Alphadawg7 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have had my eye on this prospect going back to his college days. Would have been a top QB drafted had it not been for the injury. He has shown some promise and I think he could be a great fit for Gailey as a potential QB of the future to groom in his system. Bet he can be picked up via trade at a good value too. Wonder what Pitt would want in return. IMO he is a much better prospect in terms of upside than either of our backups in Tyler and Levi. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have had my eye on this prospect going back to his college days. Would have been a top QB drafted had it not been for the injury. He has shown some promise and I think he could be a great fit for Gailey as a potential QB of the future to groom in his system. Bet he can be picked up via trade at a good value too. Wonder what Pitt would want in return. IMO he is a much better prospect in terms of upside than either of our backups in Tyler and Levi. My link Before the Thigpen and Brad Smith signing, I was lobbying for Dennis Dixon here on the board. I think he has great potential. But with Thigpen and Smith, there is just no room for him. We're going to have to make some cuts we don't want to on a few players already. I think he could be very good, and I watched a lot of him in college. Gailey would be great for him. We just don't have a slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have had my eye on this prospect going back to his college days. Would have been a top QB drafted had it not been for the injury. He has shown some promise and I think he could be a great fit for Gailey as a potential QB of the future to groom in his system. Bet he can be picked up via trade at a good value too. Wonder what Pitt would want in return. IMO he is a much better prospect in terms of upside than either of our backups in Tyler and Levi. My link Thigpen signed for $11M as our backup and B.Smith for $15M as the 3rd string/Wildcat QB. Carrying 4 QBs isn't very likely IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Thigpen signed for $11M as our backup and B.Smith for $15M as the 3rd string/Wildcat QB. Carrying 4 QBs isn't very likely IMO. but Smith is listed as a WR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 but Smith is listed as a WR But he is playing #3 QB more than anything else. I would bet almost anything we don't keep a #4 QB on the roster. Just the PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QCity Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 but Smith is listed as a WR Check your source again. There's a new rule this year that let's teams insert and remove 3rd string QBs without effecting the starter. We actually "gain" an extra roster spot by listing him as 3rd string QB - which he is on the official site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Before the Thigpen and Brad Smith signing, I was lobbying for Dennis Dixon here on the board. I think he has great potential. But with Thigpen and Smith, there is just no room for him. We're going to have to make some cuts we don't want to on a few players already. I think he could be very good, and I watched a lot of him in college. Gailey would be great for him. We just don't have a slot. We could package Thigpen in the trade and therefore create a QB opening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 We could package Thigpen in the trade and therefore create a QB opening We could. But we won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I think that Dixon is the quarterback of the future for Pittsburgh. He is too eager to try and win the game himself and threw some ill advised passes last year. But he has the arm and legs, plus there are worse quarterbacks to learn from than Big Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I think that Dixon is the quarterback of the future for Pittsburgh. He is too eager to try and win the game himself and threw some ill advised passes last year. But he has the arm and legs, plus there are worse quarterbacks to learn from than Big Ben Big Ben's going to play for another decade at least. Dixon's not going to wait that long. We could have jumped on Dixon if we wanted. He held out early in camp this year and asked for a trade, but apparently there wasn't any interest on the market, so he reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I have had my eye on this prospect going back to his college days. Would have been a top QB drafted had it not been for the injury. He has shown some promise and I think he could be a great fit for Gailey as a potential QB of the future to groom in his system. Bet he can be picked up via trade at a good value too. Wonder what Pitt would want in return. IMO he is a much better prospect in terms of upside than either of our backups in Tyler and Levi. My link Weren't you one of the guys who also had his eye on Brian Brohm going back to his college days & was lobbying for us to put him into real games to see what he could do? Don't quit you day job in hopes of getting a scouting gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Weren't you one of the guys who also had his eye on Brian Brohm going back to his college days & was lobbying for us to put him into real games to see what he could do? Don't quit you day job in hopes of getting a scouting gig. Brian Brohm was very good in college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Brian Brohm was very good in college. Alex Van Pelt broke Dan Marino's records Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbosrrgood Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I thought Dixon looked decent too, although I don't know if he is actually starter material. The pickup of Thigpen and Smith makes this a moot point. They want smith for the wildcat, I think it would only be in an emergency scenario that he would ever play full time QB. But he's not going anywhere. Thigpen probably makes for a better backup, so the Dixon ship has sailed for us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreReed83 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Brian Brohm was very good in college. So was Timmy Chang. Let's go sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) Weren't you one of the guys who also had his eye on Brian Brohm going back to his college days & was lobbying for us to put him into real games to see what he could do? Don't quit you day job in hopes of getting a scouting gig. Um, yes because our starter was Trent Edwards. And to this day, there is not a person in the world who will convince me that Brohm (if named a starter and got some experience) would be worse than Trent who was just awful on game day. Not because Brohm is that good, but because Trent is that bad (at least he was here). Go back and look at what I wrote (because you childishly seem to be hung up on this Brohm thing) and you will see I never said he would be this or that. I said Trent sucks, so lets give the unproven kid who was a highly touted college prospect a shot because at least he had some potential where Trent proved enough that he was not an NFL QB. Brohm didnt cut it, so be it. I never said he was the second coming of Kelly, just that I would rather see the kid get a shot over Trent who was atrocious. And this has nothing to do with Brohm. Dixon has gotten on the field and showed promise. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to differentiate the two...its a little above your posting level... Edited August 19, 2011 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Um, yes because our starter was Trent Edwards. And to this day, there is not a person in the world who will convince me that Brohm (if named a starter and got some experience) would be worse than Trent who was just awful on game day. Not because Brohm is that good, but because Trent is that bad (at least he was here). Go back and look at what I wrote (because you childishly seem to be hung up on this Brohm thing) and you will see I never said he would be this or that. I said Trent sucks, so lets give the unproven kid who was a highly touted college prospect a shot because at least he had some potential where Trent proved enough that he was not an NFL QB. Brohm didnt cut it, so be it. I never said he was the second coming of Kelly, just that I would rather see the kid get a shot over Trent who was atrocious. And this has nothing to do with Brohm. Dixon has gotten on the field and showed promise. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to differentiate the two...its a little above your posting level... This makes absolutely no sense! Fitzpatrick was the starter on the depth chart for over 90% of the games Brohm was here for. Brohm was here 23 regular season games. When Brohm arrived, Fitzpatrick was #1 on the depth chart and during those 23 games, Fitzpatrick was #1 for 21 of those games. Due to injuries, Fitzpatrick missed the 2 games and Brohm started. Edwards started 2 games in 2010 and was waived after game 3. That means that for the 23 games, Fitzpatrick was #1 91% of the time and Edwards was #1 for 9% of the time. Edwards wasn't even on the team for 14 of those games (61%), and was active for only 3 of the 23 games (13%) that Brohm was here for. So how did Trent sucking have anything to do with you wanting to see Brohm get a shot over Fitzpatrick, who was the starter during the majority of Brohm's tenure here? Since you don't even know who the Bills starter was & why you were supporting playing time for another guy, what credibility can you possibly have when it comes to your desire to bring in Dixon? Why don't you just admit that you don't want Fitzpatrick starting and that your desire to replace him has nothing to do with Trent Edwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTO Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Totally of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Pittsburgh is one of the finest ran organizations in sports. They develop players like it's going out of style. Dixon can't beat out Leftwich, that's all I need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Is Ryan Leaf available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts