Offseason Focus: Defensive Line

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Don't get sucked into need based drafting. We have problems at ILB, all DL spots, free safety, left guard, tailback. I would also suggest that if you think you have a dynamite edge rusher or CB on the board you should never pass that up.

And if you think the next great QB is available at that spot, you can't say no.

The only thing we can say for sure is we don't need tackles.

Man I remember the days when we weren't set at either tackle. Why can't we just be good at every position again? It's always something, we got a good defense but crap offense. Now it's a good offense but a crap defense. Eventually something's gotta give.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Don't get sucked into need based drafting. We have problems at ILB, all DL spots, free safety, left guard, tailback. I would also suggest that if you think you have a dynamite edge rusher or CB on the board you should never pass that up.

And if you think the next great QB is available at that spot, you can't say no.

The only thing we can say for sure is we don't need tackles.

Sometimes I feel (this is more of a feeling than an analyzed reasoning) like we over evaluate NFL pros' skills to predict what a college player will become in the NFL.

I mean, I understand the reasoning behind BPA drafting, but there's always a 50/50 chance the most promising guy will turn out to be a complete bust...

And then you end up not having filled up gaping holes in your team to draft an unneeded bad (or even average) player at a position you already have depth...

I say we have too many holes to fill on D to hope that'll be fix through FA only, filling those holes should be a priority in the offseason, including the draft.

And if you make another team's day by not drafting a really good WR, well good for them but we saw how far a GREAT offense could get us with a bad defense... Not very far.

[KI Skins Fan]

Here we go again! It's the annual BPA vs. Need argument.

It starts out at the end of the season with everyone clamoring for the Skins to draft to fill our needs. One guy says we need to draft at least four D-Linemen and another guy says "No! We need to use all of our picks on D-Linemen.", or something like that (gross exaggerations on my part).

Then it morphs into we should take a D-Lineman if he is the BPA or close to the BPA when we pick.

By the time the draft rolls around, anyone who supports drafting for need is crucified by the majority of the posters here, most of whom who have changed back into rabid BPA supporters, as they do every year. It's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on The War Path.

After the draft, we all complain that we didn't draft any D-Linemen in the early rounds.

[Chico23231]

Lets look at one of my top football reference sites and pending free agent Chris Swaggy Baker:

Chris Baker Contract Details, Salary Cap Breakdowns, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac

Market Value
4 yrs, $29,853,154
Avg. Salary: $7,463,289

You buying? Sign me the eff up

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lets look at one of my top football reference sites and pending free agent Chris Swaggy Baker:

Chris Baker Contract Details, Salary Cap Breakdowns, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac

Market Value
4 yrs, $29,853,154
Avg. Salary: $7,463,289

You buying? Sign me the eff up

Yes! We need Big Swaggy. Nevertheless, I'd like that 4th year to be a team option.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lets look at one of my top football reference sites and pending free agent Chris Swaggy Baker:

Chris Baker Contract Details, Salary Cap Breakdowns, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac

Market Value
4 yrs, $29,853,154
Avg. Salary: $7,463,289

You buying? Sign me the eff up

Seems like fair value to me. He's a good but not great player. Bennie Logan is probably a bit superior. Baker can be part of a good line as long as there's a more disruptive force playing alongside him. You don't want him being seen as the best player on your line - because if offensive lines put their attention on him he won't hold up to double teams or combo blocks.

He's a key part. $7.5M per year seems reasonable.

Of course we all know how free agency works, decent players get overpaid. Hopefully Baker will want to stay in DC and Schaeffer will be able to get him to agree to $7.5M.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Sometimes I feel (this is more of a feeling than an analyzed reasoning) like we over evaluate NFL pros' skills to predict what a college player will become in the NFL.

I mean, I understand the reasoning behind BPA drafting, but there's always a 50/50 chance the most promising guy will turn out to be a complete bust...

And then you end up not having filled up gaping holes in your team to draft an unneeded bad (or even average) player at a position you already have depth...

I say we have too many holes to fill on D to hope that'll be fix through FA only, filling those holes should be a priority in the offseason, including the draft.

And if you make another team's day by not drafting a really good WR, well good for them but we saw how far a GREAT offense could get us with a bad defense... Not very far.

