNER
2) 6 INTs last season; 4 the year before that; averages are nearly identical/a bit above Warfield's and equal to ROlle's (you know, our missed saviour) across the board
3) Won't have to sit out games due to the inability to call a cab
4) Doesn't puss-out on tackles like Mr "Excuse me, would you please step out of bounds now?" Warfield
1. What the hell does that mean?
2. Dexter McCleon '03...6 INTs, 55 tackles, SUCKS. Stats don't tell the whole story.
3. Warfield isn't going anywhere. Dyson doesn't change that.
4. Really? He just gets knocked on his ass at the line of scrimmage, or dragged down the field by the 95% of NFL WRs that are bigger than him.

My arguement isn't that we don't need a CB. It's simply that Dyson is not the guy we want. We need to get Surtain, or Law if he's physically capable.

milkman
03-09-2005, 09:35 AM
That's an argument for a different thread....

No it's not.
You asked why we're on the Dyson bandwagon, and I gave you my reasons.

He's an affordable option, that allows us to address other more, IMO, pressing needs.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 09:38 AM
1. What the hell does that mean?
2. Dexter McCleon '03...6 INTs, 55 tackles, SUCKS. Stats don't tell the whole story.
3. Warfield isn't going anywhere. Dyson doesn't change that.
4. Really? He just gets knocked on his ass at the line of scrimmage, or dragged down the field by the 95% of NFL WRs that are bigger than him.

My arguement isn't that we don't need a CB. It's simply that Dyson is not the guy we want. We need to get Surtain, or Law if he's physically capable.


Actually, the stats are telling. But you gotta factor in that Dex was much better suited for a zone defense. The switch to Gun's attacking bump and run really was bad for what Dex does best. I also think his injuries last season played into his poor performance.

foxman
03-09-2005, 09:39 AM
In a year or two, Dyson will be the least of our worries. We will be in a bottom-up rebuild. Our Offensive stars will be gone, or OL will be retiring and the new coaching staff will be putting their stamp on the team.

xoxo~
Gaz
Dismissing that argument.


This is sad, but true.

Personaly I have never been one to hate on Carl, but this offseason so far seeing the players we need sign with other teams has me wanting to see some major changes in the FO.

Vermeil will be gone soon we might as well start over with a completely new slate when that day comes assuming that we don't produce a super bowl champion with this team and FO in place.


:(

Saggysack
03-09-2005, 09:40 AM
My decision is the opposite of whatever jspchief's decision is.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 09:42 AM
1. What the hell does that mean?
2. Dexter McCleon '03...6 INTs, 55 tackles, SUCKS. Stats don't tell the whole story.
3. Warfield isn't going anywhere. Dyson doesn't change that.
4. Really? He just gets knocked on his ass at the line of scrimmage, or dragged down the field by the 95% of NFL WRs that are bigger than him.

My arguement isn't that we don't need a CB. It's simply that Dyson is not the guy we want. We need to get Surtain, or Law if he's physically capable.

1) He's not a CONVERTED SAFETY. He has always played corner - he already has the proper technique down.... meaning Guinta shouldn't be able to f*ck him up

2) McCleon had one good season - Dyson's CAREER AVERAGES = McCleon's ONE good season. Again, invalid comparison. If Dyson had just ONE good season under his belt, it would fly.

3) Not suggesting we cut Warfield - however he WILL serve a suspension for FELONY ARREST DUI. It's his third(?) offense. The NFL, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't look kindly upon such actions.

4) At least he makes tackles. Have you watched Warfield? He tries to push players oob. 15 yards later, MAYBE, with safety help, the guy is out. If your point is Dyson is "undersized", HE'S BIGGER THAN ROLLE.

Surtain is great, but will cost us a draft pick. Law is a big fat ? thanks to his injury - dude is ina frigging WHEELCHAIR right now, and he is "insulted" but offers of $8million/per season.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 09:43 AM
Heh, my secondary in Madden consists of Fred Smoot at one CB, Duane Starks at the other CB spot, Lance Shulters at FS, and Greg Wesley at SS. :D

Of course, on my game Mitchell has improved a lot and Barber is a stud. I suppose that part is not realistic. :(

I've got Dyson, Buchanon, Smith and Tank Williams, along with Bell at MLB (who's a freaking tackling machine).

Of course, that doesn't mean I suck any less ...

jiveturkey still kicks my ass up and down the field. Thank god for GranTurismo 4, because that guy can't drive for crap.

MM
~~:D

Lzen
03-09-2005, 09:45 AM
I've got Dyson, Buchanon, Smith and Tank Williams, along with Bell at MLB (who's a freaking tackling machine).

Of course, that doesn't mean I suck any less ...

jiveturkey still kicks my ass up and down the field. Thank god for GranTurismo 4, because that guy can't drive for crap.

