The Defensive Line Thread - Who makes the cut?

[skinny21]

5 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Ouch. When can we dump them?

Well, McGee's dead cap drops to 3+ mil next year while McClain's goes down to 7. After that (2019), they both drop to 2 something mil in dead cap and then 1 something in 2020.  

 

So, I'd say earliest would be next year for McGee and 2019 for McClain.  

[HTTRDynasty]

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like we have only a minimum dead cap hit for both players if we release them next year post June 1st:

Quote

DL Terrell McClain

 

Contract length: four years

Signing bonus: $5 million

Guaranteed money: $10.5 million

2017 cap hit: $3.73 million

Biggest cap hit: $6.75 million in 2020.

Note: McClain’s cap hit this season ranks fifth among tackles in a 3-4 base defense -- but 21 defensive tackles in a 4-3 front have a higher cap number. He can be released after June 1, 2018, and clear $3 million of cap space (with $1.25 million in dead money). His 2018 base salary of $3.25 million becomes fully guaranteed on the fifth day of the next league year. He has roster bonuses in the last two years of his deal in which he can make up to $500,000 each season.

 

DL Stacy McGee

Contract length: five years

Signing bonus: $4 million

Guaranteed money: $9 million

2017 cap hit: $3.19 million

Biggest cap hit: $6.3 million in 2021

Notes: His deal averages $5 million per year, but it’s not until the final two years of his contract that he eclipses that mark. At that point, he could either be cut or considered a bargain. At any point in each of the next four offseasons, McGee could be released post-June 1 resulting in only $800,000 of dead-cap space. His 2018 base salary of $2.75 million is guaranteed for injury only. He can make up to $250,000 each year in roster bonuses.

 

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30648/redskins-ditch-old-spending-habits-but-need-frugality-to-pay-off

[RandyHolt]

5 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

Another explanation for this first depth chart is the coaching staff showing respect to veterans, supporting the mantra that every player must earn his spot on the depth chart. It creates an environment of competition up and down the roster while hopefully motivating younger players to step up and earn starting roles.

 

@CTskinMuch like Ryan Grant getting the majority of looks as the #2 receiver early in camp,,,,

 

Winner winner chicken dinner!

 

But even at its most accurate, I feel the DL is the most misleading of all the positions on the depth chart.

[skinny21]

44 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like we have only a minimum dead cap hit for both players if we release them next year post June 1st:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30648/redskins-ditch-old-spending-habits-but-need-frugality-to-pay-off

Frankly, the cap is not my strong suit... I was just going off spotrac.  Thanks for sharing.  

 

I have the impression that June 1st cuts just means you can spread the hit out (the remaining guaranteed money), but I don't know for how long.  

 

I'm confused about 1 thing in the explanation though.  They talk about the 2018 June 1st cut, but then mention the 3.5 guaranteed on the 5th day of the league year... but isn't that in March?  

[Master Blaster]

49 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like we have only a minimum dead cap hit for both players if we release them next year post June 1st:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30648/redskins-ditch-old-spending-habits-but-need-frugality-to-pay-off

 

That's my understanding. Both deals are easy to get out of after this season. 

[carex]

11 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Ouch. When can we dump them?

 

at the end of five years, once they've been to several pro bowls apiece

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

at the end of five years, once they've been to several pro bowls apiece

 

I bet Baker makes it to the PB before either of these McSchlubs.

[carex]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

I bet Baker makes it to the PB before either of these McSchlubs.

 

whatever, I'm sick of this kind of attitude from fans.  They were GMSM moves, the guy everyone was considering the savior of the franchise, but do what he would have done after he's gone and it's worthless

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, carex said:

 

whatever, I'm sick of this kind of attitude from fans.  They were GMSM moves, the guy everyone was considering the savior of the franchise, but do what he would have done after he's gone and it's worthless

 

I haven't weighed into this discussion but I recall some detail relevant to this post.   According to a beat reporter (forget which one) it was Tomsula who wanted to move on from Baker.  As for Scot, seems evident that Calais Campbell and B. Logan were on his shopping list at D line.  Keim got into it a little in the off season.  Maybe McGee and McClain were on that list, too who knows but their interest in Campbell in particular was one of the names out there in the off season.  Keim in particular played up their interest in him.

[I Love The Skins]

I'm going to laugh if McGee or McClain has a better season then the beloved Chris Baker.

[RandyHolt]

Let's hope we aren't crying.  It'll be tough to judge.

