There are 83 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Peyton coming?

Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
did you just start following the NFL?

Have you ever watched an nfl game?

yes, many.
Originally posted by lamontb:
Originally posted by sfout:
Originally posted by Fal_Mc11:
Originally posted by lamontb:
This really is a tough one. Younger pass rusher vs aging corner back. A corner back that had a career year playing behind a dominate front 7. He had 6 interceptions this year vs 8 in his whole career. Then Brooks has had questions about wok ethic at times. But every year the guy has improved. Probably will be a 9 sack guy his whole career. But that's exactly what you need when you have the Smith Bros. wrecking havoc. To me Brooks has a better chance of maintaining his current level of play for far longer than Rogers. I'm slightly leaning towards Brooks. I think it will come down to how well the staff thinks Aldon projects as starter at OLB vs how they project Culliver ar a starter.(1)

Brooks is young and has improved every year since joining the team. Plus we have worked so hard on building a pass rush the last few years, are we ready to take a step back in that department? Mario Williams will be the top OLB for the 3-4 on the market, but Brooks will be up there to due to this age and skill level. Does he want big money? If so the Cowgirls, can write the HUGE check that will make it hard for him to return.(2)

Clearly I want Brooks over Rogers. See Rogers is and was great last year, but part of that was the product of a great pass rush. A pass rush provided by Brooks and the Smiths. If Brooks leaves, that would leave us who to replace him? Don't out price yourself Brooks, stay loyal to the team that took you off waivers and believed in you.

1. Culliver looked great and statistically he measures right up to Rogers. As a nickel and occasional #2 Cully logged 40% the amount of snaps that Rogers played and he logged 7 PDs while Rogers logged 18. Ironically 7 is 40% of 18 so you extrapolate Cully's production out to a similar level as Rogers. Cully also registered 35 tackles while Rogers registered 44. IMO I think Cully could step right in for Rogers and we'd have minimal drop off, the only issue is Cully isn't nimble enough to cover slot receivers in the nickel like Rogers is, unless Brock or T. Brown is skilled enough to defend against slot receivers we'd have to find a new CB capable of covering the slot.

Thats the real question: Can Cully cover slot receivers in the nickel and completely take over for Rogers or will we have to find a new slot corner when we go to nickel packages? Will Brown be able to move inside on the slot with Brock coming in as the nickel on the outside?

2.With Jerry's comments about wanting our ILBs I bet he wouldn't mind snatching up a quality OLB from us lol. Someone said MM tweeted that Brooks is looking for $8M a year average, is he really worth that much to us? IMO Aldon will be able to take over for him next year and we either draft a new pass rush specialist OLB or use Demarcus Dobbs as a pass rush DE on 3rd down.

Letting Brooks walk seems like it will cause the least amount of headaches especially if he is demanding some ridiculous salary.
Good points. But it's not like Rogers locked down the slot. He's still trying to figure out which way Victor Cruz is going. Niners had to double cover the slot in the 2nd half of the game.

And Dobbs isn't going to be a pass rush specialist on 3rd downs. That's still going to be Aldon's job in the 4 man front.

Now that 8 million a year for Brooks might be the ultimate deal breaker. Do you or anybody have a clue what the going rate is for a 8-10 sack OLB is in the NFL?

cool, an actual conversation.

I think Rogers will be more willing to come back at a price that we like. but i think its fair to consider if Rogers great season was an anomaly, or the result of playing behind a great front 7. Of course you could argue that Brooks had a really good year in his contract year, too, and that could be a "buyer beware" situation.

I think its also important to consider that the team does project Cully as a starter long-term. Haralson is not the long-term answer at OLB, as fine a player as he is.
Originally posted by cciowa:
i am not willing to enter the season assuming culliver can step up and replace rogers. please

Cool an actual conversation and a logical statement that doesnt assume something that may not even happen
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by cciowa:
i am not willing to enter the season assuming culliver can step up and replace rogers. please

Cool an actual conversation and a logical statement that doesnt assume something that may not even happen

assuming Culliver, a very involved part-time player, can step in full-time is as logical as assuming that Aldon, a very involved part-time player, can step in full time.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
assuming Culliver, a very involved part-time player, can step in full-time is as logical as assuming that Aldon, a very involved part-time player, can step in full time.

But logic also states that Aldon, a player that was a half a sack short of the all time rookie record can't be compared to the part time role player of culliver who did little to nothing in comparison in regards to his performance. Aldon was very rarely out of position and made a play too many times to count whereas culliver ??? Not a logical comparison at all given their performances and impact in games
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.

I agree with this, Brooks has been pretty consistent with us. Who knows if Rogers season was a fluke. Plus he is older. Dont get me wrong id love to keep Rogers too but id rather not overpay for a 31 year old CB
Originally posted by valrod33:
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.

I agree with this, Brooks has been pretty consistent with us. Who knows if Rogers season was a fluke. Plus he is older. Dont get me wrong id love to keep Rogers too but id rather not overpay for a 31 year old CB

Word I am happy to keep him as long as he isn't just trying to cash out. I can't blame him though.
If Rogers plays for 8 mil a year and brooks for 5 we may be able to keep both.[left] now all we need is a great wr to accept 6-7 mil a year
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
assuming Culliver, a very involved part-time player, can step in full-time is as logical as assuming that Aldon, a very involved part-time player, can step in full time.

