Assessing Dennis Dixon's Performance Against the Falcons, Part 2
by Michael Bean on Sep 14, 2010 10:36 PM EDT
Email
PrintLet's continue on with our examination of Dennis Dixon's performance against the Atlanta Falcons on Sunday. If need be, catch yourself up by reading Part 1 first.
Part 1 ended with Dixon having led the team inside the Atlanta 40 on the team's fourth offensive series of the game. Facing 2nd and 5 from the 39, Dixon got fooled by a nicely disguised zone coverage scheme from the Falcons. Let's take a look:
This is a classic look from the Falcons defense here. It appears as if the nickel back will be responsible for covering Miller out in the flat. But as you'll see, he defends the running back coming out of the backfield, while a linebacker dropped into the zone where Miller was about to run to.
Dixon at this moment likely thinks he's got something nice materializing, as obviously Miller is running full speed ahead, whereas the Falcons' Mike Peterson has just now turned his shoulders to begin tracking Miller. Notice also how Peterson keeps one eye on where Miller is heading, and one eye on Dixon to see if he might be telegraphing where he's looking to go with the football.
Peterson, rather than trying to chase Miller, cuts off towards the line of sight where Dixon is staring, likely knowing darn well that on a 2nd and 5, Dixon is likely to be looking for something in the short to intermediate range rather than down the field where his cornerback is in coverage. Also notice above that Peterson maybe is hidden somewhat by the defensive lineman that is being cut-blocked.
Dixon lets it go and is picked off. Initially, I and others thought this interception could have been avoided by simply lofting the ball over Peterson's head. I don't think that's correct actually upon further review. Really, it was just a nice play by Peterson and a inexperienced mistake by Dixon as he still learns all the nuanced zone looks that defensive coordinators will continue to deploy.
Had Dixon been able to hold onto the ball for a second longer, Miller would have been able to keep drifting towards the sideline. If he had that time, Dixon would have been able to maybe drop a ball in over Peterson's head. But from where I'm sitting, the angle wasn't correct for a pass with higher trajectory. So I then checked to see if Dixon was a bit hurried with his read, but alas, he had a hand in his face due to Max Starks getting beaten with an inside move.
If there ever had been a time to pull it down and run, this was probably it, as there just wasn't much there. He could have tucked it in and rolled to his left, perhaps found something down the field, or perhaps just scampered towards the sideline for a minimal gain. Anyway, this throw actually concerns me a bit after breaking it down a bit. You have to be aware of linebackers and even defensive lineman (remember the Baltimore game last year) ducking below the QB's line of sight and then breaking on the ball
If you re-watch all of Dixon's mistakes from Sunday and during his lone start last year against Baltimore, almost all of them come when he's telegraphing his delivery to the outside. His interception in OT in '09, his near-pick in the 4th quarter on Sunday, and his INT earlier on in the game - all the product of him staring down his target on the outside. Conversely, most of Dixon's impressive pass plays came over the middle of the field. All of Ward's were between the hashes, most of his completions to Miller too. Even though many fans believe Dixon is better served being rolled out of the pocket, I'm not sure that's the case. I think he's doing just fine in the pocket, particularly on those plays Bruce Arians calls that freeze linebackers and safetys for a split second as they determine if something is about to materialize on the edge. That's when Dixon is freed up to scan the middle of the field without as many bodies cluttering throwing windows.
In Part 3 we'll look at Dixon's play in the second half, particularly the one drive to begin the 4th quarter that netted 3 points and gave the Steelers the lead again at 9-6.
52 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Dixon Needs Improvement, but the game is in the hands of the "D"
I don’t know, but what I remember is that offenses always start slow, regardless of 3rd string QBs.
As bad as Big Stupid’s suspension is for the offense and the team, better to suffer the suspension in the first 4 games than any time else.
For the next game (or maybe 3) THIS defensive unit has capabilities which can carry the team, and given the limited weapons of the offensive unit probably should put nearly as many points on the board.
Dixon is a rookie 3rd stringer who outperformed expectations in game 1, and while we hope he does better in game 2, we should expect he’ll regress before he progresses.
Therefore, the “D” must be expected not only to shut down, nay shut OUT, the opposition, but to score.
But… what the hell do I know.
Whatever it takes!
by SteelerInSeattle on Sep 14, 2010 11:02 PM EDT reply actions
Dixon is a 3rd year guy
He exceeded expectations. He threw nearly 69% and was on the winning end.
