Peyton coming?

if we could only have one, I'd take Brooks. As great at Rogers was this year, a great passrush will make a secondary look good. and we aren't as thin at CB as we are at OLB.

Originally posted by NinerG94:

Originally posted by D_Niner:
Brooks can easily be replaced. A pro-bowl CB can't.

Come on D_Niner! Neither can easily be replaced. Do you not remember all the years of subpar OLB play and how hard it was to find a good one? If OLB was so easy to replace, why is there such a high price tag and demand for the position? Also, if it was so easy to replace why did Aldon Smith not start last season? We're in trouble without either player but I dont want to see anymore guys like Laboy or Gibson on the roster getting actual reps in live games. I know it not realistic but I hope we can retain both guys.

Look, I think Aldon is ready to start and we already have Haralson. That makes 3 OLB starters when we only need 2. To me that makes one of them easy to replace. Sure we need to address depth; but, we don't need to find a Starter or an equal quality player to Brooks. A solid backup or situational pass rusher will do just fine.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Brooks can easily be replaced. A pro-bowl CB can't.

Very true, the falloff in production against passing teams is more significant if we lose a pro bowl cb versus a good olb

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if we could only have one, I'd take Brooks. As great at Rogers was this year, a great passrush will make a secondary look good. and we aren't as thin at CB as we are at OLB.

A great secondary will also make the passrush look good. We need solid players in both areas and the dropoff from Brooks to Aldon or Haralson is not as much as the dropoff from Rodgers to Culliver IMO.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by D_Niner:
Brooks can easily be replaced. A pro-bowl CB can't.

Very true, the falloff in production against passing teams is more significant if we lose a pro bowl cb versus a good olb

not really. assuming Aldon is ready to be an every down player, having two legit passrushing OLB's in addition to our D-line will be our best pass defense.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if we could only have one, I'd take Brooks. As great at Rogers was this year, a great passrush will make a secondary look good. and we aren't as thin at CB as we are at OLB.

A great secondary will also make the passrush look good. We need solid players in both areas and the dropoff from Brooks to Aldon or Haralson is not as much as the dropoff from Rodgers to Culliver IMO.

a great secondary is nothing without a passrush, IMO. I actually think its more likely we re-sign Rogers than Brooks, and I'm fine with that. But if it were as simple as a tossup, I still think Brooks--the younger player, in addition to all the other things--is the one to take.

Are people forgetting that culls er got beat quite a few times and gave up tds in quite a few games.....1 should of been 2 against g men in the regular season, in the playoffs to Colston and a lot of times he was in good position. However good position or not, whether he improves or not he was the weak link of our CBS out of Rogers and brown. So if Rogers leaves, we are screwed going up against the saints pats gmen det gb and in the playoffs as well.

Yes a pass rush is very important but we will still have a great one without brooks and we can get at least half of his production which is 3.5 sacks with almost ANY olb on our roster, a rookie or a free agent. That is probably how the front office will see it logically. Rogers talent and production will be harder to replace than brooks. Done deal

Originally posted by elguapo:
Are people forgetting that culls er got beat quite a few times and gave up tds in quite a few games.....1 should of been 2 against g men in the regular season, in the playoffs to Colston and a lot of times he was in good position. However good position or not, whether he improves or not he was the weak link of our CBS out of Rogers and brown. So if Rogers leaves, we are screwed going up against the saints pats gmen det gb and in the playoffs as well.

Yes a pass rush is very important but we will still have a great one without brooks and we can get at least half of his production which is 3.5 sacks with almost ANY olb on our roster, a rookie or a free agent. That is probably how the front office will see it logically. Rogers talent and production will be harder to replace than brooks. Done deal

rogers got beat plenty during the season too. people like to forget that. we can also assume that Cully will improve in his second season. It would be a drop-off, no doubt. but, again, if its a simple "tossup" between the two players, I think having a complete OLB has a greater effect on the whole defense than a very good CB.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Brooks can easily be replaced. A pro-bowl CB can't.

Very true, the falloff in production against passing teams is more significant if we lose a pro bowl cb versus a good olb

not really. assuming Aldon is ready to be an every down player, having two legit passrushing OLB's in addition to our D-line will be our best pass defense.

Not really especially when we face qbs with a quicker release like brady and Rogers or even Bree's. We need CBS that can cover. Just ask the jets how they often beat New England. CBS not their pass rush or lack thereof

Keep Brooks. I agree with he is cheaper and far more productive than many replacements on the market. On top of all of that he stepped up in the playoffs...f**king Rogers got owned by Cruz the first half and he's an old fart lol

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
if we could only have one, I'd take Brooks. As great at Rogers was this year, a great passrush will make a secondary look good. and we aren't as thin at CB as we are at OLB.

