Offseason upgrade options on defense

[j_y19]

Gillette has a Redskins tatoo on his bicept. I wonder if that is legally binding.

He sure would be a target in anyone else's locker room. Kinda limited his bargaining position

 

[gkekoa]

2015 NFL Draft Analysis - Preston Smith

If the scouting reports above on Smith is accurate. Putting Smith in an interior DL position, including NT, is something he can handle. I like the part about him having the body type and skill-set to be moved different positions on the line. Put PS's hand in the dirt and have RK and Galette at OLB.

If Galette comes as advertised, Smith builds upon what turned out to be a damn good rookie year pass rush-wise, and RK is RK. The Skins might finally have the pieces to be a legit pass rushing team. Something they really haven't been since the Dexter/Mann days.

There is no way he can play NT. Can he maybe move inside on passing downs? Sure. My question is why move our best pass rusher inside? Again, PS was a rookie and got 8 sacks, most in the last month of the season. Galette has had 12 sacks and 10 sacks as pinnacles in his career and will be coming off an injury. An OLB can put his hand in the dirt for obvious pass rush situations...that is allowed.

I am fine with signing Galette but he won't sign long term unless the money is really good. We shouldn't sign him long term unless the money is in our favor. This is a guy that would have played last season on a one year contract around 750k because nobody else in the league wanted him after he was cut from the Saints because of his off the field behavior. Why would we pay him more now when he was injured all of last season?

 

[Sharkinva]

GK... you ever heard the term penny wise and pound foolish?? I get that you are genetically predisposed to NOT want to pay any of these guys. But seriously, for what Rak got last year, you dont think he would have helped out this defense?? He got $7.75 million a year average and word is he was asking for $8. So he took slightly less going to the Titans. Coming off injury, and yet he posted 7 sacks in a new system with players he was unfamiliar with. He led their linebackers in sack.

I bring this up because some time you cant just scream out, oh he is going to be over paid and make MONEY the primary reason you go in another direction to the detriment of the team. Had we kept Rak, we likely dont NEED to sign Gallett to begin with.

So in this case we were penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[skinsdad62]

GK there are places we can put smith at and still get gallete on the field plus you can rush in waves

no smith isnt a full time NT but perhaps with some more strength he could be there in the passing game

 

[gkekoa]

GK there are places we can put smith at and still get gallete on the field plus you can rush in waves

no smith isnt a full time NT but perhaps with some more strength he could be there in the passing game

Then he isn't actually being used as a NT. Call the position what you like but he isn't a NT in the true sense of the word in those situations. Realistically, there is no NT in obvious passing downs.

 

[gkekoa]

GK... you ever heard the term penny wise and pound foolish?? I get that you are genetically predisposed to NOT want to pay any of these guys. But seriously, for what Rak got last year, you dont think he would have helped out this defense?? He got $7.75 million a year average and word is he was asking for $8. So he took slightly less going to the Titans. Coming off injury, and yet he posted 7 sacks in a new system with players he was unfamiliar with. He led their linebackers in sack.

I bring this up because some time you cant just scream out, oh he is going to be over paid and make MONEY the primary reason you go in another direction to the detriment of the team. Had we kept Rak, we likely dont NEED to sign Gallett to begin with.

So in this case we were penny wise and pound foolish.

RAK would have done very little to help this defense. I am not opposed to paying a guy 8 million when I would like to pay them 6 million.

Would I prefer to pay RAK 8 million when Galette was only 750k...hell no...give me Galette. They are similar players.

I see people talking about signing Galette long term. He made 750k this season on a one year deal. He made this little because he was cut by a historically bad defense for his off the field behavior. Nobody wanted to touch this guy...nobody...and I loved the signing. I still do because to me it was a no brainier. So what do people think a long term contract looks like? There is no way he will sign a five year, 20 million dollar deal because his talent is worth more than that...especially in his brain. There is no way we should offer a five year, 50 million dollar deal, closer to his talent value but he is coming off injury and has a history of off the field issues. So where does that leave Galette? Likely on another one year deal to prove his health and antics are behind him so he can get paid again.

 

[skinsdad62]

GK we use the 4-3 a lot hence moving him inside is an option . no he isnt a classic NT

 

[Sharkinva]

RAK would have done very little to help this defense. I am not opposed to paying a guy 8 million when I would like to pay them 6 million.

Would I prefer to pay RAK 8 million when Galette was only 750k...hell no...give me Galette. They are similar players.

