I honestly don't know how anyone can say Dansby wasn't a good player for us. In 2008/09 and 2009/10 he was the best player on our D, besides Dockett. Without him in 08 I doubt we even make the SB, I really don't think there's any doubt whatsoever. That was a bad defense, really bad, predicated on turnovers and taking chances, and the only thing holding it together was Dansby. In 2010 he was the MVP on defense if you ask me. Prior to that he was our only good player on D besides Wilson as Dockett hadn't really come into his own.
I really don't care about his attitude. Some may, but I don't. I don't happen to like Dockett's attitude even now, but he's a kickass player and doesn't get into trouble off the field and I'm fine with that.
Dansby was our defense during our superbowl run and the only defense we had in 2010, and Wilson was totally misused for at least 2 years during that stretch. By that I don't mean he (Dansby) made all the plays, but he lined our guys up to make plays when he wasn't making them. Without him our crappy defense would have been WORSE.
In Horton's system Dansby would be phenomenal, as he could play any LB position we needed and was a leader on D and could call out the offense. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that he was so (also) misused in that we had such a risk-taking defense at that time. He would have fit perfectly in Horton's scheme today. Perfectly.
It's irritating that just because a guy left everyone gotta bag on him. When it's Superbowl winners nobody says anything. I think of Antrel Rolle, nobody saying much now, because he has a ring. Everyone had a lot to say when he was flapping his mouth last year earlier in the year, about how stupid he was, but he won a ring the same year, so I guess he wasn't so stupid. Now Dansby is talking, because that's what he has to do, on a bad team, and everyone dissing on him.
He was one of our best players on D and that's a total fact no matter how much people want to rewrite history to suit their ego.