My spin on Ellis/Glover issue

[Verdict]

I beg to differ. While both may be under contract, neither is without option. Besides, as I posted in my other response, I don't see the team wanting to carry there contracts much past the point of developement of younger players.

I doubt that league wide Glover and Ellis are thought of as irreplaceable/valuable as we view them. New Orleans cut Glover for a reason. We got him for a relative bargain. We also signed a cap-friendly deal with Ellis. I didn't say they were without options. But they will play where, when and how Parcells wants them to play, so long as they are under contract with the Cowboys. Like I said before, resigning them at the end of their contracts is another matter entirely.

 

[Verdict]

Both players could be playing less but produce more...IE: SACKS!

Thats where Parcells plans to use them most, when they can make game changing plays.

Thats the bottom line stat for Dlineman...

Good point about the younger players ABQ...But both Ellius & Glover are safe this year IMHO...

Great minds think alike.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

1. Regardless of what scheme they line up in, if Glover/Ellis see only 50% of they plays they SHOULD dominate regardless of position, or neither is starter material anyway.

2. While at first blush your reasoning appears sound is really is relative for a couple of reasons. It all depends on how much production we are getting out of them in limited playing time and how that production rates against what we are using up cap-wise. With the salary cap going up each year, the impact of their contracts is less significant.

3. See response #2 above.

I can't fault your reasoning, but whether they are worth their salaries and/or cap impact remains to be seen.

What do you base your first assumption on?

I would agree with you on your second point if players salary demands were constint. They are not and have never been so since the inception of FA. Caps may increase but so will players salaries. I also find it difficult to believe that the impact of these players is going to increase based on situational play. I think they will increase only if they are in a 4 man front a majority of the time. If they are in a three man front, it will not. If each are getting 50 to 65 percent of the defensive snaps, they will have to play a good portion of that from a 34 allignment. That alone is going to impact there ability to make plays. I just don't buy into this keep them fresh and they'll make more plays theoligy. The numbers don't work for that IMO.

I would agree with you about the cap impact. I fully well expect us to see what actually happens with these two players in the next couple of years.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I doubt that league wide Glover and Ellis are thought of as irreplaceable/valuable as we view them. New Orleans cut Glover for a reason. We got him for a relative bargain. We also signed a cap-friendly deal with Ellis. I didn't say they were without options. But they will play where, when and how Parcells wants them to play, so long as they are under contract with the Cowboys. Like I said before, resigning them at the end of their contracts is another matter entirely.

NO cut Glover because he was one dimensional, in there view but really, it was contractual. They didn't want to pay Glover what they would have eventually had to to keep him. I'm not trying to say that either player is all world. I am saying that either player could go to a 43 team and get paid what there playing for now, or more, while still starting. Both of these guys can still get it done in the right scheme.

If either didn't believe the Cowboys had there best interests at heart, either could probably force a trade. Neither, IMO, would be players we would franchise. As for the how, when etc. well, that's the problem isn't it. Economically, I don't see us paying there salaries to be role players. When there asked to take less money, and I fully expect that day to come in the short term, we will see how they react. We will get a very good idea of the "where, when and how" of it plays out.

 

[Verdict]

NO cut Glover because he was one dimensional, in there view but really, it was contractual. They didn't want to pay Glover what they would have eventually had to to keep him. I'm not trying to say that either player is all world. I am saying that either player could go to a 43 team and get paid what there playing for now, or more, while still starting. Both of these guys can still get it done in the right scheme.

If either didn't believe the Cowboys had there best interests at heart, either could probably force a trade. Neither, IMO, would be players we would franchise. As for the how, when etc. well, that's the problem isn't it. Economically, I don't see us paying there salaries to be role players. When there asked to take less money, and I fully expect that day to come in the short term, we will see how they react. We will get a very good idea of the "where, when and how" of it plays out.

I understand your thought process and your reasoning. Much of it I agree with. For some reason I don't think you are grasping what I am getting at. No offense intended. I think to some degree we are talking apples and oranges. JMHO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I understand your thought process and your reasoning. Much of it I agree with. For some reason I don't think you are grasping what I am getting at. No offense intended. I think to some degree we are talking apples and oranges. JMHO.

Possibly. It would certainly not be the the first time I would be guilty of not understanding intent.