I see people talking about signing Galette long term. He made 750k this season on a one year deal. He made this little because he was cut by a historically bad defense for his off the field behavior. Nobody wanted to touch this guy...nobody...and I loved the signing. I still do because to me it was a no brainier. So what do people think a long term contract looks like? There is no way he will sign a five year, 20 million dollar deal because his talent is worth more than that...especially in his brain. There is no way we should offer a five year, 50 million dollar deal, closer to his talent value but he is coming off injury and has a history of off the field issues. So where does that leave Galette? Likely on another one year deal to prove his health and antics are behind him so he can get paid again.

GK... IF Im not mistaken, you were of the opinion that Rak was worth no more than $5 million a year and would have perfered considerably less. Now Gallett didnt take a single snap for us, even in pre season. Which is mainly why I say it was a penny wise/pound foolish thing to let Rak walk. First off, there was no guarantee the Saints would let Gallett walk at the time we didnt resign Rak. Secondly we had no clear plan in place for replacing him aside from Murphy starting, and drafting a guy. Now Smith turned out to be a surprise late bloomer. But reality is, our defense likely would have been better on the pass rush WITH Rak starting opposite of Kerrigan. So yea, you can pound the drum about how you dont want to over pay guys. BUt the reality of the cap is, MOST market value contracts are not going to over pay guys, and its rare you are going to see a deal where it crippples a team as far as the cap UNLESS you are bringing in a guy from outside. As the point is to IMPROVE yearly, its counter productive to keep changing players on a yearly basis if the reasoning becomes... well he might get over paid. If a guy isnt performing thats one thing. BUt we KNEW what a healthy Rak was capable of, and we let him walk because we didnt want to over pay him. And in the end, as well as Smith ended up doing, I think Rak and the defense as a whole would have done better had we kept him.

 

[j_y19]

GK... you ever heard the term penny wise and pound foolish?? I get that you are genetically predisposed to NOT want to pay any of these guys. But seriously, for what Rak got last year, you dont think he would have helped out this defense?? He got $7.75 million a year average and word is he was asking for $8. So he took slightly less going to the Titans. Coming off injury, and yet he posted 7 sacks in a new system with players he was unfamiliar with. He led their linebackers in sack.

I bring this up because some time you cant just scream out, oh he is going to be over paid and make MONEY the primary reason you go in another direction to the detriment of the team. Had we kept Rak, we likely dont NEED to sign Gallett to begin with.

So in this case we were penny wise and pound foolish.

Shark.....7 sacks isn't something to brag about. Preston smith had more, was also in a new system, and played half the snaps. Rak is not going to live up to that contract. It appears his career is on the backside.

 

[Sharkinva]

Shark.....7 sacks isn't something to brag about. Preston smith had more, was also in a new system, and played half the snaps. Rak is not going to live up to that contract. It appears his career is on the backside.

Seven sacks when you are the only true pass rusher the other team has to account for is nothing to sneeze at. And my point is not so much that he got seven sacks, its the idea that we went into the season with no clear plan of replacing him other than make Murphy a starter and draft a guy. And it wasnt because we didnt think he was capable of producing. As a team, and as a fan base with some people, we have shown a decided tilt towards lowballing our own, and over paying outsiders. Gallett was NOT available when we decided to let Rak walk. We lucked out on that one, but even then because of injury we flamed out to a degree.

My point is, do we continue to lowball guys, franchise them, lose them after the franchise year.. and claim it was because we were being Cap conscious?? Raks cap hit was less than $5 million, IF the titans cut him loose right now, they clear $4.5 million. You really think the deal he ended up getting was worse than what we got out of Murphy and Smith for 12 out of the 16 games??

Again we were penny wise and pound foolish on this one. We saved the cap space. But I think our defense ends up being a bit more productive with Rak in house.

 

[j_y19]

Seven sacks when you are the only true pass rusher the other team has to account for is nothing to sneeze at. And my point is not so much that he got seven sacks, its the idea that we went into the season with no clear plan of replacing him other than make Murphy a starter and draft a guy. And it wasnt because we didnt think he was capable of producing. As a team, and as a fan base with some people, we have shown a decided tilt towards lowballing our own, and over paying outsiders. Gallett was NOT available when we decided to let Rak walk. We lucked out on that one, but even then because of injury we flamed out to a degree.

My point is, do we continue to lowball guys, franchise them, lose them after the franchise year.. and claim it was because we were being Cap conscious?? Raks cap hit was less than $5 million, IF the titans cut him loose right now, they clear $4.5 million. You really think the deal he ended up getting was worse than what we got out of Murphy and Smith for 12 out of the 16 games??

