Redskins are releasing LB Mason Foster. With the arrival of Jon Bostic, Skins are going to lean on younger guys to fill out roster. @ErinHawksworth first reported.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I think you're getting ahead of yourself by just presuming he'd be better than Ragland.
Like I said, I'm not opposed to bringing him in with no guarantees to try to beat Ragland out for a spot - ****, bring Clay in for a crack at that for all I care.
But don't have any expectations because 30 yr old LBs get pretty slow, pretty fast. Especially guys that were borderline athletes to begin with. We don't operate in an era where Marvcus Patton can hang around into his mid-30s by just slamming into FBs anymore.
If you can't move, you can't play.
if he can play and at least tackle in a base 4-3 that's a huge upgrade compared to last year.
I wouldn't offer anything crazy, but a 2.5 million dollar deal for one year is reasonable for a potential starting Mike. We have plenty of cap room. [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
I don't think we have much risk here; if he can play and at least tackle in a base 4-3 that's a huge upgrade compared to last year.
I wouldn't offer anything crazy, but a 2.5 million dollar deal for one year is reasonable for a potential starting Mike. We have plenty of cap room.
{BANGS. HEAD. ON. DESK.}
I just...I can't.
Somebody sticky a thread on the rules related to cap rollovers please. FFS - "we have plenty of cap room" is never a good reason to sign a player. Ever. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
{BANGS. HEAD. ON. DESK.}
I just...I can't.
Somebody sticky a thread on the rules related to cap rollovers please. FFS - "we have plenty of cap room" is never a good reason to sign a player. Ever.
Potential reward is worth the risk especially since we're so close to a SB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
They need to give every opportunity to Lee to get it figured out and be the 3 down guy in the middle anyway.
Lee will never be a 3-down guy in the middle.
This team won't really have one of those all that often anyway. In all reality, they'll be playing in 2 LB formations probably 2/3 of the time. And those fronts will be Hitchens and Lee/O'Daniel. I'd have my money on Lee. You'll probably see Hitchens working in the "Nickel Mike" spot with Lee in a "Nickel Will" - i.e. a true nickel LB.
Our 2 LB set will have only one throughput and that will be Hitchens. Wilson and Ragland will come off the field anytime we're running 5 DBs.
I'd be surprised if our Mike is running more than 20% of the snaps when all is said and done. [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
Potential reward is worth the risk especially since we're so close to a SB.
That's a different argument.
But if we torch $2.5 million in cap space on Foster and he's a 10% improvement on Ragland for the 15 snaps/gm that Ragland's likely to play, that's NOT a good use of that cap space, not when it could be rolled into cap credits for next year instead.
This is a fine argument to have in favor of bringing in Lee - there could be a real upgrade there if O'Daniel can't be trusted in space. But Foster and Ragland would both play a nominal role in this defense as neither can be trusted in coverage and Ragland's fine when he's coming downhill.
At best I'd give him the CJ Spiller treatment. I'd have him in camp, cut him prior to week 1 and then re-sign him after week 1 when NFL veterans salaries are no longer guaranteed. Then if he continues to show better than Ragland in limited use, I'd keep him and cut Ragland. But I'd be extremely reluctant to guarantee money to a marginal 'thumper' linebacker who's role here will be fairly small and who's on the wrong side of 30. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Lee will never be a 3-down guy in the middle.
This team won't really have one of those all that often anyway. In all reality, they'll be playing in 2 LB formations probably 2/3 of the time. And those fronts will be Hitchens and Lee/O'Daniel. I'd have my money on Lee. You'll probably see Hitchens working in the "Nickel Mike" spot with Lee in a "Nickel Will" - i.e. a true nickel LB.
Our 2 LB set will have only one throughput and that will be Hitchens. Wilson and Ragland will come off the field anytime we're running 5 DBs.
I'd be surprised if our Mike is running more than 20% of the snaps when all is said and done.
Why can't Lee be a 3 down guy though?
I'm tired of having to have so many different damn LB's. In today's NFL you're gonna have to find guys that can do both to be worth a shit in there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
That's a different argument.
But if we torch $2.5 million in cap space on Foster and he's a 10% improvement on Ragland for the 15 snaps/gm that Ragland's likely to play, that's NOT a good use of that cap space, not when it could be rolled into cap credits for next year instead.
This is a fine argument to have in favor of bringing in Lee - there could be a real upgrade there if O'Daniel can't be trusted in space. But Foster and Ragland would both play a nominal role in this defense as neither can be trusted in coverage and Ragland's fine when he's coming downhill.
At best I'd give him the CJ Spiller treatment. I'd have him in camp, cut him prior to week 1 and then re-sign him after week 1 when NFL veterans salaries are no longer guaranteed. Then if he continues to show better than Ragland in limited use, I'd keep him and cut Ragland. But I'd be extremely reluctant to guarantee money to a marginal 'thumper' linebacker who's role here will be fairly small and who's on the wrong side of 30.
I'm in agreement with you for the most part.
