There are 151 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Peyton coming?

Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. Do you really want to get into the semantics of an alternate pro-bowler vs. pro-bowler? The bigger issue is that how many SAM's can go to the pro-bowl at one time? And even bigger, obviously the rest of the entire league recognize his value along with many other 49er "alternate" pro-bowlers. It puts him in the top 3 to 5 best SAM's in the game in his first year as a starter; why don't our own fans realize this? And still, I challenge you to find a better SAM today: "There are quite a few SAM backers in the league that are better"...who put up better all-around numbers, production and demonstrated a complete game.

I'm not IN LOVE with Brooks but for a 3-4 defense, you are always looking for the best 4 LBers you can get. And for those who ask how long it's been since we had a good corner? Walt Harris? How long has it been since we had the best four-LB 3-4 combination in the game (as we currently stand)? Never? If you can keep this front 7 together, you have a chance to be one of the best front 7's in history in line with the Saints, Giants, 9ers of the 80/90's, etc. In it's first year, this front 7 (not the back end) set NFL records. Imagine year 2 and 3 together if Brooks and Aldon are starters and Fangio can start opening up the playbook and moving Brooks over to WILL and rush from the blind side while Aldon rushes from the TED spot inside while Bowman lines up outside; Willis rushes off Aldon or Brooks. Get the idea?

My solution was simple. If Brooks wants a high deal, you Franchise him at 6+ million, sign Rogers and put the onus back on Goldson at the original price of 5 for 25 (with the added pressure Whitner is putting on him to sign and stay together). We should have no problems signing the rest AND have plenty of money left over for a WR. FS are easier to find in FA and the draft than a SAM or CB not to mention, if you keep your front 7 together AND sign Carlos, there won't be much pressure on the FS who comes in.

And for those who still think Aldon is going to suddenly start at the SAM position if Brooks walks, please see post #65. A rookie solution is another not-so-good idea. The 3-4 is like the WCO. First you have to have all the right pieces and THEN it takes a good 3 years to learn/master. Brooks has been developing in the 3-4 for many years now. Aldon still has a LONG ways to go but as a rookie, he was primarily asked to rush the passer from the weak (blind) side on third downs WHILE he studied and learned the playbook. Now with a full year of exposure to the playbook, playing the WILL spot and a full off-season, Baalke thinks he's ready to start at WILL (most likely). But it will still take him another year or two to master both the WILL/SAM spots (b/c ideally, they are interchangeable once mastered - as we see with the Ravens/Steelers). But for now...for 2012..stay tuned.

PS: Rogers is referred to as "Rodgers" throughout this thread...wasn't calling you out in particular.

I wouldn't mind your solution at all, but the franchise tag for Brooks would be 8.8 mil. It's only 6 mil for safeties which is why Goldson is probably the favorite to receive the FT.
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Eh Brooks is pretty good, he's better than any other OLB on the market in this class of free agents but yeah Rogers is better and more important to our defense. Brooks is replaceable IMO because you can get a rookie OLB/DE like a Jake Bequette or Cam Johnson in the 3rd round to come in and rush the passer on 3rd downs, and on first and 2nd you can just place Haralson and Aldon at the 2 OLB spots. Plus there is always someone who gets cut that's a Jason Taylor type player that you can have come in as a vet and they may not be able to play all the downs but they can give you some good snaps. We can't find anyone to come in and alternate covering the other team's best reciever and the slot reciever 1 on 1 like Rogers did, and also get 6 INTS. That is a friggin super star season right there. Rogers and Goldson are really important to keep around. Brooks is a little bit less so. Would like him back but he's replaceable. So for the most part I agree with el guapo.

Good objective post and you backed it up well.

So curious...if Brooks leaves what is your solution and how does that change our depth, FA and draft? Would you slide Aldon over to SAM and continue to start Haralson at WILL on 1st and 2nd downs and then draft a pass rusher for 3rd downs from the WILL spot? If so, you lose huge production all the way around. First, we may never see another rookie in history collect 14 sacks from the WILL spot as a 3rd down specialist. Second, you move Aldon to a completely different position, start him and have him rush from the site-line of a QB. Then who backs up Aldon should he go down? Fatigue taking on two blockers all year and sealing the edge?

No? OK, then let's start Aldon at WILL and move Haralson to SAM. You can naturally expect Aldon's sack numbers from teams having tape on him and him starting every snap to go down (see also, Haralson)...more focus on sealing the edges too and dropping back and fatigue and more double-teams. This may be the best solution. But then you'd still want to draft a pass rusher high affecting your draft strategy, bring in depth via FA, etc. But I have some big concerns here for Haralson. He is a solid run stopper but that's paired with Justin Smith. McDonald is more of an up-the-field, slip-through-the-cracks, slasher of a RDE unlike Justin who not only takes on two guys but pushes them both backwards and STILL produces sacks/pressures. McDonald can do this b/c he knows Brooks can contain the edge, make TFL's and funnel action back into Willis/Bowman while taking on two guys (ala Justin). Haralson BLOWS in space...if he can only get two sacks (theme for him) in the first game of the year playing on the weak/blind side, he's going to provide next to nothing on the SAM side. And coverage? Reading AND defending screens? Scary. And he sort of has a history of RB's running off his edge too. Now imagine him at SAM with an extra TE, RT and FB coming at him...meat!

