Will Spencer be the next Ratliff?

[TheCount]

So, I've been giving this whole Spencer situation some thought and I think the thing that worries me the most is that he'll end up being the net Ratliff.

While the path Ratliff and Spencer are taking to their big contracts are slightly different, the end result could be the same; which is to say we end up paying a pretty good player as he enters the years where performance typically declines.

The other part to it is that for years we played Ratliff at NT, because we felt we knew better than anyone else how to play the 3-4. At a position where you typically want a big, stout guy who clogs the lane, we instead went with a 290lb guy who relies on quickness.

Now we've got Spencer, who is playing at his lightest weight since he was drafted (and has performed excellently as a result), set to sign a long term deal to play a position where you'd typically find a larger player.

He has yet to play a down there, so there's no telling what will actually happen but it does seem to reek of the same arrogance we had with the NT position in the 3-4. A long helt history of established norms and archetypes for the position that the Cowboys decide they are going to fly in the face of.

Now, before people get up in hand, let me be clear that I am usually the last guy to ding a guy because of his size. I don't really care what Spencer weighs as long as he can play the position the way it's expected to be played.

I'm just not sure calling your guys "Rushmen" solves the problem. The Colts are one of the few 4-3 teams that played with two smallish rush ends, and they were never known for being particularly stout.

I'm sure there will be those that tell me my worries are unfounded, but it's just something I've been thinking about. Once we sign Spencer to this deal, he's going to be ours for the foreseeable future so it better work out.

Also, whoever is playing SAM better be both strong and fleet footed because teams are definitely going to try and take advantage of that side of the line.

 

[kjcmeb]

i doubt it....i think that Spencer usually drives sober....

 

[Mr Cowboy]

The difference is that Ratliffe earned his first big contract, and played well during the first couple of years of that big contract. Jerry foolishly and unnecessarily gave Ratliffe a new big contract and his decline soon started.

Spencer is on his first contract negotiations after his rookie one, (not including the the franchise tag last year).

 

[Mansta54]

Ratliff has been injured, that doesn't equate to decline. In the few games he did play in last season he was an absolute beast, there's no decline. His issue is staying healthy and on the field, that's a big difference from a decline. Ratliff is a monster if he can stay healthy, that's his problem.

 

[Kristen82]

The Colts are one of the few 4-3 teams that played with two smallish rush ends, and they were never known for being particularly stout.

They also emphasized speed over size at DT and MLB with the inevitable result being that teams could run up the middle against them at will.

 

[Vintage]

They also emphasized speed over size at DT and MLB with the inevitable result being that teams could run up the middle against them at will.

Huh. Hard to believe that losing your starting NT, two starting ILBs, a starting S, and then later your backup NT might impact the run defense negatively.

 

[Kristen82]

Huh. Hard to believe that losing your starting NT, two starting ILBs, a starting S, and then later your backup NT might impact the run defense negatively.

Doubt any D could overcome all those losses. Poppinga and Peprah (such fun names to say) etc. tried hard but come on.

 

[Birch_Wood]

I'm pretty sure he is not a monster. He is undersized and his stats have not been great for a couple of years now.

 

[Birch_Wood]

I think it is a 50-50 deal. Could go either way. Depends on his character and how he handles making the big bucks.

 

[TheCount]

Huh. Hard to believe that losing your starting NT, two starting ILBs, a starting S, and then later your backup NT might impact the run defense negatively.

I think s/he was talking about the Colts in the post you quoted.

 

[DeaconBlues]

The other part to it is that for years we played Ratliff at NT, because we felt we knew better than anyone else how to play the 3-4. At a position where you typically want a big, stout guy who clogs the lane, we instead went with a 290lb guy who relies on quickness.

Now we've got Spencer, who is playing at his lightest weight since he was drafted (and has performed excellently as a result), set to sign a long term deal to play a position where you'd typically find a larger player.

He has yet to play a down there, so there's no telling what will actually happen but it does seem to reek of the same arrogance we had with the NT position in the 3-4. A long helt history of established norms and archetypes for the position that the Cowboys decide they are going to fly in the face of.

