SIGNED S Tre'Vell Dixon

[HuskerFowler]

I think we should have Dixon on defense. No guarantees with Priest Willis, Mackenzie Alexander (does anyone know if we're still in the hunt with him), and Boaz Joseph and we're kind of lacking in corner depth in the class and on the team already. Put the kids from the SEC's backyard on defense to create SEC defenses. We should be fine with our current crop of WR's not to mention with Dominic walker and hopefully James Clark.

Dixon was recruited as a WR

 

Originally he was recruited as a WR but when he came to visit this fall we talked to him about playing D, seemed very excited about it if I remember right

 

Other way around.

[Amac3309]

I think we should have Dixon on defense. No guarantees with Priest Willis, Mackenzie Alexander (does anyone know if we're still in the hunt with him), and Boaz Joseph and we're kind of lacking in corner depth in the class and on the team already. Put the kids from the SEC's backyard on defense to create SEC defenses. We should be fine with our current crop of WR's not to mention with Dominic walker and hopefully James Clark.

Dixon was recruited as a WR

 

Originally he was recruited as a WR but when he came to visit this fall we talked to him about playing D, seemed very excited about it if I remember right

 

Other way around.

 

Ya your right, my bad

[TonyStalloni]

A list of the top 25 kids recruited as "athletes". Look at number 7!

 

http://www.maxpreps.com/football-recruiting/football-fall-12/fwCqW7ZrEeGDlQAmVebEWg/top-25-athletes/lemming-top-recruits.htm

[Hedley Lamarr]

Apologize in advance if this has been mentioned but Dixon will end up dropping to a 3 star most likely.

[BigRedBuster]

And 25.

[lionsfan93]

Apologize in advance if this has been mentioned but Dixon will end up dropping to a 3 star most likely.

IMO, this is simply because of his injury. The dude is one heck of an athlete and will definitely make his way to the field early in his career because of it.

[Roger Dorn]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

[HuskerT]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

The important thing is getting him here. Most kids will see an opportunity for early playing time at a different position and jump at it.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Gerry and Singleton make a good combo at the safety position. Also wouldn't be surprised is Boaz Joseph doesn't move to safety at some point.

[Roger Dorn]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

The important thing is getting him here. Most kids will see an opportunity for early playing time at a different position and jump at it.

Good point. I think Singleton and Gerry will both make great safeties, plus with the two Jackson's there right now, we should be ok.

[ObamaRocks91]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

 

The reason why we have good depth at WR, is because we have a solid starting group and young guys. Definition of depth. If you move all the young guys to DB, there is no long depth and in 3 years, we will have no one to play the position. Plus, you need 2 safeties on the field for a game and need 3-4 WR.

[Roger Dorn]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

 

The reason why we have good depth at WR, is because we have a solid starting group and young guys. Definition of depth. If you move all the young guys to DB, there is no long depth and in 3 years, we will have no one to play the position. Plus, you need 2 safeties on the field for a game and need 3-4 WR.

We have a solid group of starting receivers plus a solid group waiting behind them. Dixon would be a third stringer, if he was lucky, at WR. Whereas at safety he would be able to compete for playing time immeadiately. Our wide receivers are stacked on a great offense, we are hurting at safety on a weak, unproven defense. He is needed more at safety, he may start at WR but I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps to safety because of the lack of depth there.

[ObamaRocks91]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

 

The reason why we have good depth at WR, is because we have a solid starting group and young guys. Definition of depth. If you move all the young guys to DB, there is no long depth and in 3 years, we will have no one to play the position. Plus, you need 2 safeties on the field for a game and need 3-4 WR.

We have a solid group of starting receivers plus a solid group waiting behind them. Dixon would be a third stringer, if he was lucky, at WR. Whereas at safety he would be able to compete for playing time immeadiately. Our wide receivers are stacked on a great offense, we are hurting at safety on a weak, unproven defense. He is needed more at safety, he may start at WR but I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps to safety because of the lack of depth there.

After a redshirt year, you don't think he could compete for a back-up role in the slot? So let's look at his RS-soph year, there will be no Bell, Turner, Quincy, Wullenwaber. That leaves Alonzo Moore, Westerkamp, Allen, and a bunch of guys from small town Nebraska who realistically can only be expected to contribute on special teams.

 

That means you're relying on Moore (0 snaps in career), Westerkamp (0 snaps), Allen (2 career catches) to 100% hold down the WR position. Surely they will have a little more experience after 2 more years, but it wouldn't hurt to have Dixon in the mix to provide a little more certainty for the position going forward.

[Hedley Lamarr]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

 

The reason why we have good depth at WR, is because we have a solid starting group and young guys. Definition of depth. If you move all the young guys to DB, there is no long depth and in 3 years, we will have no one to play the position. Plus, you need 2 safeties on the field for a game and need 3-4 WR.

We have a solid group of starting receivers plus a solid group waiting behind them. Dixon would be a third stringer, if he was lucky, at WR. Whereas at safety he would be able to compete for playing time immeadiately. Our wide receivers are stacked on a great offense, we are hurting at safety on a weak, unproven defense. He is needed more at safety, he may start at WR but I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps to safety because of the lack of depth there.

After a redshirt year, you don't think he could compete for a back-up role in the slot? So let's look at his RS-soph year, there will be no Bell, Turner, Quincy, Wullenwaber. That leaves Alonzo Moore, Westerkamp, Allen, and a bunch of guys from small town Nebraska who realistically can only be expected to contribute on special teams.

 

That means you're relying on Moore (0 snaps in career), Westerkamp (0 snaps), Allen (2 career catches) to 100% hold down the WR position. Surely they will have a little more experience after 2 more years, but it wouldn't hurt to have Dixon in the mix to provide a little more certainty for the position going forward.

 

Agreed

[3-N-OUT]

With the McWilson decommit, do we still let him start out at WR? We already have good depth there and need help at safety. And IMO he would make a great safety.

 

The reason why we have good depth at WR, is because we have a solid starting group and young guys. Definition of depth. If you move all the young guys to DB, there is no long depth and in 3 years, we will have no one to play the position. Plus, you need 2 safeties on the field for a game and need 3-4 WR.

We have a solid group of starting receivers plus a solid group waiting behind them. Dixon would be a third stringer, if he was lucky, at WR. Whereas at safety he would be able to compete for playing time immeadiately. Our wide receivers are stacked on a great offense, we are hurting at safety on a weak, unproven defense. He is needed more at safety, he may start at WR but I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps to safety because of the lack of depth there.

After a redshirt year, you don't think he could compete for a back-up role in the slot? So let's look at his RS-soph year, there will be no Bell, Turner, Quincy, Wullenwaber. That leaves Alonzo Moore, Westerkamp, Allen, and a bunch of guys from small town Nebraska who realistically can only be expected to contribute on special teams.

 

That means you're relying on Moore (0 snaps in career), Westerkamp (0 snaps), Allen (2 career catches) to 100% hold down the WR position. Surely they will have a little more experience after 2 more years, but it wouldn't hurt to have Dixon in the mix to provide a little more certainty for the position going forward.

 

Gladney?