Deal Done for Ahmad Brooks (6yr @ $44.5 million)

Folks, the chronological order of our re-signings is not an accurate measure of their importance.

CJ Spillman was not a higher priority than Brooks, Rogers, Smith, etc.

These are just the deals they were able to negotiate easiest.

Originally posted by chico49erfan:
Damn up to 44 mil?! 7 m/yr is a LOT for Brooks, don't you think? I was thinking like... 4 mil/yr.

Dude better clean up the offsides and earn that s**t!

I mostly pay attention to the guaranteed money, which is only 17 mil. That figure doesn't cripple us compared to the deal Kamerion Wimbley signed last season which was 5 years 48 mil, but 29 million of it was guaranteed.

Originally posted by ImaMod:
Eric Branch ‏ @Eric_Branch Reply
RT @TaylorPrice49: Brooks excited about LBs "When you have somebody right next to you that's ballin', you have no choice but to ball, too

Cam Inman ‏ @CamInman Reply
Ahmad Brooks "Getting as much money as you can (in free agency) sounds good but what team is going to give you the best opportunity to win?"

Mindi Bach ‏ @MBachCSN Reply
Ahmad Brooks: "So excited to be here with the organization that allowed me to showcase my abilities" #49ers



I love this guy

stud.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by KowboyKiller:
Brooks could've easily tested the Free Agent waters to make as much money as he could, especially since pass rushers are very few this offseason. He certainly could have made a lot more money that way. Instead he chose to sign with our niners, that there shows a great deal of loyalty and love of this team. All hail Ahmad Brooks.

"I feel like San Francisco's my home," Brooks said this week. "You know what I'm saying? I wouldn't want to play anywhere else, I wouldn't want to go through this entire process again - getting to know new teammates, a new coaching staff, a new defense. I'd rather just stick with where I am."

http://blogs.sacbee.com/49ers/archives/2011/11/ahmad-brooks-i-feel-like-san-franciscos-my-home.html#storylink=cpy

He has there when both the Bengals and Niners were drowning, now that he is starting and winning-of course he wants to stay. If we had another losing season like last year- he and others would be gone. Winning cures a lot ailments. Hopefully, this retros to the days when others want to come to the niners and even willing to give up a few mill.

I actually posted somewhere else (within the other 1,000 FA topics) that I could see us locking down our LB core for a good 5 +years ala Pittsburgh (2006), and Baltimore (2008). -Lest we not forget versatile/multiple role LBs are the heart and soul of a 3-4, and why we were able to send so many guys up this year to the QB (and helping balls get thrown poorly into the hands of our DBs).

Originally posted by okdkid:
Folks, the chronological order of our re-signings is not an accurate measure of their importance.

CJ Spillman was not a higher priority than Brooks, Rogers, Smith, etc.

These are just the deals they were able to negotiate easiest.

Prove it

Josh is a die hard niner as well. He comes back for sure.

And he's repping DC just like Vernon and Josh Morgan

Originally posted by okdkid:
Folks, the chronological order of our re-signings is not an accurate measure of their importance.

CJ Spillman was not a higher priority than Brooks, Rogers, Smith, etc.

These are just the deals they were able to negotiate easiest.

very true, but I do think that the amount and length of Brooks' contract shows what the team thinks of him and how important he is to their plans.

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by okdkid:
Folks, the chronological order of our re-signings is not an accurate measure of their importance.

CJ Spillman was not a higher priority than Brooks, Rogers, Smith, etc.

These are just the deals they were able to negotiate easiest.

Prove it

I don't want to.

Originally posted by valrod33:

dumb, rogers has never played this good in his career, possible fluke season. we know what we are gonna get from Brooks year in and year out.

So? Brooks has never played this good in his career either and it could be a fluke season for him as well. How u gonna say something about Rogers when the EXACT same thing applies to Brooks as well? At least Rogers' career year was still way better than Brooks' career year...and Rogers before 2011 was WAAAAAY better than Brooks before 2011. He's ALWAYS been a real nice cover corner, he just gained more attention this year because he was on a great team and he held on to the int's. So therefore the whole fluke factor is way more likely for Brooks who had done VERY little prior to 2011 (was never even a starter), so not sure why YOU would bring that up...

I dont get why people think 7 mill per year is too much for a good pass rusher, great run stopper and a very important player on the best defense in the league

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by okdkid:
Folks, the chronological order of our re-signings is not an accurate measure of their importance.

CJ Spillman was not a higher priority than Brooks, Rogers, Smith, etc.

These are just the deals they were able to negotiate easiest.

Prove it

I don't want to.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by okdkid:
Folks, the chronological order of our re-signings is not an accurate measure of their importance.

CJ Spillman was not a higher priority than Brooks, Rogers, Smith, etc.

These are just the deals they were able to negotiate easiest.

very true, but I do think that the amount and length of Brooks' contract shows what the team thinks of him and how important he is to their plans.

Oh yeah, no doubt. I'm just saying that you can't use the day they were re-signed as an accurate measure of their importance. The money (particularly guaranteed dollars) would be more accurate.