I hope and pray that Spencer rewards Dallas "arrogance" with the same play Ratliff gave them. Or are you only considering his play in 2012?

 

[Kristen82]

Huh. Hard to believe that losing your starting NT, two starting ILBs, a starting S, and then later your backup NT might impact the run defense negatively.

I was actually talking about the Colts.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Yea i'm not sure what's this about "decline". Ratliff has been injured since signing the contract so if that's the sign of "decline" then so be it. But even last year bbefore he got hurt he was looking the best i'd seen him in years. Its unfair to say he's declined.

 

[AKATheRake]

Doubt any D could overcome all those losses. Poppinga and Peprah (such fun names to say) etc. tried hard but come on.

...........

 

[TheCount]

Yea i'm not sure what's this about "decline". Ratliff has been injured since signing the contract so if that's the sign of "decline" then so be it. But even last year bbefore he got hurt he was looking the best i'd seen him in years. Its unfair to say he's declined.

I hope and pray that Spencer rewards Dallas "arrogance" with the same play Ratliff gave them. Or are you only considering his play in 2012?

I appreciate the comments but my point with the post wasn't to argue whether Ratliff is declining or not.

I never really cared for Ratliff at NT, but that's a different discussion. I'm just saying there are archetypes for just about every position in every scheme, neither Ratliff nor Spencer necessarily fit those archetypes.

The Colts did play their front light on the ends, but I don't think when teams are running through the list of defenses to emulate, many people have the Colts at the top.

 

[Gaede]

Good post.

I'm scared of the scenario myself. And I like Spencer.

It's not exactly a smart decision to extend Spencer and give him big money. If you look at it from a neutral perspective, it's actually a really stupid decision.

You're making a big investment on a guy who is going to play a new position after several so-so years and finally putting it all together at his previous position. Though he has no injury history, he's almost 30 and plays a very physical position.

On top of that, the drive to actually extend him seems motivated, not by the desire to keep him on the team, but because the Cowboys have so many other holes and don't want to open up another one, and because they have no cap space (because of giving unwise contract extensions to players who were poor investments) and need the money to a)sign a couple free agents to fill all of these holes and b)sign their draft picks

I don't really like the idea, to be honest. And again, I think highly of Spencer.

I just think we're committing to him out of necessity because they've made so many similarly bad decisions in the past. At some point, the cycle of making bad decisions to cover up the old bad decisions has to end.

 

[visionary]

I appreciate the comments but my point with the post wasn't to argue whether Ratliff is declining or not.

I never really cared for Ratliff at NT, but that's a different discussion. I'm just saying there are archetypes for just about every position in every scheme, neither Ratliff nor Spencer necessarily fit those archetypes.

The Colts did play their front light on the ends, but I don't think when teams are running through the list of defenses to emulate, many people have the Colts at the top.

we are getting ready to pay a player, as an elite player, at a position he has NEVER started at in the NFL, is undersized, after one good year, in the dreaded 30+ years when most players decline

what could possibly go wrong?

the idiocy of this FO never ceases to amaze me

 

[DFWJC]

Huh. Hard to believe that losing your starting NT, two starting ILBs, a starting S, and then later your backup NT might impact the run defense negatively.

That's been my argument with the "yet another 8-8 season, same old team" crowd.
If these guys are back, then, no, it is not the same old team. Not even remotely the same level of players at several positions. And that is before the draft and maybe some small FA adds.

They were what their record said they were last year. True.
2013 could/should be better.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

we are getting ready to pay a player, as an elite player, at a position he has NEVER started at in the NFL, is undersized, after one good year, in the dreaded 30+ years when most players decline

what could possibly go wrong?

the idiocy of this FO never ceases to amaze me

If Spencer is a smart man he'll tell the Cowboys that he'll play with the franchise tag; no new contract is necessary. No one is going to pay him what he thinks he is worth.

 

[conner01]

I'm pretty sure he is not a monster. He is undersized and his stats have not been great for a couple of years now.

look at the games he played. he played very well
injuries killed his season but when he did play he played very well