 

A DC can let a DL attack, or force them to read - 1 or 2 it. One has the potential for lots of sacks/TFL, the other doesn't. Sacks seem to remain a top measuring stick for a DL.  DL get sacks off of stunts etc. We seem to try no tricks, sticking to bull rushes / staying our lanes. Maybe snap count is a reasonable gauge, and overall team defense could be factored in there somewhere.

 

 

[DC Lumber Co.]

On 8/10/2017 at 11:42 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I haven't weighed into this discussion but I recall some detail relevant to this post.   According to a beat reporter (forget which one) it was Tomsula who wanted to move on from Baker.  As for Scot, seems evident that Calais Campbell and B. Logan were on his shopping list at D line.  Keim got into it a little in the off season.  Maybe McGee and McClain were on that list, too who knows but their interest in Campbell in particular was one of the names out there in the off season.  Keim in particular played up their interest in him.

 

 

I believe it. What position coach would love the idea of having an outspoken player (with the potential to influence the DL-room) when it was well documented he was known to freelance? For every sack he gave us he was also responsible for a lot of negative plays as well. It's not all about stats on DL. Tomsula clearly values the cohesion factor and expects every player to know and play every technique/position on the line. Baker, a guy who came out and said he refused to play nose (likely because he knew the stats wouldn't aid in him getting a bigger contract) doesn't mesh with Tomsula's principles. 

 

Calais Campbell became too expensive for our team building philosophy. I'm not sold that Bennie Logan is as good as everyone is hyping him to be and think he was overpaid as well.

 

Just because they don't possess the same level of name recognition doesn't mean McGee and McClain weren't/aren't GMSM guys.

 

We know he set the FA target list and he confirmed on Twitter that the team followed his off-season plan to a T, save for 1 draft pick apparently. This isnt news, as reports came out that Swearinger was Scots top Target and the speed in which McGee in McClain were signed leads me to believe that not only were other teams interested, but they were very high on that same FA priority list as well. 

 

Fans, as usual, want to give all credit of our success to Scot yet blame Bruce for any failures. Doesn't work that way. People act like the team went against all of Scots wishes and scouting reports out of spite or something lol.

McGee and McClain are Scot guys, "football players", whether you want to believe it or not. Just because fans had to look up who they were after they signed unlike the rest of the FA class they assume "oh, definitely a Bruce acquisition". Give me a break

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, I Love The Skins said:

I'm going to laugh if McGee or McClain has a better season then the beloved Chris Baker.

I really never saw the infatuation with Baker the player.  He was a great dancer, had a great nickname, and was a great quote.  On the field, he made a few plays, but wasn't consistent, and lost a lot 1:1.  

 

He was good, not great.  Apparently there were some locker room issues.  

 

As I posted when he left and half the board melted down, if Baker was Reggie White, I would have cared.  I found it really hard to care about an above average player on an awful defense finding a new home.

 

 

On 8/10/2017 at 9:57 AM, Koolblue13 said:

 

I bet Baker makes it to the PB before either of these McSchlubs.

Baker isn't making the pro bowl, ever.  I don't think either of the other two are either.  But Baker isn't even in the same universe as a pro bowl talent.  

[Koolblue13]

Baker was able to rush the passer.

 

He was a homegrown talent.

 

He was affordable.

 

We is not bad (not great, but) against the run.

 

Yes, he was entertaining.

 

Nobody that said they want to keep him, compared him to any great.

 

I think he may be able to make a probowl, with help at getting sacks.

[DC Lumber Co.]

On 8/10/2017 at 11:10 AM, carex said:

 

whatever, I'm sick of this kind of attitude from fans.  They were GMSM moves, the guy everyone was considering the savior of the franchise, but do what he would have done after he's gone and it's worthless

 

Don't worry man, you're not the only one. I value the opinion of Scot, Tomsula, and our pro-player scouts much more than the anti-bruce, cynical, armchsir-GMs of the fanbase. I think McGee in particular has a lot on untapped potential.

 

But you can't tell some fans anything. When in reality if we signed Swearinger any time before this past off-season, some would have been bashing the move and throwing bad PFF stats around like they are now with McGee and McClain as if players aren't able to improve or anything. What's funny is the same fans bashed the team for being kings of the off-season and over-paying, are now only satisfied with Marquee-name free agents. It's ridiculous.