But you have just as much of a chance of whiffing on the player who fills a need as you do on the best guy on your board regardless of position.

You're right, we see that if a GM hits on more than 50% of his picks then he's doing really well. But you can whiff on a lineman you need just as much as you can whiff on a WR that would be a depth guy. This thinking doesn't make an argument in favor of drafting for need.

You're going to miss on your share of guys. Just get the best guys you possibly can on those nice cheap rookie deals and let the chips fall where they may. Use free agency to fill needs - you have to pay through the nose but at least you have a better idea of what you're getting as opposed to the 50/50 crapshoot of the draft.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Seems like fair value to me. He's a good but not great player. Bennie Logan is probably a bit superior. Baker can be part of a good line as long as there's a more disruptive force playing alongside him. You don't want him being seen as the best player on your line - because if offensive lines put their attention on him he won't hold up to double teams or combo blocks.

He's a key part. $7.5M per year seems reasonable.

Of course we all know how free agency works, decent players get overpaid. Hopefully Baker will want to stay in DC and Schaeffer will be able to get him to agree to $7.5M.

Yeah....You know when going through and analyzing, D-Line players, Baker value, other FA options, quality of play.... it is important to remember: who played next to Baker? No one...meaning he garnered a lot of attention up front from opposing Olines and STILL produced. He did have RK usually too his left, but he had no NT/DT or quality piece at the other DE spot. Think that says a lot.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But you have just as much of a chance of whiffing on the player who fills a need as you do on the best guy on your board regardless of position.

You're right, we see that if a GM hits on more than 50% of his picks then he's doing really well. But you can whiff on a lineman you need just as much as you can whiff on a WR that would be a depth guy. This thinking doesn't make an argument in favor of drafting for need.

You're going to miss on your share of guys. Just get the best guys you possibly can on those nice cheap rookie deals and let the chips fall where they may. Use free agency to fill needs - you have to pay through the nose but at least you have a better idea of what you're getting as opposed to the 50/50 crapshoot of the draft.

Agreed.

Honestly I don't have a strong argument against the BPA strategy, I just feel like you have to have an open mind, and if you can choose between a high ranked guy at a position you don't need and a guy ranked just a few spots behind the first one but playing a position you need, drafting the second guy seems smarter to me.

We also tend to forget that part of how these young players will develop depends on how they'll be coached, what team will be around them etc... It's not Madden where you can definitely say "this guy is an 84 overall while that one is only a 77 overall".

The point could also be made that considering you have a 50/50 chance of drafting a bust, if you use 2 of your first 4 picks on a position you need, you dramatically improve your chances of filling a hole on your team.

[KI Skins Fan]

I see two inherent problems with BPA, not that I'm against it.

1. If the holes are to be filled by FA acquisitions, that is a very expensive way to go.

2. In today's NFL, you just don't see player for player trades so you can't balance out needs between teams at a reasonable cost.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yeah....You know when going through and analyzing, D-Line players, Baker value, other FA options, quality of play.... it is important to remember: who played next to Baker? No one...meaning he garnered a lot of attention up front from opposing Olines and STILL produced. He did have RK usually too his left, but he had no NT/DT or quality piece at the other DE spot. Think that says a lot.

I completely agree. Baker is the only interior D lineman on our team that any other team would want. Nothing would improve this team more than signing Baker, adding another quality DT/NT and adding a quality free safety.
These are critical positions that need to be manned by competent NFL quality.
They will make the rest of the defense much better and in turn the team much better. Just three guys. Free agency has to be used to get at least two of them. Then the first round pick to get the third.
We saw the result last season of passing on the higher quality free agents and only counting on the draft. It cost our D coordinator his job, because the FO fucked up and we were forced to go into the season with the likes of Kedric Goldston as our starting NT.
Great DT's will make our LB's and DE's better.
A great FS will make our CB's ans SS better.
Problem solved.
The question becomes will FO be able to pass on other lesser needs to fill these glaring needs?
AFTER filling these three glaring needs at 2x DT and FS then you can draft BPA.
But you have to walk before you can run. Our defense is still crawling.
There are needs and there are glaring needs. Glaring needs bring the entire team down. For example, when our O line sucked and could not protect our QB.
Or when we did not have a QB worth a damn. Glaring needs have to addressed or the team will not make the playoffs and will fail.
I remember in our last super bowl winning team of 1992, I could look out onto the field and not see a single weakness in our starting lineup. Not a one. That brought me great joy even before we won the 92 super bowl. Just the confidence that our offense, defense and special teams did not have a single weakness in the chain. It was solid. That team was built with a combination of free agency and draft.