MM
~~:D

You play Madden online? :D

I still need to pick up Gran Turismo 4. :thumb: I was pretty damn good at GT3 for awhile there. But you stop playing that game for a week or two and your skills are diminished. It's definitely not for the faint of heart. I assume 4 will be much the same in the skills required.

jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:48 AM
No it's not.
You asked why we're on the Dyson bandwagon, and I gave you my reasons.

He's an affordable option, that allows us to address other more, IMO, pressing needs.Ok, let's hi-jack this one then....

Normally, I would agree that you build from the front seven on back. But that doesn't neccessarily support the arguement that we need another LB.

KC was last in the league in passing yards allowed in '04. We gave up a nearly 60% completion rate, for an average of 13.5 yards. We also saw the fourth fewest rushing attempts in the league. Teams don't run against us because it's so easy to pass on us!!!

So I'm guessing that you're wanting a "QB killer" linebacker. Or thinking that LBs will help us get to the QB more. How many LBs finished '04 with 10+ sacks? How many were in the top 30 in sacks?

We need help at MLB and OLB, but if we fill both those holes, and ignore the hole at CB, '05 will be a repeat of '04, where teams just throw on us all day.

htismaqe
03-09-2005, 09:50 AM
The guy is a marginal, one-dimensional CB. While he's fast, and pretty solid against the pass, he's nothing special. He's short (5' 10") and small-framed (183). He's a liability against the run, and gets easily shoved off by bigger WRs.

Sounds alot like what was being said about Rolle, prior to him becoming the free agent CB de jour.

Lzen
03-09-2005, 09:50 AM
We need help at MLB and OLB, but if we fill both those holes, and ignore the hole at CB, '05 will be a repeat of '04, where teams just throw on us all day.

Yep.

Mark M
03-09-2005, 09:54 AM
You play Madden online? :D

Nope ... I've got dial-up at home, so what's the point.

I still need to pick up Gran Turismo 4. :thumb: I was pretty damn good at GT3 for awhile there. But you stop playing that game for a week or two and your skills are diminished. It's definitely not for the faint of heart. I assume 4 will be much the same in the skills required.

I'm a bit of a gearhead, so I LOVE GT4!! Over 650 cars (including the Model T, trucks and a freaking Honda Odysey Minivan!) and 50 tracks. HDTV ready if you've got the cables, but even without the graphics are better than some you see on the Xbox (which I got for Xmas, BTW. Have I mentioned how much I love my wife?)

Still need to get licenses, but the first 2 and 100K credits can be transferred from GT3. :thumb:

Having a steering wheel is must, though. Makes it much more realistic.

SORRY FOR THE HIJACK!

I return you all to your regularly scheduled thread.

MM
~~:)

Phobia
03-09-2005, 09:56 AM
Why? Because he's the only healthy one out of the bunch. That's why.

milkman
03-09-2005, 09:58 AM
By signing Dyson and drafting a CB, I'm not ignoring the secondary.

I want LBs, because, if we fix the secondary, then Bell won't be enough to improve the run D, a weakess that wasn't taken advantage of because the pass D was so bad.

And yes, I want LBs that can get to the QB.
They don't necessarily have to sack him, but if you don't apply pressure, I don't care if we have Surtain, a healthy Law, along with Warfield, the QB is still going to pass all day long.

The added emphasis on contact rules make maintaining coverage for any extended period of time an impossibility.

That's why Champ Bailey got burned so often last year.

He didn't suddenly become a chump.

jspchief
03-09-2005, 09:59 AM
1) He's not a CONVERTED SAFETY. He has always played corner - he already has the proper technique down.... meaning Guinta shouldn't be able to f*ck him up

2) McCleon had one good season - Dyson's CAREER AVERAGES = McCleon's ONE good season. Again, invalid comparison. If Dyson had just ONE good season under his belt, it would fly.

3) Not suggesting we cut Warfield - however he WILL serve a suspension for FELONY ARREST DUI. It's his third(?) offense. The NFL, in case you haven't noticed, doesn't look kindly upon such actions.

4) At least he makes tackles. Have you watched Warfield? He tries to push players oob. 15 yards later, MAYBE, with safety help, the guy is out. If your point is Dyson is "undersized", HE'S BIGGER THAN ROLLE.

Surtain is great, but will cost us a draft pick. Law is a big fat ? thanks to his injury - dude is ina frigging WHEELCHAIR right now, and he is "insulted" but offers of $8million/per season.

1. That doesn't automatically equal better CB

2. Bullsh*t. Mcleon's career averages are nearly identical to Dyson's. If anything, 04' was an abberation for McCleon. It was one of his worst years.

