...I think what bothered me about your post was how you grouped Ro/Brent in there are unique cases that shouldn't be counted. Ro was NOT forced on Garrett and Brent was out drinking with teammates and made a foolish/undisciplined decision that led to his suspension. I mean label each case whatever you want, at the end of the day it's the games missed that matters. We can't ignore the trend going on right now on defense. If we're going to continue this philosophy of reclamation projects, then we have to develop a better structure to keep these guys out of trouble. Whatever we have now btw Garrett-Jerry-Calvin Hill-etc. is not working. It's Garrett's responsibility to fix it, not play dumb when he's asked about it...which is what he did in his PC yesterday several times...
To be clear, I don't think those were unique cases that shouldn't be counted. I think they were cases of players they took a chance on and carried on the roster when many other teams wouldn't. In a lot of NFL cities, Josh Brent's career is over after the accident, period, and his 10 games never show up on their suspension ledger. In Dallas, he gets another shot.
Same for McClain. Really, in McClain's case I think the team carried him last year for bookkeeping reasons, because it somehow allowed them to get back some of the money they paid him. I don't remember the specifics, but there was a rationale for it.
The point is, these aren't discipline problems. This is a part of how the organization goes about finding or trying to reclaim players. I have no problem with you not liking it. I'm not a huge fan myself because it hasn't proven to be effective. But that's not what you asked. You asked if the HC was getting a pass for lack of discipline based off of a count of players' games suspended. He pretty obviously isn't.