There are 134 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Peyton coming?

  • sfout
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,308
Posted it in another thread but lets add the same information to this thread as well.

Asked whether he thought Aldon Smith would have a full-time role in 2012, Baalke almost laughed. "Yeah - I think that's safe to say, yes," he said of Smith, who had 14 regular-season sacks in 2011. Smith played exclusively in nickel situations this past season, and he mostly lined up at defensive end, not outside linebacker.

Smith's 2012 counterpart at outside linebacker is up in the air. Ahmad Brooks started every game this past season but is an unrestricted free agent. Parys Haralson was other starter last season but gave way to Smith on passing downs. Haralson and Smith are the only potential outside linebackers signed for next season.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2012/02/baalke-on-qb-situation-its-not-something-were-stressed-out-about.html#storylink=cpy


If need be Baalke sounds like he will let Brooks walk in favor of Aldon starting.
[ Edited by sfout on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:58 AM ]
Brooks, no hesitation whatsoever. Really the most underrated player on the defense this year. If Aldon Smith is to step into the starting line up, he and Brooks make for a better pair than he and Haralson.

I like Rogers, and I love what he did this year, but if given the choice... a SAM who can hold the point and pressure the QB is more valuable than a cornerback that has one good season under his belt. I also think Culliver has a world of promise, and the guys behind him played reasonably well for bottom-of-the-depth-chart guys. I like our depth and starting lineup minus Rogers better than minus Brooks.

Now, the only thing that might make me think twice is this; can Grant fill the SAM roll as well as he filled in for Willis? Really, only the coaches know that.
Originally posted by sfout:
Posted it in another thread but lets add the same information to this thread as well.

Asked whether he thought Aldon Smith would have a full-time role in 2012, Baalke almost laughed. "Yeah - I think that's safe to say, yes," he said of Smith, who had 14 regular-season sacks in 2011. Smith played exclusively in nickel situations this past season, and he mostly lined up at defensive end, not outside linebacker.

Smith's 2012 counterpart at outside linebacker is up in the air. Ahmad Brooks started every game this past season but is an unrestricted free agent. Parys Haralson was other starter last season but gave way to Smith on passing downs. Haralson and Smith are the only potential outside linebackers signed for next season.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2012/02/baalke-on-qb-situation-its-not-something-were-stressed-out-about.html#storylink=cpy

If need be Baalke sounds like he will let Brooks walk in favor of Aldon starting.

How did you come up with that conclusion? I would lean more towards Baalke wanting Smith to start...but at his natural position which is at WILL (over Haralson).
The 9ers can swing both along with resigning Alex Smith.
Originally posted by elguapo:
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

This right here shows your ignorance. Brooks would be franchised LESS than Rogers...and it's Rogers for the record (not Rodgers). And yes, Brooks was an alternate pro-bowler. Yes, he's a pro-bowler and I challenge you to find a better, more complete SAM in the league. On the flip side, you can find more CB's out there. If we were running a cover 2, Rogers would be more valuable...but since we're running a 3-4, your front 7 is more valuable. The age thing is huge too. Rogers would be 34, 35 at how much? Rogers can play essentially one position...he covers one guy. Brooks can play LDE/RDE, SAM/WILL and TED and on ST's. We have promising young guys in Culliver/Brock and we'll probably go after another cheap veteran FA CB out that which are easier to find over a SAM which are practically non-existent. And honesty, for those who think, or who would even want, Aldon Smith to play SAM, you have no idea what you're asking. Starting A.Smith, even at WILL (and) Haralson every down would be a major drop off in production - teams would have no issues attacking the edges, doubling Aldon and both would wear down as the season progressed. It would be very hard to find a rookie pass rush specialist that wouldn't telegraph our pass rush and still be effective enough to take the doubles away from Aldon.

We also need to consider that Brooks played over McDonald all year and he was either hurt, ineffective or not 100% a good portion of the year and Brooks STILL had 8 sacks, 3rd in QB pressures/hit and tops in tackles for loss and 6th in team tackles...nobody even bothered trying to run to his side hence the big emphasis on utilizing Haralson on 1st and 2nd downs and Aldon as a 3rd down specialist most of the year.
Originally posted by mike:
Yeah it's the cashing in part that worries me, I would guess with only 1 season with us Rogers would be less likely to take a discount of some kind. But we'll see...

Even though Rogers has already said he would give the 49ers a home town discount, because he really wanted to stay with the team?
  • sfout
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,308
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by sfout:
Posted it in another thread but lets add the same information to this thread as well.

Asked whether he thought Aldon Smith would have a full-time role in 2012, Baalke almost laughed. "Yeah - I think that's safe to say, yes," he said of Smith, who had 14 regular-season sacks in 2011. Smith played exclusively in nickel situations this past season, and he mostly lined up at defensive end, not outside linebacker.

Smith's 2012 counterpart at outside linebacker is up in the air. Ahmad Brooks started every game this past season but is an unrestricted free agent. Parys Haralson was other starter last season but gave way to Smith on passing downs. Haralson and Smith are the only potential outside linebackers signed for next season.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2012/02/baalke-on-qb-situation-its-not-something-were-stressed-out-about.html#storylink=cpy

If need be Baalke sounds like he will let Brooks walk in favor of Aldon starting.

How did you come up with that conclusion? I would lean more towards Baalke wanting Smith to start...but at his natural position which is at WILL (over Haralson).

Smith doesn't have a natural position he played TE and DE in high school then DE in college. He is learning the entire LB position from scratch, his "natural" position is whatever he is being taught. The only reason he replaced Haralson on PASS RUSHING situations is because he is the better pass rusher of the 2. Brooks is a complete linebacker, which is coincidently what we are grooming Aldon to be.

Brooks is more fluid then Haralson and has an easier time guarding TEs and in rare cases WRs on 3rd down. Haralson is an East-West only player, he lacks hip fluidity and cant turn and run with receivers. He is great against the run and thats it.

If Brooks walked Aldon would definitely start in his place and play opposite Haralson on 1st and 2nd down and then on 3rd down Haralson would get swapped for Dobbs or another pass rush specialist that is yet to be determined.
Originally posted by sfout:
Smith doesn't have a natural position he played TE and DE in high school then DE in college. He is learning the entire LB position from scratch, his "natural" position is whatever he is being taught. The only reason he replaced Haralson on PASS RUSHING situations is because he is the better pass rusher of the 2. Brooks is a complete linebacker, which is coincidently what we are grooming Aldon to be.

Brooks is more fluid then Haralson and has an easier time guarding TEs and in rare cases WRs on 3rd down. Haralson is an East-West only player, he lacks hip fluidity and cant turn and run with receivers. He is great against the run and thats it.

If Brooks walked Aldon would definitely start in his place and play opposite Haralson on 1st and 2nd down and then on 3rd down Haralson would get swapped for Dobbs or another pass rush specialist that is yet to be determined.

Oh sure...I mean his natural position, the one he played all last year, is the WILL spot and mostly on 3rd downs. Only a few times did I see he and Brooks swap or play side-by-side to rush (both effective BTW).

Right now he is learning to be an every down WILL who will line up behind or next to Justin Smith on stunts, sealing the edge but b/c he's on the weak side, he will have a VERY heavy focus on getting to the QB first and foremost! You don't suddenly ask him to start over McDonald and rush from the left side of the field where the QB can see him in plain view every time. The SAM (Brooks position) is different...a lot different. The WILL is balls out for the QB every snap en route to sealing the edge. The SAM however, is generally lined up over the TE and has to play off his blocking as well as a RT and sometimes a RB as well. He doesn't just blow up the field. Often times he is to stay at the LOS, crash down on the TE or chuck him and disrupt his route, provide underneath coverage, diagnose screens and other potentially dangerous plays quickly and make those TFL while taking on two guys as well as seal the edge and force the action inside to Willis/Bowman. The fact that Brooks had 8 sacks with 46 pressures in plain view of the QB is a HUGE success. The fact that he also lead the team in TFL "and" was top 6 in total tackles is quite remarkable. The fact that he also provided very good underneath coverage and had outside containment on WR/RB's was tremendous. That he is young and can play every LB position on the team (even MIKE) as well as DE and further inside at DT (saw that this year) is remarkable.