But logic also states that Aldon, a player that was a half a sack short of the all time rookie record can't be compared to the part time role player of culliver who did little to nothing in comparison in regards to his performance. Aldon was very rarely out of position and made a play too many times to count whereas culliver ??? Not a logical comparison at all given their performances and impact in games

culliver had a really good year, all things considered.
Originally posted by Ajanke:
Originally posted by valrod33:
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.

I agree with this, Brooks has been pretty consistent with us. Who knows if Rogers season was a fluke. Plus he is older. Dont get me wrong id love to keep Rogers too but id rather not overpay for a 31 year old CB

Word I am happy to keep him as long as he isn't just trying to cash out. I can't blame him though.

i think we'd all prefer bringing both back; our defense would be even studlier if we keep it all together. seems like that might be unrealistic given what these guys could command on the open market. but you never know. and i'd be happy with either one, to be honest. but we need another OLB no matter what we do with Brooks. if we keep Brooks it puts less pressure on us finding a guy who can and will contribute right away.

It's not hard to imagine Brooks/Aldon combining for 20+ sacks. I can't imagine Aldon/Haralson/??? doing the same.
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
assuming Culliver, a very involved part-time player, can step in full-time is as logical as assuming that Aldon, a very involved part-time player, can step in full time.

But logic also states that Aldon, a player that was a half a sack short of the all time rookie record can't be compared to the part time role player of culliver who did little to nothing in comparison in regards to his performance. Aldon was very rarely out of position and made a play too many times to count whereas culliver ??? Not a logical comparison at all given their performances and impact in games

culliver had a really good year, all things considered.

I like him too but those tds he gave up really questioned his coverage abilities. I'm not into moral victories like a lot of people said.....well he was in great position, but he gave up the td. Rogers really stepped up all year, I loved it when he broke up that pass to Arrington in the saints playoff game, that would of been a td against culliver. Culliver had a good year but he was the worst out of the three cb we had and if his year was good, then Aldons year was too good to describe.
Originally posted by PhillyNiner:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Brooks can easily be replaced. A pro-bowl CB can't.

No offense but this is pattently untrue. It will take 2 guys to replace Brooks in a very thin OLB market. There is nobody on the street at his price tag that can step in and produce at his level. We will be starting Aldon yes, but we would still have to pay Haralson and draft a guy plus sign a veteran backup because we have nobody on the roster if someone gets hurt. Haralson + early Rookie + Vet is likely going to cost just as much or more as Brooks + Haralson + plus later round rookie.

Meanwhile we have two all be it young, but starting quality corners and there are many more of corners on the market than OLB's. Many of those guys although not quite as good as Carlos could step in and play nickle seemlesly and back up our young guys and there are even a few who are younger than Carlos that could push for a starting job, giving Cully another year to develop.

This...actually BOTH are pro-bowl players. And as the year progressed, I felt Rogers game fell off significantly while Brooks remained consistent. Both took practically every snap last year. Both have complete games. But Brooks is much younger and has more upside and was a HUGE reason for the success of both Aldon Smith and Carlos Rogers. You should always place more value in the front 7 if you run a 3-4.

To solve this problem, I'd sign both to a LT deal or Franchise Brooks and sign Carlos and then let Goldson walk if he won't sign for a reasonable amount (5 year, 25 million again). His game has plenty of holes and nobody benefited from the play of the front 7 more than him. We already have Whitner signed LT and he IS Goldson. We need a FS who has speed, range and who can help over the top, cover taller TE's and not get beat deep (and who also takes better angles and is a sure-tackler). He is the expendable one IMH.
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Originally posted by elguapo:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
assuming Culliver, a very involved part-time player, can step in full-time is as logical as assuming that Aldon, a very involved part-time player, can step in full time.

But logic also states that Aldon, a player that was a half a sack short of the all time rookie record can't be compared to the part time role player of culliver who did little to nothing in comparison in regards to his performance. Aldon was very rarely out of position and made a play too many times to count whereas culliver ??? Not a logical comparison at all given their performances and impact in games

culliver had a really good year, all things considered.

I like him too but those tds he gave up really questioned his coverage abilities. I'm not into moral victories like a lot of people said.....well he was in great position, but he gave up the td. Rogers really stepped up all year, I loved it when he broke up that pass to Arrington in the saints playoff game, that would of been a td against culliver. Culliver had a good year but he was the worst out of the three cb we had and if his year was good, then Aldons year was too good to describe.

like i said, people forget that Rogers gave up plays too. its weird. dude had a great season but he wasn't Deion out there.

cully was the "worst" of our top 3 CB's. he was also a rookie who has barely played CB in college and who stepped in and contributed to a championship caliber team without having an offseason of training.
Brooks will never be franchised do you know how much he would get? Brooks is good and not a pro bowler like Rogers. We can get a olb that can do half of what brooks can do which is about 3-4 sacks but replacing Rogers at cb will be very hard. Hopefully we sign both but we are so stacked at lb that one will have to go soon especially if bowman needs to be extended in the near future
keep brooks

pass rush = rushed qb = bad throws