Positional value vs. ST value

[guag]

This was mentioned in another thread and I feel like it holds true for this team: if a player isn't a projected starter, then we are primarily concerned with how well they play special teams.

Don't get me wrong, special teams is important, but at the expense of having good depth on offense or defense?

Anyone else get this feeling? Discuss.

 

[jblaze2004]

oh i have this feeling. I mentioned it in the dixon cut thread.

I'll repost here
One of our big problems is we seem to make alot of moves because of special teams and not try to get players that can actually play defense if they are not starters. That's why we have hardly no depth. Yes i know special teams is needed too but man when you start to draft players thinking about special teams and hoping he can turn into a player on defense you have a problem. Lets draft more FOOTBALL PLAYERS that excel at their position.

 

[morasp]

When Jimmy Johnson was here starters played special teams. When we beat the 49ers the first time at Candlestick one of the big plays of the game was Moose forcing a fumble on a kick-off that we recovered. We only had a few special teams guys like Kenny "the shark" Gant.

 

[Craig]

Yeah this seems directly related to the dixon cut. I really dont think dixon is better than heath on defense. If he is, its marginal. Heath was certainly bad as a starter last year, but he shouldnt have been a starter last year. I hope dixon makes the practice squad, but he would be just as much of a disaster if thrown into the same situation as heath was at this point.

 

[jblaze2004]

Yeah this seems directly related to the dixon cut. I really dont think dixon is better than heath on defense. If he is, its marginal. Heath was certainly bad as a starter last year, but he shouldnt have been a starter last year. I hope dixon makes the practice squad, but he would be just as much of a disaster if thrown into the same situation as heath was at this point.

its related to the post but its a real problem about this team. Remember the special teams draft smh. When we drafted hitchens the first thing they said was he was good on special teams and maybe able to fill in if lee goes down. Im not downing the hitchens pick at all but come on with the special teams bs. You draft players who can play there position and you teach them special teams. Our depth suffers because of "special teams drafts" and cuts for special teamers.

I mean come on yeah dixon and heath both can't cover. But atleast dixon can tackle and hit. Heath can't cover or tackle.

 

[Craig]

Hit hens wasnt drafted because he could play special teams. He was drafted to back up lee and while not starting was going to be able to contribute. That was highlighted because until lee was hurt, that was where hit hens was going to contribute the most.

 

[Nation]

oh i have this feeling. I mentioned it in the dixon cut thread.

I'll repost here
One of our big problems is we seem to make alot of moves because of special teams and not try to get players that can actually play defense if they are not starters. That's why we have hardly no depth. Yes i know special teams is needed too but man when you start to draft players thinking about special teams and hoping he can turn into a player on defense you have a problem. Lets draft more FOOTBALL PLAYERS that excel at their position.

That means exposing more starters to injuries by playing them on special teams. It's one of those things that limit you with a 53-man roster.

 

[jblaze2004]

backups can play special teams but we shouldn't value special teams play over there actual position play. Now if u have 2 players who positional play is equal but the other is better on special teams than yeah go with the guy better on special teams. But lets not just say well A is better positional player but B is better on special teams so lets go with the special teamer since thats all he will play. Than boom a injury happens and the worst player is the guy now starting on defense.

 

[Jenky]

This was mentioned in another thread and I feel like it holds true for this team: if a player isn't a projected starter, then we are primarily concerned with how well they play special teams.

Don't get me wrong, special teams is important, but at the expense of having good depth on offense or defense?

Anyone else get this feeling? Discuss.

Explain Lance Dunbar then.

 

[Bluefin]

Explain Lance Dunbar then.

And Cole Beasley.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Explain Lance Dunbar then.

I think linehan has big plans for Dunbar offensively. As fragile as he is, they want to save him for offense, no special teams for him. Not that he would be very good at it anyway.

 

[TrailBlazer]

And Cole Beasley.

Beasley can at least return kicks adequately. And is a damn good slot guy.

 

[Bluefin]

Beasley can at least return kicks adequately. And is a damn good slot guy.

What is he, third or fourth string as a return option?

Cole Beasley doesn't play on any of the coverage teams.

His value is solely based on offense.

And he's very valuable, we don't have anyone else like Beaz.

 

[guag]

Explain Lance Dunbar then.

I didn't say every single backup we have meets this criteria.

 

[TrailBlazer]

What is he, third or fourth string as a return option?

Cole Beasley doesn't play on any of the coverage teams.

His value is solely based on offense.

And he's very valuable, we don't have anyone else like Beaz.

After Harris, who is the best return man? Beasley was last year

 

[Bluefin]

After Harris, who is the best return man? Beasley was last year

He didn't have any returns this pre-season.

 

[Kaiser]

When Jimmy Johnson was here starters played special teams. When we beat the 49ers the first time at Candlestick one of the big plays of the game was Moose forcing a fumble on a kick-off that we recovered. We only had a few special teams guys like Kenny "the shark" Gant.

Jimmy didn't have a salary cap and could afford to pay starter salaries to backup players. He could afford to take more risks on starters playing special teams.

 

[Kaiser]

Yeah this seems directly related to the dixon cut. I really dont think dixon is better than heath on defense. If he is, its marginal. Heath was certainly bad as a starter last year, but he shouldnt have been a starter last year. I hope dixon makes the practice squad, but he would be just as much of a disaster if thrown into the same situation as heath was at this point.

Exactly. Barry Church would have been targeted and destroyed if he had been thrown into the same position as a rookie. The team spent a 7th rounder on Dixon thinking he would fill the ST Ace position Danny McCray had filled, its not like they wasted a pick on a potential starter to get a guy who can only play ST. (And we do have ST-only payers, LP Ladouceur has been on this team since 2005, makes a million per year (with his bonus) and is on the field for 5 - 10 plays a game.)

The other thing people need to remember about Dixon is that wasn't even taken in the normal 7th round, he was taken with a supplemental 7th rounder after the normal 7th round picks were done. He was essentially a UDFA just like McCray.

 

[morasp]

Jimmy didn't have a salary cap and could afford to pay starter salaries to backup players. He could afford to take more risks on starters playing special teams.

The depth back then wasn't that good. If we would have lost a starter or two it would have significantly impacted the team.

 

[Kaiser]

The depth back then wasn't that good. If we would have lost a starter or two it would have significantly impacted the team.

I completely disagree. This was the D Line in 1992, something that could never happen on a salary cap era team:


Defensive Linemen

• 75 Tony Casillas DT
• 94 Charles Haley DE
• 95 Chad Hennings DT/DE
• 90 Tony Hill DE
• 77 Jim Jeffcoat DE
• 97 Jimmie Jones DT
• 78 Leon Lett DT/DE
• 67 Russell Maryland DT
• 92 Tony Tolbert DE