Dennis Dixon Time?

by Seano95 on Dec 13, 2009 7:52 PM EST Comment 17 comments

First of all, let me state that I am in no way proposing that Dennis Dixon is a better quarterback than Big Ben in this post. Big Ben is our starter and franchise quarterback, and is far better than Dennis Dixon - period.

For these last three games, however, I wonder if it may not be in the best interest of the teams future to let Ben play backup and give Dennis some game time. First, Ben has been sacked 11 times over the past three games he has played against the power house defenses of KC, Oakland, and Cleveland (granted, 8 of those did come against Cleveland). As we all know, he also sustained a concussion against KC. Moving forward, the Steelers face 3 decent defenses in GB, the Rat-birds, and Miami (howdy Mr. Porter), who can put some pressure on the QB. Also, to the ire of all of Steeler's Nation, the Steeler season really is over barring a miracle. What will this team gain by letting Ben play the last three games and get bounced around several more times?

Also, Dennis Dixon played admirably in the Ravens game, and may not give the Steelers much worse of a winning chance since they have apparently given up anyway. If Dixon goes out and has a couple of decent games, the Steelers may have a great piece of trade bait to help with some of their secondary and O-line woes for next season.

Just some food for thought, so let me hear what you have to say.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nope.

This definitely won’t happen for several reasons.

For one, it would severely damage the team’s morale, which very well could last until next season without anything positive happening in the last three games.

Secondly, though I haven’t taken a look at today’s game to officially see if Pittsburgh is out, last I checked there still was an off chance that they could make the playoffs. This was a miracle chance that needed a ton of crazy help, but there’s no sense in throwing away the season if there’s even a slight chance of sneaking in. That said, I have a feeling today’s games might have officially closed the door.

But to reiterate my first point, I don’t really see why you’d bench Ben. Get the rookies some playing time, but I don’t think you quite go that far…. yet.

by smashtheguitar on Dec 13, 2009 8:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

by klompus on Dec 13, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

starting a backup QB over a 2 time SB QB tells others there are problems between the QB and the organization. And there is no way Ben will come out of a game unless he is hurt.

by Steel in FL on Dec 13, 2009 9:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

lets all be honest hear Ben news name is Ben Sacklesberger seriously we might as well sit him out and let Dixon play starter that way he can gain some experience who knows he might have the potential to be a great QB anyways it wouldn’t matter if we won out all our game because if the Ravens have the same record as us we would lose the tiebreaker to the ravens simply because we lost to Cleveland and they didn’t

by Kurbstomper1193 on Dec 13, 2009 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

well thought out, informative and most of all, pragmatic

by klompus on Dec 13, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yup...

And all that without any punctuation what so ever.

'I’ve learned to become a flat-liner. There’s a lot out there that’ll make your heart jump if you allow it."
-Coach Tomlin

by NYSteelersFan4 on Dec 14, 2009 8:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no. that may screw up our 9-7 wildcard sneek a roo!

I drank before the game cause I was excited
I drank during the game cause I was confused
I drank after the game cause, well, I was already drinking. why not?

by Steelchamps !! on Dec 13, 2009 9:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No but Dixon should get some playing time.

In the unlikely event that the Steelers run up the score in any of the final three games, they should let Dixon play as much as possible. He needs more game experience. But winning is the first objective of course and Ben is the guy we depend on.

by Billy52 on Dec 13, 2009 10:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Peanut-Butter & Jelly time?

by StoneColdSteel on Dec 14, 2009 12:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

lmfao

where yat where yat. do the peanutbutta jelly do the peanutbutta jelly

I drank before the game cause I was excited
I drank during the game cause I was confused
I drank after the game cause, well, I was already drinking. why not?

by Steelchamps !! on Dec 14, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's time ...

for a QB that is going to get outside the pocket, spread the defense, be a possible running threat, give the opponent soemthing to think about. If that is Dennis, then it is Dennis time.

by tenthmtnman on Dec 14, 2009 7:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh crap ...

I’m in trouble with the spelling police … make that “something”

by tenthmtnman on Dec 14, 2009 7:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not going to happen

There is no precedence for that.

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

by PixburghArn on Dec 14, 2009 8:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I disagree...

I’m a Dixon believer, but I’m not at all for sitting our starting, franchise quarterback just to see what Dixon can do. Maybe let him play in some mop up duty, or get him in there for a series or something if our offense looks terrible, but even the latter isn’t a favorable scenario.

'I’ve learned to become a flat-liner. There’s a lot out there that’ll make your heart jump if you allow it."
-Coach Tomlin

by NYSteelersFan4 on Dec 14, 2009 8:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I can see him getting some time

if we have a huge lead or a huge deficit in a game. But I really don’t see that happening since our games are close. We have to play the best QB. Otherwise you are giving up.

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on Dec 14, 2009 10:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

What?

I agree that we should put some of the kids in place of players who are not performing. Ben is not the problem. We need DB’s so lets see what Lewis and Burnett can do.

Ben is the #1 QB. Dixon showed he can be the #2 next year. If the plan is to give him some plays to give him some experience for next year, maybe if the game is a blow-out. To trade him? Who will be the back up QB? Charlie Batch is getting old.

You can blame some of the sacks on the “brilliant” play calling by BA.

by Steeler Nation VA on Dec 14, 2009 11:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dixon won't even get Wildcat playing time

Listen, think of the position BA is in: what if he makes a change and it works? He would look like more of a fool than he already appears, if that is possible. For instance, let’s say he inserts some trick plays for Dixon, whether as a WR, QB, Wildcat, whatever. If those plays work, it will be painfully obvious that BA (and, by extension, Tomlin) were ignoring a major asset all season, even in the midst of an unprecedented freefall.

It’s definitely not a good idea to start DD, but he won’t even get a chance to do what he should be allowed to do: get some playing time, somehow. If BA has any self preservation instincts, he will not change anything at this point and risk proving himself a fool for the first 3/4 of the season.

Better to keep new ideas/plays out of the playbook and be thought a fool than put those plays in and prove everyone right…or something like that.

by CarlWeathersMustache on Dec 14, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs