How is Ahmad Brooks?

Originally posted by English:
I think I am just going to assume that you don't realise that they play different positions and that the positions have different average salaries.

Brooks is a fine OLB and would be missed if the team were foolish enough to cut him. To even talk about replacing him with a rookie defies belief.

End thread, as far as I am concerned.

english said nothing wrong

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:

Originally posted by 49erWay:
Lol what I meant was Brooks is pretty good but he isn't so good he can't be replaced by Lemoier or someone else.

And yes I realize him hitting that woman was 5 years ago but now we have this latest episode and my position is that the 49ers have always been a team and fan base of character and class, not punks. It is something Walsh, Montana, Craig, the rest of the team, and the whole fan base has always been proud of. So I don't like Brooks.

Sorry for the misunderstanding in prior post on the "replacement" comment, should have stopped at two margherita's instead of three last night lol.

I agree. He isn't as irreplaceable as the other 4 stars in our front 7. I think lemo was drafted for a reason, and we did trade up to get him so they must think he'll be pretty valuable. He has the physical skillset to be a very solid player in this league, he just needs to work hard. The dude is 6'3/6'4 255 with long arms, and is very quick for his size. (4.56 40) He also seems to be pretty strong putting up 27 reps on the bench and has had 81 tackles 19 TFL 15 sacks and 6 FF over the past 2 seasons. Baalke always drafts for the future and I think Lattimore, tank, lemo and maybe even patton were drafted more for the future than an immediate need like McDonald and Reid. Even if he and the rest of our backups don't prove worthy to be starters than we can pick up a free agent who will be a little less productive but save a lot of money or draft a stud in the 1st 3 rounds. Baalke set us up nicely for next year too.

He has a ways to go to be able to fill brook's shoes but I think he'll get there. My main reason for looking for a replacement for brooks really comes down to money. How can you have that much money invested in your LBs. Your talking about 8 a year for brooks going forward , around 8 a year for pat, 9 for bowman, and probably even more for aldon when his contract comes up. So let me ask you this does brooks deserve to be paid as much as pat? No. His contract wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have a bunch of stars to resign. IMO I'd rather pay 4-5 mil a year for brown than 8 for brooks.

You ask if Brooks deserves to be paid as much as Willis. Well, they are both on 6 year contracts and last time I checked Willis' was for $60 million and Brooks was for $ 37 million.

So.......

key word there would be going forward. 2014 would be around 6.9 for willis 15 9.2 16 9.5. Brooks is due 7.5 in 14 8.3 in 15 and 8.8 in 16.

So.....

I think I am just going to assume that you don't realise that they play different positions and that the positions have different average salaries.

Brooks is a fine OLB and would be missed if the team were foolish enough to cut him. To even talk about replacing him with a rookie defies belief.

End thread, as far as I am concerned.

You can assume whatever you wish to, but it's kind of hard for 2 players on the same defense to play the same position. You can have 2 ilb's on the same team or 2 dt's but they would be playing 2 different positions. I realize that willis and brooks' pay scale is different, but unfortunately for brooks he plays on a defense where he is the 4th best lb. I never suggested cutting brooks this season, but to think lemonier can't pick up the defense enough to be a starting caliber lolb from the likes of Leavitt, Fangio, Tomsula, Brooks and the rest of the lb's would be foolish. Even as early as late this season. That is a pretty awesome supporting cast to learn all aspects of being a complete lb, wouldn't you say?

When brooks came into the league he had a steeper learner curve and less athletism IMO. He played a different position in college and has battled quite a few injuries as buck pointed out. Brooks has a distinct advantage in knowledge of the position and instincts, but if lemonier can show those same great instincts than who's to say he can't pick up the knowledge from the likes of the guys mentioned above?

I'm not saying brooks is overpaid for his position, I am saying there are more vital positions that we need to sign to long term contracts. LG might not be as vital but Iupati is quite a bit younger than brooks.

Carl Nicks got a 5 year 47.5 million dollar contract.

Mike Iupati will ask for something around that figure.

Flacco who is overpaid no doubt got a 6 year 120 million dollar contract.

Kaep needs to get paid. Even at a discount your talking about 15 mil a year, but let me ask you if your a qb who takes your team to the superbowl in 10 games as a starter and possibly follows it up with as good of a campaign or better and gets another playoff birth(possibly a superbowl) than why wouldn't you demand top dollar? Kaep knows what his abilities are. His arm strength is right up there with flacco, he already broke the qb rushing record, and his accuracy is pretty darn good. His awareness and accuracy will get better with time but wouldn't you agree his overall skillset is arguably already better than flacco?

Clay Matthews, Demarcus Ware and Tamba Hali all fetch more than 11 mil annually.

Aldon, even at a discount should get 10 mil a year.

Keep in mind also that clay hali and ware are all 27, 29 and 30 respectively, and aldon is 23. Flacco is 28, Kaep is 25, Nicks is 28 and Iupati is 26.
The fact that all of our guys are younger than the competion and either are already better or have potential to be should result in higher contracts.

So we're talking about around 40 mil a year for these 3 guys. That isn't including other people we have to resign, draft picks or free agents.
The first obvious casualty would be rogers, than next in line would be Goodwin, whitner, and brooks depending on who you talk to. Brooks is the most valuable but also makes the most money out of the last 3.

There's this thing called competition in football. I don't know if your familiar with it but you make it seem like a player can't take over until he has at least a year of experience in the system. That just simply isn't true.

Originally posted by English:
I think I am just going to assume that you don't realise that they play different positions and that the positions have different average salaries.

Brooks is a fine OLB and would be missed if the team were foolish enough to cut him. To even talk about replacing him with a rookie defies belief.

End thread, as far as I am concerned.

Yeah but that is what they were saying when Roger Craig hit the scene, and so many other rookies arrived. Can't discount true talent uno. Brooks is very good, but expendable. I have been on his side this whole way until I found out he hit a female and now this latest episode of pure stupidity. Once you hit a woman you are out in my book. I truly hope he grows above and beyond his demons, but as of now I don't want to see him on the field. I want to see him pouring some of his millions off the field toward supporting battered women shelters and good causes. Without that, he is just a money grubbing punk.

Originally posted by buck:
I was not talking about Brooks, just one of the most devastating effects of alcohol. DTs. My comment was off subject. Brooks got drunk and blew it

Yeah, DTs really suck. My Dad was an alcoholic.

You can never really use alcohol as an excuse because drinking is a choice. You have to get really drunk really fast to suffer anterograde amnesia ("black-outs") and even then short term memory is working just fine, so the person is still functioning as they would normally while intoxicated. They just don't create long term memories, so they can't remember after the fact. The loss of memory combined with the loss of inhibition can make someone feel that they lost control and were not themselves. That simply isn't the case... as you said, Brooks got drunk and blew it. At least it sounds like that's the case... assuming there aren't other psychological factors.

In any case, I'm not going to judge him because I don't know him. There are other people who will take care of the consequences for his off the field behavior, I'll just watch him play... if/when he does.

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Yeah, DTs really suck. My Dad was an alcoholic.

You can never really use alcohol as an excuse because drinking is a choice. You have to get really drunk really fast to suffer anterograde amnesia ("black-outs") and even then short term memory is working just fine, so the person is still functioning as they would normally while intoxicated. They just don't create long term memories, so they can't remember after the fact. The loss of memory combined with the loss of inhibition can make someone feel that they lost control and were not themselves. That simply isn't the case... as you said, Brooks got drunk and blew it. At least it sounds like that's the case... assuming there aren't other psychological factors.

In any case, I'm not going to judge him because I don't know him. There are other people who will take care of the consequences for his off the field behavior, I'll just watch him play... if/when he does.

It's an easier choice for some people and a harder choice for others. It has allot to do with genetics, some people can be high functioning alcoholics with higher tolerances while others have 2 beers and are wasted. Some peoples brains are more inclined to seek substances to increase/validate happiness while others can be naturally happy all the time.

Originally posted by 49erWay:
Yeah but that is what they were saying when Roger Craig hit the scene, and so many other rookies arrived. Can't discount true talent uno. Brooks is very good, but expendable. I have been on his side this whole way until I found out he hit a female and now this latest episode of pure stupidity. Once you hit a woman you are out in my book. I truly hope he grows above and beyond his demons, but as of now I don't want to see him on the field. I want to see him pouring some of his millions off the field toward supporting battered women shelters and good causes. Without that, he is just a money grubbing punk.

Well, we all have our take on the bad decisions people can make. It would be proper for Brooks to own up to the most recent situation, address it to participants involved, coaches, and the "public" -- in that order -- and try to make it better.

Regardless, his contributions on the field a have been significant, 30 is not too old, and his salary is not without value for the team given what they are getting in return. He has good numbers, and produced in the clutch. What more can you ask for? I don't see why this thread is getting bumped because of the recent events. I don't see the connection. If he's released, he'll be picked up in about 3.8 seconds, and can be contrite with another management team providing a "fresh start."

Originally posted by 5280High:
It's an easier choice for some people and a harder choice for others. It has allot to do with genetics, some people can be high functioning alcoholics with higher tolerances while others have 2 beers and are wasted. Some peoples brains are more inclined to seek substances to increase/validate happiness while others can be naturally happy all the time.

Just like some people can be angry assholish drunks, and some people can be drunk and very very happy.

Originally posted by JimDrinkAMiller:
I never suggested cutting brooks this season, but to think lemonier can't pick up the defense enough to be a starting caliber lolb from the likes of Leavitt, Fangio, Tomsula, Brooks and the rest of the lb's would be foolish. Even as early as late this season. That is a pretty awesome supporting cast to learn all aspects of being a complete lb, wouldn't you say?

When brooks came into the league he had a steeper learner curve and less athletism IMO. He played a different position in college and has battled quite a few injuries as buck pointed out. Brooks has a distinct advantage in knowledge of the position and instincts, but if lemonier can show those same great instincts than who's to say he can't pick up the knowledge from the likes of the guys mentioned above?

In my estimation, this discussion of Brooks would be easier to follow, if we divide the discussion into the short term ( the next two years) and the long term ( three and four) years from now.

The Short Term (football skills)

Brooks is an All Pro Linebacker. I find it difficult to think the Lemonier will be able to seriously challenge Brooks for a starting position next year. The year after next, 2014, I would expect Lemonier to have a chance to unseat Brooks as a starting linebacker, but I would not bet on it.

The Long Term (football skills)

In 2015, there is a good chance Brooks' football skills will have diminished because of age and accumulated wear and tear on his body. And, hopefully Lemonier with two years of seasoning will have proven that he is ready to step in as a starting linebacker. If Lemonier can do that, it would be very good, perhaps ideal, if Brooks still has the football skills to become a solid experienced back-up and rotational player.

The Short Term (salary cap)

In 2013, next year, I do not see any substantial benefit to be gained from cutting Brooks. Nor do I think that will be the case in 2014, but I am more than willing to acknowledge that my understanding of the salary cap is more than somewhat limited. I am willing to listen to the expert opinion of AB on this point.

The Long Term (salary cap)

As far as I can determine, Brooks' salary could well be a major consideration in 2015 and the subsequent years. We will not know that for sure until we see how the front office plays the salary cap between now and then.

In summary, I would will concede that in 2015, the convergence of declining football skills and the increasing cap hit will put Brooks' roster in extreme danger. But, 2015 is two years from now and two years in the NFL is an eternity. We really should wait and see what happens.

There is a possibility that Lemonier could become the starting linebacker next year, but he will have to beat out an All Pro linebacker to do that. I think that the possibility of that happening is simply not realistic. But, if it were to happen, if the coaching staff makes that call, I would have no problem with it.

Bottom line, Brooks is a proven commodity; Lemonier is not.

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by spizzy:

Originally posted by 4evrfan:
This. I may be an avid 9'er fan and certainly wouldn't want to lose the services of such a good player, BUT, this guy has a history of violence and needs to face some consequences. He also needs to stay away from alcohol. And the gun threat? What's with these mammoth men feeling they need a gun to solve things? I own several, but don't think I need to pull one every time I have a disagreement with someone. Idiots.

You are right, I'm sure every time Brooks has a disagreement he beats someone and threatens them

And the media always reports things correctly and accurately right off the bat with no speculation or twists to make for a more interesting story.

Look at Brooks' history before you blame the media. And the "every time" comment was meant to be figurative not literal, Spizzy! There's just a little too much smoke here for there not to be at least a little fire. Wouldn't it be better for Ahmad to get some help now, if there's a legit anger problem, than for us to bury our heads in the sand just 'cause he's a 9'er?

Originally posted by 4evrfan:
Look at Brooks' history before you blame the media. And the "every time" comment was meant to be figurative not literal, Spizzy! There's just a little too much smoke here for there not to be at least a little fire. Wouldn't it be better for Ahmad to get some help now, if there's a legit anger problem, than for us to bury our heads in the sand just 'cause he's a 9'er?

Look at the medias history at leaving out important parts of stories so the story is more interesting and controversial before totally pardoning the media as not being the reason something that may have been really nothing but a scuffle between team mates has turned into a s**t storm. Its better to leave this whole situation to the team to handle, because all we know is what the media has said, and what we want to assume based on a players history, and neither have a clean record.

Originally posted by LoneWolf:

So you think he was trying to get his keys to go out for a drive to have a few more drinks?

I can't read his mind, but drunk people don't make rational choices. Maybe he wanted to go back out, maybe he wanted some Dennys, maybe he just really likes his keys.
He can have them tomorrow

Originally posted by Heed49er:

Originally posted by LoneWolf:
So you think he was trying to get his keys to go out for a drive to have a few more drinks?

I can't read his mind, but drunk people don't make rational choices. Maybe he wanted to go back out, maybe he wanted some Dennys, maybe he just really likes his keys.
He can have them tomorrow

Good point. Drunk people dont make rational choices. I still find it unlikely he wanted his keys to drive as opposed to getting into his house.

Great points Jim, Brodie, and Buck. I am known for being emotional and protecting women so I do have a slant.

Perhaps Brooks is not as bad as some, including myself, have drummed him up to be. I suppose we do that to test it in the hope of finding the truth. Lets hope this all pro linebacker, who I have always voiced out in support of, transgresses these issues and becomes as solid as we want to see him do.

Has to be quite a challenge to perform on the world stage and not have a foul up or two.

Here's to pulling for Brooks...

Originally posted by LoneWolf:

Good point. Drunk people dont make rational choices. I still find it unlikely he wanted his keys to drive as opposed to getting into his house.

.

You don't need the key to your car to get into your house...

I'm interested to know some more facts about what went down that night, but that'll probably never happen unless charges get pressed.

Originally posted by Heed49er:
.

You don't need the key to your car to get into your house...

I'm interested to know some more facts about what went down that night, but that'll probably never happen unless charges get pressed.

I dont know about you but all my keys are together on the same key chain. But I suppose Divens could have removed the car key from the key chain and gave him the rest of the keys. But like you said well probably never know all the facts from that night.