PDA

View Full Version : Dennis Dixon


Bubby Blister
05-20-2009, 09:40 AM
This is the year they pull him out and use him as "SLASH II" on 3rd and shorts with a spread offense. Return the option play and give Big Ben one less hit.

Who's with me?

Steel Head
05-20-2009, 09:45 AM
not me

vasteeler
05-20-2009, 09:54 AM
not me

why not?
they should use him like that

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-20-2009, 09:57 AM
Third QB this year with the chance of being #2....MAY be used in trick formations but not so much as to warrant a "slash".

Steel Head
05-20-2009, 10:02 AM
why not?
they should use him like that

I'd rather trust Big Ben with the ball

Maybe every once in a while let Dixon try somethin but the idea of using him on all 3rd and shorts in a spread formation is stupid imo

mmalone
05-20-2009, 10:11 AM
our offense needs more deception and more options with counter blitz plays on 3rd down. why not have dixon jump in and make the D hesitate a bit more. give ben more time. soften the front line for Summers..

revefsreleets
05-20-2009, 10:13 AM
I don't care how they use him. But if they keep him, for Crissakes, USE him!

BritishSteel
05-20-2009, 10:30 AM
I'd have more time for the idea of having a trick-play QB if Slash 1 hadn't been a bust, and if we hadn't halved the offensive play-book when Arians and Tomlin came in.

I would like to see him get some time under center pre-season though.

steelreserve
05-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Third QB this year with the chance of being #2....MAY be used in trick formations but not so much as to warrant a "slash".

We might as well make Dixon the #2 this year and Batch #3.

Because the only reason Batch would need to come into the game before the 4th quarter anyway is if Big Ben ain't coming back. If it's just a series or two, we ought to be fine with Dixon or whoever.

steelreserve
05-20-2009, 10:39 AM
I'd have more time for the idea of having a trick-play QB if Slash 1 hadn't been a bust, and if we hadn't halved the offensive play-book when Arians and Tomlin came in.

Also, Slash 1 wasn't a bust when we were using him as Slash. He was awesome. It's when we tried to make him a pure QB that he sucked.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-20-2009, 11:02 AM
I thought that he was supposed to be a WR, KR, Slash-QB...........LAST YEAR??? :noidea:

revefsreleets
05-20-2009, 11:13 AM
I thought that he was supposed to be a WR, KR, Slash-QB...........LAST YEAR??? :noidea:

Nope...he walked around the sidelines and ate up a roster spot and some salary and did nothing, which is far, far better tthan, you know, actually contributing anything.

It's not his fault (at least I don't think it is). I'm sure he'd have liked to be involved in some fashion, whether it be taking some direct snaps or lining up as a RB or even in the slot/H back. Hopefully he'll either legitimately take the #2 spot, or he does serve some role other than placemat on the sidelines.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-20-2009, 11:52 AM
Yeah, that is the problem.......there are 53 guys on the roster and you can only put 11 on the field at the same time.

Dixon, Hills, Davis, Baker were pretty much relegated to the sidelines because there were better options in front of them.

This season I think we might see the same from Dixon, Hills, Wallace, Summers for the better part of the year.

scsteeler
05-20-2009, 11:53 AM
I understand the want from fans to use someone with his talents on the field right away but Dixon was drafted to be a QB and not the next version of Slash which is why he was on the sideline learning just like any other QB being groomed as a starter. I will admit that he is a talented young man that can make an impact right way with his skills but they have RB's to handle the running game and WR's to catch passes.

I would like to see him play in a game that is already won as a QB to see how he handles game situations but I just don't see him becoming the next QB/RB/WR! NOT WHAT THE COACHES DRAFTED HIM FOR!!!!!!!!!!

JHSilverback
05-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Granted I would like to see him in a trick play or two but, for the most part he should just stick to the sidelines..

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-20-2009, 12:10 PM
I would like to see him play in a game that is already one as a QB to see how he handles game situations but I just don't see him becoming the next QB/RB/WR! NOT WHAT THE COACHES DRAFTED HIM FOR!!!!!!!!!!

I completely agree with you!! Dixon was drafted to be the future #2 QB and some fans cant help but want to use him like KS because he is athletic.