"Successful destination is the pinnacle, make no mistake, but the fun is in the journey." - Tim Gleason
by chewiesteeler on Sep 16, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
dixons int
i totally disagree if dixon had floated that ball over the linebackers head miller would have either caught it at the sideline or it would have floated out of bounds
you're not understanding
There was no way to float that one in there given where the LB was and where Miller was. If Miller was further towards the sideline, that would have added another 5-10 yards for Dixon to get that proper loft. But as it was, there wasn’t enough distance between the two for it to be possible.
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 15, 2010 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree as well
Miller was wide open, DD just didn’t put touch on it. I mean, he threw it at the LB’s head. He didn’t even have to jump for it. That ball is a tough catch at the hips for Heath without the LB there. If DD throws it so Miller has to stretch out for it, Peterson doesn’t have a chance. I think he also had some room to lead Miller down the field a little more before getting the CB and FS involved.
I don’t think there’s anything tricky about this defense. It’s hard to say for sure, but it looks like a cover-3 (LCB has a deep zone) with the NB covering the left flat and Peterson one of the intermediate zones. Our defense runs a lot of cover-3, and it’s largely why everyone complains about us giving up 10 yard out routes like the one Miller ran. It looks to me like Dixon made the perfect read, but just didn’t execute. My only other criticism is that (as you pointed out) he looks right all the way and may have tipped off Peterson to drift a little more to his left than he would have otherwise. Even with that, though, there was a window to drop it in.
charity standing orders
who knows though
Maybe, I just didn’t see it being possible after slowing it down and watching closely.
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 15, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Heath
would have had to stretch to get it, but I think he would have pulled it down. He has magnets on his gloves.
Steelers football is 60 mins. The final 15 have been constructed with re-enforced steel and ready to withstand punishment and deal out some itself. HERE WE GO STEELERS HERE WE GO.
by tannofsteel84 on Sep 15, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Keep him in the pocket = completion
I noticed that myself as well as one of the analysts calling the game mentioned it a few times. In-routes, seams, slants, and curls are more successful as compared to his deep comebacks, rollouts and outs.
There were also a few plays where I could see him struggle with running it vs throwing it. Quite frankly, I wished he would have run on a few occasions….. That would have kept the ATL D something else to think about.
Bottom line….he’s learning. This game experience is invaluable to him and the team. The Steelers can only benefit from this in the long run…(as long as we’re still winning)
Dennis Dixon
You have been very fair to DD in your assessment of his performance and as I have commented, he did not lose the game for us. He is a young guy and it will be interesting to see what he does this week against a much tougher opponent. I don’t believe the same effort the week however, will get it done.
Sorry to regress, but I just don’t understand the logic of putting DD in this situation, since he will not be the long term quarterback for the Steelers. Mike Prisuta on “Agree to Disagree” was of the opinion that Charlie Batch should have been the Steeler starter if the goal was to win as many games as possible before BB’s return. Bob Labriola stated that the Steelers stayed with the process they adopted for choosing their starter, however only DD and Byron Leftwich seemed to be a part of that process. I couldn’t understand that. Mike Tomlin said that Charlie was injury prone and that played a part in his decision, however he also knows our offense better than anyone and if he gets hurt, you’re in the same position. I think he gives them a better shot at winning. I really think they were going to release Charlie before Byron got hurt. Byron is no improvement over Charlie.
Anyway, I’ll get over it, but I can’t forsee a victory in Tennessee with DD under center. Maybe with Charlie, but MT is subborn and I believe he will stay the course with DD no matter. In listening to his press conference yesterday, he was saying Byron is recovering nicely but no mention of Charlie, who has always been here. I just can’t understand that. I’m not trying to create a Quarterback controversey, but it just dosen’t make sense. By the way, Charlie does have the touch pass and has shown he hasn’t lost it.
by Thundercraft29 on Sep 15, 2010 10:44 AM EDT reply actions
How I see it
Had Ben gotten injured in the preseason or the first game of the season you would have seen Charlie starting. However, with the fore-knowledge of the time off, you have the luxury of instilling the offense and letting Dennis get more reps with the 1s. If you believe Dix has more ability then Charlie at this point (which he clearly does) you give him the practice reps. As long as he is not losing games for you, you give him a chance to shine.
Otherwise you get to next year when Charlie is likely to retire and you are without a backup with starting experience. If Dixon plays well enough you know that in future years you can leave the position alone.
If Dix starts losing games for the Steelers they’ll make a change. As is he’s getting very good starting experience and will hopefully be a better backup for the Steelers in the future.
by Chicago Steeler on Sep 15, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
The logic is that if Dix=Charley with out experience.