So what are your solutions?
Originally posted by Hopper:
I wouldn't mind your solution at all, but the franchise tag for Brooks would be 8.8 mil. It's only 6 mil for safeties which is why Goldson is probably the favorite to receive the FT.

Isn't this backwards? Can we confirm this? Anyone?

Edit: He's right...it's 10.6 for CB's, 8.8 for LB and 6.2 for S.

Even then, same rule applies. Carlos has said all year he wants to be here. You offer him a reasonable contract, tag Brooks and offer Goldson close to his original contract of 5 for 25. Make Brooks prove it one more year. BTW: His overall LT contract I would imagine would be less and more in line with those who play the SAM position, NOT the WILL position which is the glory-sack number position?
[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM ]
Originally posted by NCommand:
LOL. Do you really want to get into the semantics of an alternate pro-bowler vs. pro-bowler? The bigger issue is that how many SAM's can go to the pro-bowl at one time? And even bigger, obviously the rest of the entire league recognize his value along with many other 49er "alternate" pro-bowlers. It puts him in the top 3 to 5 best SAM's in the game in his first year as a starter; why don't our own fans realize this? And still, I challenge you to find a better SAM today: "There are quite a few SAM backers in the league that are better"...who put up better all-around numbers, production and demonstrated a complete game.

I'm not IN LOVE with Brooks but for a 3-4 defense, you are always looking for the best 4 LBers you can get. And for those who ask how long it's been since we had a good corner? Walt Harris? How long has it been since we had the best four-LB 3-4 combination in the game (as we currently stand)? Never? If you can keep this front 7 together, you have a chance to be one of the best front 7's in history in line with the Saints, Giants, 9ers of the 80/90's, etc. In it's first year, this front 7 (not the back end) set NFL records. Imagine year 2 and 3 together if Brooks and Aldon are starters and Fangio can start opening up the playbook and moving Brooks over to WILL and rush from the blind side while Aldon rushes from the TED spot inside while Bowman lines up outside; Willis rushes off Aldon or Brooks. Get the idea?

My solution was simple. If Brooks wants a high deal, you Franchise him at 6+ million, sign Rogers and put the onus back on Goldson at the original price of 5 for 25 (with the added pressure Whitner is putting on him to sign and stay together). We should have no problems signing the rest AND have plenty of money left over for a WR. FS are easier to find in FA and the draft than a SAM or CB not to mention, if you keep your front 7 together AND sign Carlos, there won't be much pressure on the FS who comes in.

And for those who still think Aldon is going to suddenly start at the SAM position if Brooks walks, please see post #65. A rookie solution is another not-so-good idea. The 3-4 is like the WCO. First you have to have all the right pieces and THEN it takes a good 3 years to learn/master. Brooks has been developing in the 3-4 for many years now. Aldon still has a LONG ways to go but as a rookie, he was primarily asked to rush the passer from the weak (blind) side on third downs WHILE he studied and learned the playbook. Now with a full year of exposure to the playbook, playing the WILL spot and a full off-season, Baalke thinks he's ready to start at WILL (most likely). But it will still take him another year or two to master both the WILL/SAM spots (b/c ideally, they are interchangeable once mastered - as we see with the Ravens/Steelers). But for now...for 2012..stay tuned.

PS: Rogers is referred to as "Rodgers" throughout this thread...wasn't calling you out in particular.

Good post.

I think a lot of people have been influenced by the idea that Goldson would be tagged because he would be cheaper than Rogers or Brooks. (All speculation.) That is true but it isn't the only solution. Personally I am not a big fan of Goldson. Yes, he makes some big hits but he also is late in coverage too often and does not have the best of instincts. Rogers is a better corner than Goldson is a safety and Brooks is a better SAM than either of the others. Therefore, it would make sense to tag Brooks although Baalke has made it clear that using the tag is not his preference. Now of course that is all "management" talk but it is also sound policy.

One other thing, I do not want to see the 49ers use up all their cap space this season and become another Pittsburgh who is going through all kinds of cap hell trying to keep Mike Wallace. The 49ers have some key players coming due to get paid in the next year or so and if you break the bank for everyone this year then you are faced with the nightmare of re-worked contracts and who comes/who goes when it comes time to re-sign guys like Bowman. I would much rather see them save $5-9MILLION in reserve, maybe even more. If they continue to draft well they do not need to put themselves in cap hell for guys who are "better-than-average" but gained hype for having played on a "winning team." Save the cash to pay the true stars of the team, not the guys who can be replaced; see Nate Clements/Carlos Rogers.
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hopper:
I wouldn't mind your solution at all, but the franchise tag for Brooks would be 8.8 mil. It's only 6 mil for safeties which is why Goldson is probably the favorite to receive the FT.