I want to see Dixon in preseason play QB and if he can get some mop up duty during the regular season, then great. I really hate the notion of any kind of wildcat formation. I think the kid is a better passer than a novelty item.

revefsreleets
05-20-2009, 12:13 PM
I don't want to see him used willy-nilly, or as a recycled Kordell, I just want to see him used. He's not Brian St. Pierre, he's an athlete. I want to see him utilized the way the Seahags utilized Seneca Wallace.

scsteeler
05-20-2009, 12:28 PM
I don't want to see him used willy-nilly, or as a recycled Kordell, I just want to see him used. He's not Brian St. Pierre, he's an athlete. I want to see him utilized the way the Seahags utilized Seneca Wallace.

Not me!!!!!!!!!! I think he will show that he is a much better QB than Brian St. Pierre was. Yes he is Athletic but the guy is a QB and will be a good one. The only time I want him running is trying to avoid a sack. I don't want to see him in a wildcat.

T.Richardson
05-20-2009, 12:36 PM
ehh...Dixon should be used on special teams. I like his speed, but thats about it.

scsteeler
05-20-2009, 12:50 PM
ehh...Dixon should be used on special teams. I like his speed, but thats about it.

Why would you take a potential starting QB and put him on special teams? Why don't we use Harrison on the O-line he is a talented guy??????? The reason you would not is because he is not a O-linemen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

revefsreleets
05-20-2009, 12:55 PM
Yeah, the LAST place I want Dixon is running the gunner spot on ST. That's for back-up DB's and the like.

stlrtruck
05-20-2009, 01:22 PM
I say second QB. The team doesn't need a slash, it needs a comparable back up and from what I've heard, Dixon has those skillsets.

Steelerroy
05-20-2009, 03:53 PM
I understand the want from fans to use someone with his talents on the field right away but Dixon was drafted to be a QB and not the next version of Slash which is why he was on the sideline learning just like any other QB being groomed as a starter. I will admit that he is a talented young man that can make an impact right way with his skills but they have RB's to handle the running game and WR's to catch passes.

I would like to see him play in a game that is already won as a QB to see how he handles game situations but I just don't see him becoming the next QB/RB/WR! NOT WHAT THE COACHES DRAFTED HIM FOR!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly!!! They said it when they drafted him.They took him as a QB only.He's the future number 2 and ,while he took up a spot he learned alot on that sideline.No way could they put him on the practice squad!! A team would snatch him up! He's a much better passer then peolple think and had he not gotten hurt he would've won the Heisman and been picked WAY higher. WE STOLE HIM IN THE DRAFT!! Ben does get hurt from time to time and we will have a great guy waiting in the wings.Only problem will be keeping him in free agency after he gets some game time.

mulldog24
05-20-2009, 04:08 PM
This is the year they pull him out and use him as "SLASH II" on 3rd and shorts with a spread offense. Return the option play and give Big Ben one less hit.

Who's with me?

I'm with ya all the way to SB 44!!!!:drink:

steelerdave1969
05-20-2009, 04:19 PM
With Bruce Arians making the calls on offense.. anything is possible I guess... hey.. and I wouldnt mind using the guy if it helps our team for sure. We are paying him good money so why not put that money to some use..

lilyoder6
05-20-2009, 04:48 PM
well if they would place dixon as the number 2.. they could use an offense like the wildcat.. but it just happens the qb.. will actually be a qb.. so we won't need ben to be a wr

Psyychoward86
05-20-2009, 04:56 PM
I went with the Slash II gig. As long as we use Dixon in that role VERY SPARINGLY, i think it would be a good change of pace to keep defenses honest. We all know what happens when you make a versatile QB into a starting QB. Just ask Kordell Stewart.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-20-2009, 04:57 PM
I want to see him utilized the way the Seahags utilized Seneca Wallace.

Seneca Wallace was active for O games in his first 2 seasons. In his 3rd season, Wallace rushed 6 times for -5 yards and went 13-25 with 1TD, 1 INT and 3 sacks.

I'd say Dixon is pretty much on the same path as Wallace was.

Davison_K
05-20-2009, 06:39 PM
Please don't say Slash II. The idea in itself gives me nightmares of KS throwing the ball at an open receivers feet and watching it bounce into his hands.

Galax Steeler
05-21-2009, 04:34 AM
I wouldn't mind having him as a no.2 quarterback. He is not that bad of a quarterback and hopefully the only time he comes into the game is when we have it under control.

steelwall
05-21-2009, 06:12 AM
Glad to see not everyone is crazy... Dixon is a QB.... yeah he can run...probably could catch some balls.... but we dont risk him getting injured when we have the likes of MIller, Ward, Holmes, and whoever else steps up this year...


