What's with all the "Cut Ahmad Brooks" talk?

I think it depends on what they do in FA and the draft. Obviously, if they spend big money on a FA pass rusher, Brooks is probably done here.

dollar to production value isn't there...time to move on.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by ElephantHaley:
Its time to move on from Ahmad. Loved him from 2011-2014 but he's older/slower/less productive and Pricey

Everything in a nutshell. At this point, all he's got going for him is experience. All the negatives: off-field issues, mental errors (off-sides, personal fouls), decline in play, decline in speed and explosiveness/power, increase in age, massive price tag. There is no reason he should be here next year. Cut him and Lemonier.

Let the other guys compete with a pass rusher we sign in the off-season. Eli Harold, Lynch, and then a FA or two plus a couple draft picks.

As the late great Bill Walsh says - it's better to cut someone a year or 2 too early, than to hold on to them a year or 2 too long. Something like that.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Brooks is on the downside of his career. We can easily sign a replacement. He would just be taking up a roster spot this season and eating an enormous amount of cap space while not earning it. Go heavy on OLB in the draft and supplement with a FA pickup.

Sign who? Rely on a rookie?

Great plan.

Originally posted by SoCold:

Because he's the 2nd highest paid player on the team.

2014 49ers
Brooks 13 games 30 tackles 6 sacks
Skuta 10 games 33 tackles 5 sacks

2015
Brooks 14 games 42 tackles 6.5 sacks
Skuta (JAX) 13 games 40 tackles 1.5 sacks

49ers save over $7m in cap space if they let him go post June 1st.

Team could have cut Brooks last year and locked up Skuta for 4 years with roughly the same production. Skuta is 2 years younger than Brooks.

Now they either keep him and pay his $6.5m base or cut him and use the money to sign one or two other guys? Is he worth $1m a sack?

Since when is 6.5 sacks the same as 1.5 sacks??

And am I missing something about us having to shed salary? Do we need the cap space?

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by SoCold:
Because he's the 2nd highest paid player on the team.

2014 49ers
Brooks 13 games 30 tackles 6 sacks
Skuta 10 games 33 tackles 5 sacks

2015
Brooks 14 games 42 tackles 6.5 sacks
Skuta (JAX) 13 games 40 tackles 1.5 sacks

49ers save over $7m in cap space if they let him go post June 1st.

Team could have cut Brooks last year and locked up Skuta for 4 years with roughly the same production. Skuta is 2 years younger than Brooks.

Now they either keep him and pay his $6.5m base or cut him and use the money to sign one or two other guys? Is he worth $1m a sack?

Since when is 6.5 sacks the same as 1.5 sacks??

And am I missing something about us having to shed salary? Do we need the cap space?

lol Skuta took a contract half of what Brooks is still getting paid. If he didn't play for a garbage team like JAX he prob would have had more sacks.

Lynch had 6 sacks his rookie year and 6.5 last year. He was a 5th rounder.

Could sign 2 FA and draft a rookie for what Brooks is costing.

Originally posted by JimA49ers:

As the late great Bill Walsh says - it's better to cut someone a year or 2 too early, than to hold on to them a year or 2 too long. Something like that.

This quote holds merit if we need to shed salary or need cap space.

Since I doubt Baalke will spend big money on free agents I doubt we have to worry about any of the above.

Originally posted by SoCold:

lol Skuta took a contract half of what Brooks is still getting paid. If he didn't play for a garbage team like JAX he prob would have had more sacks.

Lynch had 6 sacks his rookie year and 6.5 last year. He was a 5th rounder.

Could sign 2 FA and draft a rookie for what Brooks is costing.

So Skuta would have had better stats if he played on a good team but Brooks DID put up good stats on a TERRIBLE team and you want to cut him. Brilliant logic.

You better go check the Jags board. There is talk of cutting Skuta because he was awful last year and they have no-one to replace him. If we signed him to a 40 mil deal like the Jags did he would be getting cut by us too.

3.6 mil for Skuta in '16
6.5 mil for Brooks in '16

One is a proven vet who averages 40 tackles and 6.5 sacks over 7 years. The other got a massive deal after ONE good year.

You act like 6.5 mil for a 3 down linebacker is alot.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Sign who? Rely on a rookie?

Great plan.

Why not? A guy like Shaq Lawson could step in and could conceivably play as well as Brooks did last season, if not better, for a lot less money. A guy like Noah Spence could even be an improvement in terms of his ability to rush the passer.