Again we were penny wise and pound foolish on this one. We saved the cap space. But I think our defense ends up being a bit more productive with Rak in house.

As a general rule, I support paying your own first. But it's also player dependent. Rak is one of the guys who's career has peaked and is on the downside. I doubt he will ever see double digit sacks again and he as been an injury concern. I believe we did the right thing. I feel the same about Alf and Keenan. Would absolutely welcome than back, but I'm not convinced their vest days are ahead of them so only under a team Friendly deal. At the end of the day, you get compensated based on what you will do, not what you have done.

 

[Sharkinva]

As a general rule, I support paying your own first. But it's also player dependent. Rak is one of the guys who's career has peaked and is on the downside. I doubt he will ever see double digit sacks again and he as been an injury concern. I believe we did the right thing. I feel the same about Alf and Keenan. Would absolutely welcome than back, but I'm not convinced their vest days are ahead of them so only under a team Friendly deal. At the end of the day, you get compensated based on what you will do, not what you have done.

Agreed... but Rak got the deal he was looking for from the Titans. From everything reported, it was the deal he was trying to get from the Skins. It turned out to be extremely team friendly based on the fact that if he totally flamed out, they could release him now with no NEGATIVE dead cap space. IF you save $1 a loaf buying the store brand over the name brand bread, but end up tossing half of it because it goes moldy three days before you were able to finish it off, how much did you really save since you are now going to the store to get another loaf three days before you planned to go shopping again??

 

[j_y19]

Agreed... but Rak got the deal he was looking for from the Titans. From everything reported, it was the deal he was trying to get from the Skins. It turned out to be extremely team friendly based on the fact that if he totally flamed out, they could release him now with no NEGATIVE dead cap space. IF you save $1 a loaf buying the store brand over the name brand bread, but end up tossing half of it because it goes moldy three days before you were able to finish it off, how much did you really save since you are now going to the store to get another loaf three days before you planned to go shopping again??

We will never know if that was the deal he was trying to get from the Skins or not. If so, you are right, Ii would have been OK re-signing him. But we probably would have been releasing him this offseason. So maybe it was best for both parties that he left when he did.

 

[gkekoa]

GK we use the 4-3 a lot hence moving him inside is an option . no he isnt a classic NT

We do but he is not going to be a DT on a regular basis and never a nose. He outperformed everybody's expectations as a rookie and now people want him to move inside. That is the crazy part.

 

[gkekoa]

GK... IF Im not mistaken, you were of the opinion that Rak was worth no more than $5 million a year and would have perfered considerably less. Now Gallett didnt take a single snap for us, even in pre season. Which is mainly why I say it was a penny wise/pound foolish thing to let Rak walk. First off, there was no guarantee the Saints would let Gallett walk at the time we didnt resign Rak. Secondly we had no clear plan in place for replacing him aside from Murphy starting, and drafting a guy. Now Smith turned out to be a surprise late bloomer. But reality is, our defense likely would have been better on the pass rush WITH Rak starting opposite of Kerrigan. So yea, you can pound the drum about how you dont want to over pay guys. BUt the reality of the cap is, MOST market value contracts are not going to over pay guys, and its rare you are going to see a deal where it crippples a team as far as the cap UNLESS you are bringing in a guy from outside. As the point is to IMPROVE yearly, its counter productive to keep changing players on a yearly basis if the reasoning becomes... well he might get over paid. If a guy isnt performing thats one thing. BUt we KNEW what a healthy Rak was capable of, and we let him walk because we didnt want to over pay him. And in the end, as well as Smith ended up doing, I think Rak and the defense as a whole would have done better had we kept him.

I said he would sign for 7 but is worth five or less...I was right. You do not sign a guy to an overblown contract because you don't have a replacement. There are always guys looking for a job. You want to improve as a team...not at a position. Look at New England...they overpay nobody. If Teddy Bruschi isn't worth the money, they send him packing. If Mike Vrabel isn't worth the money, they send him packing. Next man up isn't just about injuries.

Again...RAK 7 million...Galette 750k.

 

[Sharkinva]

I said he would sign for 7 but is worth five or less...I was right. You do not sign a guy to an overblown contract because you don't have a replacement. There are always guys looking for a job. You want to improve as a team...not at a position. Look at New England...they overpay nobody. If Teddy Bruschi isn't worth the money, they send him packing. If Mike Vrabel isn't worth the money, they send him packing. Next man up isn't just about injuries.

Again...RAK 7 million...Galette 750k.

