has jimmy dixon become

the new Sean Gregory
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Seriously, how do we know that its Chan? The common thread in non-playing RBs is O'Brien.
 
Also I believe Dixon doesn't want to move to TB. He's just now getting good at FB. Plus with Heller hurt Foshi will have to move back to TE. This requires a FB - which is Dixon.
 
It's not a demotion to play FB. He's making a huge contribution there.

BTW, why do you say that Chan is not willing to give him a shot because he didn't move him to TB after he's done well at FB? All through the spring and though part of the fall Jimmy was given a shot. These guys compete day in and day out on the practice field. Jimmy has won out at FB. I'm proud of him and his contribution in a big way to this team. Expect him to get stronger and stronger at FB as well. I'm certainly pulling for him.
 
Terrific, you are right on concerning Dixon's contributions to our success. Most fans just watch the RB when a great run takes place but the knowledgeable fan watches the blocking as well. How many times did Big ED Wilder clear a path for Joe Burns when otherwise there wasn't a crease.
You're right to appreciate the importance of the FB's play although I would like to see our coaches
give the ball to the FB for a couple of reasons.
One he is closer to the line of scrimmage which is crucial inside the ten and another reason is that it would give our opponent something else to worry about.
 
Originally posted by Big Buck:
Terrific, you are right on concerning Dixon's contributions to our success. Most fans just watch the RB when a great run takes place but the knowledgeable fan watches the blocking as well. How many times did Big ED Wilder clear a path for Joe Burns when otherwise there wasn't a crease.
You're right to appreciate the importance of the FB's play although I would like to see our coaches
give the ball to the FB for a couple of reasons.
One he is closer to the line of scrimmage which is crucial inside the ten and another reason is that it would give our opponent something else to worry about.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">BB,
I agree with you completely. Dixon played almost the whole games against Vandy and Uconn High, but they didn't give him a single carry. That was a big mistake in my opinion, and I said so at the time. There is not one single thing that it could have hurt to give Dixon a couple of carries in those blow-out wins. But since then, Dixon has not played much at all against klimpsum and bywho...deferring to Foschi as a totally blocking back. The blocking part of the position is important, but having a back like Dixon, who possibly could become an Ed Wilder with good knees, would be a killer threat to occasionally run/receive the ball....just when the defense least expects it.
I hope we don't miss the opportunity to make the FB a real weapon in our offense...both blocking and running/receiving.

wink.gif
wink.gif
 
I think it is sometimes hard for us fans to see the full picture, but it is not hard to see that Dixon is not getting any carries. Appears to be a waste of talent for him not to run the ball. That is the part of the game where he excelled in high school.

Also, at this time, it is not apparent which of the coaches are deciding the playing time of the runners.

rolleyes.gif
 
Truth is none of us know. Could be he is being punished for breaking a team rule. He could be struggling with his confidence and the coaches aren't comfortable with him right now. Could be he doesn't want the ball. Could be the coaches simply don't think he has the talent that the other backs do. We just don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top