They could sign a guy like Bruce Irvin for a few mil more and get a more athletic, explosive player.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by SoCold:
lol Skuta took a contract half of what Brooks is still getting paid. If he didn't play for a garbage team like JAX he prob would have had more sacks.

Lynch had 6 sacks his rookie year and 6.5 last year. He was a 5th rounder.

Could sign 2 FA and draft a rookie for what Brooks is costing.

You better go check the Jags board. There is talk of cutting Skuta because he was awful last year and they have no-one to replace him. If we signed him to a 40 mil deal like the Jags did he would be getting cut by us too.

3.6 mil for Skuta in '16
6.5 mil for Brooks in '16

One is a proven vet who averages 40 tackles and 6.5 sacks over 7 years. The other got a massive deal after ONE good year.

Lol He signed a 5 year $20.5m deal and it's only $8m guaranteed. After 2016 the Jags can cut Skuta and owe him nothing more.

Lynch is a 5th rounder who's had as many sacks. How do you explain that?

This has nothing to do with cap space. It's about $$ vs production. Brooks isn't worth $1m per sack lol.

The team could lock up 2 guys for 4 years instead of keeping Brooks around for 1.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Why not? A guy like Shaq Lawson could step in and could conceivably play as well as Brooks did last season, if not better, for a lot less money.

They could sign a guy like Bruce Irvin for a few mil more and get a more athletic, explosive player.

Lawson is not ready to start. Not even close.

Irvin had 38 tackles and 5.5 sacks for the best D in the league. He has 22 sacks over 4 years on that fantastic D. Who is to say he will improve on those stats on a worse D? You would be willing to give him Brooks money and hope he puts up Brooks stats? Thats a big gamble.

Plus, who says he will want to come here?

Originally posted by SoCold:

Lol He signed a 5 year $20.5m deal and it's only $8m guaranteed. After 2016 the Jags can cut Skuta and owe him nothing more.

Lynch is a 5th rounder who's had as many sacks. How do you explain that?

This has nothing to do with cap space. It's about $$ vs production. Brooks isn't worth $1m per sack lol.

The team could lock up 2 guys for 4 years instead of keeping Brooks around for 1.

So cut him and just hope we can find another 5th round rookie who slid due to character concerns again?

Great plan.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Lawson is not ready to start. Not even close.

If you say so........

Irvin had 38 tackles and 5.5 sacks for the best D in the league. He has 22 sacks over 4 years on that fantastic D. Who is to say he will improve on those stats on a worse D? You would be willing to give him Brooks money and hope he puts up Brooks stats? Thats a big gamble.

Plus, who says he will want to come here?

You pay guys for what they will do for you going forward, not what they did 2-3 years ago. Regardless of how you try to justify it, Irvin is just a nuch better player at this point than Brooks, a guy who is far less irreplaceable than you seem to believe.


You can keep guzzling the Kool-Aid but I see a player who is on the downside of his career, whose number of impact plays no longer outweighs all the really dumb stuff that he does. With the sheer number of times he was a step too late or caught out of position, the 49ers can and should do better next season.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by SoCold:
Lol He signed a 5 year $20.5m deal and it's only $8m guaranteed. After 2016 the Jags can cut Skuta and owe him nothing more.

Lynch is a 5th rounder who's had as many sacks. How do you explain that?

This has nothing to do with cap space. It's about $$ vs production. Brooks isn't worth $1m per sack lol.

The team could lock up 2 guys for 4 years instead of keeping Brooks around for 1.

So cut him and just hope we can find another 5th round rookie who slid due to character concerns again?

Great plan.

Well your plan has us overpaying for one guy who older and slowing down with no guarantee to make it through an entire season. The team has a couple backups that could step up already on the team. Add a FA and a draft pick with half the money you would be giving to Brooks makes a lot more sense.

There is no guarantee he's going to have another 40 tackle 6 sack year. With his attitude I'd guess he's looking to skate through the last years of his deal and bank what he can. I don't think he has the heart.

Brooks is signed through 2017. Not a good contract at all and the 49ers would be wise to get out of it asap.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

So cut him and just hope we can find another 5th round rookie who slid due to character concerns again?

Great plan.

Cut him because his performance isnt coming close to justifying his salary at this point. Cut him because the 49ers can and should do better.


Your defeatist mentality is one that no good GM possesses.


"But this guy was GREAT like 3 years ago....and what if we cant get anyone better....we'll suck, we will just flat out suck!"


Good GMs look to get better rather than settling for okay or so-so. I dont doubt that they could draft a guy like Spence or Lawson and be better off going forwards with a younger, more athletic and explosive player than they are with an aging, overpaid Brooks.