I have no idea what kind of deal Foster will receive. Maybe he would be open to no guarantees in order to sign with a potential SB winning team. If so, as you said, you sign him no problem.
I still wouldn't have a problem taking a bit of a risk and giving him some guaranteed money to compete with Ragland. If he beats out Ragland, then you cut him and recoup some of the money you gave to Foster.
I just don't have a good feeling about our LB corps. They are by far the worst positional group on our defense and I'm willing to gamble in order to improve that position. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
{BANGS. HEAD. ON. DESK.}
I just...I can't.
Somebody sticky a thread on the rules related to cap rollovers please. FFS - "we have plenty of cap room" is never a good reason to sign a player. Ever.
unless your trying to win a super bowl now...right [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Why can't Lee be a 3 down guy though?
I'm tired of having to have so many different damn LB's. In today's NFL you're gonna have to find guys that can do both to be worth a shit in there.
Not physical enough.
Derrick Johnson was the most savvy LBer you'll ever see at going around blockers and it was primarily because he lacked the core strength/mass to win at the point of attack.
He weighed 240 lbs. Lee weights 220 (maybe).
Lee isn't even as strong as DJ was and he damn sure isn't as savvy. Moreover, DJ didn't perform all that well as a 4-3 Mike.
Lee simply doesn't have the physical skill set or mentality to be a 3-down linebacker. He's played his whole life as a hyper-athletic playmaking LBer and there's just no way you're going to convince him that he's gonna be a 3-down LBer who's focusing on run-fit and other various responsibilities associated with being a Mike.
He's ideally situated as a 4-3 Will if you want him as a starter. But really, he may just be perfect as a situational player; a strictly Nickel LBer. Asking more of him is likely setting him up to fail. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Not physical enough.
Derrick Johnson was the most savvy LBer you'll ever see at going around blockers and it was primarily because he lacked the core strength/mass to win at the point of attack.
He weighed 240 lbs. Lee weights 220 (maybe).
Lee isn't even as strong as DJ was and he damn sure isn't as savvy. Moreover, DJ didn't perform all that well as a 4-3 Mike.
Lee simply doesn't have the physical skill set or mentality to be a 3-down linebacker. He's played his whole life as a hyper-athletic playmaking LBer and there's just no way you're going to convince him that he's gonna be a 3-down LBer who's focusing on run-fit and other various responsibilities associated with being a Mike.
He's ideally situated as a 4-3 Will if you want him as a starter. But really, he may just be perfect as a situational player; a strictly Nickel LBer. Asking more of him is likely setting him up to fail.
If that's the case and that's what they see him as, that's not gonna speak very highly on their feelings of DoD. [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
I'm in agreement with you for the most part.
I have no idea what kind of deal Foster will receive. Maybe he would be open to no guarantees in order to sign with a potential SB winning team. If so, as you said, you sign him no problem.
I still wouldn't have a problem taking a bit of a risk and giving him some guaranteed money to compete with Ragland. If he beats out Ragland, then you cut him and recoup some of the money you gave to Foster.
I just don't have a good feeling about our LB corps. They are by far the worst positional group on our defense and I'm willing to gamble in order to improve that position.
I just think we need to re-calibrate how we view the position for as long as Spags is here.
That's a complementary position group in his defense. He builds around his DL and his secondary; the LBs are there to be piecemealed and matched up as needed.
I think this team will be scrimping/scraping at LB for as long as Spags (or his progeny) are running the show. It's gonna be an offense first team anyway so that's where the most cap space will go, then you'll see the DL, then the secondary, then finally they'll put together a LB corps with what they have left and they'll figure out a way to make it work.
When you embrace the fact that a position group somewhere is gonna suffer to keep us under the cap, I think you realize that situational deployment of cheaper players w/ particular skill-sets is the way to go. And to me, Foster has a largely redundant skill-set with Ragland and even Niemann on board. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
If that's the case and that's what they see him as, that's not gonna speak very highly on their feelings of DoD.
I think that's exactly what happened.
And that's not to say they don't think he'll EVER be ready, but rather that he may not be ready NOW.
Meanwhile Lee came with a low cap figure and at a pittance in terms of acquisition costs while coming off an elite year in coverage. I think he was a no-brainer. And since the Jets absorbed his signing bonus and his salary isn't guaranteed this year, he's also zero risk; if DoD shines in camp, the Chiefs cut Lee with no dead money.
Even if Lee's just a 1-year option while DoD continues to develop (because man, O'Daniel was raaaaaaw last year), that's a good use of a 6th round pick.
Like I said, the difference for me on the Ragland v. DoD distinction is volume and floor. The Nickel LB position is gonna see a shitload of snaps in this defense. And if DoD isn't mentally prepared, he's simply going to be unplayable. Lee presents a hell of an insurance policy who could be truly stellar in that role.
Ragland, OTOH, will get limited snaps and mentally he should be fine; the question is can he physically do that job. Well in those limited, downhill snaps, I think he can be playable, if not an actual asset. Meanwhile I don't see Foster presenting 'truly stellar' as an upside like Lee could in his role.