There are 165 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

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

Originally posted by andes14:
You're right that Brooks is a real nice player and I'd love to have him back. I just personally put his worth somewhere around $10M guaranteed and I just think we should have waited because I really don't think any other team would have approached 17, and if they did, THEN give it to him. I really don't think we would have to worry about some team stepping in and offering him like 25-30 mil guaranteed. Now we likely lose Rogers which I think hurts more than if we were to have lost Brooks.

Age plays into this - Brooks is now entering his prime whereas Rogers has already experienced his peak physical years
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Originally posted by andes14:
So now who are we gonna replace Rogers wtih? The bottom line is that LOLB spot is gonna spend a lot of time in coverage. There are FA's we could have signed (like Lawson) that can do that for a fraction of the cost and also there are LB's in the draft that can cover/set the edge.

Also just FYI, despite rushing on most passing downs (more than he will in 2012), Brooks finished with 1 sack over the last 6 games. Again, he's good, but not $17M guaranteed good.

How could you POSSIBLY know that?

and when did sacks become the be all end all? the great players get like 1 per game, and when they get 3 in a game, they go the next 2 without one, by avergare of course

It's not an end all be all, it's just surprising to see a 3-4 OLB who finished the year with 1 sack in his final 6 games get paid like such a star.

And how do I know he rushed more in 2011 than he will in 2012. Educated guess. VERY educated guess. We rarely rush more than 4 guys and on base downs it'll be the 3 d-lineman and then most of the time Aldon will be the 4th.
Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Holy s**t, Brooks cares more about getting ready for next season than spending time with his fam!
Q: Is being in Santa Clara right now, is that a departure from your normal offseason routine? Didn't you usually go back to Virginia in the offseason?
Brooks: Yeah, I usually go home in the offseason to my mother's house. I have a daughter out there. So, that's pretty much my main reason why I go home. But I realized that I'm not 23, 24 years old anymore. I'm 28 and a lot of things change over the years. You grow up and you start seeing things from a different light and my career's here in California. So, I really want to make the best for my career and just capitalize on what I've already gained.
http://sfo.scout.com/2/1162892.html


Glad he's not my dad.....
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
I think you are underrating Brooks my man.

We have the best front 7 in the league with Brooks, not despite Brooks.

If we let Brooks walks with no backup plan and we insert an outside variable, that could collapse. 3-4 OLB with his skills sets are not easy to find. Before brooks and Aldon we were struggling big time. And Aldon isn't even a pure 3-4 olb yet, more like a Hybrid DE/OLB for now.

Who would replace Brooks if we let him go?

Our FO didn't let that happen and i'm glad.

So now who are we gonna replace Rogers wtih? The bottom line is that LOLB spot is gonna spend a lot of time in coverage. There are FA's we could have signed (like Lawson) that can do that for a fraction of the cost and also there are LB's in the draft that can cover/set the edge.

Also just FYI, despite rushing on most passing downs (more than he will in 2012), Brooks finished with 1 sack over the last 6 games. Again, he's good, but not $17M guaranteed good.


Who says Rogers walks? We don't know yet. If he does, Culliver takes the spot opposite side of Brown and we get a vet FA and draft one i guess.

Lawson sucks which is why he walked despite being less costly. We didn't pay Brooks for nothing. He is a valuable player.

17M isn't much for a long term deal like that for a young OLB starter.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Originally posted by andes14:
So now who are we gonna replace Rogers wtih? The bottom line is that LOLB spot is gonna spend a lot of time in coverage. There are FA's we could have signed (like Lawson) that can do that for a fraction of the cost and also there are LB's in the draft that can cover/set the edge.

Also just FYI, despite rushing on most passing downs (more than he will in 2012), Brooks finished with 1 sack over the last 6 games. Again, he's good, but not $17M guaranteed good.

How could you POSSIBLY know that?

and when did sacks become the be all end all? the great players get like 1 per game, and when they get 3 in a game, they go the next 2 without one, by avergare of course

It's not an end all be all, it's just surprising to see a 3-4 OLB who finished the year with 1 sack in his final 6 games get paid like such a star.

And how do I know he rushed more in 2011 than he will in 2012. Educated guess. VERY educated guess. We rarely rush more than 4 guys and on base downs it'll be the 3 d-lineman and then most of the time Aldon will be the 4th.