Or we could just go after Vick....

revefsreleets
05-21-2009, 09:45 AM
Seneca Wallace was active for O games in his first 2 seasons. In his 3rd season, Wallace rushed 6 times for -5 yards and went 13-25 with 1TD, 1 INT and 3 sacks.

I'd say Dixon is pretty much on the same path as Wallace was.

Why do THOSE stats matter when my stat on 3rd down conversions doesn't?

(Just calling you on your blatant horseshit deflection tactics of only acknowledging stats that support your argument, and dismissing others that don't before I actually address the post).

Seneca Wallace may have sat for two years, BUT once he WAS activated, he became Seattle's 2nd string QB and had a little success. I'm sure in retrospect the Seahawks wish they would have got him involved sooner. MORE IMPORTANTLY, rather than letting the dude rot on the bench, Holgrem used him. In '05 they ran a trick play and he caught a TD pass in the Carolina playoff win. He also runs end arounds, flea flickers and gets looks at WR, and I believe he still maintaisn the back-up QB role in the meantime. His QBR is a respectable 84, too, so it's not like they wrecked him by giving him some looks.

The bottom line is simple: The kid can play football, so let's let him play some football. He doesn't need to get 20 touches a game, but getting him on the field in some capacity a few snaps a game is nothing but a good thing.

BlastFurnace
05-21-2009, 10:11 AM
This is the year they pull him out and use him as "SLASH II" on 3rd and shorts with a spread offense. Return the option play and give Big Ben one less hit.

Who's with me?

No Thanks. Short yardage...isn't that why we drafted Frank the Tank?

BlastFurnace
05-21-2009, 10:13 AM
If we have any blowout games this year, we need to get him in there.

Problem is, Batch is going to win the #2.

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-21-2009, 11:07 AM
Why do THOSE stats matter when my stat on 3rd down conversions doesn't?

(Just calling you on your blatant horseshit deflection tactics of only acknowledging stats that support your argument, and dismissing others that don't before I actually address the post).
.

I am just saying that Seneca Wallace sat on the bench his first 2 seasons in Seattle, just like Dixon will probably do in Pittsburgh, so don't get your panties in a bunch because they have this great athlete holding a clipboard ........it happens and he will get his chance in time.

Again, I asked about short yardage situations and you give me 3rd down conversion stats which to the credit of Arians were many 3rd and long situations which his offenses converted. To say the Steelers had a good short yardage offense in 2007 is incorrect and you know that like the rest that watched the games.

revefsreleets
05-21-2009, 11:36 AM
IAgain, I asked about short yardage situations and you give me 3rd down conversion stats which to the credit of Arians were many 3rd and long situations which his offenses converted. To say the Steelers had a good short yardage offense in 2007 is incorrect and you know that like the rest that watched the games.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Arains did NOT convert more 3rd and longs than 3rd and shorts. It's a patently absurd statement.

Steel Head
05-21-2009, 12:50 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Arains did NOT convert more 3rd and longs than 3rd and shorts. It's a patently absurd statement.

you are right, Big Ben converted all those 3rd and longs not Arians

revefsreleets
05-21-2009, 01:00 PM
you are right, Big Ben converted all those 3rd and longs not Arians

Yes, and thank you for reminding me that:

Success = players
Failure = coaches

We could take absurdity a bit further and claim that Ben called all the plays that resulted in converted all 3rd downs, and Arians called all the plays that failed.

I mean, why not? It's you guys' delusion, you can do what you want with it...

El-Gonzo Jackson
05-21-2009, 01:08 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Arains did NOT convert more 3rd and longs than 3rd and shorts. It's a patently absurd statement.

So you are telling me that the Steelers of 2007 were absolutely a successful team in short yardage conversions??

The 2007 Steelers had 9 rushing TD's. There was definately a problem getting short yardage conversions and goal line rushing.

And you call other posters dillusional. ???

Steel Head
05-21-2009, 01:22 PM
Yes, and thank you for reminding me that:

Success = players
Failure = coaches

We could take absurdity a bit further and claim that Ben called all the plays that resulted in converted all 3rd downs, and Arians called all the plays that failed.

I mean, why not? It's you guys' delusion, you can do what you want with it...

failure = you

steelreserve
05-21-2009, 01:28 PM
Amazingly, in 2007 for some reason we were third-best in the league at third-down conversions

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teamdown&sort=pct3&pos=off&league=nfl&season=2&year=2007

Last year we were only in 14th place. Go figure.

