Jump to content

Dixon will be a good test of our secondary


Atlsport
 Share

Recommended Posts

Obviously, it won't be the same as facing Manning but who said that only the league's top qb's are the only ones that can test our secondary? As it stands right now, Tomlin and the rest of the Pit team could care less about all the write ups saying how the Falcons have improved their secondary. They know it was our weakness last year, and they would be idiots to not try and test it, especially since it hasn't been tested and see if our secondary is improved.

I don't care that Dixon is 3rd string, we've had bad secondarys before that made the league's lesser qb's look like superstars. So with that in mind I would say that even if Palmer & Brees torch the secondary later in the year, you still have to take care of business against Dixon, and if our secondary is effective against him there's no reason to shrug off Dixon because you would absolutely be saying that the secondary sucks if Dixon has a really good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, come on.

I know we're all a little nervous but dont be scared.

If Dixon is really "a good test for our secondary" then we're not going as far this year as we thought.

We should roll this loser....real hard.

Did you read the post or just the topic line?

And if he has a good day then "our secondary sucks" Right????

Isn't that how that works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, come on.

I know we're all a little nervous but dont be scared.

If Dixon is really "a good test for our secondary" then we're not going as far this year as we thought.

We should roll this loser....real hard.

I agree. In no way should we consider Dixon a barometer for our pass D this year. The only thing we could possibly find out is if our passing D is not good. We should expect to defend well against him, if not we are in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, come on.

I know we're all a little nervous but dont be scared.

If Dixon is really "a good test for our secondary" then we're not going as far this year as we thought.

We should roll this loser....real hard.

I respectfully disagree. Although I can't say he'll be a good test for our secondary, I think he will challenge us a bit. Based on his one start last season and his preseason numbers, he's had a fairly good completion percentage. He's definitely not going to be the biggest test but don't underestimate the guy or the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. Although I can't say he'll be a good test for our secondary, I think he will challenge us a bit. Based on his one start last season and his preseason numbers, he's had a fairly good completion percentage. He's definitely not going to be the biggest test but don't underestimate the guy or the team.

Thats the idea, I think some might be making too much out of semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think so. The only thing we can find out is if we suck.

Well if it is possible for the guy to have a good day against our secondary, it would also mean that if we are successful at defending the pass well then it wouldn't just be because Dixon sucks. If he throws 3 INT's in a game, he absolutely sucks, but I don't think he will .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the post or just the topic line? I read the post. Otherwise, i wouldnt have

responded to it.

And if he has a good day then "our secondary sucks" Right???? Um...did i say that? No. Our

secondary didnt suck last year. But our pass rush did. But, do you really

think Dixon is going to have a good day against us? How many yards you thinking? 200? 300? Less? More?

If there's any chance of the Falcons losing this game it wont be because of Dixon putting up some career

numbers on us and making us look stupid on the ESPN highlight reels. It'll be because of thier defense.

Isn't that how that works? maybe for some of the cut and dry posters on here but i know a bit more

about football than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. Although I can't say he'll be a good test for our secondary

So, you agree, then? :lol:;)

All im saying is Dixon will not be a good test for our secondary.

Although, the Steelers will be a good test for our team.

Gimme one of the top 10 QBs in the league for a "good test" against our secondary.

Heck, gimme one of the top 40 QBs. I'll even take one of the top 50.

Honestly, im not sure Dixon is even ranked in the top 100 QBs in the NFL.

If this guy is a "good test for our secondary" imagine what a Real QB would do to us.

Batch would pose a much more serious challenge against us than Dixon imo.

Edited by HouseofEuphoria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to disagree totally, but I think Dixon will be a good test of how our LBs react when they're forced to come out of zone coverage and have to stop Dixon if he chooses to run the ball. If we can get their offense to try and convert a bunch of 3rd and longs, I wouldn't worry about our secondary play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you agree, then? laugh.gifwink.gif

All im saying is Dixon will not be a good test for our secondary.

Although, the Steelers will be a good test for our team.

Gimme one of the top 10 QBs in the league for a "good test" against our secondary.

Heck, gimme one of the top 40 QBs. I'll even take one of the top 50.

Honestly, im not sure Dixon is even ranked in the top 100 QBs in the NFL.