Dude, read the underlined in your own post. Passing downs are 3rd and mid-to-long, or 2nd and long, or any 2min situations. Those are Nickel downs, and Aldon and Ahmad will continue to rush on all of those. The only reason Haralson was on the field during the running situations is because the down and distance dictated that a running play was likely (hence:rushing down). AND, if you go back and check those plays, you'll see Haralson rushing and Brooks dropping on many of them (Brooks rushes AND drops better than Haralson).
  • Pick6
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 625
Originally posted by okdkid:
Everybody shut the f**k up. This is why Niner Talk can't have nice things.
thats pretty funny... and sadly accurate...
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Not to mention that Juan Gonzalez, Garrett Anderson, Jeff Bagwell, and Carlos Delgado were better baseball players than Derek Jeter. I still laugh at those comments.

You are way too influenced by his playing in a huge market and on a team that has won a lot. If you put Delgado in NY all those years and give him those rings and let Jeter toil away in Toronto all those years, let's see if you have the same opinion. Juan Gon, Bagwell, Delgado all swung the bat way better and put up better #'s. And #'s are 99% of baseball. But stop hijacking threads.

LOL Keep talking. It just reinforces that you dont know much.
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Originally posted by andes14:
So now who are we gonna replace Rogers wtih? The bottom line is that LOLB spot is gonna spend a lot of time in coverage. There are FA's we could have signed (like Lawson) that can do that for a fraction of the cost and also there are LB's in the draft that can cover/set the edge.

Also just FYI, despite rushing on most passing downs (more than he will in 2012), Brooks finished with 1 sack over the last 6 games. Again, he's good, but not $17M guaranteed good.

How could you POSSIBLY know that?

and when did sacks become the be all end all? the great players get like 1 per game, and when they get 3 in a game, they go the next 2 without one, by avergare of course

It's not an end all be all, it's just surprising to see a 3-4 OLB who finished the year with 1 sack in his final 6 games get paid like such a star.

And how do I know he rushed more in 2011 than he will in 2012. Educated guess. VERY educated guess. We rarely rush more than 4 guys and on base downs it'll be the 3 d-lineman and then most of the time Aldon will be the 4th.

Dude, read the underlined in your own post. Passing downs are 3rd and mid-to-long, or 2nd and long, or any 2min situations. Those are Nickel downs, and Aldon and Ahmad will continue to rush on all of those. The only reason Haralson was on the field during the running situations is because the down and distance dictated that a running play was likely (hence:rushing down). AND, if you go back and check those plays, you'll see Haralson rushing and Brooks dropping on many of them (Brooks rushes AND drops better than Haralson).

Ya dude, I'm in agreement that he'll still rush a lot on 3rd downs, what I'm saying is that Aldon will be the 4th rusher on most 1st and 2nd downs, thus relegating Haralson to coverage. And Haralson barely rushed in 2011 - he finished the last 15 games sackless and rarely even was around the QB. I'm telling you, Brooks is gonna be in coverage a LOT on 1st and 2nd down in 2012 and he wasn't in 2011.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
I think you are underrating Brooks my man.

We have the best front 7 in the league with Brooks, not despite Brooks.

If we let Brooks walks with no backup plan and we insert an outside variable, that could collapse. 3-4 OLB with his skills sets are not easy to find. Before brooks and Aldon we were struggling big time. And Aldon isn't even a pure 3-4 olb yet, more like a Hybrid DE/OLB for now.

Who would replace Brooks if we let him go?

Our FO didn't let that happen and i'm glad.

So now who are we gonna replace Rogers wtih? The bottom line is that LOLB spot is gonna spend a lot of time in coverage. There are FA's we could have signed (like Lawson) that can do that for a fraction of the cost and also there are LB's in the draft that can cover/set the edge.

Also just FYI, despite rushing on most passing downs (more than he will in 2012), Brooks finished with 1 sack over the last 6 games. Again, he's good, but not $17M guaranteed good.

And in the 2nd half of the season Aldon was in the game more. Aldon is a better pass rusher while Brooks is a better edge setter/coverage guy, because of this Brooks wasn't relied upon to rush as often. How often did you hear an announcer say, "wow Brooks got beat bad on that play," or an article talking about Brooks being a liability. I saw none, read non and heard non. From all the games I've watched he did his responsibility and did it well. Stats are not always the bottom line number. Our defense was phenomenal all year. Baalke has stressed that he will sign guys for what they think they're worth and will try and keep our guys home instead of going after other free agents.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 9,887
Originally posted by VDSF:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Not even close, brorchaco, but its pretty obvious you dont know what you are talking about so Ill leave it at that, good day sir

How is it not even close? Brooks HAS had great years before 2011??? Really? Which ones??? Do tell. Rogers' 2011>Brooks' 2011...Rogers' career before 2011>Brooks' career before 2011...that's not even debatable...
I said good day




I guess "good day" in this context means something like kiss off.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Dude, why are you arguing this so hard? There is no way you have a more educated opinion about the team than Baalke and Co. I'm not saying that every once in a while we can't be right while the team was wrong, but consider it dumb luck. Every angle you are thinking of has been thought by the front office 10 times over.