[RandyHolt]

I have assumed the reason Baker wasn't even tendered a token offer was because he was not hesitant to call out Barry's shortcomings to the media.  I think one of the times it was from his D call within the 5 goal to go.  OL went heavy jumbo and we went light IIRC, and most agreed with Baker, But its not what he said, it's that he said anything at all.

 

He broke the code. There was another DL that spoke out against Barry, Ricky Jean. Another see ya.

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Calais Campbell became too expensive for our team building philosophy. I'm not sold that Bennie Logan is as good as everyone is hyping him to be and think he was overpaid as well.

 

Just because they don't possess the same level of name recognition doesn't mean McGee and McClain weren't/aren't GMSM guys.

 

We know he set the FA target list and he confirmed on Twitter that the team followed his off-season plan to a T, save for 1 draft pick apparently. This isnt news, as reports came out that Swearinger was Scots top Target and the speed in which McGee in McClain were signed leads me to believe that not only were other teams interested, but they were very high on that same FA priority list as well. 

 

Fans, as usual, want to give all credit of our success to Scot yet blame Bruce for any failures. Doesn't work that way. People act like the team went against all of Scots wishes and scouting reports out of spite or something lol.

McGee and McClain are Scot guys, "football players", whether you want to believe it or not. Just because fans had to look up who they were after they signed unlike the rest of the FA class they assume "oh, definitely a Bruce acquisition". Give me a break

 

As for Scot, its plausible that McClain and McGee were on his list.  It's also very plausible they weren't his top targets at D line but more depth guys considering Logan/Campbell are higher on the food chain pedigree wise.  If you follow Keim's pre FA reports in particular, he plays up big time how high Campbell for example was a target.

 

I follow your logic on the Scot/Bruce stuff.   I agree a lot seems evident that they were following Scot's blue print.  And I also agree that no one is fool proof.  Scot will make mistakes.  Every GM, does.  So the idea that Scot could get a player wrong especially when it comes to FA is in play.  Scot himself said FA is a tougher road to get right.  So no such GM exists that gets everything right, Scot is no exception.  He makes mistakes.   So you can for example think Scot is good at what he does and still except that he can bomb on a FA in the mix.  The two points don't run against each other.   

 

Judging by Bruce's own rhetoric, I don't think he defines himself as a personnel evaluator. I used to engage in this point where I talked about Bruce the evaluator in the context of his GM roles but then upon further reflection it hit me, Bruce's line of logic on this front isn't that he's an evaluator.  His drill seems to be more owning up that he's not trying to take any ownership that he's a personnel evaluator but that others do that job under him while playing down the idea that it matters that he's the final say.   He basically expresses that his final say is just a formality. 

 

In other words, if I had to defend Bruce (and I'm not a fan at all of him in the role of final personnel say to say the least) in the manner that I think he'd defend himself it would be something like this:  I got Scot Campbell, Doug and a host of scouts working the draft/FA, etc.  They tell me what to do.  And I do it.  Yeah I have the final say but I don't overrule my guys.  IMO defending Bruce really is about defending the FO structure where its OK for the final say guy not being a personnel expert.  And again Bruce defends it by saying he doesn't muck up the recommendations he's given. 

[DC Lumber Co.]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

As for Scot, its plausible that McClain and McGee were on his list.  It's also very plausible they weren't his top targets at D line but more depth guys considering Logan/Campbell are higher on the food chain pedigree wise.  If you follow Keim's pre FA reports in particular, he plays up big time how high Campbell for example was a target.

 

I follow your logic on the Scot/Bruce stuff.   I agree a lot seems evident that they were following Scot's blue print.  And I also agree that no one is fool proof.  Scot will make mistakes.  Every GM, does.  So the idea that Scot could get a player wrong especially when it comes to FA is in play.  Scot himself said FA is a tougher road to get right.  So no such GM exists that gets everything right, Scot is no exception.  He makes mistakes.   So you can for example think Scot is good at what he does and still except that he can bomb on a FA in the mix.  The two points don't run against each other.   

 

Judging by Bruce's own rhetoric, I don't think he defines himself as a personnel evaluator. I used to engage in this point where I talked about Bruce the evaluator in the context of his GM roles but then upon further reflection it hit me, Bruce's line of logic on this front isn't that he's an evaluator.  His drill seems to be more owning up that he's not trying to take any ownership that he's a personnel evaluator but that others do that job under him while playing down the idea that it matters much that he's last say.  