If this guy is a "good test for our secondary" imagine what a Real QB would do to us.

Batch would pose a much more serious challenge against us than Dixon imo.

No disagreement on Batch v. Dixon .

All I'm saying is that it doesn't need to be a top 10 QB to make for a good test. No question that the DL has to put pressure on him, but he's going to get chances to make plays and that's really what what we have to defend, not just Brees, Palmer etc making plays but every QB. Dixon isn't anywhere near those guys, but he doesn't need to be, if the secondary is ineffective Dixon's low status wont matter. In other words no one should discount the guy. If the secondary plays well it will help boost their confidence and that can only help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to disagree totally, but I think Dixon will be a good test of how our LBs react when they're forced to come out of zone coverage and have to stop Dixon if he chooses to run the ball. If we can get their offense to try and convert a bunch of 3rd and longs, I wouldn't worry about our secondary play.

Wondering if anything I wrote suggests that I'm worried about Dixon? I'm not in the least. I expect that Pitt will try to give him chances to throw and give our secondary some chances to make plays, but not an Air Coryell type pass attack, just enough to see what our untested secondary can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disagreement on Batch v. Dixon .

All I'm saying is that it doesn't need to be a top 10 QB to make for a good test. No question that the DL has to put pressure on him, but he's going to get chances to make plays and that's really what what we have to defend, not just Brees, Palmer etc making plays but every QB. Dixon isn't anywhere near those guys, but he doesn't need to be, if the secondary is ineffective it Dixon's low status wont matter. In other words no one should discount the guy. If the secondary plays well it will help boost their confidence and that can only help.

He does have some useful weapons to throw to, and i think they will try to exploit us underneath

with Hines and thier TE much the same way we do with our offense. But i wonder if Dixon will even be able

to test our secondary deep. He's got to have time to do that, and our purpose will be to give him no time.

Im trying not to discount Dixon too much. But i have a hard time seeing him getting past our DL pressure and our LBs to even be able to test our secondary much in this game.

We may even see some of Batch in this game depending on how Dixon handles it early on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you agree, then? :lol:;)

Although, the Steelers will be a good test for our team.

Gimme one of the top 10 QBs in the league for a "good test" against our secondary.

Heck, gimme one of the top 40 QBs. I'll even take one of the top 50.

Honestly, im not sure Dixon is even ranked in the top 100 QBs in the NFL.

If this guy is a "good test for our secondary" imagine what a Real QB would do to us.

Batch would pose a much more serious challenge against us than Dixon imo.

All im saying is Dixon will not be a good test for our secondary.

Well, I don't think he'll be a test to your secondary only because he's not going to be givin the chance to. He'll game manage and will CERTAINLY have the opportunity to take advantage with some called passing situations in key situations. I've always said that managing the game is harder than being a gun slinger only because you are asked NOT to lose the game and have a smaller % of hitting the passes that is NEEDED to hit. I think Dixon can certainly make a defense pay both with his legs AND arm.

As for the rest of your post, it's completley irrelevant about your top 100 QB's and if Dixon qualifies. It's a moot point for obvious reasons that doesn't need to go any further than this. Understand that as bad as the Steelers secondary melted down in the 4th QRT last season, they ranked 16th in pass defense. Atlanta ranked 28th so I guess you could pick anyone of those QB's that took advantage of that 28th ranked pass defense then go from there. Just sayin :P

Edited by StainlessStill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the rest of your post, it's completley irrelevant about your top 100 QB's and if Dixon qualifies. It's a moot point for obvious reasons that doesn't need to go any further than this. Understand that as bad as the Steelers secondary melted down in the 4th QRT last season, they ranked 16th in pass defense. Atlanta ranked 28th so I guess you could pick anyone of those QB's that took advantage of that 28th ranked pass defense then go from there. Just sayin :P

No intelligent football discusion can include team stats from the previous season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No intelligent football discusion can include team stats from the previous season.

Haha, okay, whatever you say, history is there for a reason. Then that also means that I don't want to hear a single word being said how the Falcons are going to be putting up 35 on us because our defensive holes last season.

The 2010 season hasn't started yet so lets just shut down the boards until Monday because nothing intelligent can come out of anything as of now.

Now that isn't fun.. is it? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...