Again, I love Baalke, just like I love Harbaugh, doesn't mean I didn't disagree like hell with his decision to keep the FG vs. Dallas over taking the 1st down. But just because I felt that wasn't the smartest move doesn't mean I think I'd be a better coach. I'm not thrilled with paying Brooks like he's a star, esp. when I think if he hit the open market no other team would come close. That's why I think we're holding off on giving Alex Smith the 5 year/$50 or 60M deal his agent's probably asking for right now. Because we know no other team will offer that. If no other team offers him more than $5M per year, we can just offer him 6 and save some serious money.

But just because this move makes me raise an eyebrow (and I obviously hope I'm wrong and Brooks does play like the star he's gonna be paid like), doesn't mean I think I'd be a better GM than Baalke (who deservedly won Exec of the Year) or anything of the sort.

Really? How many teams have you talked to? You dont think Praag and Baalke have a better sense of Brooks league market value than you? Moreover, this FO is not known for over paying for players. Like Baalke said, the team has a value they assign to each position and player. If the can't come to an agreement within that range, there will be no deal. Look at what happened to Goldson last year. They offered him 25 million and didn't budge. He walked and came back. Right or wrong, this FO believes in Brooks in a big way. I dont imagin them offering this contract because they paniced. Finally, sometimes the sum of the whole is worth more than it's parts. The fact that this elite front seven will be able to spend the next 2 or 3 years together might just mean utter dominance and Superbowls. If Brooks is part of that glue, then he is worth the 7.
  • Pick6
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 625
Originally posted by Youngb:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
I think you are underrating Brooks my man.

We have the best front 7 in the league with Brooks, not despite Brooks.

If we let Brooks walks with no backup plan and we insert an outside variable, that could collapse. 3-4 OLB with his skills sets are not easy to find. Before brooks and Aldon we were struggling big time. And Aldon isn't even a pure 3-4 olb yet, more like a Hybrid DE/OLB for now.

Who would replace Brooks if we let him go?

Our FO didn't let that happen and i'm glad.

So now who are we gonna replace Rogers wtih? The bottom line is that LOLB spot is gonna spend a lot of time in coverage. There are FA's we could have signed (like Lawson) that can do that for a fraction of the cost and also there are LB's in the draft that can cover/set the edge.

Also just FYI, despite rushing on most passing downs (more than he will in 2012), Brooks finished with 1 sack over the last 6 games. Again, he's good, but not $17M guaranteed good.

And in the 2nd half of the season Aldon was in the game more. Aldon is a better pass rusher while Brooks is a better edge setter/coverage guy, because of this Brooks wasn't relied upon to rush as often. How often did you hear an announcer say, "wow Brooks got beat bad on that play," or an article talking about Brooks being a liability. I saw none, read non and heard non. From all the games I've watched he did his responsibility and did it well. Stats are not always the bottom line number. Our defense was phenomenal all year. Baalke has stressed that he will sign guys for what they think they're worth and will try and keep our guys home instead of going after other free agents.

Exactly... and I will say that will also lend to current 49er players having a higher perceived value. The 49ers are taking care of their own... that speaks volumes to players. I don't feel that this contract was way out of line based on Brooks overall ability - he can do everything asked of him, he is still young, he would be the top OLB FA and regardless of whether or not he is "worth" it he would have gotten something similar or better from another team... and of course once he goes to FA the chances of him coming back are slim unless every other team is down on him.... and that would NOT have been the case.
Originally posted by solidg2000:
KamerIon Wimbley
5 year 48 mil 29 guarenteed
Chad Greenway
5 year 41 mil 21 guarenteed
Karlos Dansby (2010)
5 year 43 mil 22 guarenteed

Is Brooks better then these men?

this year, he was
I am thrilled that we still have Brooks. But surprised that we are willing to put that much money into our linebackers (who will be the best in the game by FAR, for YEARS).

I can't imagine how we're going to pay Rogers now. If we pay him what he wants, we aren't going to sign any big free agents. IMO, cornerbacks are overpaid in the modern NFL.
I think our team is really high on Culliver and Brown. I think Rogers will test the waters, and be a little bit surprised. Then maybe he works out something reasonable with us.