Originally posted by Pillbusta:
True. Leave no stone unturned
Originally posted by Disp:
Originally posted by GEEK:Unless Parys Haralson is requesting a trade for a starting position, you don't treat veterans that have accepted pay cuts, survived through the dark years, and always gave 100% on the field like that. It ruins team morale, ability to retain football players, and attract new talent in free agency.
Now if we are really trying to shed cap space to sign Iupati or someone else to an extension, then I can understand this move more. But we should not penny pinch our team's depth because it could backfire at any minute during the season.
At the end of the day this is a business. I've never heard of a player being guaranteed a roster spot just because they took a paycut. If the front office feels confident in the depth they have and they might be able to trade a player who 100% will not be on the roster next season, then why not? That's why we have such a strong roster; because Baalke and Marathe don't put emotions before doing what's right for the team and exploring every potential opportunity to get better. Notice how the 49ers are discussed as possible landing spots for more free agents/traded players than any other team? It's because Baalke has his hands everywhere, and if the right opportunity comes around they strike.
Which player has outperformed the other in pre-season though at the OLB position: Skuta or Haralson? Haralson or Johnson?
I don't see why they wouldn't keep 9 LBs on the roster.
I rather do that than carry Tukuafu. 6 DL, 9 LB, 10 DBs is 25 defensive players. 25 for offensive players, and 3 for special teams.