 

[Verdict]

What do you base your first assumption on?

I would agree with you on your second point if players salary demands were constint. They are not and have never been so since the inception of FA. Caps may increase but so will players salaries. I also find it difficult to believe that the impact of these players is going to increase based on situational play. I think they will increase only if they are in a 4 man front a majority of the time. If they are in a three man front, it will not. If each are getting 50 to 65 percent of the defensive snaps, they will have to play a good portion of that from a 34 allignment. That alone is going to impact there ability to make plays. I just don't buy into this keep them fresh and they'll make more plays theoligy. The numbers don't work for that IMO.

I would agree with you about the cap impact. I fully well expect us to see what actually happens with these two players in the next couple of years.

I base assumption #1 on the principle that the later in the game it gets (and hence the more plays you play ) the more tired you become. I don't think I am going out on a limb on that one. LOL. I am also assuming that a fresh player should fare better against a player who is tired than that same player that is rested and fresh. I don't think that is much of a stretch either. LOL.

Based upon simple logic if a guy who is capable of starting does not start against the fresh player but is inserted when the opposing starter is more tired, that is is to the fresh player's (Glover/Ellis) benefit and you should see greater production from him (Ellis/Glover).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I base assumption #1 on the principle that the later in the game it gets (and hence the more plays you play ) the more tired you become. I don't think I am going out on a limb on that one. LOL. I am also assuming that a fresh player should fare better against a player who is tired than that same player that is rested and fresh. I don't think that is much of a stretch either. LOL.

Based upon simple logic if a guy who is capable of starting does not start against the fresh player but is inserted when the opposing starter is more tired, that is is to the fresh player's (Glover/Ellis) benefit and you should see greater production from him (Ellis/Glover).

You indicated in your earlier post that based on 50% of the snaps, either should dominate or they aren't starting material. This, IMO, would be subject to what scheme there in. There is nothing to indicate that Glover or Ellis would play all 50% of there time in a 43. It is possible, in fact, that it could be split in any number of ways. If they play significant time in a 34, and I think this likely, I would submit that neither would be as effective. Glover would be responsible for holding the line against a double, or in some situations, even triple team. If he can not do this, the 34 will not work. The key to defeating that offense is defeating the NT. If you can get him blocked, it's a long day. This, of course, assumes that he plays NT in the 34. I would expect him to play that position. If not, then he's a DE and I don't see him being very productive there at all. He would be in a rotation of 5 players, or so. In a 43, no question, he would be productive but because he won't be seing as many snaps, he still won't be as productinve. Has nothing to do with the question of being fresh or not. Basically, same scenario with Ellis. I tell you, I believe Ellis is going to struggle in a 34. I just don't believe that he is effective if he gets his weight up to 290 or so, in a 43. Conversly, I don't see him holding the line at 280, heads up, against an NFL OL, in a 34. I know he will be fresher but he will be at a huge disadvantage, IMO. I just see him getting controlled.

I suppose we will see.

 

[Verdict]

You indicated in your earlier post that based on 50% of the snaps, either should dominate or they aren't starting material. This, IMO, would be subject to what scheme there in. There is nothing to indicate that Glover or Ellis would play all 50% of there time in a 43. It is possible, in fact, that it could be split in any number of ways. If they play significant time in a 34, and I think this likely, I would submit that neither would be as effective. Glover would be responsible for holding the line against a double, or in some situations, even triple team. If he can not do this, the 34 will not work. The key to defeating that offense is defeating the NT. If you can get him blocked, it's a long day. This, of course, assumes that he plays NT in the 34. I would expect him to play that position. If not, then he's a DE and I don't see him being very productive there at all. He would be in a rotation of 5 players, or so. In a 43, no question, he would be productive but because he won't be seing as many snaps, he still won't be as productinve. Has nothing to do with the question of being fresh or not. Basically, same scenario with Ellis. I tell you, I believe Ellis is going to struggle in a 34. I just don't believe that he is effective if he gets his weight up to 290 or so, in a 43. Conversly, I don't see him holding the line at 280, heads up, against an NFL OL, in a 34. I know he will be fresher but he will be at a huge disadvantage, IMO. I just see him getting controlled.