[dmek25]

^^^^ this is a nice post

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I completely agree. Baker is the only interior D lineman on our team that any other team would want. Nothing would improve this team more than signing Baker, adding another quality DT/NT and adding a quality free safety.
These are critical positions that need to be manned by competent NFL quality.
They will make the rest of the defense much better and in turn the team much better. Just three guys. Free agency has to be used to get at least two of them. Then the first round pick to get the third.
We saw the result last season of passing on the higher quality free agents and only counting on the draft. It cost our D coordinator his job, because the FO fucked up and we were forced to go into the season with the likes of Kedric Goldston as our starting NT.
Great DT's will make our LB's and DE's better.
A great FS will make our CB's ans SS better.
Problem solved.
The question becomes will FO be able to pass on other lesser needs to fill these glaring needs?
AFTER filling these three glaring needs at 2x DT and FS then you can draft BPA.
But you have to walk before you can run. Our defense is still crawling.
There are needs and there are glaring needs. Glaring needs bring the entire team down. For example, when our O line sucked and could not protect our QB.
Or when we did not have a QB worth a damn. Glaring needs have to addressed or the team will not make the playoffs and will fail.
I remember in our last super bowl winning team of 1992, I could look out onto the field and not see a single weakness in our starting lineup. Not a one. That brought me great joy even before we won the 92 super bowl. Just the confidence that our offense, defense and special teams did not have a single weakness in the chain. It was solid. That team was built with a combination of free agency and draft.

This!

If we add one great and one good DL, and a great FS, and we move Cravens to SS and sign Baker back... I'm fine with BPA approach.

If some of these holes are still unfilled when draft comes, I say filling them has to (at least) come into the draft planning.

[Bangee7]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I completely agree. Baker is the only interior D lineman on our team that any other team would want. Nothing would improve this team more than signing Baker, adding another quality DT/NT and adding a quality free safety.
These are critical positions that need to be manned by competent NFL quality.
They will make the rest of the defense much better and in turn the team much better. Just three guys. Free agency has to be used to get at least two of them. Then the first round pick to get the third.
We saw the result last season of passing on the higher quality free agents and only counting on the draft. It cost our D coordinator his job, because the FO fucked up and we were forced to go into the season with the likes of Kedric Goldston as our starting NT.
Great DT's will make our LB's and DE's better.
A great FS will make our CB's ans SS better.
Problem solved.
The question becomes will FO be able to pass on other lesser needs to fill these glaring needs?
AFTER filling these three glaring needs at 2x DT and FS then you can draft BPA.
But you have to walk before you can run. Our defense is still crawling.
There are needs and there are glaring needs. Glaring needs bring the entire team down. For example, when our O line sucked and could not protect our QB.
Or when we did not have a QB worth a damn. Glaring needs have to addressed or the team will not make the playoffs and will fail.
I remember in our last super bowl winning team of 1992, I could look out onto the field and not see a single weakness in our starting lineup. Not a one. That brought me great joy even before we won the 92 super bowl. Just the confidence that our offense, defense and special teams did not have a single weakness in the chain. It was solid. That team was built with a combination of free agency and draft.

Good post.
Agreed. I'd like throw in an active ILB too, but I can roll the way you laid it out there.

I have no problem with BPA, as long as we address our glaring weaknesses in F/A. We did NOT do that last year, we half-assed it. That's why we had the uproar about taking Josh Doctson.

We're in better financial position this year, so there's no reason we can't upgrade. Nobody is clamoring for over-paying, but don't expect 3-4 journey-men who couldn't start somewhere else to come in her and make us better.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by schneed10

don't get sucked into need based drafting. We have problems at ilb, all dl spots, free safety, left guard, tailback. I would also suggest that if you think you have a dynamite edge rusher or cb on the board you should never pass that up.

And if you think the next great qb is available at that spot, you can't say no.

The only thing we can say for sure is we don't need tackles.

+1.