There are 98 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Bowman

isnt there some sort of rule that guys cant be extended until they've played 2 or 3 years?
Originally posted by Karma:
Originally posted by 9ermex:
Originally posted by andes14:
I don't understand what's so funny...Asante Samuel was a great player for the Pats and they let him go to the Eagles, but I guess the Pats are a poorly run team.

they do have the worst passing D. in the league...
They are not poorly run, but it eventually catches up to you. As mentioned they have a terrible secondary right now.

I say we pay Bowman and keep the tandem together. Having them in the middle can cover deficiencies in other areas. We don't have to bring an extra man into the box, etc. He is worth the price because he and Willis can make average players around him look better.

Plus, last time I checked we are in pretty decent shape as far as the salary cap. Resign our own stars, plug holes through the draft, and look for deals in free agency.

It's a catch-22. If they paid Samuel, maybe then they can't afford to keep, say, Matt Light and then because of that, Brady gets blindsided with a serious injury. You never know.

Some people just seem to think that if a player is good, we should keep him forever, end of story. There is a salary cap and the more money you spend on someone, that means the less money you have to spend on someone else. Very elementary concept that is often forgotten.
[ Edited by andes14 on Dec 23, 2011 at 7:53 PM ]
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
I agree! when you have young players playing at an elite level, it totally makes sense to not pay them fair value and let them leave while you gamble on replacing them in the draft. Makes SO MUCH SENSE.

Um, should we just disregard the confines of the salary cap? We could use that money to get someone great at a different position that is less likely to be developed very well thru the draft...all the great teams have to make tough decisions sometimes and not give huge contracts to all their great players, that's why there's a draft...

he's in his second season.

its possible we will have to make tough decisions at the position at some point.

talking about it now is absurd.


This
Originally posted by Karma:
They are not poorly run, but it eventually catches up to you. As mentioned they have a terrible secondary right now.

I say we pay Bowman and keep the tandem together. Having them in the middle can cover deficiencies in other areas. We don't have to bring an extra man into the box, etc. He is worth the price because he and Willis can make average players around him look better.

Plus, last time I checked we are in pretty decent shape as far as the salary cap. Resign our own stars, plug holes through the draft, and look for deals in free agency.

Thats a great point. Don't get me wrong, I love Aldon Smith and he deserves his credit but alot of what he has done should also be credited to the attention that must be paid to Bowman and Willis.
Originally posted by Willisfn4life:
Thats a great point. Don't get me wrong, I love Aldon Smith and he deserves his credit but alot of what he has done should also be credited to the attention that must be paid to Bowman and Willis.

More like Justin Smith.
Originally posted by andes14:
First off let me say that this year I think Bowman is playing like arguably the 2nd best inside 'backer in football behind his teammate, but is it really worth giving him a contract commensurate with his market value ($8-10M per with $25M+ guaranteed)? I really think that when his contract expires (I believe after 2013), we can draft a guy that Fangio/Leavitt/Willis can coach up to play at a super high level, esp. behind our d-line (or maybe it could even be Grant?) Thoughts?

"Is it really worth giving him a contract commensurate with his market value...?" Please forgive me but what on God's green earth would make you ask such a question? So let me get this straight: Bowman produces, therefore, we let him go and hope to draft his cheaper - yet hopefully equally productive - ILB?! Is that the blueprint back to the SB, letting your best young talent just walk for free because you just don't want to pay him? Thank the Lord you aren't our GM. A player like Bowman, playing at that level at this point in his career, should/will always see an extention of his contract no less than a year before his initial contract expires. Players like that you lock up as soon as possible for as long as possible (see P. Willis) so you can focus your attention - as a GM - on team weaknesses, not create a weakness by removing a strength, duh. Trust me, if Trent Baalke made a dope-fiend move like that he would never again be trusted with another NFL team.

Let Bowman walk because, essentially, he's too productive to pay fare price.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:

"Is it really worth giving him a contract commensurate with his market value...?" Please forgive me but what on God's green earth would make you ask such a question? So let me get this straight: Bowman produces, therefore, we let him go and hope to draft his cheaper - yet hopefully equally productive - ILB?! Is that the blueprint back to the SB, letting your best young talent just walk for free because you just don't want to pay him? Thank the Lord you aren't our GM. A player like Bowman, playing at that level at this point in his career, should/will always see an extention of his contract no less than a year before his initial contract expires. Players like that you lock up as soon as possible for as long as possible (see P. Willis) so you can focus your attention - as a GM - on team weaknesses, not create a weakness by removing a strength, duh. Trust me, if Trent Baalke made a dope-fiend move like that he would never again be trusted with another NFL team.

Let Bowman walk because, essentially, he's too productive to pay fare price.

Again, all teams have to sometimes let really good players go. The job of the GM is to let the RIGHT really good players go - i.e. players at positions who you think you have the best chance to develop new really good players. All the great teams have to let great players walk sometimes. Like I said, if N.E. threw a ton of money at Asante Samuel, perhaps they can't keep Matt Light, and then perhaps Brady gets seriously injured because of that. Would keeping Samuel be worthwhile then?? Also like I said, the Packers chose to not match Philly's offer for a guy that was arguably the 5th best player (and certainly no worse than 8th or 9th) on their championship team, yet seem to be doing, you know, OK without him. Name me one team that has never not matched a contract to one of their really good players. I dare you.