By game 4 Dix>Charley and maybe way greater, then someone is giving up a good pick in next years draft to get him.
If you buy a foreign made product you give money to a person who will not be buying an American made product that you get paid to make. Think about it next time you're at the store.
I would be shocked if they traded Ben
He has jumped when they said jump. He is showing he wants to be here and he is a great QB. As long as he keeps Stupid Ben under control he will be a Steeler. It is more likely they are trying to decide if Dixon is a career back-up or a starting QB who will need to be traded for both his and the team’s benefit.
How do I break it to the cat that since he has been declawed, the rabbit he sees in our backyard would kick his sorry butt?
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Sep 16, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I was looking at the SuperBowl winning quarterbacks ages and over the past 20 years most of the winning QBs are under the age of 30 years old.
Now I’m not saying get rid of Ben or anything, I just found it interesting.
Here’s what I found:
XXIV – 1/28/90
Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers – Notre Dame (33)
John Elway, Denver Broncos – Stanford (29)
XXV – 1/27/91
Jeff Hostetler, New York Giants – West Virginia (29)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills – Miami (FL) (30)
XXVI – 1/26/92
Mark Rypien, Washington Redskins – Washington State (30)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills – Miami (FL) (31)
XXVII – 1/31/93
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys – Oklahoma, UCLA (26)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills – Miami (FL) (32)
XXVIII – 1/30/94
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys – Oklahoma, UCLA (27)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills – Miami (FL) (33)
XXIX – 1/29/95
Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers – BYU (33)
Stan Humphries, San Diego Chargers – NE Louisiana (29)
XXX – 1/28/96
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys – Oklahoma, UCLA (29)
Neil O’Donnell, Pittsburgh Steelers – Maryland (29)
XXXI – 1/26/97
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers – Southern Mississippi (27)
Drew Bledsoe, New England Patriots – Washington State (24)
XXXII – 1/25/98
John Elway, Denver Broncos – Stanford (37)
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers – Southern Mississippi (28)
XXXIII – 1/31/99
John Elway, Denver Broncos – Stanford (38)
Chris Chandler, Atlanta Falcons – Washington (33)
XXXIV – 1/30/00
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams – Northern Iowa (28)
Steve McNair, Tennessee Titans – Alcorn State (26)
XXXV – 1/28/01
Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens – Fresno State (28)
Kerry Collins, New York Giants – Penn State (28)
XXXVI – 2/3/02
Tom Brady, New England Patriots – Michigan (24)
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams – Northern Iowa (30)
XXXVII – 1/26/03
Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay Buccaneers – Florida State (34)
Rich Gannon, Oakland Raiders – Delaware (37)
XXXVIII – 2/1/04
Tom Brady, New England Patriots – Michigan (26)
Jake Delhomme, Carolina Panthers – Louisiana-Lafayette (29)
XXXVIX – 2/6/05
Tom Brady, New England Patriots – Michigan (27)
Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia – Syracuse (28)
XL – 2/5/06
Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers – Miami (OH) (23)
Matt Hasselbeck, Seattle – Boston College (30)
XLI – 2/4/07
Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts – Tennessee (30)
Rex Grossman, Chicago Bears – Florida (26)
XLII – 2/3/08
Eli Manning, New York Giants – Ole Miss (27)
Tom Brady, New England Patriots – Michigan (30)
XLIII – 2/7/09
Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers – (26)
Kurt Warner, Arizona Cardinals – (37)
I counted
7 over the last 20 years the SB has been won by guys 30 and up, thats almost half, not really compelling info you got there. What matters is if you are good, you are good. Ben still has 2 more years until 30 and about 5 more years of elite qb play. He has at least 1 more super bowl in him.
Steelers football is 60 mins. The final 15 have been constructed with re-enforced steel and ready to withstand punishment and deal out some itself. HERE WE GO STEELERS HERE WE GO.
by tannofsteel84 on Sep 15, 2010 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
What tann said
plus if my math is right, the average age of the QBs you listed is 29.5. Ben is still a couple years below that.
Did you read the first sentence about this not being about Ben.
Right most are between 26 and 30, which means there is a smaller window to win a SuperBowl than we tend to think for a QB.
The ones who did were pretty good HOF. Elway, Montana,Young and throw in Johnson.
I found it interesting but it appears that you are so sensitive to anything that may be a negative towards Ben that you can’t handle it.
It blinds you to other arguments or comparisons between Ben and Dixon. In his first year, Ben was no better than Dixon for example throwing the ball right to a defender or not looking off the defender. Hell he still does it on occasion. You can’t even debate this which is sad. I don’t think Ben carried us, it was our Defense that carried us to SuperBowl wins.
