Glover is not a DT - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Tass · 11-17-2004

Now don't get me wrong, he seems to have a good attitude and work ethic, but the guy is only 280. He gets swallowed trying to stuff the middle vs. the run. Why the hell haven't the coaches put him at RE? He and Ellis on the ends with some big bodies in the middle would seem doable. We ought to draft a good DT and pick up another good one in FA. Notice I said GOOD. Not Chad 'The Knee' Eaton! Not signing Wistrom or Berry was a big mistake but they can somewhat rectify it by putting Glover where his body says he belongs. Any thoughts on this?

**MichaelWinicki** · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tass

Now don't get me wrong, he seems to have a good attitude and work ethic, but the guy is only 280. He gets swallowed trying to stuff the middle vs. the run. Why the hell haven't the coaches put him at RE? He and Ellis on the ends with some big bodies in the middle would seem doable. We ought to draft a good DT and pick up another good one in FA. Notice I said GOOD. Not Chad 'The Knee' Eaton! Not signing Wistrom or Berry was a big mistake but they can somewhat rectify it by putting Glover where his body says he belongs. Any thoughts on this?

Glover doesn't have the edge speed to be a DE. Actually Glover isn't bad against the run. His problem is that he isn't getting any help at the NT spot.

Kangaroo · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tass

Now don't get me wrong, he seems to have a good attitude and work ethic, but the guy is only 280. He gets swallowed trying to stuff the middle vs. the run. Why the hell haven't the coaches put him at RE? He and Ellis on the ends with some big bodies in the middle would seem doable. We ought to draft a good DT and pick up another good one in FA. Notice I said GOOD. Not Chad 'The Knee' Eaton! Not signing Wistrom or Berry was a big mistake but they can somewhat rectify it by putting Glover where his body says he belongs. Any thoughts on this?

What has winstrom done with that big money I mean he got a big paycheck so far he has been injured and has 15 tackles 5 assist 2.5 sacks 2 pass defense (batted balls)

That is it

Doomsday101 · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tass

Now don't get me wrong, he seems to have a good attitude and work ethic, but the guy is only 280. He gets swallowed trying to stuff the middle vs. the run. Why the hell haven't the coaches put him at RE? He and Ellis on the ends with some big bodies in the middle would seem doable. We ought to draft a good DT and pick up another good one in FA. Notice I said GOOD. Not Chad 'The Knee' Eaton! Not signing Wistrom or Berry was a big mistake but they can somewhat rectify it by putting Glover where his body says he belongs. Any thoughts on this?

Glover has been a DT for the last 9 years in the NFL and has been successful playing the spot. Not sure how you can say he is not a DT. Glover has been a Pro Bowl player at DT both with Dallas and New Orleans.

**BrAinPaiNt** · 11-17-2004

I was afraid I was going to come in and read that Glover is Not a DT...He is a LB...and in some way I was afraid that Nors had mind control over someone and was starting his own little cult in here to fight it out with the other cults...you know like PHIN and GROZ. :p

On a serious note...IF dallas would stop trying to rotate a bunch of guys they found at yardsales next to Glover...and get a GOOD big player to take up space and cause havoc..then Glover would not be double teams and he would create havoc.

Anyone that says Glover is not a good player or DT...is not watching the games close enough IMO.

**MichaelWinicki** · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

I was afraid I was going to come in and read that Glover is Not a DT...He is a LB...and in some way I was afraid that Nors had mind control over someone and was starting his own little cult in here to fight it out with the other cults...you know like PHIN and GROZ. :p

On a serious note...IF dallas would stop trying to rotate a bunch of guys they found at yardsales next to Glover...and get a GOOD big player to take up space and cause havoc..then Glover would not be double teams and he would create havoc.

Anyone that says Glover is not a good player or DT...is not watching the games close enough IMO.

Well said Michael.

joseephuss · 11-17-2004

I would also like to bring in someone to back up Glover. He is small and needs a play off now and then. Plus past successful Dallas teams always had a good rotation of d-lineman. Michael Myers was the perfect backup for Glover, but they played him at the NT position for which he was not suited.