3. Warfield's suspension has nothing to do with our need for a CB. We need one anyway. My point is that I'd rather have Surtain (maybe Law)than Dyson

4. He's smaller than Rolle. At least I know that your arguments are based in ignorance now.

Warrior5
03-09-2005, 10:11 AM
1) He's a TRUE CORNER (not a converted safety? wow, novel concept)
2) 6 INTs last season; 4 the year before that; averages are nearly identical/a bit above Warfield's and equal to ROlle's (you know, our missed saviour) across the board
3) Won't have to sit out games due to the inability to call a cab
4) Doesn't puss-out on tackles like Mr "Excuse me, would you please step out of bounds now?" Warfield

I know INTs aren't the #1 stat for CBs, but as HC Chief stated, Dyson had 6 last year and 4 the year before.

Physically, he may not fit Gun's profile, but he's healthy NOW, he's 26, and I think he had something like 15 passes defensed in 04...seems to have a nose for the ball and the ability to cover. Kinda what's sorely missing in our secondary now.

Obviously I prefer Surtain, but CP should bring Dyson in for a look.

HC_Chief
03-09-2005, 10:13 AM
1. That doesn't automatically equal better CB

2. Bullsh*t. Mcleon's career averages are nearly identical to Dyson's. If anything, 04' was an abberation for McCleon. It was one of his worst years.

3. Warfield's suspension has nothing to do with our need for a CB. We need one anyway. My point is that I'd rather have Surtain (maybe Law)than Dyson

4. He's smaller than Rolle. At least I know that your arguments are based in ignorance now.

Rolle is 175#... Dyson outweighs him by nearly 10# and is approx the same height 5'10" -v- 6'. Looks like you're the ignorant one... and a f*cking ass to boot. 4321

Lzen
03-09-2005, 10:14 AM
Nate Clements* - 73 tackles, 6 ints, 1 TD, 7 passes defensed

Andre Dyson - 41 tackles, 6 ints, 0 TD, 9 passes defensed

Tory James* - 61 tackles, 8 ints, 0 TD, 5 passes defensed

Patrick Surtain - 58 tackles, 4 ints, 0 TD, 7 passes defensed

Champ Bailey* - 81 tackles, 3 ints, 0 TD, 9 passes defensed

Chris McAllister* - 42 tackles, 1 ints, 1 TD, 8 passes defensed

Samari Rolle - 28 tackles, 1 ints, 0 TD, 6 passes defensed

Rolle only played in 12 games in 2004.

*Pro Bowl

Lzen
03-09-2005, 10:18 AM
4. He's smaller than Rolle. At least I know that your arguments are based in ignorance now.

That's not entirely true. He's shorter, yes, but he's not smaller.

Rolle 6'0" 175lb
Dyson 5'10" 183lb

jspchief
03-09-2005, 12:26 PM
Rolle is 175#... Dyson outweighs him by nearly 10# and is approx the same height 5'10" -v- 6'. Looks like you're the ignorant one... and a f*cking ass to boot. 4321

Yep. You're right. You said Rolle, and I was thinking Surtain (the guy I'm pushing for).

I guess I need to make sure my own sh*t is in one pile before, before I start cleaning up others'. I apologize for the "ignorance" comment.

DenverChief
03-09-2005, 12:29 PM
That's an argument for a different thread....

you brought it up saying he was a poor run defender...well realisticly thats the job of the front 7 the CB's job is to cover the WR and occasionally help in run support

Nightfyre
03-09-2005, 01:28 PM
Ok, let's hi-jack this one then....

Normally, I would agree that you build from the front seven on back. But that doesn't neccessarily support the arguement that we need another LB.

KC was last in the league in passing yards allowed in '04. We gave up a nearly 60% completion rate, for an average of 13.5 yards. We also saw the fourth fewest rushing attempts in the league. Teams don't run against us because it's so easy to pass on us!!!

So I'm guessing that you're wanting a "QB killer" linebacker. Or thinking that LBs will help us get to the QB more. How many LBs finished '04 with 10+ sacks? How many were in the top 30 in sacks?

We need help at MLB and OLB, but if we fill both those holes, and ignore the hole at CB, '05 will be a repeat of '04, where teams just throw on us all day.

Signing Dyson would not be ignoring the hole. He certainly did well with the Titans. He has played every game for the last 3 seasons and is a perfect "bandaid." He also leaves us wtih capspace to work with, doesnt get caught driving drunk and beating his wife. He is young and fit for the "new" cb mold. The LB corps will help PRESSURE if nothing else. Sacks are overrated. Pressures create turnovers, sacks yards lost. Part of your stupid 60% completion stat has to do with the QB being able to sit in the pocket for 7 seconds while our secondary is being hung out to dry by ineffective LB blitzes. :Thinks secondary is overrated:


FWIW the high ypcatch are a telling stat of how far downfield they were before they caught the ball.