Ellis... 3-4 DE sack king?

[ABQCOWBOY]

was it solely because Greg was in the lineup? I don't think so, or he would have been playing alot more in 3-4 sets when we were trying to stop the run later in the year, that or Parcells is the biggest idiot around, I know he's not above reproach, but he isn't dumb enough to misunderstand a coaching philosophy as simple as play the best player, which happens to be the philosophy he's been preaching since Day 1, if you actually cared to listen to him instead of spending all your time dabbling in mindless conspiracy theories...

Responding to you is almost painful. Ellis doesn't fit the 34. I have said this since the day Parcells got here. I will excuse your ignorance of this as you have not been on the board long enough to understand that I am and have been an advocate of trading both Ellis and Glover since it became apparent we were going to the 34.

I recommend you really study our defense last year. Ellis was not on the field when in a 34. However, he was on the field when playing in a 43 or nickle. His run support was pretty good when given the opportunity. Why wasn't he on the field all the time? Because we played more base 34 then anything. He wasn't part of the personel package in that set. You have to understand that once you get in the season, you don't change personel packages unless your forced to by injury. It just doesn't happen. You may believe whatever it is you wish but the truth of the matter is that Ellis has always been good against the run and he has always been a consistant pass rusher.

I'll tell you something else. Parcells does not always play the best player. If you knew anything about Parcells, you would know this to be true. Parcells tries to limit playing time for older and or smaller players. He does it at RB, he does it on the DL, he does it with our WR corps, in fact, the only place he doesn't do it is at QB and OL. OL simply because we don't have the depth.

Do your homework.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

and think about it ABQCowboy, Bill's plan before the season was to reduce Ellis' snaps to 60/80% of the defensive plays, but they were reduced to what? 18% in the 2nd half, when we were employing alot more 3-4 fronts to stop the run?

the only logical conclusion that can be gathered from this, and to explain why the D struggled in the 2nd half stopping the run, is because we were relying on 2 rookie starters at 2 of the 3-down spots, the 3-down lineman in the 3-4 need to tie up blockers to allow the OLBs to make plays, as well as enough quality LBs, because our LB crop weren't making plays, outside of Ware and James, 2 out of 4 isn't good...that's more logical than the easy way out, just placing the blame on Ellis' snaps being reduced, we could also throw in the 3-4 being totally foreign to everybody except for Canty, and Spears limited experience playing the scheme at LSU, and not enough 3-4 type DEs backing up Canty and Spears, as well as a suitable backup for Ferguson at NT...

I love Greg, he's a warrior, but the fact is, he's 270 lbs., he's not big enough to constantly take on 2, 300+lb. lineman at the same time for significant snaps, so again, BIll did Ellis a favor, the plan from here on out is going to have to be relying on Canty and Spears developing, as they are better suited to tie up blockers than the miniscule Ellis, as well adding more quality LBs that fit the 3-4, and get some more requisite 3-4 down lineman for rotation...

but he does have a place as a pass-rusher in the nickle

You speak as if this is all new news to us. Let me give you a tip here, there are many, many knowledgable football fans on this board. We know and understand what the problem was with our defense last year. Your not telling me anything I didn't already know before we ever played a single down of football last year.

I was never an advocate of playing a 34 but, it is what it is. That's what we are so you have to suck it up and deal with it. Getting back to the point, and please, let this be the last time I have to tell you this, Ellis doesn't fit the 34. Even if he did, it's clear he isn't going to get the opportunity to play regularly. Ellis believes he is capable of much more then just being a situational player and in truth, he's right. Nothing in his career thus far would suggest otherwise. He wants to play. Nothing wrong with that. I dont' blame him one bit for wanting to be on the field. Parcells may be trying to save him but Ellis is in his prime. He doesn't need to be saved right now. He needs to be playing in a scheme that allows him to use his ability to it's fullest. That's clearly not going to be the 34.

Please read this thread more carefully. You will see that I am not an advocate of playing Ellis in a 34. I'm an advocate of playing a 43 or trading Ellis and Glover. It's really not that difficult to discern if you simply read the posts.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Excuses are for losers.

Bottom line is Ellis has ALWAYS been good against the run.

Bottom line Ellis was ruduced in his snap count at the end of the year.

Bottom line our run defense suffered at the end of the year.

Bottom line this was brought to BP attention after the season was over and told Ellis's agent he'll play more next year.