BTW, many people here, myself included, were pretty pissed that we didn't put up a fight to keep Spikes, and that turned out OK. I'm sure IF we lost Bowman, then Grant or a draft pick or something like that would have a VERY good chance of playing VERY good football.
Originally posted by andes14:
Again, all teams have to sometimes let really good players go. The job of the GM is to let the RIGHT really good players go - i.e. players at positions who you think you have the best chance to develop new really good players. All the great teams have to let great players walk sometimes. Like I said, if N.E. threw a ton of money at Asante Samuel, perhaps they can't keep Matt Light, and then perhaps Brady gets seriously injured because of that. Would keeping Samuel be worthwhile then?? Also like I said, the Packers chose to not match Philly's offer for a guy that was arguably the 5th best player (and certainly no worse than 8th or 9th) on their championship team, yet seem to be doing, you know, OK without him. Name me one team that has never not matched a contract to one of their really good players. I dare you.

BTW, many people here, myself included, were pretty pissed that we didn't put up a fight to keep Spikes, and that turned out OK. I'm sure IF we lost Bowman, then Grant or a draft pick or something like that would have a VERY good chance of playing VERY good football.

Good point. Thats why you lock guys up early. But Bowman is just in his second year, so I think the what-if's about Bowman are absurd. If he keeps this level of play up I expect the front office to attempt to extend him late 2012 or early 2013. No, it would not have been worthwhile fot the Pats to keep Samuel. If memory serves my right A. Samuel was looking to break the bank. I'm not arguing that teams never match contracts. I'm saying that teams extend their best players before a match point, expecially their young ones. True, there are no Evil Empires in the NFL so teams will lose top players from time to time. Bowman isn't one of them though.

BTW, I wasn't one of those all that down about seeing TKO go. I didnt want to see him go but I really like "Linebacker U" linebackers and liked what Bowman showed last year. I admit, I thought he'd be just OK; didn't think he'd be this good.
Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Good point. Thats why you lock guys up early. But Bowman is just in his second year, so I think the what-if's about Bowman are absurd. If he keeps this level of play up I expect the front office to attempt to extend him late 2012 or early 2013. No, it would not have been worthwhile fot the Pats to keep Samuel. If memory serves my right A. Samuel was looking to break the bank. I'm not arguing that teams never match contracts. I'm saying that teams extend their best players before a match point, expecially their young ones. True, there are no Evil Empires in the NFL so teams will lose top players from time to time. Bowman isn't one of them though.

BTW, I wasn't one of those all that down about seeing TKO go. I didnt want to see him go but I really like "Linebacker U" linebackers and liked what Bowman showed last year. I admit, I thought he'd be just OK; didn't think he'd be this good.

Sure it's early, I get it. And believe me, I am SUPER impressed with what I see out of him...my point is just that I think because of our d-line and because of Fangio/Leavitt/Willis, we are EXTREMELY prepared to take a 'backer in the middle rounds or to take a guy like Grant and plug him in there and get VERY good results (as we're currently seeing from Grant). So perhaps the money would be better spent where we would ordinarily be less likely to get great results without paying top dollar for it.
IMO, it would be stupid not to extend him in the off season, or early next year. If we try to extend him in his last year, we wont have nearly as much leverage and he'll be looking for a big pay day somewhere on the east coast.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
IMO, it would be stupid not to extend him in the off season, or early next year. If we try to extend him in his last year, we wont have nearly as much leverage and he'll be looking for a big pay day somewhere on the east coast.

Ya if we can get him on the cheap(er), I'm all for it.
If the niners paid a lot of money for a ELITE corner(Clements) what did he do for the team?,nothing I think we can pay bowman...btw..I'm pretty sure the chargers are still regretting letting drew brees go to the saints ...if you have a great player ..locked it
let him play until his contract is over.
Originally posted by andes14:
Sure it's early, I get it. And believe me, I am SUPER impressed with what I see out of him...my point is just that I think because of our d-line and because of Fangio/Leavitt/Willis, we are EXTREMELY prepared to take a 'backer in the middle rounds or to take a guy like Grant and plug him in there and get VERY good results (as we're currently seeing from Grant). So perhaps the money would be better spent where we would ordinarily be less likely to get great results without paying top dollar for it.

That assumes that we would retain Grant. Lets remember that an extention was recently offered to him but turned it down. So it is highly possible that Grant might be auditioning for a contract that might be a bit pricey for the Niners but just right for a ILB starved tesams. The way he's playing I doubt he's going to want to be just play a depth roll. Now, I hope to keep Grant. In a 3-4 scheme you can never have too many LB's. But if it came down to it I'd be prepared to see Grant walk than Bowman. But, again, it's way too early for that.
  • Karma
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 685
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Karma:
Originally posted by 9ermex:
Originally posted by andes14:
I don't understand what's so funny...Asante Samuel was a great player for the Pats and they let him go to the Eagles, but I guess the Pats are a poorly run team.

they do have the worst passing D. in the league...
They are not poorly run, but it eventually catches up to you. As mentioned they have a terrible secondary right now.

I say we pay Bowman and keep the tandem together. Having them in the middle can cover deficiencies in other areas. We don't have to bring an extra man into the box, etc. He is worth the price because he and Willis can make average players around him look better.

Plus, last time I checked we are in pretty decent shape as far as the salary cap. Resign our own stars, plug holes through the draft, and look for deals in free agency.

It's a catch-22. If they paid Samuel, maybe then they can't afford to keep, say, Matt Light and then because of that, Brady gets blindsided with a serious injury. You never know.

Some people just seem to think that if a player is good, we should keep him forever, end of story. There is a salary cap and the more money you spend on someone, that means the less money you have to spend on someone else. Very elementary concept that is often forgotten.

True. That is where executives truly earn their money. Ultimately, you keep young talent whenever possible. Bowman took a huge leap his second year and there is no reason to suspect that he will slow down. If that means there is less money to spend elsewhere, they have to feel comfortable that they can solve those problems on the cheap. We'll see how it plays out.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home