Wow
So one of my lines using a simple statistic gives you enough info to assume that I am not able to handle any possible negatives about Ben. Interesting. Don’t you think you are inferring a little too much?
I have a hard time believing that on a post about Dixon’s performance and a subsequent discussion about Dixon vs Ben in his first year, your initial comment would simply be about QBs in general and has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever. I might be wrong of course (who isn’t from time to time?), but your comment now, comparing Ben to Dixon yourself, leads me to believe the exact opposite.
Now, since you were able to interpret so much into me writing one line, let’s see what novel you come up with after this response.
WOW
Again, I just thought it was interesting and really had nothing to do with Ben.
There are many discussions on this site that have nothing to do with the article. What I have a problem with is the immediate defense of Ben like he does nothing wrong. Without that defense, he has no rings.
You’re the one running to tann’s defense and should probably stay out of it, otherwise take it and move on.
you're great
first off, how is agreeing with someone running to that person’s defense? Remember, you answered to my comment, not to tanns. But you probably didn’t even realize that. Of course doesn’t have any rings without that defense. And guess what, without Ben, the defense doesn’t have any rings either. Weird that it’s connected, huh?
Lets look at what you said, boy. "What Tann said."
That defense with another QB probably still wins the SB.
Yeah the connection is genius. You’re brilliant.
I knew this would happen
I’m not talking about Ben at all so keep your panties on. My God
Most are 30 and younger. Only a few are over 30 and those are Elway and Montana, maybe one other. I just found it interesting and the first response is Ben has two more until he’s 30.
I was looking at Washington signing McNabb at 33 or 34. Not sure it is a great move on their part.
Well you did say
Now I’m not saying get rid of Ben or anything, I just found it interesting.
so you were talking about Ben. So you should understand what you are writing before you write it.
Steelers football is 60 mins. The final 15 have been constructed with re-enforced steel and ready to withstand punishment and deal out some itself. HERE WE GO STEELERS HERE WE GO.
by tannofsteel84 on Sep 16, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I know one thing
By the time we’re done analyzing DD, BB will be back and no one will care anymore.
by Billy52 on Sep 15, 2010 8:54 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
hehe
true, true
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 15, 2010 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions
telegraphing the delivery
so is this a learned/taught skill, where a qb in year 2 or 3 just gets it? Or is it a talent that the better qbs have?
Or put another way, is DD likely to be telegraphing potential picks the next couple games (and more so than Leftwich would have)?
Also, with the int to Miller, I think a touch pass Peterson would have been able to tip. It would have required a really, really good throw. And considered the down and field position, the risk/reward ration was way out of wack to attempt a touch pass anyway.
Probably a combo, but mostly a learned skill
At first, you’re just trying to see what the defense is doing and make the right read. The more comfortable you get with that (and really, experience is the only thing that’s going to make you more comfortable), the easier it is to disguise what you’re doing because you need less time make the right read. A lot of reads are designed to key on what one defender does (does he cover the TE or the WR?), but if you’re an inexperienced QB staring down that one defender, defenders in other zones will see it and cheat over to that side, which can lead to interceptions. If you can scan the whole field and only focus on that defender in your head (and process information faster), you’ll disguise what you’re doing a lot more.
charity standing orders
BadMaafala, nice job analyzing the thinking that goes into quarterbacking.
Dixon got invaluable experience last week and the fact that he experienced some bad decisions will only make him better going forward.
I’ve been trying to tell these guys that Ben was not any better his first year than Dixon.
I think Dixon has alot of potential and needs a little time but alot of these guys want to compare Dixon to Ben right now.
Ben has what six years of NFL play and he still throws some pretty stupid balls every once in awhile thats why he is not placed on the same level as Brady and Manning.
SMH
Ben in his rookie year, set records for rookie QB rating. This is Dixon’s third year by the way. In Ben’s third year, he has already won a super bowl. So pump your brakes.
Steelers football is 60 mins. The final 15 have been constructed with re-enforced steel and ready to withstand punishment and deal out some itself. HERE WE GO STEELERS HERE WE GO.
by tannofsteel84 on Sep 16, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Ben was a rookie when he stepped in for Maddox
Dixon is a 3rd year guy. I’ve been reading some of the comments on this and other threads today, and at least 3 times someone has referred to Dixon as a rookie, or compared him to Ben when he was a rookie. When Ben stepped in for Maddox, he had a training camp, a preseason, and part of a reg season game. Then he went on to not lose another game unitl the AFCCG. Dixon has the benefit of being here for 2 full seasons, plus what he has gone throug thus far this year. Comparing how Ben played then, to how Dixon is playing now is apples to oranges.