I suppose we will see.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If it is like everything else we are all probably in for a few surprises.

 

[2much2soon]

I base my assumption on a couple of things.

1. Historically, Parcells has never really played a 50/50 type scheme. Ellis and Glover may get 50% of the snaps but I don't see either liking it. Further, of the 50% how many will be in situations where they can actually impact as opposed to playing a door stop role? There production will suffer and that will translate into dollars and cents at some point.

2. Ellis and Glover may have cap friendly contracts but there cap friendly contracts based off of what a star player would make. There not cap friendly contracts based on what a supporting player would make.

3. We have lots of youth in our front 7. As this youth developes, they are not going to sit on the bench for 50% of the snaps. If they become good players, and I think this likely, they will demand more playing time and more money. When this happesn, it will have to come from somewhere. What are the odds that it will be Glover and Ellis?

Trying to use BP's history as a guarantee of what he will do in the future is a big mistake.
He never had a QB throw close to 700 passes in a season until Bledsoe did it in New England.
Everyone was quite shocked at the time that BP ran an offense like this since up till then he had been a huge ball-control-run-the-ball kinda guy. So don't pigeonhole him into not running mixed defense sets. There is no guarantee he won't.

And who is going to be taking all these snaps from Ellis?
Coleman? Doubtful, unless he has some amazing career turnaround.
Canty? Maybe, in the best possible scenario imaginable, but unlikely.
Ratliff? Longshot.
Glover? Possibly, but that might shoot down the other part of your argument and put him over 50% of the snaps.

I think a lot of people are getting their chains yanked about how much 34 will actually be played. I think it will be employed but not to an overwhelming extent unless a bunch of rookies play over their heads. Just enough to keep offenses off-balance and guessing.

 

[SuspectCorner]

On the other hand if they will buy into what Parcells is saying this could be awesome years for both of them, IF THEY ARE USED JUDICIOUSLY. If Ellis and Glover are used sparingly, or not at all in the first half of games they will be entering the game fresh and at full strength. As the game wears on, the opponents o-line will begin to get fatigued as thge game wears on.

when our plans include sitting our DL leaders for the first half - i will immediately be hitting the gaspipe. lunacy...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Trying to use BP's history as a guarantee of what he will do in the future is a big mistake.
He never had a QB throw close to 700 passes in a season until Bledsoe did it in New England.
Everyone was quite shocked at the time that BP ran an offense like this since up till then he had been a huge ball-control-run-the-ball kinda guy. So don't pigeonhole him into not running mixed defense sets. There is no guarantee he won't.

And who is going to be taking all these snaps from Ellis?
Coleman? Doubtful, unless he has some amazing career turnaround.
Canty? Maybe, in the best possible scenario imaginable, but unlikely.
Ratliff? Longshot.
Glover? Possibly, but that might shoot down the other part of your argument and put him over 50% of the snaps.

I think a lot of people are getting their chains yanked about how much 34 will actually be played. I think it will be employed but not to an overwhelming extent unless a bunch of rookies play over their heads. Just enough to keep offenses off-balance and guessing.

You mistake the exception for the rule. That was one season. One season in how many? If you want to say that BP will do whatever works, I'm fine with that but he always comes home to what is right in his mind. Always.

If anything, this only supports the theory that eventually, we will be a predominant 34 or 43 team, whichever works best. I'm going to assume it will be 34 because I believe that's what's in his mind.

Spears, Ratliff, Coleman, Carson, Canty and possibly Glover are all in the rotation. They all have 34 DE body types and skill sets for that position. Add to the fact that 3 of the 4 are rookies and will need the playing time and I think the answer is pretty clear about who will be taking snaps. You base your premise on the fact that we won't play much 34. If that is true, then I agree but I don't think that's the case. Don't get me wrong, I would love it to be so because I believe that defense fits our talents better. I just don't believe that's what Parcells has in his mind. In a 34, any and all of the guys I just mentioned have the skills to play DE. It doesn't take very much to be honest. You have to be able to play strong at the point and play your gaps. Eventually, one or the other will be the dominant defensive set. I think it will be 34 but I honestly hope I'm wrong. If this is the case, then my original points are valid. Glover and Ellis are short for the road and there not going to be as productive as they could be if they were playing in a 43. Honestly, I don't understand how this can even be argued.