Isn't this backwards? Can we confirm this? Anyone?

Is the franchise tag the same price for a 3-4 linebacker as for a 4-3 linebacker? And for a 3-4 DE as for one who plays in a 4-3. Sorry to admit my ignorance on this, but I see the players as being of very different value.

Education, please!
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by Hopper:
I wouldn't mind your solution at all, but the franchise tag for Brooks would be 8.8 mil. It's only 6 mil for safeties which is why Goldson is probably the favorite to receive the FT.

Isn't this backwards? Can we confirm this? Anyone?

Is the franchise tag the same price for a 3-4 linebacker as for a 4-3 linebacker? And for a 3-4 DE as for one who plays in a 4-3. Sorry to admit my ignorance on this, but I see the players as being of very different value.

Education, please!

I did some research and found this:

Edit: He's right...it's expected to be 10.6 for CB's, 8.8 for LB and 6.2 for S.

Even then, same rule applies. Carlos has said all year he wants to be here. You offer him a reasonable contract, tag Brooks and offer Goldson close to his original contract of 5 for 25. Make Brooks prove it one more year. BTW: His overall LT contract I would imagine would be less and more in line with those who play the SAM position, NOT the WILL position which is the glory-sack number position?

But honestly, I'm with you. I would think that SAM's and WILL's are paid differently and I would like some education as well on this one as well?
[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 24, 2012 at 9:54 AM ]
Originally posted by dj43:
Good post.

I think a lot of people have been influenced by the idea that Goldson would be tagged because he would be cheaper than Rogers or Brooks. (All speculation.) That is true but it isn't the only solution. Personally I am not a big fan of Goldson. Yes, he makes some big hits but he also is late in coverage too often and does not have the best of instincts. Rogers is a better corner than Goldson is a safety and Brooks is a better SAM than either of the others. Therefore, it would make sense to tag Brooks although Baalke has made it clear that using the tag is not his preference. Now of course that is all "management" talk but it is also sound policy.

One other thing, I do not want to see the 49ers use up all their cap space this season and become another Pittsburgh who is going through all kinds of cap hell trying to keep Mike Wallace. The 49ers have some key players coming due to get paid in the next year or so and if you break the bank for everyone this year then you are faced with the nightmare of re-worked contracts and who comes/who goes when it comes time to re-sign guys like Bowman. I would much rather see them save $5-9MILLION in reserve, maybe even more. If they continue to draft well they do not need to put themselves in cap hell for guys who are "better-than-average" but gained hype for having played on a "winning team." Save the cash to pay the true stars of the team, not the guys who can be replaced; see Nate Clements/Carlos Rogers.

I'm so glad you brought this last point up about mortgaging our future. I was thinking about that as well and like Baalke alluded too, each year is different and we're going to have some new ppl in the locker room next year so chemistry will need to be adjusted and every year is a new year even though they will make every effort they can to keep "their own" intact.
Originally posted by NCommand:
I did some research and found this:

Edit: He's right...it's expected to be 10.6 for CB's, 8.8 for LB and 6.2 for S.

Even then, same rule applies. Carlos has said all year he wants to be here. You offer him a reasonable contract, tag Brooks and offer Goldson close to his original contract of 5 for 25. Make Brooks prove it one more year. BTW: His overall LT contract I would imagine would be less and more in line with those who play the SAM position, NOT the WILL position which is the glory-sack number position?

But honestly, I'm with you. I would think that SAM's and WILL's are paid differently and I would like some education as well on this one as well?

I could go with your suggestion quite happily, I think. Where's AB when you need him?
http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2012/02/wr-morgan-49ers-talking-numbers-but.html

Nothing imminent but they are atleast trying to make some progress. He could still test FA though.
watch him test FA, go somewhere else, and explode into some monster stud WR. I will kick something. kick it to death.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
watch him test FA, go somewhere else, and explode into some monster stud WR. I will kick something. kick it to death.

An oak tree maybe?
I really dont care if he comes back or not.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
watch him test FA, go somewhere else, and explode into some monster stud WR. I will kick something. kick it to death.

As much as I liked the Spillman signing (and Brooks) I wonder what the psychological impact is to the remaining FAs? You gotta think Morgan is like, " They gave Spillman how much? they at least need to pay me X then!!"
I'd be very surprised if he doesn't sign. He'll be a Niner. It's only a formality.
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
watch him test FA, go somewhere else, and explode into some monster stud WR. I will kick something. kick it to death.

An oak tree maybe?

you can't kill something that's not alive.
...