A great secondary will also make the passrush look good. We need solid players in both areas and the dropoff from Brooks to Aldon or Haralson is not as much as the dropoff from Rodgers to Culliver IMO.

a great secondary is nothing without a passrush, IMO. I actually think its more likely we re-sign Rogers than Brooks, and I'm fine with that. But if it were as simple as a tossup, I still think Brooks--the younger player, in addition to all the other things--is the one to take.

Thankfully we will more than likely keep both.

As for the whole chicken or egg issue (Pass rush vs Secondary) we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think theyre both equally important and a weakness in one will more than likely show up in the performance of both. So, looking at it from that angle; that and which player is more ready to start in 2012 or which has the least dropoff (Aldon or Culliver). It makes Brooks more expendible IMO.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Are people forgetting that culls er got beat quite a few times and gave up tds in quite a few games.....1 should of been 2 against g men in the regular season, in the playoffs to Colston and a lot of times he was in good position. However good position or not, whether he improves or not he was the weak link of our CBS out of Rogers and brown. So if Rogers leaves, we are screwed going up against the saints pats gmen det gb and in the playoffs as well.

Yes a pass rush is very important but we will still have a great one without brooks and we can get at least half of his production which is 3.5 sacks with almost ANY olb on our roster, a rookie or a free agent. That is probably how the front office will see it logically. Rogers talent and production will be harder to replace than brooks. Done deal

rogers got beat plenty during the season too. people like to forget that. we can also assume that Cully will improve in his second season. It would be a drop-off, no doubt. but, again, if its a simple "tossup" between the two players, I think having a complete OLB has a greater effect on the whole defense than a very good CB.

Assuming culliver will improve can be all good and well but when has brooks been so good? This year? I like him a lot but Rogers is more valuable as a cb then brooks and his 7 sacks as a olb. That's a pretty easy statement to prove correct, and I'm sure the front office might see it that way as well. If we replace brooks we might only have a small drop off but if we replace Rogers, we better get a probowl cb or close to one.

Now do you see the difference?

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by D_Niner:
Brooks can easily be replaced. A pro-bowl CB can't.

Very true, the falloff in production against passing teams is more significant if we lose a pro bowl cb versus a good olb

not really. assuming Aldon is ready to be an every down player, having two legit passrushing OLB's in addition to our D-line will be our best pass defense.

Not really especially when we face qbs with a quicker release like brady and Rogers or even Bree's. We need CBS that can cover. Just ask the jets how they often beat New England. CBS not their pass rush or lack thereof

well, the Jets were 0-2 against the Pats last year.

Originally posted by D_Niner:
Look, I think Aldon is ready to start and we already have Haralson. That makes 3 OLB starters when we only need 2. To me that makes one of them easy to replace. Sure we need to address depth; but, we don't need to find a Starter or an equal quality player to Brooks. A solid backup or situational pass rusher will do just fine.

of course this is the right answer.for some reason some forget we have aldon smith ready to take that starting spot. we can find a nice rookie as a pass rusher who can set and learn behind aldon or maybe get lucky and he can contribute right away. replacing rogers is much harder and more expensive than brooks. Plus brooks is not worth 8 million dollars a year. d niner is right, as he usually is

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Are people forgetting that culls er got beat quite a few times and gave up tds in quite a few games.....1 should of been 2 against g men in the regular season, in the playoffs to Colston and a lot of times he was in good position. However good position or not, whether he improves or not he was the weak link of our CBS out of Rogers and brown. So if Rogers leaves, we are screwed going up against the saints pats gmen det gb and in the playoffs as well.

Yes a pass rush is very important but we will still have a great one without brooks and we can get at least half of his production which is 3.5 sacks with almost ANY olb on our roster, a rookie or a free agent. That is probably how the front office will see it logically. Rogers talent and production will be harder to replace than brooks. Done deal

rogers got beat plenty during the season too. people like to forget that. we can also assume that Cully will improve in his second season. It would be a drop-off, no doubt. but, again, if its a simple "tossup" between the two players, I think having a complete OLB has a greater effect on the whole defense than a very good CB.

Assuming culliver will improve can be all good and well but when has brooks been so good? This year? I like him a lot but Rogers is more valuable as a cb then brooks and his 7 sacks as a olb. That's a pretty easy statement to prove correct, and I'm sure the front office might see it that way as well. If we replace brooks we might only have a small drop off but if we replace Rogers, we better get a probowl cb or close to one.

Now do you see the difference?

Brooks is a good player. He has improved every year he's been here. He's younger. He plays a highly valuable position at which we are thin. A great front 7 > a great secondary.