Aldon Smith has a long way to go before he will be a complete LB like this and no rookie or FA is just going to step in and solve this problem if Brooks leaves. This is why, if forced too, you franchise him and sign Carlos/Alex and offer Goldson his original contract of 5 for 25. Of all the players, Goldson, IMHO, is the least valuable and in the 3-4, the front 7 always trumps your back end. You do everything you can to improve (or in this case, maintain) the front 7. You give him fair market value and ask Rogers/Goldson to sign that home town discount.
[ Edited by NCommand on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:38 AM ]
I keep reading the thread title as Kenny Rogers or Brooks
Originally posted by valrod33:
I keep reading the thread title as Kenny Rogers or Brooks

Brooks (Dunn - Done)? LOL
Really a tough choice because I like them both. I'll go with Brooks because he's younger and I don't want us to break up a great front seven. Plus the free agent market at CB isn't as thin as the free agent market at 34 OLB. If we stay in house Haralson is basically replacing Brooks. That's a downgrade no questions asked.
Rogers !
Originally posted by HessianDud:
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.
I think their is a lot of negotiating going on right now. Reports are Rogers wants a long term deal and a nice sized contract. But is willing to work on something with the Niners, but would field other offers. Next thing you know we hear how high the team is on Culliver coming in to replace him. Barrows tweets Brooks could be looking for 8 million a year. And today Baalke states that Aldon will be a every down player next year. Baalke wants to create a situation where it doesn't look like the player has all the leverage. Real or just perception I'm liking the way he works.

We very well could be looking at Rogers and Brooks walking.

Also the same thing could be said about Rogers in terms being a one year wonder. Though I've though he's always been a solid corner he only had 8 career interceptions before this year in which he had 6.

Man I really didn't think a year ago that our main problem would be retaining so many guys that really had excellent years.
  • mike
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,827
Originally posted by RDB4216:
Originally posted by mike:
Yeah it's the cashing in part that worries me, I would guess with only 1 season with us Rogers would be less likely to take a discount of some kind. But we'll see...

Even though Rogers has already said he would give the 49ers a home town discount, because he really wanted to stay with the team?
When did he say that? Link? I'm betting if he said anything it's that he enjoyed playing for this defense and would love to play here next year. Rarely do they use terms like "discount", their agent would kill them.

He's going to want to cash out on a solid season whether with us or someone else.
[ Edited by mike on Feb 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM ]
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by elguapo:
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

This right here shows your ignorance. Brooks would be franchised LESS than Rogers...and it's Rogers for the record (not Rodgers). And yes, Brooks was an alternate pro-bowler. Yes, he's a pro-bowler and I challenge you to find a better, more complete SAM in the league. On the flip side, you can find more CB's out there. If we were running a cover 2, Rogers would be more valuable...but since we're running a 3-4, your front 7 is more valuable. The age thing is huge too. Rogers would be 34, 35 at how much? Rogers can play essentially one position...he covers one guy. Brooks can play LDE/RDE, SAM/WILL and TED and on ST's. We have promising young guys in Culliver/Brock and we'll probably go after another cheap veteran FA CB out that which are easier to find over a SAM which are practically non-existent. And honesty, for those who think, or who would even want, Aldon Smith to play SAM, you have no idea what you're asking. Starting A.Smith, even at WILL (and) Haralson every down would be a major drop off in production - teams would have no issues attacking the edges, doubling Aldon and both would wear down as the season progressed. It would be very hard to find a rookie pass rush specialist that wouldn't telegraph our pass rush and still be effective enough to take the doubles away from Aldon.

We also need to consider that Brooks played over McDonald all year and he was either hurt, ineffective or not 100% a good portion of the year and Brooks STILL had 8 sacks, 3rd in QB pressures/hit and tops in tackles for loss and 6th in team tackles...nobody even bothered trying to run to his side hence the big emphasis on utilizing Haralson on 1st and 2nd downs and Aldon as a 3rd down specialist most of the year.

This proves your ignorance. An alternate IS NOT A PRO BOWLER......sorry about that one. And I've been spelling his name Rogers not Rodgers. Are you smoking anything by any chance? Can I have some please. There are quite a few SAM backers in the league that are better. It's ridiculous that you think he is the most complete one in the league. that has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have heard so far about a member of our team. I challenge you to find one expert or analyst to state brooks is the most complete Sam in the league. You won't bc you are wrong. He isn't even a top 5 and a stretch to call him a top 10. If the niners FO felt the same way you did we would already lock him up bc he is the MOST COMPLETE SAM. Wow. You really love this guy, so much so you are blinded. I hope we keep him but Rogers is more valuable than brooks.
...