Rak 7 sacks, 51 tackles, 1 forced fumble six tackles for loss, 5 passes defensed and on kick blocked

Gallett Sat at home rehabbing for one 10th the price....

Now which one was actually WORTH more.

I swear dude, you are tighter than Scrooge in the Christmas store with Dan Snyders money.

 

[gkekoa]

Seven sacks when you are the only true pass rusher the other team has to account for is nothing to sneeze at. And my point is not so much that he got seven sacks, its the idea that we went into the season with no clear plan of replacing him other than make Murphy a starter and draft a guy. And it wasnt because we didnt think he was capable of producing. As a team, and as a fan base with some people, we have shown a decided tilt towards lowballing our own, and over paying outsiders. Gallett was NOT available when we decided to let Rak walk. We lucked out on that one, but even then because of injury we flamed out to a degree.

My point is, do we continue to lowball guys, franchise them, lose them after the franchise year.. and claim it was because we were being Cap conscious?? Raks cap hit was less than $5 million, IF the titans cut him loose right now, they clear $4.5 million. You really think the deal he ended up getting was worse than what we got out of Murphy and Smith for 12 out of the 16 games??

Again we were penny wise and pound foolish on this one. We saved the cap space. But I think our defense ends up being a bit more productive with Rak in house.

Did we win the division? Not sure how we were foolish.

As for RAK contract...cheap this year but over 8 mil next year...if they cut him, he is nearly 4 mil in dead space. That is a starting center in dead space. You don't seem to mind it but it is foolish to deal like that.

 

[Sharkinva]

Did we win the division? Not sure how we were foolish.

As for RAK contract...cheap this year but over 8 mil next year...if they cut him, he is nearly 4 mil in dead space. That is a starting center in dead space. You don't seem to mind it but it is foolish to deal like that.

First off... why would they cut him after the year he had.

Secondly its always a calculated risk. Again why are you so torqued about money that MIGHT be a bad signing?? BUt I will play. Lets say he had even close to that year for us, and we cut him and eat 4 MIllion in dead space.

If Im not mistaken have you not been saying we need to cut either Garcon or Jackson?? Cutting either of them would cost $2.5 million in dead money. Hatcher $4.5 million. So where do we draw the line?? Is it about the cap cost, or the players you feel we should hold onto??

Dead cap money is a part of the process these days. You are looking at how much it would cost to gut the player. I on the other hand am looking at

1. If the player would have helped on the field
2. If he doesnt produce, does it cost us more to cut him than keep him??

In case #1, he would likely have made our defense better.
In case # 2, cutting him cost less than keeping him. So you take the calculated risk and if it doesnt work out, well thats the cost of doing business in todays NFL. And its much smarter than going into a season saying well we will either start this guy who isnt ready, or hope to fuck we can find a starter in the draft because we are so worried about how we MIGHT over pay the guy we know is capable of producing for us because we have seen it HERE.


Oh and we were follish because after all that work to save a few million, we are actually no better off at the position than we were this time last year... but it saved us $3.5 million on the 2015 cap. so whoopdefrakindoo.

 

[skinsdad62]

i wouldnt move smith to DT permanently. but in certain situations i would

 

[skinsdad62]

First off... why would they cut him after the year he had.

Secondly its always a calculated risk. Again why are you so torqued about money that MIGHT be a bad signing?? BUt I will play. Lets say he had even close to that year for us, and we cut him and eat 4 MIllion in dead space.

If Im not mistaken have you not been saying we need to cut either Garcon or Jackson?? Cutting either of them would cost $2.5 million in dead money. Hatcher $4.5 million. So where do we draw the line?? Is it about the cap cost, or the players you feel we should hold onto??

Dead cap money is a part of the process these days. You are looking at how much it would cost to gut the player. I on the other hand am looking at

1. If the player would have helped on the field
2. If he doesnt produce, does it cost us more to cut him than keep him??

In case #1, he would likely have made our defense better.
In case # 2, cutting him cost less than keeping him. So you take the calculated risk and if it doesnt work out, well thats the cost of doing business in todays NFL. And its much smarter than going into a season saying well we will either start this guy who isnt ready, or hope to fuck we can find a starter in the draft because we are so worried about how we MIGHT over pay the guy we know is capable of producing for us because we have seen it HERE.

GK is tighter then a clam with lock jaw

Oh and we were follish because after all that work to save a few million, we are actually no better off at the position than we were this time last year... but it saved us $3.5 million on the 2015 cap. so whoopdefrakindoo.