Bottom line BP should have noticed DURING the season and made the adjustments.

dude, you thought everything would work out in the 1st year in the 3-4? you are crazy, face facts bro, we didn't have all the personnel to run the 3-4 smoothly, that's why we'll be adding an OLB in the 1st round, and blaming the struggling run D on Ellis' snaps being reduced is the stupidest thing I ever heard, sure Ellis is good against the run, but he's 270 POUNDS TAKING ON 600+ POUNDS EVERY SINGLE DOWN, there was a reason he was sitting out when we went to more 3-4 looks to stop the run, Canty and SPears are more suited for that role, and can take the pounding, simple 3-4 101, an area Parcells has a Masters in

In his younger days, he favored Scott Bruener, a vetran he "trusted" over Phil Simms. He did learn from that mistake eventually and Phil led him to a superbowl. So he has done it before and hopefully will do it again

Canty was the one taking Ellis' playing time away, I think Bill already fixed his "mistake"

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You speak as if this is all new news to us...

if this isn't news to you, why the hell are you blaming the struggling run D, SOLELY on Ellis being out of the lineup? I just told you the LOGICAL reason why our run D suffered

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

if this isn't news to you, why the hell are you blaming the struggling run D, SOLELY on Ellis being out of the lineup? I just told you the LOGICAL reason why our run D suffered

I'm sorry, you must be out of your mind. I never said that. I said that Ellis played well, when he had the opportunity. Peddle your BS elsewhere. I am not inclined to listen to you back track to save face.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Responding to you is almost painful.

this coming from the guy who was amazed how Ellis' stats could be reduced with less playing time :laugh1:

you didn't even respond correctly, I was talking about Ellis not being the sole reason why our run D struggled, and "playing the best player", are you telling me Parcells would pull the key to our run D out of the lineup?



that's how much sense that makes, and what you're telling me



bro, and also to your, "in the dark buddy" Jarv, we made the switch to the 3-4, and so we started employing alot of looks later in the year...were you two really suprised by that development?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm sorry, you must be out of your mind. I never said that. I said that Ellis played well, when he had the opportunity. Peddle your BS elsewhere. I am not inclined to listen to you back track to save face.

you're wrong and you know it, don't go that weak route

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

this coming from the guy who was amazed how Ellis' stats could be reduced with less playing time :laugh1:

you didn't even respond correctly, I was talking about Ellis not being the sole reason why our run D struggled, and "playing the best player", are you telling me Parcells would pull the key to our run D out of the lineup?



that's how much sense that makes, and what you're telling me



bro, and also to your, "in the dark buddy" Jarv, we made the switch to the 3-4, and so we started employing alot of looks later in the year...were you two really suprised by that development?

That's the point "Bro". Your responding to yourself. I never once said that our run defense sucked because Ellis was not playing. Get a clue man. I mean, how much do I actually have to dumb this down for you? Ellis doesn't fit the 34. Trade him now while we can get value.

No big word, pretty straight forward. I'm hopeful you can get this without to much trouble.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

you're wrong and you know it, don't go that weak route

Well, you would now about the "weak" route, that's for sure.

Tell you what, why don't you post the supporting documentation where I ever said the weak run defense was because we weren't playing Ellis in the 34.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

However, I do believe that as a whole, our defense suffered towords the end. We couldn't defend the pass or the run. I think that the absence of Ellis contributed to this.

I simply debunked how Ellis being out of the lineup had anything to do with the run D struggling

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The truth is that he really didn't play all that much against the run in the 34. However, while he was in, our run defense was better. The truth of the matter is that the 34 didn't really play all that well against the run. Has little to do with Ellis because he didn't get snaps in that defense. That's kinda the point.

....................

 

[superpunk]

Tell you what, why don't you post the supporting documentation where I ever said the weak run defense was because we weren't playing Ellis in the 34.

Does this qualify?

However, I do believe that as a whole, our defense suffered towords the end. We couldn't defend the pass or the run. I think that the absence of Ellis contributed to this.

Or what about this?

The truth is that he really didn't play all that much against the run in the 34. However, while he was in, our run defense was better.

Seems on that one you're saying that had Ellis been in on 3-4, it would have been better.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

ABQ GOT PUNKED!!

and he says I'm backtracking, seems I've been pretty straightforward...making him look dumb

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I simply debunked how Ellis being out of the lineup had anything to do with the run D struggling

Of course you did. And in your own mind, I'm sure this is the truth. However, in the real world, I'm wondering how Clown College ever let you out with a sheep skin.

:laugh2: Gawadddd...... you can't be this dense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Does this qualify?



Or what about this?



Seems on that one you're saying that had Ellis been in on 3-4, it would have been better.

No. Here is the truth. Ellis was pulled from the rotation late in the year. Our defense struggled late in the year. From this, I conclude that the fact that Ellis did not play contributed to our defensive collapse.

What is not true about that statement.

Contributed is not responsible.

That clear it up for you?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

and he says I'm backtracking, seems I've been pretty straightforward...making him look dumb

It is not me who is making you look dumb. That job is filled already and you of all people should know this.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Of course you did.

yeah, that's why I got you saying, "I didn't say that", instead of actually refuting my point, even though your on record as saying, what you say you didn't say :laugh1:

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No. Here is the truth. Ellis was pulled from the rotation late in the year. Our defense struggled late in the year. From this, I conclude that the fact that Ellis did not play contributed to our defensive collapse.

What is not true about that statement.

Contributed is not responsible.

That clear it up for you?

*cough* BACKTRACK *cough*

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It is not me who is making you look dumb. That job is filled already and you of all people should know this.

:jerk:

you have yet to effectively counter my point

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

yeah, that's why I got you saying, "I didn't say that", instead of actually refuting my point, even though your on record as saying, what you say you didn't say :laugh1:

In english please. I don't speak ******** very well.