I don't know what this means, but if we can draw any negative conclusions, I'm pretty sure it's Parker's fault.

revefsreleets
05-21-2009, 02:32 PM
failure = you

Me = stats and analysis, with factual data to back up my assertions.

You = insults and half-assed opinions.

Fail. Miserably.

Try again?

revefsreleets
05-21-2009, 02:40 PM
So you are telling me that the Steelers of 2007 were absolutely a successful team in short yardage conversions??

The 2007 Steelers had 9 rushing TD's. There was definately a problem getting short yardage conversions and goal line rushing.

And you call other posters dillusional. ???


No, I'm telling you that, statistically speaking, in 2007 only two teams converted more 3rd downs than the Steelers.

I don't care how they did it. You do. Split hairs all you like, but those are hard numbers, facts, right there in black and white. We were also better than 50% converting 4th and short. A lot more teams did a worse job than us at it. I call people who refuse to acknowledge what's really going on delusional. I call posters who want to pin all the offensive woe's on BA's back delusional. I call this group-think going on that some MB posters know more about the day-to-day goings on than the Steelers do delusional.

Could we have done a better job? Sure. We weren't, after all, first in the league in converting 3rd's, we were 3rd. Last year we dropped to 14th, but our OL was awful and we had no true power back. Hopefully that will be rectified to some degree this year.

It won't matter, though...the nattering nabobs of negatism will clamor for the head of the OC no matter who he is or how good of a job he does. It's been going on as long as i can remember, and that's measured in decades, not single seasons. THAT'S delusional...

LVSteelersfan
05-21-2009, 10:52 PM
Nope...he walked around the sidelines and ate up a roster spot and some salary and did nothing, which is far, far better tthan, you know, actually contributing anything.

It's not his fault (at least I don't think it is). I'm sure he'd have liked to be involved in some fashion, whether it be taking some direct snaps or lining up as a RB or even in the slot/H back. Hopefully he'll either legitimately take the #2 spot, or he does serve some role other than placemat on the sidelines.

You know what? Almost every single team in the league eats up a roster spot with a backup QB or two. It is not UNUSUAL. Why is it a wasted roster spot? You don't risk hurting your backup QBs because they are not that easy to find.

HughC
05-22-2009, 12:48 AM
To get back to the original topic . . .

There's no need for a 'slash'. If the team needs to run a trick play there already are players on the offense that can effectively throw the ball on an option play.

Most quarterbacks, I want to see them on the sidelines for their rookie year. Learn the playbook, learn the system, watch the starter, and get used to seeing how much faster the NFL is than college was.

By the time final cuts are made in that player's second seaon the coaching staff should have a pretty good idea whether or not he (in this case, Dixon) is worthy of the backup role - that is, somebody the team can have faith in coming off the bench if and when needed.

Let's see how the rest of OTA's and preseason plays out. Hopefully Dixon will have progressed enough to assume that #2 role. Based on the player he was in college I am confident that he will be fine.

SteelerFanInATL
05-22-2009, 08:33 AM
This is the year they pull him out and use him as "SLASH II" on 3rd and shorts with a spread offense. Return the option play and give Big Ben one less hit.

Who's with me?

I'm with you. SLASH was a big hit before he decided he wanted to be nothing but a QB.

revefsreleets
05-22-2009, 10:24 AM
You know what? Almost every single team in the league eats up a roster spot with a backup QB or two. It is not UNUSUAL. Why is it a wasted roster spot? You don't risk hurting your backup QBs because they are not that easy to find.

Sure. We have Batch. Batch is a QB and only a QB. Most 3rd string QB's are like Batch or St. Pierre.

Dennis Dixon is MORE than that. Like I said, Seneca Wallace is a nice template.

mmalone
05-22-2009, 11:09 AM
Again, I asked about short yardage situations and you give me 3rd down conversion stats which to the credit of Arians were many 3rd and long situations which his offenses converted. To say the Steelers had a good short yardage offense in 2007 is incorrect and you know that like the rest that watched the games.

14th in 3rd down conversions... is are weakest link, blame the play calling or blame the missing player. this will hopefully fix that 3rd down issue and make BA look better on short yardage.

http://sunflaremarketing.com/SummersSamoa.jpg

if it doesnt work, our punter better get his average up this year. And give the defense some more field to work in.

ricksteelers55
05-23-2009, 01:00 PM
Id use him on 3rd and short in a split back formation with Memo and Dixon in the backfield