Doomsday101 · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by joseephuss

I would also like to bring in someone to back up Glover. He is small and needs a play off now and then. Plus past successful Dallas teams always had a good rotation of d-lineman. Michael Myers was the perfect backup for Glover, but they played him at the NT position for which he was not suited.

I would agree that a backup to Glover would be a good thing but 1st things 1st we need a starting DT next to him before worring about a backup.

Eskimo · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by joseephuss

I would also like to bring in someone to back up Glover. He is small and needs a play off now and then. Plus past successful Dallas teams always had a good rotation of d-lineman. Michael Myers was the perfect backup for Glover, but they played him at the NT position for which he was not suited.

Yes, Glover is playing way too many plays at his age. He should be limited to 40-50 plays a game, getting frequent breaks on first down and obvious running downs. His replacement should be drafted soon.

Finding a NT to play beside him is imperative. I think Pat Williams from Buffalo should be available.

TheHustler · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

I was afraid I was going to come in and read that Glover is Not a DT...He is a LB...and in some way I was afraid that Nors had mind control over someone and was starting his own little cult in here to fight it out with the other cults...you know like PHIN and GROZ. :p

On a serious note...IF dallas would stop trying to rotate a bunch of guys they found at yardsales next to Glover...and get a GOOD big player to take up space and cause havoc..then Glover would not be double teams and he would create havoc.

Anyone that says Glover is not a good player or DT...is not watching the games close enough IMO.

Agreed. After a loss some people on this board seem to crucify everyone. Roy isn't a good safety. Newman isn't a good corner. Glover isn't a good DT. Man, we got nothing left.

Portland Fanatic · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

I would agree that a backup to Glover would be a good thing but 1st things 1st we need a starting DT next to him before worring about a backup.

Actually I think Carson is a viable backup to Glover...we simple need two big body starters next to them. Carson is at NT because we have no one else any better.

Doomsday101 · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portland Fanatic

Actually I think Carson is a viable backup to Glover...we simple need two big body starters next to them. Carson is at NT because we have no one else any better.

I agree with you on Carson being someone who could provide backup to Glover and I agree we need to add a DT next to Glover that is if Dallas continues to run the 4-3. I think this is something this team needs to figure out and what ever they choose be it the 4-3 or the 3-4 they need to stay with it not this switching around from 1 to the other. I'd rather be great at 1 system than to implement 2 different systems because I think it leads to too much confusion something this team does not need.

Portland Fanatic · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

I agree with you on Carson being someone who could provide backup to Glover and I agree we need to add a DT next to Glover that is if Dallas continues to run the 4-3. I think this is something this team needs to figure out and what ever they choose be it the 4-3 or the 3-4 they need to stay with it not this switching around from 1 to the other. I'd rather be great at 1 system than to implement 2 different systems because I think it leads to too much confusion something this team does not need.

Funny I was just thinking the same thing....if we are going to switch to 3-4 as our base, then let's just do it now...personell or not. If the ultimate plan for BP is 3-4 then make the moves and let's suffer through the growing pains now...now is the time to do it. We gave up 49 points...my hell simply making the full 3-4 transistion now can't be a whole lot worse. If it is...at least we know what the plan is and it will take time...but what we are doing now is simply confusing and crazy.

Doomsday101 · 11-17-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Portland Fanatic

Funny I was just thinking the same thing....if we are going to switch to 3-4 as our base, then let's just do it now...personell or not. If the ultimate plan for BP is 3-4 then make the moves and let's suffer through the growing pains now...now is the time to do it. We gave up 49 points...my hell simply making the full 3-4 transistion now can't be a whole lot worse. If it is...at least we know what the plan is and it will take time...but what we are doing now is simply confusing and crazy.

Personally I would rather work out of the 4-3, it is a defense that has been extremely successful for the Cowboys as well as many others but that is just a personal preference on my part but if Dallas does go the way of the 3-4 then get the players to run it and no I don't think we have the players to run that style of defense as of yet.

Joshmvii · 11-17-2004

Do you know what Glover does when he has a legit NT playing next to him? He gets 18 sacks, like when he was with the Saints. He's still a difference maker for us, but if we got a fat body with some power next to him to hog up the double teams, he'd been collapsing the pocket every down.