"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett
Fair enough
But Dixon vs. Ben would always have been apples and oranges – Dixon was a running QB until his senior season, when he started to develop a more well-rounded game, and he was a 5th round draft pick, not a highly touted guy who “fell” to #11 overall.
Dixon isn’t Ben, but in this game he did play about as well as Ben did in his first couple games. It doesn’t mean anything about Dixon’s ceiling, but it does mean that if Dixon continues to play as well as Ben did his rookie year, we can go 3-1.
charity standing orders
interesting question vherub
I’d say it’s both, but I definitely think some guys with the measurables don’t ‘have it’ when it comes to knowing how to go through progressions. Should I use Brees as an example? Of course I should!
Brees has always been special in terms of accuracy – seriously, in my estimation, perhaps one of the three most accurate pure throwers in league history – but he too made plenty of mistakes about tipping off where he was throwing those catchable balls early on in his career. He threw 31 INTs in his first two 27 starts.
I don’t think Dixon is as gifted with his accuracy, but I do think he’s smart enough and hard working enough, and sufficiently non-Trent-Edwards enough to be a solid QB in this league.
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 17, 2010 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Great analysis Michael
I again watched the game with a Steelers buddy who has DirectTV. In addition to all his standard negativity and pessimis, I had to sit and listen all game about how bad Dixon sucks and how they should get him out of there/cut him. The worst part is, I’m starting to think this guy is doing it more and more just to get a rise out of me. What kind of friend/fan is that. I think I am going to have to find someplace else to watch the games.
Anyway, I thought Dixon did well considering the circumstances. Is he all world? No, but does anyone really expect him to be at this point? He is not going to be Ben R for Pete’s sake. He did perform better than a great many of the veteran QBs did this past Sunday. Look at Delhomme, Kolb, Campbell, etc. Oh boy, Dixon threw and INT, he sucks. Give me a break, every QB is going to toss and INT at some point.
The kid did just fine and I look forward to seeing him again this Sunday. I’m am hoping beyond all hope that he performs at least as well as he did against the Falcons so that he continues to play when Leftwich is healthy. We’re dead with Lefty in there. There will be no spies designated to Lefty. They will be blitzing and killing him. Steeelers may survive that against Tampa, but there’s no chance in hell against Baltimore.
"Successful destination is the pinnacle, make no mistake, but the fun is in the journey." - Tim Gleason
Really??
“I’ve been trying to tell these guys that Ben was not any better his first year than Dixon.”
Well I hope none of “these guys” listened to what you’ve been trying to tell them. Dixon has one game under his belt this season. In Ben’s first year, all he did was go 15-1. How could you possibly say that Ben played the same then as Dixon is playing now after one game?
"If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane" - Jimmy Buffett
just as they babied Dixon this first game
Yet he still threw for 1 interception (could have easily been 3 or 4). So what’s your point?
exactly!
Ben plays the first year after playing a full meaningful season at Miami. Dixon sits and gets reps in practice for 3 1/2 years counting his injury in college. I’ll take meaningful games in college over practice and and preseason.
Since you need it spelled out. Ben wasn’t any better in his first year.
consider toning down your hostility towards simonsen and others
You make some good, thought-provoking points, but they might be getting lost in translation because of your hostile delivery.
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 17, 2010 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions
And they haven't been hostile towards me?
Read how simonsen replies to me.
I get your point.
I’m Sorry Simonsen and Tann.
I’ve had a tough week. My dog died this week.
We’re all Steelers fans and want what’s best for them.
I hold no grudge against either of you.
Mike, thanks for the site. You do a great job.
RIP pooch
Got an aging English Cocker. Will be a sad day. She was my first room mate when I moved out of the house.
"Successful destination is the pinnacle, make no mistake, but the fun is in the journey." - Tim Gleason
by chewiesteeler on Sep 17, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
dang
sorry to hear that man. That sucks.
All good. Didn’t mean to single you out. You weren’t out of line either. Have a great weekend!
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 17, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
No you were right.
I was way out of line, especially with Tann which started all of this mess.
no worries
glad you’ve been commenting more lately. Have a good weekend man
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Sep 18, 2010 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Related FanPosts on Behind the Steel Curtain
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
- Having finally landed, Kellen Winslow looks for a fresh start in Seattle
- Tim Tebow teased with chants of ‘Lolo!’ in Jets locker room
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
