From Herald Talk...Early Monday Camp News | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

From Herald Talk...Early Monday Camp News


Pro Bowler
May 1, 2002
Reaction score
Greensboro, NC
My sources tell me that Alonzo Mayes was taken off the PUP list and practiced on a limited basis. Brent Smith was again slowed, I figured he'd at least make it to the 3rd or 4th day of practice before getting banged up, and only could practice limitedly. Great news for CK, DW said that the LT spot is now up for grabs and will probably include Mark Dixon. Bowens is splitting starting time with Williams at DE. RW will play 15-20 lbs lighter this year. Edwards held up well in his first contact this year. Minor is starting out as the #1 KO returner.

I like the fact that Minor is the Kick Returner but it's frustrating that Brent Smith is dinged? again. Is this verified by anyone else.
Damn reading these kinda posts scare me. Even just clicking on this kind a posts scares me, you never know what kind of news (good or bad) will the dolphins be bringing. Almost like opening your mailed stock statements when the market is plumbeting.

Thanx this kind up-to-date info is good (especially to us over here in california) keep it up guys!

Hehe. Its not that I want Brent Smith to get injured but we probably should have moved Dixon to LT last year however we had no depth behind him at LG (Heath Irwin???) so I guess the coaches just thought it'd be better to try and deal with a bad LT than a bad LG. This year if we move Dixon to LT it will probably prolong his career and give Jamie Nails (possibly Todd Perry and Seth McKinney) time to shine. But basically my beef was that Dixon probably has been considered the whole time and (I apologize to people on this board because this is rehashing arguments from another board) DNY was trying to tell me that the idea of Dixon at LT was media-created nonsense that was no more likely to happen anymore than moving JT to linebacker. I still dispute this and when/if Dixon gets moved to LT this year it will finally be shown that this is indeed something the coaches were REALLY thinking about.

It also happens to be a move that I think will benefit the fins in the long and short term.
Why move a player unproven at that new position, LT, and open a new hole at the other positon???? That was my position all along, still would be. This idea was floated 2 years ago, my position was that if Dixon was considered a viable alternative at LT he would have at least taken a snap or two there in the previous years. Now that Dixon really may have no other position giving him reps at LT is a no brainer. My arguemnt was aginst those who felt that Dixon should be moved to LT and that he would be better there than Brent Smith, disregarding the fact that Dixon hadn't played the position in the NFL and that the coaches obviously felt that he was more valuable at LG since that is where he was originally placed and they hadn't given him any time at LT.
I still think that the coaches are thinking of moving JT to linebacker in 2 or 3 years if he breaks his leg. LOL.
I don't want to take this argument onto this board but I would just say that I wish we had your exact posts archived because that is indeed not the position you took. Either way whatever. The bottom line will be the bottom line. If Mark Dixon starts at LT when season starts, that alone will say enough and I certainly wouldn't need say anymore.
Oh it's the position I've always had CK, always. Also, it wouldn't say more than Mark Dixon playing LG the past 2 years.
Interesting, in your eyes what was my position CK???? This isn't the first time you've misrepresented or mistaken another posters position on a subject.
You know exactly what you said and they included statements about how the media got ahold of the fact that Mark Dixon played LT in the CFL and so one news source said it and so the rest of them started to say it and the possibility had absolutely no basis in reality. It was only a "break glass in case of emergency" option (which two years ago I agree with you because there was no need for it with Richmond Webb and Brent Smith).

You still have said that up to a few weeks ago, even preposterously linking the likelihood of Dixon at LT to the likelihood of JT at OLB. Well, we'll see. If Dixon moves to LT, obviously it was a little more than just a "break glass in case of emergency" possibility. Every time someone talked about the POSSIBILITY of moving Dixon to LT, you came out of the woodwork to lambaste them on what a "ridiculous" notion it is.