 

In other words, if I had to defend Bruce (and I'm not a fan at all of him in the role of final personnel say to say the least) in the manner that I think he's defend himself it would be something like this:  I got Scot Campbell, Doug and a host of scouts working the draft/FA, etc.  They tell me what to do.  And I do it.  Yeah I have the final say but I don't overrule my guys.  IMO defending Bruce really is about defending the FO structure where its OK for the final say guy not being a personnel expert.  And again Bruce defends it by saying he doesn't muck up the recommendations he's given. 

 

It's certainly possible that McClain and McGee were 2nd tier targets after the others priced themselves out of consideration. Which is fine with me, because history has shown us that the failure rate of FA is high, and doubling down on it with a big contract is foolish. 

 

People are too obsessed with free agency when in reality, good teams use it simply for patchwork fixes until their player development and draft picks produce a home-grown solution anyway. I'm more excited about Ioannidis and Lanier than McGee and McClain. I'm also not assuming both free agents are destined for failure either. Scot, Tomsula, or both saw something in them which is enough for me.

[TSO]

@DC Lumber Co. You need to chill with the generalities you describe fans with. You not only label many incorrectly, but you mix certain positions some take with others so you can fit them all into some kind of smorgasbord of evil fans who just hate for the sake of it. 

 

The complaints about the structure of this FO, as well as how they too often handle partings, are 100% legitimate. That doesn't mean every move they make is bad. Doesn't even mean they won't be successful, though it certainly provides more obstacles to success than otherwise. And it doesn't mean that those of us who recognize those issues are simply negative nancies and nothing more. 

 

Finally, I'd like to know who you're referring to when you mention the fans who give every good move to Scot and every perceived bad one to Bruce? 

 

Because I haven't really seen that, at least not here on ES. 

 

It bothers me because you went into an argument against something I, along with quite a few others here, have brought up regarding the Dline signings this FA. It's perfectly fine that you don't mind the FO steering away from "overpaying" for guys like Campbell or Logan, but marrying those of us who hold the opposite view (in the context of OUR ROSTER, THIS PARTICULAR OFFSEASON, not some philosophical theme) to those who blame Bruce for any wrong while giving credit to Scot for any right, quite frankly, pisses me off. 

 

I hold the aforementioned view regarding the Dline acquisitions this offseason, myself. Show me where I put that exclusively on Bruce as opposed to Scot? Or even mentioned that? Never mind how nuanced that entire issue is, with us not knowing if/when Bruce undermined Scot or overruled him, and with what... but why are you lumping all of us into that boat? 

 

I'm bothered by the FO structure and how they've operated. I would've preferred spending the money we spent on McClain and McGee on one, more impactful, Dlineman (not just relegated to Logan or Campbell) and not as some general approach to Free Agency, just THIS offseason for THIS roster. I ABHOR how they've handled the Kirk situation altogether. 

 

The above would've been true with Scot (unless he truly had final say on personnel as initially claimed, but that's regarding the first complaint alone about the structure) and it remains true without Scot.

 

I also thought highly of the way the draft went (getting Allen really helped mitigate my concerns about not having an impact Dlineman on the roster), as well as Free Agency overall (though it would've been better if we got Pryor and Brown on longer deals). I LOVE that they extended Gruden. 

 

I know of quite a few others here who hold either the same or similar views as me. Certainly more than the fans you speak of. 

 

So what label of yours applies to us? 

 

I know it's inconvenient, but let's treat nuanced positions with some nuance and not label or generalize. It ruins the discussion. 

[Koolblue13]

10 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

Don't worry man, you're not the only one. I value the opinion of Scot, Tomsula, and our pro-player scouts much more than the anti-bruce, cynical, armchsir-GMs of the fanbase. I think McGee in particular has a lot on untapped potential.

 

But you can't tell some fans anything. When in reality if we signed Swearinger any time before this past off-season, some would have been bashing the move and throwing bad PFF stats around like they are now with McGee and McClain as if players aren't able to improve or anything. What's funny is the same fans bashed the team for being kings of the off-season and over-paying, are now only satisfied with Marquee-name free agents. It's ridiculous.

So, anyone who doesn't like a move the FO makes, is an arm chair GM, but those that do are just fans? 

I'm not high on Scot or Bruce and neutral on Tomsula.

I'm also not sold on Swearinger. He wasn't the top FS target I wanted. Even from his own team.

If anyone wanted to add one marquee player, along with Baker, they're now ridiculous?  

