Ellis... 3-4 DE sack king?
- Thread starter Jarv
- Start date
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
ABQCOWBOY said:
:bang2:
that Ellis being out of the lineup, had NOTHING to do with the run D struggling, and that Bill did in fact, maximize his potential, which you DID say Bill didn't do
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
ABQCOWBOY said:
your ability to effectively argue, as well as make a crack, gets worse every time
- Messages
- 79,313
- Reaction score
- 45,770
children... 
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
ABQCOWBOY said:
ABQCOWBOY everyone!
:bravo:
yes, this is the kind of posting and thought process I've had to deal with, plus wisecracks that would make Rodney Dangerfield cringe
ABQCOWBOY
Regular Joe....
- Messages
- 58,929
- Reaction score
- 27,716
summerisfunner said:
Ellis being out of the lineup did have impact in my opinion. Was it the soul reason? No, it wasn't but since we do play a rotation defense and since Ellis is part of that rotation, I would say yes. Our young guys looked tired to me late in the season. I also believe that our youth hurt us. I would definatly say that while Ellis does not fit the 34, his experience as an NFL Vet would have helped. I would also say that a fresh body, any fresh body, would have helped.
As far as maximizing his potential, I don't agree with that at all. Ellis has the capabilty to be a pretty good 43 DE. In that role, he has proven to be very effective. The fact that he has been reduced to a situational pass rusher only is proof that his abilities are not maximized. His abilities will only be used to there fullest if he's able to play in a 43 IMO. That is not us.
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
ABQCOWBOY said:
why not? only Robert Mathis did more with the same type of snap percentage, and Ellis' was much less in the 2nd half of the year
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
WoodysGirl said:children...
*gasps* Queen Mod! WE MEET AGAIN!
don't hurt me
Bob Sacamano
Benched
- Messages
- 57,084
- Reaction score
- 3
ABQCOWBOY said:
I can't disagree with that, but it was more than just Ellis missing from the lineup, it was reliance on 2 rookies, 3 1st year starters, 1st year in a new scheme, tougher schedule, and some fine RBs
superpunk
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 26,330
- Reaction score
- 75
summerisfunner said:
How about the fact that our LB corp consisted of a converted DE at LOLB, unknowns playing ILB next to James, and a player we traded for midseason. That, IMO, is the biggest reason our run defense struggled. The drop-off from the portion of the season, where Glover and Ellis played extensively, to the end, where they were extremely limited is undeniable. But, without a specific breakdown, which tells me how many snaps they played in our base 3-4 early on, vs. late in the year, I don't think the majority of the blame lies there.
Our LBs were supposed to be the ones stopping the run, and by midseason, we had only a single, fully-competent LB left. That makes for tough sledding.
ABQCOWBOY
Regular Joe....
- Messages
- 58,929
- Reaction score
- 27,716
summerisfunner said:
Let me just say this. The problem, to me, is not a point of Ellis, per say, but the 34 as a whole. In all honesty, I say to you that I do not believe the success or failure of our defense rested on Ellis last year. I have never felt that way. I believe that you can draw corrilation to when we sat down Glover and Ellis in place of younger players and when our defense fell off. It is only natural that the defense would fall off if your playing younger players. This is not surprising to me at all. This team will be better defensively next year because our young players will have another year of experience behind them. They will have a full year of NFL conditioning and off season work. We will be better. It is a developmental issue more then anything. Having said this, I absolutly believe that Ellis and Glover could have helped us last year. As I break down the season last year, I see a couple of things. The 34 is very reliant on LB play and the ability of the NT to control the LOS. Because of injury last year, we were very limited in what we could do defensively. Lots of young players learning as they go and dealing with the grind of a full NFL season. You throw in the fact that Ferguson didn't really play well, IMO, and you have issues. Especially in the run game. When these things happen, you have to fall back on your vets to get you through. Because our two most prominant vets, on the defensive side of the house, were both on the bench, we couldn't do that. I am convienced that if we had played Ellis a bit more, he would have helped. To be honest, if there was a mistake made last year, I don't really believe that it was not playing Ellis or Glover more in the 34 so much as it was not playing more 43. Had we done that, we could have used both Glover and Ellis more effectively, rotated our DLs and used fewer LBs, who were shot at the end of the year IMO. I suspect this was not done because Parcells wanted to get the young guys as much time in the 34 as he could. However, I do believe that we could have been more competative had we used more 43.
As far as Ellis and Glover are concerned, I do not dispute the fact that they were not solely responsible for the success or failure of our defense last year. Only that they were not maximized. I just don't believe that they can be maximized unless you play them in a 43. It is a matter of looking at each player and realizing where they fit as opposed to what your asking them to do.
In the end, I do not believe Ellis or Glover are fits. I do believe that if we had played them more, even in the 34, we could have been better. Leadership was really missed last year, IMO. Ultimatly, I believe that the real issue was our decision to play more 34. I understand why we did it but I don't believe it gave us the best chance to win short term.