Lets see how ridiculous it is when the season starts. If Dixon starts the season at LT your position will have been exposed because in reality it took merely 1 season for the coaches to decide to move Dixon from the first time they talked about it, which was not in 2000 but rather after 2000 when Webb was taking off for Cincy. When we were trying to figure out what to do at LT and signed Marcus Spriggs to compete with Brent. Back then our LG depth was terribly thin (Heath Irwin). Kevin Donnalley departed. Todd Perry was signed. The OL was a bit up in the air and the coaches mentioned the possibility of moving Dixon over.

1 season later....we'll see.
Dixon would be better off at LT, IMO. At 295 lbs, he's undersized for a guard. But he's strong as an ox. And he's quick and has nice footwork. I think he could make the move rather quickly.

I also feel that not only would it prolong his career, but it would also improve our OL overall. LT would be upgraded in runblocking. And LG would be manned by the mammoth Jamie Nails. Or Todd Perry (his natural spot). IMO, this move would CREATE depth, as Spriggs and Smith can both play both OT spots. And they'd be forced to compete for roster spots with Cesario. Also, this move would create even stronger competition between Perry, Nails, Searcy for the starting spots, as well as Troy Andrew for a reserve role.

Obviously, we hold out hope for these two OTs to come back strong and stay that way. And Dixon doesn't want take his friend's job. But if they can't get it going soon, I'm in favor of this move ASAP.
<<This idea was floated 2 years ago, my position was that if Dixon was considered a viable alternative at LT he would have at least taken a snap or two there in the previous years.>>

We had this guy named Richmond Webb, that's why he never took any snaps at LT.

By moving Dixon to LT it would give us the best opportunity to get our best olinemen on the field at the same time. With Dixon at LT that means Perry can move back to his natural position of LG & Searcy at RG. Either Smith or Spriggs will not make the team.
The JT example was used to describe how rediculous it was to award a position to a guy who hadn't even practiced there in the NFL. Again the coaches never mentioned moving Dixon over. If it was it was only made as in a in case of emergency deal. That's exactly what I'm talking about, it was a situation brought up through the press, not the coaches. See when coaches think about doing things they generally happen, surely we had options at LG if Dixon was considered our best LT. Also the point of moving Dixon was brought up earlier then after Webb left. It was brought up in regards to not tagging Webb. The debate was, was Brent Smith a better LT then Mark Dixon, the coaches obviously felt Smith was, case closed. Is he still??? Maybe we will see. It all really revolves around how well Nails performs.
The JT example was used to describe how rediculous it was to award a position to a guy who hadn't even practiced there in the NFL

Thats wrong. Sorry, but it is. Because I have never, ever proposed to GIVE the position to Dixon. I said and have ALWAYS said that it would be best to move him over in camp to compete with the other LTs, to see if he really can cut it and to give a chance for the other guys like McKinney, Andrews, and Nails at LG...maybe even Perry if he gets ousted by Searcy.

To this notion, you replied the likelihood of Dixon playing LT is as likely as JT moving to might happen only if there's a number of injuries making us super thin there. Those are pretty much your exact words.
No not this year CK, this discusion goes back 2 years. I have really said this whole off season that if they were going to move Dixon, now would be the time. 2 reasons, 1st, I wondered if the lateral movement be less of a strain on his leg then the pressure of going against DT's. Secondly they now have a number of options at LG which were not there in the past. I'm sorry if I may have projected the "giving the Position" to Dixon label on you when it wasn't warranted. That has been you I've been argueing against, those that wanted to hand the position to Dixon despite that he hadn't played it and despite the fact that it would have possibly weakened 2 spots. My JT example is used to show that you can't expect a guy to be good at one position just because he is very good at another and he may have played it in college.
<<Q: With a number of teams moving to the 3-4 defense this season, is this something that the Dolphins have considered? Chris Steinhaus, Winter Park, FL

A: No. The Dolphins are built like a 4-3 team with Tim Bowens and Larry Chester filling the middle. Plus, Jason Taylor would be ill-suited as an outside linebacker at this point in his career. The Dolphins also don't have the linebacking depth to play such a scheme. >>
Top Bottom