[Darrell Green Fan]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:10 AM, carex said:

 

whatever, I'm sick of this kind of attitude from fans.  They were GMSM moves, the guy everyone was considering the savior of the franchise, but do what he would have done after he's gone and it's worthless

These were also GMSM''s moves:

 

Pae

Bruton

Reyes

Culliver

Johnson

Knighton

 

Just sayin'

[Skinsinparadise]

55 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

These were also GMSM''s moves:

 

Pae

Bruton

Reyes

Culliver

Johnson

Knighton

 

Just sayin'

 

I did this exercise in threads months back but you can do this same exercise EASILY about any GM including John Schneider when it comes to FA or the draft.  As Parcells likes to say if you are hitting around 50% on your personnel decisions, you are really good.  And Scot himself said FA he finds more difficult than the draft.

 

These type of players play into my thoughts about FA and that is when you mostly go bottom fishing in FA, you strike out.  Bruton (backup), Reyes (stunk his last year in SD), Johnson (backup).  Pae (one year wonder, and had a decent but not great year before FA).  Knighton (out of shape and wasn't pursued by his former club).  Culliver was the one decent guy in that mix.  He got unlucky.  Got hurt.

 

I recall going through the NY Giants FA signings in recent years and it was one bomb after the other.  But they struck it rich and turned around their defense by signing the top nose tackle in the game, one of the best pass rushers in the game and one of the top corners in the game.  They spent big on big time players and it worked.  So I'm in the camp of I'd rather have a Calais Campbell over arguably 2 marginal D lineman and change.  

 

The Redskins in particular IMO are in need of big time impact players on defense as opposed to adding another C type of guy to add to their depth.  Having said that, IMO Swearinger, Z. Brown, J. Allen and a healthy Galette or emerging Anderson might make it happen for the defense.  Personally, I think if they didn't luck out in the draft with Jonathan Allen -- this D line would have likely been a major weak spot, again.    

[Darrell Green Fan]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I did this exercise in threads months back but you can do this same exercise EASILY about any GM including John Schneider when it comes to FA or the draft.  As Parcells likes to say if you are hitting around 50% on your personnel decisions, you are really good.  And Scot himself said FA he finds more difficult than the draft.

 

These type of players play into my thoughts about FA and that is when you mostly go bottom fishing in FA, you strike out.  Bruton (backup), Reyes (stunk his last year in SD), Johnson (backup).  Pae (one year wonder, and had a decent but not great year before FA).  Knighton (out of shape and wasn't pursued by his former club).  Culliver was the one decent guy in that mix.  He got unlucky.  Got hurt.

 

I recall going through the NY Giants FA signings in recent years and it was one bomb after the other.  But they struck it rich and turned around their defense by signing the top nose tackle in the game, one of the best pass rushers in the game and one of the top corners in the game.  They spent big on big time players and it worked.  So I'm in the camp of I'd rather have a Calais Campbell over arguably 2 marginal D lineman and change.  

 

The Redskins in particular IMO are in need of big time impact players on defense as opposed to adding another C type of guy to add to their depth.  Having said that, IMO Swearinger, Z. Brown, J. Allen and a healthy Galette or emerging Anderson might make it happen for the defense.  Personally, I think if they didn't luck out in the draft with Jonathan Allen -- this D line would have likely been a major weak spot, again.    

 

Oh I understand it's a crap shoot. But your post was critical of posters critical of SM, my post simply pointed out there was a good reason for the critical posts.  These 2 FA DL have every bit the look of the list I provided, second and third tier players who were never all that good in their previous spots, now suddenly we expect them to be big improvements?  Not likely.  That's the only point I was making.

[carex]

4 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

So, anyone who doesn't like a move the FO makes, is an arm chair GM, but those that do are just fans? 

I'm not high on Scot or Bruce and neutral on Tomsula.

I'm also not sold on Swearinger. He wasn't the top FS target I wanted. Even from his own team.

If anyone wanted to add one marquee player, along with Baker, they're now ridiculous?  

 

looking at money spent, money available and prices asked by players, I really feel yes.

 

and just be neutral until you got a reason to be negative

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

looking at money spent, money available and prices asked by players, I really feel yes.

 

and just be neutral until you got a reason to be negative

I can be whatever the **** I want to be. My Mom told me that. You're not calling her a liar, are you?

 

I started being negative the first quarter of the Steelers game last year. I'll stop when the team does **** to help itself improve. I don't think they did that on the line and I doubt they did at FS either.