 

[Verdict]

when our plans include sitting our DL leaders for the first half - i will immediately be hitting the gaspipe. lunacy...

If we start the game in the 3-4 it is highly unlikely Glover starts.

 

[Nors]

Lord, why don't you just do a little research. The words on Glover are not mine but his own. Figure it out. Secondly, we're not New England. If it were so easy to duplicate what NE has done, why haven't more teams done so?

While I'm sure were all very thrilled with your HS football experiences, this is not about HS football. All of these guys can "get the girls". This is about business. Not your view of what all these players should be doing.

Please try and put more effort into your posts. I find it ironic that on the one hand, your trying to tell me that I don't know what is in Glovers mind when I'm only quoting what he, himself, stated but in the next sentace, you are saying that I should trust you that as long as Glover is winning rings, he won't have issues with his playing time.

Nice.

Bellicheck is just mimicking what he and Parcells did with Giants. Parcells is indeed going back to the 3-4 formula as base and play some 4-3 off of it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Bellicheck is just mimicking what he and Parcells did with Giants. Parcells is indeed going back to the 3-4 formula as base and play some 4-3 off of it.

I agree that ultimatly, we will probably be a 34 team. I don't agree about the NE part. NE played much more 43, over the last few seasons, then Parcells did while in NY. NE has the advantage of having players who have played in the 34 for several years now. It is much easier, for them, IMO to play a 50/50 mix because of this reason. they are not putting in a new scheme from the ground up. They are adding more and more every year. It's a slower progression but they can afford to do this. We could to if we were going to stay a base 43 team. I think that we could use the same approach, just in the other direction but I don't get the feeling that Parcells wants to do this. I think he's made up his mind and it's 34. Unfortunate to me but hey, It is what it is. I don't blame him. If I were in a do or die situation, and I think he is where this football team is concerned, I would want to do it my way. His way is the 34. I hope it's succesful.

 

[Verdict]

Bellicheck is just mimicking what he and Parcells did with Giants. Parcells is indeed going back to the 3-4 formula as base and play some 4-3 off of it.

Parcells appears to be on a straight line course to a 3-4. He has drafted 3-4 players and he picked up Ferguson, a protypical 3-4 noseguard to run it. I'm not saying he won't mix in some 4-3 at times, or run a 4-3 if the opponent doesn't match up well against the 4-3, but it looks like from here the 3-4 WILL be the primary defense. I can't see Parcells putting this kind of effort into running the 3-4 as a changeup defense, unless the attempt to go 3-4 totally fails.

 

[dargonking999]

Parcells appears to be on a straight line course to a 3-4. He has drafted 3-4 players and he picked up Ferguson, a protypical 3-4 noseguard to run it. I'm not saying he won't mix in some 4-3 at times, or run a 4-3 if the opponent doesn't match up well against the 4-3, but it looks like from here the 3-4 WILL be the primary defense. I can't see Parcells putting this kind of effort into running the 3-4 as a changeup defense, unless the attempt to go 3-4 totally fails.

Well with the players we had last year the 3-4 completly failed, so we went and got some new ones.

I think what defense we will play will depend on the team we face, if the team we face struggles against the 3-4 then that will be our bas defense, if the team we play, doesnt struggle as much with the 3-4 as the 4-3 then it will be our base defense,

The point of having the 3-4 is not to be limted to one defense, It allows flexibilty against teams.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well with the players we had last year the 3-4 completly failed, so we went and got some new ones.

I think what defense we will play will depend on the team we face, if the team we face struggles against the 3-4 then that will be our bas defense, if the team we play, doesnt struggle as much with the 3-4 as the 4-3 then it will be our base defense,

The point of having the 3-4 is not to be limted to one defense, It allows flexibilty against teams.

The problem with this is that it's not just that easy. I don't know how many of you have played in a 34 but I played in both schemes, as a young man. At the HS level, it was not easy to get the responsabilities and the terminoligy down. It's hard to make a 43 and a 34 work like they should in a single year or even two. In order to play this game, it needs to be a situation where things are second nature. If you think about what your assignment is, you've already lost. Trying to play both schemes with young players is simply not easy. I just don't see how anybody could try and do it on a game to game basis as suggested.